Abstract
Typically formal notations for interactive systems previously presented in the literature ( e.g . [2, 6, 18]) synthesize two or more languages. We contend that it would be preferable if one were able to use a single soundly based specification language which is expressive enough to capture HCI issues. Taking a lead from Lamport’s Temporal Logic ofActions, (TLA), [14] we outline a language for expressing models of systems based on temporal logic, and make clear the design process we intend this language to be a part of. We discuss two equivalent specification styles using this language; firstly describing the functionality of the system and secondly describing the interactions of the system. We contend that the second is more ‘HCI-centric’ than the first. We discuss other issues raised by the use of the language and set down an agenda for future work.
Highlights
The area of HCI and the synthesis of interactive systems is problematic for formal methods
We shall first discuss the context of our language; the design process in which we envisage the language being used. (Section 2.) We contend that the classic ‘requirements, specification, implementation’ design process needs to be augmented and adjusted slightly to accommodate the tricky process of interactive system design
TLA is one of the more advanced specification languages and we intend to inherit its benefits; notably we can abstract away from processes and processors. We introduce this language by example in section 3. (The formal syntax and semantics are to be presented in a technical report.) Firstly by using it to describe very abstract system requirements and secondly showing how we can state system specifications consistent with these requirements
Summary
The area of HCI and the synthesis of interactive systems is problematic for formal methods This should not be surprising as HCI is one of the most conceptually complex and information rich areas of computing. [2, 6, 18]) combine two or more languages in order to gain the expressiveness necessary This leads to excessive complexity in the notations — the models expressed by such notations may become unwieldy, making crucial operations such as refinement more difficult. They may impose a ‘ceiling’ to how abstract the models may be. Whilst accepting that there is a goodly portion of HCI that would not benefit from being formalised, we take the stance that attempts to capture HCI issues formally highlight the limitations and boundaries of the widely used formal notations rather than the intractable nature of HCI
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call