Software Engineering-Interface Design Activities

Once task analysis has been completed, all tasks (or objects and actions) required by the end-user have been identified in detail and the i...

Once task analysis has been completed, all tasks (or objects and actions) required by the end-user have been identified in detail and the interface design activity commences. The first interface design steps can be accomplished using the following approach:

1. Establish the goals and intentions for each task.
2. Map each goal and intention to a sequence of specific actions.
3. Specify the action sequence of tasks and subtasks, also called a user scenario, as it will be executed at the interface level.
4. Indicate the state of the system; that is, what does the interface look like at the time that a user scenario is performed?
5. Define control mechanisms; that is, the objects and actions available to the user to alter the system state.
6. Show how control mechanisms affect the state of the system.
7. Indicate how the user interprets the state of the system from information provided through the interface.

Always following the golden rules , the interface designer must also consider how the interface will be implemented, the environment (e.g., display technology, operating system, development tools) that will be used, and other elements of the application that “sit behind” the interface.

Defining Interface Objects and Actions

An important step in interface design is the definition of interface objects and the actions that are applied to them. To accomplish this, the user scenario is parsed in much the same way as processing narratives were parsed . That is, a description of a user scenario is written. Nouns (objects) and verbs (actions) are isolated to create a list of objects and actions.

Once the objects and actions have been defined and elaborated iteratively, they are categorized by type. Target, source, and application objects are identified. A source object (e.g., a report icon) is dragged and dropped onto a target object (e.g., a printer icon). The implication of this action is to create a hard-copy report. An application object represents application-specific data that is not directly manipulated as part of screen interaction. For example, a mailing list is used to store names for a mailing. The list itself might be sorted, merged, or purged (menu-based actions) but it is not dragged and dropped via user interaction.

When the designer is satisfied that all important objects and actions have been defined (for one design iteration), screen layout is performed. Like other interface design activities, screen layout is an interactive process in which graphical design and placement of icons, definition of descriptive screen text, specification and titling for windows, and definition of major and minor menu items is conducted. If a real world metaphor is appropriate for the application, it is specified at this time and the layout is organized in a manner that complements the metaphor.

To provide a brief illustration of the design steps noted previously, we consider a user scenario for an advanced version of the SafeHome system . In the advanced version, SafeHome can be accessed via modem or through the Internet. A PC application allows the homeowner to check the status of the house from a remote location, reset the SafeHome configuration, arm and disarm the system, and (using an extra cost video option) monitor rooms within the house visually. A preliminary user scenario for the interface follows:

Scenario: The homeowner wishes to gain access to the SafeHome system installed in his house. Using software operating on a remote PC (e.g., a notebook computer carried by the homeowner while at work or traveling), the homeowner determines the status of the alarm system, arms or disarms the system, reconfigures security zones, and views different rooms within the house via preinstalled video cameras.

To access SafeHome from a remote location, the homeowner provides an identifier and a password. These define levels of access (e.g., all users may not be able to reconfigure the system) and provide security. Once validated, the user (with full access privileges) checks the status of the system and changes status by arming or disarming SafeHome. The user reconfigures the system by displaying a floor plan of the house, viewing each of the security sensors, displaying each currently configured zone, and modifying zones as required. The user views the interior of the house via strategically placed video cameras. The user can pan and zoom each camera to provide different views of the interior.

Homeowner tasks:

accesses the SafeHome system
enters an ID and password to allow remote access
checks system status
arms or disarms SafeHome system
displays floor plan and sensor locations
displays zones on floor plan
changes zones on floor plan
displays video camera locations on floor plan
selects video camera for viewing
views video images (4 frames per second)
pans or zooms the video camera

Objects (boldface) and actions (italics) are extracted from this list of homeowner tasks. The majority of objects noted are application objects. However, video camera location (a source object) is dragged and dropped onto video camera (a target object) to create a video image (a window with video display).

A preliminary sketch of the screen layout for video monitoring is created . To invoke the video image, a video camera location icon, C, located in floor plan displayed in the monitoring window is selected. In this case a camera location in the living room, LR, is then dragged and dropped onto the video camera icon in the upper left-hand portion of the screen. The video image window appears, displaying streaming video from the camera located in the living room (LR). The zoom and pan control slides are used to control the magnification and direction of the video image. To select a view from another camera, the user simply drags and drops a different camera location icon into the camera icon in the upper left-hand corner of the screen.

The layout sketch shown would have to be supplemented with an expansion of each menu item within the menu bar, indicating what actions are available for the video monitoring mode (state). A complete set of sketches for each homeowner task oted in the user scenario would be created during the interface design.

Design Issues

As the design of a user interface evolves, four common design issues almost always surface: system response time, user help facilities, error information handling, and command labeling. Unfortunately, many designers do not address these issues until relatively late in the design process (sometimes the first inkling of a problem doesn't occur until an operational prototype is available). Unnecessary iteration, project delays, and customer frustration often result. It is far better to establish each as a design issue to be considered at the beginning of software design, when changes are easy and costs are low. System response time is the primary complaint for many interactive applications.

In general, system response time is measured from the point at which the user performs some control action (e.g., hits the return key or clicks a mouse) until the software responds with desired output or action.

System response time has two important characteristics: length and variability. If the length of system response is too long, user frustration and stress is the inevitable result. However, a very brief response time can also be detrimental if the user is being paced by the interface. A rapid response may force the user to rush and therefore make mistakes.

Variability refers to the deviation from average response time, and in many ways, it is the most important response time characteristic. Low variability enables the user to establish an interaction rhythm, even if response time is relatively long. For example, a 1-second response to a command is preferable to a response that varies from 0.1 to 2.5 seconds. The user is always off balance, always wondering whether something "different" has occurred behind the scenes.

Almost every user of an interactive, computer-based system requires help now and then. In some cases, a simple question addressed to a knowledgeable colleague can do the trick. In others, detailed research in a multivolume set of "user manuals" may be the only option. In many cases, however, modern software provides on-line help facilities that enable a user to get a question answered or resolve a problem without leaving the interface.

Two different types of help facilities are encountered: integrated and add-on . An integrated help facility is designed into the software from the beginning. It is often context sensitive, enabling the user to select from those topics that are relevant to the actions currently being performed. Obviously, this reduces the time required for the user to obtain help and increases the "friendliness" of the interface. An add-on help facility is added to the software after the system has been built. In many ways, it is really an on-line user's manual with limited query capability. The user may have to search through a list of hundreds of topics to find appropriate guidance, often making many false starts and receiving much irrelevant information. There is little doubt that the integrated help facility is preferable to the add-on approach.

A number of design issues must be addressed when a help facility is considered:
Will help be available for all system functions and at all times during system nteraction? Options include help for only a subset of all functions and actions or help for all functions.
How will the user request help? Options include a help menu, a special function key, or a HELP command.
How will help be represented? Options include a separate window, a reference to a printed document (less than ideal), or a one- or two-line suggestion produced in a fixed screen location.
How will the user return to normal interaction? Options include a return button displayed on the screen, a function key, or control sequence.
How will help information be structured? Options include a "flat" structure in which all information is accessed through a keyword, a layered hierarchy of information that provides increasing detail as the user proceeds into the structure, or the use of hypertext.

Error messages and warnings are "bad news" delivered to users of interactive systems when something has gone awry. At their worst, error messages and warnings impart useless or misleading information and serve only to increase user frustration. There are few computer users who have not encountered an error of the form:

                           SEVERE SYSTEM FAILURE -- 14A

Somewhere, an explanation for error 14A must exist; otherwise, why would the designers have added the identification? Yet, the error message provides no real indication of what is wrong or where to look to get additional information. An error message presented in this manner does nothing to assuage user anxiety or to help correct the problem. In general, every error message or warning produced by an interactive system should have the following characteristics:

The message should describe the problem in jargon that the user can understand.
The message should provide constructive advice for recovering from the error.
The message should indicate any negative consequences of the error (e.g., potentially corrupted data files) so that the user can check to ensure that they have not occurred (or correct them if they have).
The message should be accompanied by an audible or visual cue. That is, a beep might be generated to accompany the display of the message, or the message might flash momentarily or be displayed in a color that is easily recognizable as the "error color."
The message should be "nonjudgmental." That is, the wording should never place blame on the user.

Because no one really likes bad news, few users will like an error message no matter how well designed. But an effective error message philosophy can do much to improve the quality of an interactive system and will significantly reduce user frustration when problems do occur.

The typed command was once the most common mode of interaction between user and system software and was commonly used for applications of every type. Today, the use of window-oriented, point and pick interfaces has reduced reliance on typed commands, but many power-users continue to prefer a command-oriented mode of interaction. A number of design issues arise when typed commands are provided as a mode of interaction:

Will every menu option have a corresponding command?
• What form will commands take? Options include a control sequence (e.g., alt-P), function keys, or a typed word.
How difficult will it be to learn and remember the commands? What can be done if a command is forgotten?
Can commands be customized or abbreviated by the user?

Best Online Tutorials | Source codes | Programming Languages: Software Engineering-Interface Design Activities
Software Engineering-Interface Design Activities
Best Online Tutorials | Source codes | Programming Languages
Loaded All Posts Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS PREMIUM CONTENT IS LOCKED STEP 1: Share to a social network STEP 2: Click the link on your social network Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy Table of Content