Automatic Critiques of Interface Modes

  • Jeremy Gow
  • Harold Thimbleby
  • Paul Cairns
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3941)


We introduce a formal model of inconsistency-related mode confusion. This forms the basis of a heuristic methodology for critiquing user interfaces, using a matrix algebra approach to interface specification [12]. We also present a novel algorithm for automatically identifying modes in state-based interface designs, allowing a significant level of automated tool support for our methodology. The present paper generalises our previous work on improving state-based interface designs [5].


Model Check Action Mode Interface Design Algebraic Property Interface Mode 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bredereke, J., Lankenau, A.: A rigorous view of mode confusion. In: Anderson, S., Bologna, S., Felici, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2434, pp. 19–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke, E.M., Emmerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Degani, A.: Modelling human-machine systems: On modes, error and patterns of interaction. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gow, J., Thimbleby, H.: MAUI: An interface design tool based on matrix algebra. In: Jacob, R.J.K., Vanderdonckt, J. (eds.) Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces IV, Proc. CADUI 2004. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gow, J., Thimbleby, H., Cairns, P.: Misleading behaviour in interactive systems. In: Dearden, A., Watts, L. (eds.) Proc. 18th British HCI Group Annual Conference (HCI 2004), vol. 2 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of Statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(4), 293–333 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN model checker. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leveson, N.G., Pinnel, L.D., Sandys, S.D., Koga, S., Reese, J.D.: Analyzing software specifications for mode confusion potential. In: Johnson, B.W. (ed.) Proc. Workshop on Human Error & System Development, Glasgow, pp. 132–146 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, S.P., Potts, J.N.: Detecting Mode Confusion Through Formal Modeling and Analysis. NASA Contractor Report, NASA/CR-1999-208971 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rushby, J.: Using model checking to help discover mode confusions & other automation surprises. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 75(2), 167–177 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thimbleby, H.: Character level ambiguity: Consequences for user interface design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 16, 211–225 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thimbleby, H.: User interface design with matrix algebra. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 11(2), 181–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy Gow
    • 1
  • Harold Thimbleby
    • 2
  • Paul Cairns
    • 1
  1. 1.UCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC)University College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Wales SwanseaSwanseaUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations