Search

User Interface (UI) tests allow you to test your application from the outside, just as your users would see the application. Every time you decide to run your application on the simulator or device, you are, in effect, testing the UI of your application. Since Xcode 7, Apple has provided the ability to create automated UI tests. These automated UI tests are great at finding regression defects, and used correctly can reduce the regression testing effort for your apps.

Interaction with the machines and computers is achieved using user interfaces. Nowadays, with the tremendous growth of technology, the interaction is made more simple and flexible. The study of user interfaces for human-computers and machines interaction is the main focus of this paper. In particular, an extensive overview of different user interfaces available so far is provided. The review covers text-based, graphical-based, and new class of emerging user interfaces to interact with the machines and computers. This work will be helpful for the development of new user interfaces.

This paper presents a user interface study for highly distributed system. The user interface is developed to control a multi-robot system, which is based on “component-based„ architecture using hardware abstraction. This paper present the general principles of the user interface and provides an example of Graphical User Interface for controlling a generic fleet of machines.

Since the beginning of computers there have been many types of user interfaces. Early user interfaces were extremely limited because of the computers limited resources. As computing systems and computing power evolve, so have the user interfaces evolved. The current stage of evolution for graphical user interfaces (GUI) for most computer systems is the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mice, Pointer). The WIMP graphical user interface design has been the standard since its conception in the 1970s. Progressing beyond the WIMP to the next level of graphical user interface has proven extremely difficult [1]. Animated Graphical User Interfaces (AGUI) are a significant improvement over windowed interfaces for some applications. The users perceived usefulness, perceived value, and perceived quality can be improved by applying an Animated Graphical User Interface to the application. Improving the users perceived usefulness, perceived value, and perceived quality can lead to a significant increase in revenue for some applications. Advertising in traditional windowed applications is not widely accepted by users making it difficult to use as a revenue source. The introduction of an Animated Graphical User Interface to an application also gives rise to the option of introducing animated advertising in the application. Animated advertising can present a new revenue source in addition to or in place of the purchase price of the application. Animated advertisements can be presented in an entertaining and passive format that users will find acceptable in applications where advertising is not normally tolerated. The Animated Graphical User Interface can also be used to bridge language barriers. Animations for the interface can be designed with a goal of language independence. The user interface and animations can be designed with intuitive animations and graphics that users can understand without using a language. Animated applications designed for language independence can be used by people all over the world without modifications for language considerations. Design innovative user Animated Graphical User Interfaces that are functional and entertaining. Use the Animated Graphical User Interface Model to increase the users perceived usefulness, perceived quality, and perceived value of the target application. Create an environment using the Animated Graphical User Interface Model that instills user tolerance for animated advertising embedded in applications. Design animations, graphics and functionalities using the Animated Graphical User Interface Model that allows language independent use of the application.

The use of Natural User Interface in a real-world environment is explored by taking the example of a classroom in a government (public) school in a developing country such as India. Problems such as lack of infrastructure and inability to instill interest among students are addressed. A Microsoft Kinect based application was developed to demonstrate the use of Natural User Interface in such a classroom. The application maps Natural User Interface elements onto a Graphical User Interface and the application logic. The body gestures, distance from motion sensing device, and camera feed completely control the application, its look and feel, and the computations performed by it. The work performed, the main innovation and the salient aspects of the application, implemented as a student project, are presented.

Should you design user interfaces by giving an overview of data in the system or showing only the necessary data for each task step? Neither ensures efficient task support or ease of understanding, so the authors show an approach that balances both and allows early user validation.

User interfaces often only support one way to do a task when the physical interface or the requirements of the task would permit other ways. In contrast, a user interface that supports multiple approaches is permissive. This paper argues that permissive user interfaces are easier to use?and even when they are not applicable for particular applications, considering permissiveness is a productive design heuristic.Many user interfaces are difficult to use yet very easily demonstrated or explained by experts?with the results that users become frustrated because hindsight makes usability problems look like the user's own fault. The lack of permissiveness in such user interfaces explains this paradox.

We would like to encourage you to list your keywords within Model-driven development of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) for multiple devices involves the transformation of the same platform-independent model to several platform-dependent GUI models. A clear definition of which characteristics comprise a platform is important, because the platform definition determines which characteristics must not be considered in platform-independent models. In this chapter we compare the notion of platform and the corresponding implications in two conceptual approaches that support multi-device GUI generation – the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) proposed by OMG and the Cameleon Reference Framework (CRF), a framework that has been developed to classify model-based user interface generation approaches. We discuss the relation between MDA and CRF in the context of multi-device GUI generation and illustrate their correspondence through classifying state-of-the-art GUI generation approaches. This classification also allows us to illustrate three different mechanisms for achieving multi-device GUI generation in practice.

Software developers face many difficult decisions when building new applications, not the least of which is the design of the graphical user interface. The answer to one question-is it better to use a GUI development tool or build it manually?-is relatively straightforward. Today's tools offer several benefits that manual coding does not. Because these tools often provide a simple graphical interface for developing displays, nonprogrammers and human factors engineers can contribute their expertise. Also, if the schedule permits, a tool can be used to build prototypes throughout the development cycle; some tools even provide a test/prototype mode for testing displays without compiling and executing the entire application. And finally, end users can evaluate each prototype and provide feedback, increasing their satisfaction with the final product.

This chapter will explain the basic components of a graphical user interface (GUI) and how to use them in Java applications. We will begin to explore the different types of relationships between classes and document both the classes and their relationships using the Unified Modeling Language (UML).

Most developers would like to avoid redesigning a system around a new interface. But turning a character-based interface into a graphical one requires significant time and resources. The authors describe how this process can be partially automated, giving the results of their own reverse-engineering effort. >

In this paper is explained one solution for automation of testing Graphical User Interface. The paper gives a description of the problem, the concept of a solution and a description of the implementation of such a solution in order to confirm the above concept. Validation of the implementation was carried out on graphical tool for the development of software for audio target platform.

In this chapter we introduce the use of GUIDE, which is the MATLAB Graphical User Interface Development Environment. This tool enables the user to create Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) that can be used to facilitate interaction with your programs.

UniECAD is an integrated electronic CAD system, the user interface development system is the key of the integration of UniECAD. This paper presents the architecture of GUIDS, a graphical user interface development system in UniECAD, and then discusses a series of new techniques and methods in the design and the implementation of this system around the following aspects: the editing environment of interface elements, the implementation of dialogue control and the automatic generation of interface code. As an example, the generation of the main interfaces of UniECAD shows the procedure of the development of user interfaces with this development system.

Intermediates (those who are neither beginners nor old hands, and who make up most of the user population) are perhaps the most neglected user segment in terms of interface design, yet there are possibly more intermediate users than beginners or experts. The author urges interface designers to take note of this segment and details a transitional interface well-suited for bridging the gap between novice and expert. >

Java provides various tools about graphical user interface, but its function is weaker than other languages of Microsoft. A simple and effective method was provided by Java. Through rewrite Windows form and its behavior, it can generate custom personalized graphical user interface. This method can be applied to development of various interactive software user interfaces. Two kind of personalized graphical user interface effects have been realized in this paper to satisfy needs of most personalized graphical user interfaces.

This work presents the visual user interface of the On-TIME system, a task-centered information management system, whose aim is to actively participate to and support the user tasks. One of the key challenges that needs to be addressed for the success of On-TIME, is the design of a user friendly interface. Being On-TIME based on the use of a so-called Personal Ontology to provide a semantic account to user’s personal data, the interface has to allow the user to easily browse the ontology. On the other hand, it has to address the management of tasks. This requires to both suggest tasks that the user might be willing to perform, and to support her while executing tasks. We present a typical user scenario in order to illustrate a possible interaction with the On-TIME interface, and discuss some preliminary user evaluation.

Much has changed in computer interfacing since the early days of computing—or has it? Admittedly, gone are the days of punched cards and/or paper tape readers as input devices; likewise, monitors (displays) have superseded printers as the primary output device. Nevertheless, the QWERTY keyboard shows little sign of falling into disuse—this is essentially the same input device as those used on the earliest (electromechanical) TeleTYpewriters, in which the “worst” key layout was deliberately chosen to slow down user input (i.e., fast typists). The three major advances since the 1950s have been (1) the rise of low cost (commodity off-theshelf) CRT monitors in the 1960s (and in more recent times, LCD ones), (2) the replacement of (text-based) command line interfaces with graphical user interfaces in the 1980s, and (3) the rise of the Internet/World Wide Web during the 1990s. In recent times, while speech recognition (and synthesis) has made some inroads (i.e., McTeal, 2002; O’Shaughnessy, 2003), the QWERTY keyboard and mouse remain the dominant input modalities.

A domain knowledge driven user interface development approach is described. As a conceptual design of the user interface, the domain knowledge defines the user interface in terms of objects, actions and their relationships that the user would use to interact with the application system. It also serves as input to a user interface management system (UIMS) and is the kernel of the target user interface. The principal ideas and the implementation techniques of the approach is discussed. The user interface model, user interface designer oriented high-level specification notation, and the transformation algorithms on domain knowledge are presented.

In a study based on a questionnaire and an empirical test three graphical user interfaces for the DOS operating system commands (GEM, Windows 1.04, Windows 2.01) are compared.

We attack the problem of user fatigue in using an interactive genetic algorithm to evolve user interfaces in the XUL interface definition language. The interactive genetic algorithm combines computable user interface design metrics with subjective user input to guide evolution. Individuals in our population represent interface specifications and we compute an individual's fitness from a weighted combination of user input and user interface design guidelines. Results from our preliminary study involving three users indicate that users are able to effectively bias evolution towards user interface designs that reflect both user preferences and computed guideline metrics. Furthermore, we can reduce fatigue, defined by the number of choices needing to be made by the human designer, by doing two things. First, asking the user to pick just two (the best and worst) user interfaces from among a subset of nine shown. Second, asking the user to make the choice once every t generations, instead of every single generation. Our goal is to provide interface designers with an interactive tool that can be used to explore innovation and creativity in the design space of user interfaces.

User Interfaces has an important role on the success of an application. Due the relevant temporal and economic cost of its development is necessary to obtain a high acceptability and effective design. To consider a user interface acceptable this must be kind to user, do its objectives and be easy for the user. In this paper an abstract model specification is presented to allow evaluate the acceptability of user interfaces. This is made in a semiautomatic way validating the three items defined before. We also present a notation for the user interface testing and a tool that allows the user executes user tasks over the graphic user interface prototyping generates by the tool.

We attack the problem of user fatigue by using an interactive genetic algorithm to evolve user interfaces in the XUL interface definition language. The interactive genetic algorithm combines a set of computable user interface design metrics with subjective user input to guide the evolution of interfaces. Our goal is to provide user interface designers with a tool that can be used to explore innovation and creativity in the design space of user interfaces and make it easier for end-users to further customize their user interface without programming knowledge. User interface specifications are encoded as individuals in an interactive genetic algorithm's population and their fitness is computed from a weighted combination of user interface design guidelines and user input. This paper shows that we can reduce human fatigue in interactive genetic algorithms (the number of choices needing to be made by the designer), by 1) only asking the user to pick two user interfaces from among ten shown on the display and 2) by asking the user to make the choice once every t generations.

It's all different! Houdini 9 has a completely new interface, yet it still follows the basic procedural paradigm set by Side Effects with Prisms, way back in 1987. This new interface is cleaner, prettier, and more directly manipulable. Which means that, ironically, it will probably be existing Houdini users who have more problems with it than new users.

For decades, researchers have presented different adaptive user interfaces and discussed the pros and cons of adaptation on task performance and satisfaction. Little research, however, has been directed at isolating and understanding those aspects of adaptive interfaces which make some of them successful and others not. We have designed and implemented three adaptive graphical interfaces and evaluated them in two experiments along with a non-adaptive baseline. In this paper we synthesize our results with previous work and discuss how different design choices and interactions affect the success of adaptive graphical user interfaces.

A point and pick graphical user interface has been developed for television. Bit-mapped menus are operated with a wireless pointer. Television and external component control has been consolidated into one button on a single remote control.

This paper presents our novel graphical single-authoring framework, which automatically creates customized user interfaces (UI) for a variety of devices by reusing an existing UI originally designed for large devices. It distinguishes itself from other authoring frameworks by its intuitive graphical support, UI reuse and its extensibility.