Study of Framework for Mobile Interface

Abstract

An adaphve user interface M supposed to adapt itself to the characteristics of an individual user. It is widely accepted that such an adaptation requires the interface to mamtain a user model embedded in the system However, there are many unresolved problems with respeet to collecting reformation about the user and applying it in order to adapt the interface successfully.

Full text

MPGI National Multi Conference 2012 (MPGINMC-2012) 7-8 April, 2012 “Recent Trends in Computing”
Proceedings published by International Journal of Computer Applications® (IJCA)ISSN: 0975 - 8887
14
Study of Framework for Mobile Interface
K. H. Walse
Associate Professor
Anuradha Engineering College,
Chikhli Distt. Buldana
R. V. Dharaskar
Director
MPGI Integrated Campus, Nanded
Dr. V. M. Thakare
Professor & Head
P.G. Dept. of Computer Science
S.G.B. Amravati University
Amravati
ABSTRACT
An adaphve user interface M supposed to adapt itself to the
characteristics of an individual user. It is widely accepted that
such an adaptation requires the interface to mamtain a user
model embedded in the system
However, there are many unresolved problems with respeet to
collecting reformation about the user and applying it in order
to adapt the interface successfully.
Keywords
Adaptable, Adaptivity, Adpative Interfaces
1. INTRODUCTION
In the last few years a lot of work has been done in making
systems more customizable or flexible. A flexible system
increases the degree of freedom of usage, improves the
correspondence between user, task, and system
characteristics, and increases the user’s efficiency. Two kinds
of flexible systems are of special interest: adaptable and
adaptive systems. A system is called adaptable if it provides
the end user with tools that make it possible to change the
system characteristics. It is called adaptive if it offers the
ability to change its own characteristics automatically,
possibly after consulting the user, thereby adapting itself to
the user’s needs.
Software systems developed in recent years are becoming
increasingly powerful, but in most cases they tend to abandon
the user to deal with the complexity of the system alone.
There is an immense need for systems with individual,
context-sensitive support[1]
2. RELATED WORK
The number of adaptable systems that are commercially
available is on the increase, but so far these systems support
very limited adaptation activities. For example, they may
provide the user with tools for changing the user interface at
hand. Making a system adaptable is reasonable, but this is
only the fiist step in the development of more user-friendly
systems. Adaptable systems are not sufficient, because they
partly transfer the problem of designing a comfortable
interface from the system developer to the end user. The
designer of a system with a complex functionality has to make
compromises in order to satisfy all possible needs (different
users have different preferences and work styles, and one user
may have different tasks at different times). In an adaptable
system, the end user may override these compro- mises and
tailor the system as he likes. He gets poor or no support in
dealing with the customization features. There is a need for
more context-sensitive system support, where the system
knows more about its own tools and about the user, his work
styles and tasks[1].
To give the user better support, the system must be able to
analyze how the user interacts with the application and
recognize when there is a problem. Unfortunately, systems
seldom have built-in functions for this kind of evacuation. In
order to reach the goat of more user-friendly systems, entirely
new systems must be developed, or existing systems must be
extended with the ability to anatyze the user’s interaction and
to offer individual support.
An adaptive system has knowledge about the system, its
interface, the task domain and the user [2]. It must be able to
match particular system responses with particular usage
profiles.
In general, flexible systems may be scaled according to who
makes the adaptation decisions, the system or the user. At one
extreme are systems that are solely adaptable, i.e. the user
alone is responsible for when and how to adapt. On the other
extreme are systems that are solely adaptive, i.e. the system
changes its characteristics without any consultation with the
user. In between are solutions with shared decision making.
Each user may work differently with the adaptability of the
system. The critique module can focus on the user’s special
needs and behavior concerning the adaptability. Such a
module consists of a domain knowledge base with a set of
rules and a usage profile. In our approach, the domain is
“adaptability” and the usage profile describes the individual
use of the adaptation possibilities.
In general, there are two ways to gain relevant information
about the user. One way n a question-and-answer session
requiring the user to provide self-estimations and exphclt
preferences. Another way to obtain the necessary knowledge
is to deduce it by monitoring the user’s dialog with an
application. Unfortunately, boti of these metheds present
major problems. Self-estimations gwen by the user are not
always reh able [1]. On the other hand, the deduction of
reformation through dialog monitoring N most often severely
restricted by a very small user-system communication
bandwidth. Thus, the effort spent for an automated diagnosis
of the user’s behavior in dialogs M qwte high, compared to
the usefulness of the assumptions obtained[2].
Applying the informahon gained and evaluating the success of
adaptation is also very problematic. Users may be disturbed or
confused by unexpected adaptations carried out automatically
by the system. They might not feel in control of the system,
what would be qtute in contrast to the ongmal retention of a
system being dependent on its users. Furthermore, there is yet
no generalized metric for a systematic evaluation of a
performed adaptation [2]. In many situahons, users might be
able to decide best on their own which N a successful
adaptation and which is not. The control over adaptation
should therefore be given to the users in order to enable them
to make the required decisions. Control could always be

MPGI National Multi Conference 2012 (MPGINMC-2012) 7-8 April, 2012 “Recent Trends in Computing”
Proceedings published by International Journal of Computer Applications® (IJCA)ISSN: 0975 - 8887
15
returned to the system at a user’s command. On the other
hand, there are adaptable systems which do give full control
of adaptahon to the user. However, adaptations handled by the
user are often restricted to a very low level. Achieving more
than the simplest adaptations requires extra knowledge and an
additional considerably large effort.
3. UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING
Three basic architectural design models for UbiCom system
can be divided to smart devices, smart environment and smart
interaction. The concept of “smart” means that the object is
active, digital, networked, can operate autonomously, is
reconfigurable and has a local control of the resources which
it needs such as energy, data storage, etc
These three main types of system design may also contain
sub-systems, sub-parts or components at a lower level of
granularity that may also be considered as a smart (e.g., a
smart environment device may contain smart sensors and a
smart controller, etc). An example of a three main types of
UbiCom models is presented in (Fig. 1) [4].
Fig. 1: Three models of ubiquitous computing: smart
devices, smart environments and smart
interaction [4]
Many sub-types of smarts for each of the three main types of
smarts can be recognized. These main types of smart design
also overlap between. Smart device can also support some
type of smart interaction. Smart mobile device can be used for
control of static embedded environment devices. Smart device
can be used to support the virtual view points of smart
personal spaces (physical environment) in a personal space
which surrounding the user anywhere [4].
4. GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE AND
ADAPTABLE SYSTEM:
The most important guidelines were the following:
 For each adaptive feature, there must also be a
corresponding adaptable one,
Justification: Users must know that they are allowed to
do at least everything that the system can do.
 There should be several ways of accessing the
adaptation environment.
Justification: Customization features are of little use if
they are difficult to access,
 “At all times, the user should be in complete control of
the system; the system may only act as assistant.
Justification: System operation should be a creative
process. Therefore, the user should not be forced into
one specific working style.
 Suggestions from the system should not be “dramatic”
and should not disturb the user unnecessarily in his
work.
Justification: System adaptation features are only aids
to assist the user in getting the job done. Suggestions
should not take the user’s attention away from
the real task.
 When possible, more than one adaptation possibility
should be offered.
Justification: A system is seldom able to spot the
user’s needs with 100~0 certainty. Adaptation
suggestions should reflect this leaving freedom
for the user to select between different adaptation
possibilities.
 There must be an easy way to undo adaptations of the
user interface. Additionally, there should be a simple
way to reset all adaptations.
Justification: The user interface should not be
overloaded with adaptations which the user no longer
needs or which have no relevance to the task
at hand.
Having established these guidelines for adaptive behavior, the
next step was to decide on a software platform on which to
build the system.
We set up selection criteria, the most important ones being:
 “The system and the user interface must be complex
enough for adaptivity to make some sense.
 The user actions must be recordable.
 The user interface must be modifiable.
 The system must have an up-to-date graphical user
interface with which users are familiar, in order to
make a realistic evaluation possible.
 “It must be possible to combine the original system
with a knowledge base[1].
5. CONCLUSION AND FUTRURE
WORK
We believe that the problem of providing adaptation is real
and the solution process needs a more enginered process to be
usable and cost effective. For the future we plan to further
investigate this problem and to experiment our approach on
further case studies.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Christoph G. Thorrtas & Mette Krogsczter, An Adaptive
Environment For The User Interface Of Excel, ,
Intelligent User Interfaces ’93, pp 123-130

MPGI National Multi Conference 2012 (MPGINMC-2012) 7-8 April, 2012 “Recent Trends in Computing”
Proceedings published by International Journal of Computer Applications® (IJCA)ISSN: 0975 - 8887
16
[2] Thomas KGhme, A User-Centered Approach To
Adaptive Interfaces, Intelligent User Interfaces ’93, pp
243-245
[3] Luca Cavallaro and Elisabetta Di Nitto, An Approach to
Adapt Service Requests to Actual Service Interfaces,
SEAMS’08, May 12–13, 2008, Leipzig, German
[4] Ondrej Krejcar, Complex Mobile User Adaptive System
Framework For Mobile Wireless Devices, un published
work
,