MBUI Telecon 2012 November 29

From W3C Wiki
Revision as of 12:56, 29 November 2012 by Dsr (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Fabio Paterno
  • Davide
  • Carmen Santoro
  • Nikolas Kaklanis
  • Paolo Bottoni
  • Sebastian Feuerstack
  • Javier Rodríguez
  • Cristina González
  • Ignacio Marín
  • Heiko Braun
  • Vivian Motti
  • Jean Vanderdonckt


  • Gerrit Meixner
  • Joelle Coutaz
  • Pascal Beaujeant


  • Dave Raggett


  • Current status of the Abstract UI document / discussion about the further development of the AUI model (focusing on practical suitability)
  • Current status of the Introductory document/Use-cases


Current status of the Abstract UI document

Fabio relates Gerrit's email expressing concern that the AUI metamodel needs to be kept simple and understandable by the target developers.

Jean: that's fine. Vivian has updated the diagrams in the google doc for the AUI. There is now 2 other figures, one in yellow from Paolo, and the other is based on Heiko's proposal. The second question is where we link the models to.

Paolo explains his proposed course of action.

Jean: a few weeks ago we discussed introducing a type model for events.

Paolo: want to cover more than just events

Jean: we agreed to separate input and output, and propose to have aggregation instead of inheritance

Paolo: I completely agree

Jean: this isn't yet reflected in the draft document

Jean explains that compositions can be used to combine input and output.

Heiko: question on Paolo's model and clarification over producers and consumers.

Paolo: the yellow box isn't complete as I was focusing on behaviour of producer and consumer.

Jean: an abstract interaction unit may not consume an event, it may just generate an event.

Paolo describes an example and the details that arise from it.

Fabio: in the yellow proposal I don't see how you can have different abstract events depending on the ....

Paolo: the yellow box for the behaviour is not part of the AUI

Fabio: I can't imagine an abstract ui without a treatment of behaviour

Fabio: any event can be connected to any interaction unit ...

Jean: you can start by expressing the AUI without behaviour and later add it. We want the events from the examples given by Fabio, but these are just instantiations of the event model.

Jean: could we say the yellow solution is a generalization of the blue one?

Paolo: yes in a sense

Fabio: I am trying to understand the difference between the two approaches to describing behaviour.

Heiko: I agree with the yellow proposal, as it makes sense to me. The blue one has some weak spots, e.g. bringing some concrete action types, and I put them there as examples.

Jean: I would like to have some canonical types but to allow for extensions.

Paolo: agreed.

Heiko: yes, this is similar to how we dealt with task models.

Jean: so we can adopt the yellow approach, and I invite Paolo and Heiko to provide some concrete examples.

Paolo: do we have a deadline for that?

Jean: it would be nice to have these examples as soon as practical. UCL will update the draft by the end of Monday. You could comment/improve on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Fabio: any other issues on the AUI?

Jean: does everyone agree on linking the behaviour models?


Current status of the Introductory document/Use-cases

Carmen: we have 2 basic use cases, one on the digital home. We start from the tasks and the derive the abstract and concrete UI, and then the final UI. The other use case is on migratory user interfaces.

Jean: what is the difference between the use cases in the google doc and the wiki?

Carmen: the Google doc is the most up to date.

Nikolas: I have updated my use case.

Fabio: the use cases are now more consistent which is good.

Any other business?