skip to main content
10.1145/3357155.3358461acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An analysis of MoLIC's consolidation

Published:22 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

MoLIC is a language for modeling human-computer interaction as a conversation that is grounded on Semiotic Engineering theory. It was proposed as an epistemic tool aimed at supporting designers in thinking about and making decisions regarding the designer-to-user communication being conveyed through the system-user communication. In this paper, our goal is to investigate how consolidated MoLIC is since it was first published in 2003. We have carried out a Systematic Literature Review and analyzed how MoLIC has been used by the HCI community, considering how it has been used over the years, the number of authors that reference or use it, forums in which works have been published, as well as the main contributions of the research about it. Our results indicate that MoLIC is well consolidated, as it has been broadly used and studied by national and international authors. The existing version is stable and researchers are interested in applying it to system modeling or to investigate extensions and other aspects related to its use.

References

  1. Vahdat Abdelzad, Timothy Christian. Lethbridge, and Mahmood Hosseini. 2016. The Role of Semiotic Engineering in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Theory-Oriented Software Engineering. ACM, Austin, Texas, 15--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Daniel Antônio Midena Aguillar, Daniele Haucke, Socrates Veridiano Faria Lopes, and Plinio Thomaz Aquino Junior. 2016. Cidades Inteligentes e Aplicativos de Roteirização: Modelos Conceituais, Avaliações de Usabilidade e Uma Proposta de Aplicativo. XV Simpósio Brasileiro sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais (IHC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa Alandjansen Rodrigues, André Calfa. 2008. Componentes de Arquitetura para Desenvolvimento de Aplicações Web Baseado em Modelos de Domínio e de Interação. Technical Report. Pontífica Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Rodrigo Alves, Raquel Oliveira Prates, and Elaine França. 2012. Desenvolvimento de um jogo para apoio de ensino a ciências: Um estudo de caso. In 18° Workshop de Informática na Escola. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Mario Anzures García. 2017. Un enfoque metodológico semántico basado en un modelo arquitectónico para el desarrollo de groupware. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad de Granada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Larissa Maia Ayres, Raimundo Marques, Anna Beatriz Barreto, and Tayana Conte. 2016. Um processo baseado em modelagem de interação para o projeto de jogos educacionais a partir de livros: um estudo de caso no contexto de um jogo para dispositivos móveis. In Proceedings of the XV Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality. Brazilian Computer Society, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Maihara Fátima de Oliveira Baldus, Cristiano Maciel, and Patrícia Cristiane de Souza. 2012. Um Diagnóstico Do Uso Da Modelagem Da Interação Em Métodos Ágeis No Mercado De Software. In Companion Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Cuiaba, Brazil, 17--20. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2400076.2400083Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. José Jeferson Baqueta. 2012. Especificação e protótipo de um jogo educativo para aprendizagem de conceitos por crianças surdas. http://www.inf.unioeste.br/~tcc/2012/TCC_Jeferson.pdf. Projeto de Fim de Curso. Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Simone Barbosa and Bruno Silva. 2010. Interação Humano-Computador. Elsevier Brasil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa and Bruno Santana da Silva. 2014. Design da interação humano-computador com MoLIC. In IHC'14 Companion Proceedings of the 13th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 79--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa and Maíra Greco de Paula. 2003. Designing and Evaluating Interaction as Conversation: A Modeling Language Based on Semiotic Engineering. In Interactive Systems. Design, Specification, and Verification. Funchal, Madeira Island, Portugal, 16--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa and Maíra Greco de Paula. 2003. Interaction Modeling as a Binding Thread in the Software Development Process. In Proceedings of ICSE 2003 Workshop on Bridging the Gaps Between Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction. IFIP, Portland, Oregon, USA, 84--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Maíra Greco de Paula, and Carlos José Pereira de Lucena. 2004. Adopting a communication-centered design approach to support interdisciplinary design teams. IET Conference Proceedings (January 2004), 102--107(5). https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/conferences/10.1049/ic_20040194Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa and Gustavo de Miranda Gonçalves. 2013. Uso Da MoLIC WOz Como Ferramenta De Apoio a Avaliação Formativa Baseada Em Diagrama De InteraçãO MoLIC. In Proceedings of the 12th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Manaus, Brazil, 228--237. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2577101.2577147Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Emanuelly de Freitas Morais Barros. 2014. Estudo Comparativo de Modelos Fundamentados na Engenharia Semiótica Propostos para Apoio ao Projeto de Sistemas Colaborativos. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Emanuelly de Freitas Morais Barros and Raquel Oliveira Prates. 2014. Uma análise comparativa dos modelos de sistemas colaborativos fundamentados na engenharia Semiótica. In Proceedings of the 13th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 81--90. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2738055.2738071Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Priscilla Márcia Scarpelli Bastos, Diogo Marcos de Oliveira, Iago Antônio Domingues Vaz, Lyra de Almeida Guimarães Soares, Karina de Oliveira Rodrigues da Silva, Viviane Lílian dos Santos Barrozo, and Júnio Soares Dias. 2015. Uso dos conceitos de Interação Humano-Computador no desenvolvimento web para Educação a Distância. PromovEAD (2015), 152--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Luís Felipe Hussin Bento, Raquel Oliveira Prates, and Luiz Chaimowicz. 2011. Designing interfaces for robot control based on Semiotic Engineering. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Anchorage, AK, USA, 2068--2075. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Sílvia Amélia Bim. 2010. Uma experiência de integração entre as disciplinas de IHC, Engenharia de Software e Banco de Dados. In IHC2010-IX Simpósio de Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais (WEIHC). Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Marco Brambilla. 2012. From requirements to implementation of ad-hoc social Web applications: an empirical pattern-based approach. IET Software 6 (April 2012), 114--126(12). Issue 2. https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2011.0041Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Taffarel Brant-Ribeiro, Rafael Araújo, Igor Mendonça, Michel dos Santos Soares, and Renan Cattelan. 2015. A User-centered Approach for Modeling Web Interactions Using Colored Petri Nets. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Lda, Barcelona, Spain, 37--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jean-Pierre Briot, Eurico Vasconcelos, Diana Adamatti, Vinícius Sebba, Marta Irving, Simone Barbosa, Vasco Furtado, and Carlos Lucena. 2008. A computer-based role-playing game for participatory management of protected areas: The simparc project. SBC (2008), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ariane Moraes Bueno and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2006. Using an Interaction-as-Conversation Diagram as a Glue Language for HCI Design Patterns on the Web. In Task Models and Diagrams for Users Interface Design. Hasselt, Belgium, 122--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Letícia Capelão, Raquel Prates, Leonardo Freitas, and Heider Maciel. 2013. Avaliação da proposta de um modelo de sistema de ajuda online para a UFMG Virtual. In 24° Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação. Campinas, SP, Brasil, 768--777.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Letícia Capelão, Raquel Prates, Heider Maciel, and Leonardo Freitas. 2015. Construção de um sistema de ajuda online para a UFMG Virtual sob a ótica da Engenharia Semiótica. Tecnologiasm Sociedade e Conhecimento 2, 1 (2015), 43--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Débora Mendonça Cardador Corrêa da Costa. 2014. Um olhar crítico sobre o projeto de interfaces tangíveis baseado na Engenharia Semiótica. Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Allan Kássio Beckman Soares da Cruz. 2015. Desenvolvimento de Heurísticas para a Avaliação das Regras de Jogos de Tabuleiro a partir da Modelagem de Interação e da Avaliação de Usabilidade. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal do Maranhão.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Bruno Santana da Silva. 2005. MoLIC Segunda Edição: revisão de uma linguagem para modelagem da interação humano-computador. Master's thesis. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Bruno Santana da Silva. 2010. O uso de Casos na reflexão em ação em atividades de design de IHC. Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Bruno Santana da Silva, Viviane Cristina Oliveira Aureliano, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2006. Extreme Designing: Binding Sketching to an Interaction Model in a Streamlined HCI Design Approach. In Proceedings of VII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Natal, RN, Brazil, 101--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Bruno Santana da Silva, Barbosa, and Simone Diniz Junqueira. 2004. Modelando a Interação do Nita: um estudo de caso e extensões ao MoLIC. In VI Simpósio Brasileiro sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais. Curitiba, PR, Brasil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Bruno Santana da Silva and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2007. Designing human-computer interaction with MoLIC diagrams-a practical guide. Technical Report. Monografias em Ciência da Computação.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Bruno Santana da Silva, Ariane Moraes Bueno, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2009. Designing for Change: Engineering Adaptable and Adaptive User Interaction by Focusing on User Goals. In Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends. San Diego, CA, USA, 715--724.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Bruno Santana da Silva, Otávio Martins Netto, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2005. Promoting a Separation of Concerns via Closely-related Interaction and Presentation Models. In Proceedings of the 2005 Latin American Conference on Human-computer Interaction. ACM, Cuernavaca, Mexico, 170--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Elton José da Silva. 2018. O Design SPRINT como ferramenta para engajamento da equipe: um estudo de caso. Human Factors in Design 7, 13 (2018), 191--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Tiago Silva da Silva and Milene Selbach Silveira. 2008. Antecipando a avaliação de IHC: Verificação de diretrizes a partir de modelos. In Proceedings of the VIII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 248--251. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1497470.1497499Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Adriana Lopes Damian. 2016. Técnicas para inspeção de diagramas MOLIC. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Amazonas, Brasil. Dissertação de mestrado.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ticianne Darin and Carlos Brito Novais. 2012. Prática do Design de Interação em uma experiência conjunta entre as disciplinas de IHC, Design de Interfaces e Semiótica. In XI Simpósio de Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais (WEIHC). Cuiabá, Brasil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Clarissa Maria de Almeida Barbosa. 2007. Manas: uma ferramenta epistêmica de apoio ao projeto da comunicação em sistemas colaborativos. Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontífica Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ana Carolina Inneco Cantuária de Araujo. 2008. Apoio ao design e à interpretação de modelos de interação humano-computador representados em MoLIC. Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontífica Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Carlos Rosemberg Maia de Carvalho. 2010. MEX Experience Boards: A Set of Agile Tools for User Experience Design. In Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 213--216. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1999593.1999621Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Luciana Cardoso de Castro Salgado. 2011. Cultural Viewpoint Metaphors to explore and communicate perspectives in cross-cultural HCI design. Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontífica Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Luciana Cardoso De Castro Salgado, Clarisse Sieckenius De Souza, and Carla Faria Leitão. 2011. On the Epistemic Nature of Cultural Viewpoint Metaphors. In Proceedings of the 10th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems and the 5th Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (IHC+CLIHC '11). Brazilian Computer Society, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Brazil, 23--32. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2254436.2254443Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Luciana Cardoso de Castro Salgado, Carla Faria Leitão, and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 2013. Semiotic Engineering and Culture. Springer London, London, 19--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Carlos José Pereira de Lucena, Maíra Greco de Paula, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2005. Conveying Human-computer Interaction Concerns to Software Engineers Through an Interaction Model. In Proceedings of the 2005 Latin American Conference on Human-computer Interaction. ACM, Cuernavaca, Mexico, 109--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Maíra Greco de Paula. 2003. Projeto da Interação Humano-Computador Baseado em Modelos Fundamentas na Engenharia Semiótica: Construção de um Modelo de Interação.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Maíra Greco de Paula. 2007. ComunIHC-ES: ferramenta de Apoio à Comunicação entre Profissionais de IHC E Engenheiros de Software. Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Maíra Greco de Paula, Barbosa, and Simone Diniz Junqueira. 2007. Investigating the Role of a Model-Based Boundary Object in Facilitating the Communication Between Interaction Designers and Software Engineers. In Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design. Toulouse, France, 273--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Maíra Greco De Paula and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2003. Bringing interaction specifications to HCI design patterns. In Perspectives on HCI Patterns: Concepts and Tools. Florida, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Maíra Greco De Paula and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2004. Using an interaction model to support communication among HCI design team members from multidisciplinary backgrounds. VI Simpósio sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais (2004), 171--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Maíra Greco de Paula, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, and Carlos José Pereira de Lucena. 2003. Relating Human-computer Interactin and Software Engineering Concerns: Towards Extending UML Through an Interaction Modelling Language. In Closing the Gaps: Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction. Zürich, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Maíra Greco de Paula, Bruno Santana da Silva, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2005. Using an Interaction Model As a Resource for Communication in Design. In CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Portland, OR, USA, 1713--1716. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Alessandro José de Souza. 2016. Uma linguagem visual para descrição de use cases. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Alessandro José de Souza and Anderson Luiz de Oliveira Cavalcanti. 2016. Visual Language for Use Case Description. Software: Practice and Experience 46, 9 (2016), 1239--1261. arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/spe.2376 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 2005. The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Clarisse Sieckenius De Souza, Renato Fontoura de Gusmão Cerqueira, Luiz Marques Afonso, Rafael Rossi de Mello Brandão, and Juliana Soares Jansen Ferreira. 2016. Software Developers as Users: Semiotic Investigations in Human-Centered Software Development. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Lucélia de Souza. 2004. Informação de auxílio ao usuário no paradigma de auto-publicação em arquivos abertos. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brasil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Luiz Gustavo de Souza. 2015. Estendendo a MoLIC para Apoiar o Design de Sistemas Colaborativos. Master's thesis. Pontífica Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Luiz Gustavo de Souza and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2014. Estendendo a MoLIC Para Apoiar O Design De Sistemas Colaborativos. In Companion Proceedings of the 13th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 25--28. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2738165.2738174Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Luiz Gustavo de Souza and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2015. Evaluating the moLICC Notation Using the Cognitive Dimensions of Notations Framework. In Proceedings of the 14th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Salvador, Brazil, Article 18, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Luiz Gustavo de Souza and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2015. Extending MoLIC for Collaborative Systems Design. In Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Evaluation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 271--282.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Luiz Gustavo de Souza, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, and Tayana Conte. 2015. Evaluating a moLIC Extension for Collaborative Systems Design. In Proceedings of the 14th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Salvador, Brazil, Article 15, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Luiz Gustavo de Souza, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, and Hugo Fuks. 2016. Evaluating the Expressiveness of MoLICC to Model the HCI of Collaborative Systems. In Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Thinking and Methods. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 255--265.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Rafael Rossato de Souza. 2017. Análise comparativa dos modelos concurtasktrees e groupware task analysis no apoio ao projeto de sistemas colaborativos. Projeto de Fim de Curso. Instituto Federal de Minas Gerais.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Junio Soares Dias and Raquel Oliveira Prates. 2012. Sistema De Apoio À AplicaÇÃO Do MIS. In Companion Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Cuiaba, Brazil, 35--36. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2400076.2400091Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Maria Cristina Machado Domingues. 2006. Estudo comparativo de extensões UML nos artefatos do projeto de sistemas interativos. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal do Paraná.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Cássio da Pieva Ehlers. 2006. Um método de avaliação de interfaces de mapas interativos para WEB. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal do Paraná.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Maria José Escalona, Matias Urbieta, Gustavo Rossi, Julián Alberto Garcia-Garcia, and Esteban Robles Luna. 2013. Detecting Web requirements conflicts and inconsistencies under a model-based perspective. Journal of Systems and Software 86, 12 (2013), 3024 -- 3038. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Carla Ferreira Fernandes. 2012. Verificação e refinamento de requisitos em árvore de características usando linhas de produtos de requisitos e redes de petri. Projeto de Fim de Curso. Universidade Federal de Goiás.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Daniel Vitor Costa Ferreira. 2015. Lean Communication-Centered Design: Um processo leve de design centrado na comunicação. Master's thesis. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Daniel Vitor Costa Ferreira and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2016. Lean Communication-Centered Design: A Lightweight Design Process. In Human-Computer Interaction. Theory, Design, Development and Practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 553--564.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Juliana Soares Jansen Ferreira and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 2007. Customização de Aplicações: Um estudo de caso sobre o MS Word. In Workshop on Perspectives, Challenges and Opportunities for Human-Computer Interaction in Latin America. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Sebastian Feuerstack. 2010. An approach for interactive dialogue modelling of multimodal applications. In Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, 255--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Sebastian Feuerstack. 2010. An interactive dialogue modelling editor for designing multimodal applications. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. Citeseer, São Carlos, SP, Brazil, 257--258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Patric Galera Forcelini. 2015. Investigação sobre a comunicação discente do design de interação humano-computador para o design de engenharia de software. Projeto de Fim de Curso. Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Vasco Furtado, Jose Eurico, Leonardo Ayres, Rafael Alves, and Marcos De Oliveira. 2008. WikiCrimes-Um Sistema Colaborativo para Mapeamento Criminal. Proc. 35th InfoBrasil. Brazil (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Franco Eusébio Garcia, Kamila Rios da Hora Rodrigues, and Vânia Paula de Almeida Neris. 2016. An Interaction Modeling Language for Therapeutic Applications. In Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, São Paulo, Brazil, Article 32, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Filipe Adeodato Garrido, Beatriz Brito do Rêgo, and Ecivaldo de Souza Matos. 2018. Modelando a Interação (Humano-Computador) de um Fórum de Discussão para MOOC: MoLIC em uso. RENOTE 16, 2 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Kleder Gonçalves, Hana Karina Salles Rubinsztejn, Markus Endler, Bruno Silva, and Simone Barbosa. 2004. Um aplicativo para comunicação baseada em localização. In Anais do Workshop de Comunicação sem Fio e Computação Móvel. Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Taisa Guidini Gonçalves, Káthia Marçal Oliveira, and Christophe Kolski. 2018. Identifying HCI approaches to support CMMI-DEV for interactive system development. Computer Standards & Interfaces 58 (2018), 53 -- 86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Taisa Guidini Gonçalves, Káthia Marçal de Oliveira, and Christophe Kolski. 2018. HCI in practice: An empirical study with software process capability maturity model consultants in Brazil. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 30, 11 (2018), e2109. arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/smr.2109e2109 JSME-18-0015.R2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Sara Imtiaz and Arif Raza. 2013. User Centered Design Patterns and Related Issues-A Review. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction (IJHCI) 4, 1 (2013), 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Jordan Janeiro, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Thomas Springer, and Alexander Schill. 2009. Enhancing User Interface Design Patterns with Design Rationale Structures. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. ACM, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 9--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Jordan Janeiro, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Thomas Springer, and Alexander Schill. 2010. Semantically Relating User Interface Design Patterns. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Pattern-Driven Engineering of Interactive Computing Systems. ACM, Berlin, Germany, 40--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Carla Leitão. 2017. Semiotic Engineering as a Reflexive, Transdisciplinary and Humanistic Theory in and Beyond HCI. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 101--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. Débora Line, Cybelle Loureiro, and Raquel Oliveira Prates. 2018. Musical App in Hypersensitivity to Sounds and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Applicable Strategies. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Students of Systematic Musicology. UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brasil, 58--65. http://musica.ufmg.br/sysmus2018Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Adriana Lopes, Anna Beatriz Marques, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, and Tayana Conte. 2015. MoLVERIC: An Inspection Technique for MoLIC Diagrams. In 27th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. Pittsburgh, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Adriana Lopes, Anna Beatriz Marques, Tayana Conte, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2015. MoLVERIC Cards Feasibility Study: A Technique for Inspection of moLIC Diagrams. In Proceedings of the 14th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Salvador, Brazil, Article 21, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Adriana Lopes, Anna Beatriz Marques, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, and Tayana Conte. 2015. Evaluating HCI Design with Interaction Modeling and Mockups. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Lda, Barcelona, Spain, 79--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Adriana Lopes, Natasha Valentim, Bruna Moraes, Renata Zilse, and Tayana Conte. 2016. Utilizando Modelagem de Interação para Projetar uma Aplicação Móvel Multiusuário: Um Relato de Experiência. XV Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Adriana Lopes, Natasha Valentim, Bruna Moraes, Renata Zilse, and Tayana Conte. 2017. Technique for Inspecting MoLIC Interaction Diagrams. Technical Report. Pontífica Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Adriana Lopes, Natasha Valentim, Bruna Moraes, Renata Zilse, and Tayana Conte. 2018. Applying user-centered techniques to analyze and design a mobile application. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development 6, 1 (23 May 2018), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. Víctor López-Jaquero and Francisco Montero. 2007. Comprehensive Task and Dialog Modelling. In Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Design and Usability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1149--1158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Cristiano Maciel and Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia. 2006. DemIL: an online interaction language between citizen and government. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, Edinburgh, Scotland, 849--850.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Anna Beatriz Marques. 2015. Ensino de IHC com foco na prática: Um Relato de Experiência em um Curso de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Software. In XIV Simpósio Brasileiro sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais (WEIHC). Salvador, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Anna Beatriz Marques. 2017. Promovendo o engajamento e aprendizado colaborativo de modelagem de interação por meio de Modeling Dojo. Proceedings of the VIII HCI Education Workshop-XVI Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (WEIHC 2017), Santa Catarina, Joinville.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Anna Beatriz Marques, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, and Tayana Conte. 2016. A Comparative Evaluation of Interaction Models for the Design of Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, Pisa, Italy, 173--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Anna Beatriz Marques, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, and Tayana Uchôa Conte. 2017. Defining a notation for usability-oriented interaction and navigation modeling for interactive systems. SBC Journal on interactive systems 8, 2 (2017), 35--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Anna Beatriz Marques, Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa Barbosa, and Tayana Conte. 2017. Evaluating the Usability Expressiveness of a USability-oriented INteraction and Navigation Model. In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Joinville, Brazil, Article 24, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. Anna Beatriz Marques, Tayana Conte, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2016. Representando a interação e navegação de sistemas interativos através de um modelo orientado à usabilidade: Um estudo de viabilidade. In Proceedings of IHC'16, Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. São Paulo, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Anna Beatriz Marques, Tayana Conte, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2016. Representing the Interaction and Navigation of Interactive Systems Through a Usability-oriented Model: A Feasibility Study. In Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, São Paulo, Brazil, Article 15, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. Anna Beatriz dos Santos Marques. 2017. Usinn: Um Modelo De Interação E Navegação Orientado à Usabilidade. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universade Federal do Amazonas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Claudia Mena, Cristian Rusu, and Silvana Roncagliolo. 2009. Modeling the Interaction with MoLIC. In 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. Las Vegas, NV, USA, 1680--1680. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Rodrigo Mattos Mengue, Juliano Ratusznei, and Lucélia de Souza. 2008. Desenvolvimento de um fórum de discussões on-line no âmbito da Interação Humano-Computador. Publicatio UEPG 14, 2 (8 2008), 121--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Julio Guido Oliveira Militão. 2010. Use of Smart Boards for Undergraduate Teaching in Computer Graphics and Interface Design. In Simpósio de Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais (WEIHC). Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Ingrid Teixeira Monteiro, Eduardo Tiomno Tolmasquim, and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 2014. SideTalk: Comunicação Interpessoal Na/Sobre a Web. In Companion Proceedings of the 13th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 67--68. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2738165.2738192Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. Costa Neto and Macilon Araújo. 2013. Uma linguagem de modelagem da interação para auxiliar a comunicação designer-usuário. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  108. Macilon Araújo Costa Neto and Jair Cavalcanti Leite. 2011. Empregando modelo de interação na representação de padrões de usabilidade. In VII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas de Informação. Salvador, Brazil, 286--297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  109. Otávio Martins Netto, Milene Selbach Silveira, and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2006. Contribuições Da MoLIC Para a Reflexão Sobre O Conteúdo Do Sistema De Ajuda. In Proceedings of VII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Natal, RN, Brazil, 110--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  110. Thiago Nunes and Daniel Schwabe. 2014. Exploration of Semi-Structured Data Sources. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Intelligent Exploration of Semantic Data (IESD) co-located with the 13th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Riva del Garda, Trentino, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. Thiago Ribeiro Nunes. 2017. A Model for Exploration of Semi-Structured Datasets. Master's thesis. Pontífica Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. Abiodun Ogunyemi and David Lamas. 2014. Interplay between human-computer interaction and software engineering. In 2014 9th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). Barcelona, Spain, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  113. Cintia Carvalho Oliveira, João Nunes de Souza, and Renan Gonçalves Cattelan. 2011. Árvore de características e redes de petri colorida com expressões de lógica proposicional: propostas de modelagem de requisitos e fluxo de navegação. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal de Uberlândia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  114. Daniele Carvalho Oliveira, João Nunes de Souza, and Renan Gonçalves Cattelan. 2011. MNLAC: uma proposta de modelagem de fluxo de navegação baseada em lógica modal. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal de Uberlândia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Florence Pontico, Marco Winckler, and Quentin Limbourg. 2007. Organizing User Interface Patterns for e-Government Applications. In Engineering Interactive Systems. Salamanca, Spain, 601--619.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  116. Raquel Oliveira Prates. 2013. Relato de Experiência de Ensino de IHC.. In Workshop sobre Ensino de IHC. Manaus, Brazil, 37--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. Raquel Oliveira Prates. 2017. An Overview of Semiotic Engineering Epistemic Tools for the Design of Collaborative Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 81--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  118. Raquel Oliveira Prates and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2007. Introdução à teoria e prática da interação humano computador fundamentada na engenharia semiótica. http://www.lbd.dcc.ufmg.br/colecoes/jai/2007/001.pdf., 263--326 pages. XXVII Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação. Jornadas de Atualização em Informática (JAI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  119. Raquel Oliveira Prates and Rodrigo Ferreira da Silva. 2010. AvaliaÇÃO Do Uso Da Manas Como Ferramenta EpistÊMica No Projeto De Sistemas Colaborativos. In Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC '10). Brazilian Computer Society, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Brazil, 21--30. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1999593.1999597Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  120. Raquel Oliveira Prates and Rodrigo Ferreira da Silva. 2010. Avaliação do uso da Manas como ferramenta epistêmica no projeto de sistemas colaborativos. In Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 21--30. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1999593.1999597Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  121. Raquel Oliveira Prates, Mary Beth Rosson, and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 2017. Analyzing the Communicability of Configuration Decision Space Over Time in Collaborative Systems through a Case Study. SBC Journal on Interactive Systems 8, 2 (2017), 62--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. Werner Putschögl and Bernhard Dorninger. 2010. Modelling interactions for automatic execution using UML activity diagrams. In Modellierung 2010. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, 179--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. Taffarel Brant Ribeiro. 2014. Formalização e validação de aplicações de captura e acesso em ambientes educacionais ubíquos. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal de Uberlândia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  124. Esteban Robles Luna, Gustavo Rossi, and Irene Garrigós. 2011. WebSpec: a visual language for specifying interaction and navigation requirements in web applications. Requirements Engineering 16, 4 (24 Jun 2011), 297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  125. Elsa Chinita Soares Rodrigues. 2013. Desarrollo de una nueva metodología para la evaluación de software ergonómico en educación primaria. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad de Extremadura.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  126. Jean Clemisson Santos Rosa. 2017. Design de Interação Multicultural: um framework semioparticipativo para o (re) design da interação de softwares educacionais. Master's thesis. Universidade Federal da Bahia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  127. Claudia Andrea Mena Saavedra. 2007. Modelado de la integración en sistemas software con el lenguaje Molic. http://opac.pucv.cl/pucv_txt/txt-7500/UCI7743_01.pdf. Projeto de Fim de Curso. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  128. Ugo Braga Sangiorgi and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2009. MoLIC Designer: Towards Computational Support to Hci Design with MoLIC. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems. ACM, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 303--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  129. Ugo Braga Sangiorgi and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2010. MoLIC Designer: Uma Ferramenta Para O Projeto Conjunto De InteraÇÃO e Interface. In Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 251--252. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1999593.1999631Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  130. Ugo Braga Sangiorgi and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa Barbosa. 2010. Estendendo a Linguagem MoLIC Para O Projeto Conjunto De Interação e Interface. In Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 61--70. http://dl-acm-org.ez27.periodicos.capes.gov.br/citation.cfm?id=1999593.1999601Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  131. Donald A Schön. 2017. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  132. Vinícius Costa Villas Bôas Segura and Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2013. UISKEI++: Multi-device Wizard of Oz Prototyping. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems. ACM, London, United Kingdom, 171--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  133. Ilya Shmorgun and David Lamas. 2011. Exploring the use of Concept Mapping to facilitate Interaction Design Processes. In Proceedings of CHI Sparks. Arnhem, Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  134. Tiago Silva Silva. 2008. Diretrizes para avaliação de IHC baseada em modelos. Master's thesis. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  135. Williamson Silva and Tayana Conte. 2014. Técnica para projeto de diagramas de atividades visando a usabilidade nas aplicações interativas. In Companion Proceedings of the 13th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 41--44. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2738165.2738178Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  136. Elisabeth-Ann Gynn Todd. 2010. Learning about user interface design through the use of user interface pattern languages: a thesis dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science at Massey University, New Zealand. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massey University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  137. Matias Urbieta, Maria Jose Escalona, Esteban Robles Luna, and Gustavo Rossi. 2011. Detecting Conflicts and Inconsistencies in Web Application Requirements. In Current Trends in Web Engineering. Paphos, Cyprus, 278--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  138. Frederick Marinus Constant van Amstel, Rodrigo Freese Gonzatto, and Gláucio Henrique Matsushita Moro. 2018. Improvised Video As a Medium for Learning and Designing Interactions. In Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Belém, Brazil, 28:1--28:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  139. Eurico Vasconcelos, Jean-Pierre Briot, Marta Irving, Simone Barbosa, and Vasco Furtado. 2008. A User Interface to Support Dialogue and Negotiation in Participatory Simulations. In Multi-Agent-Based Simulation IX. Estoril, Portugal, 127--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An analysis of MoLIC's consolidation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        IHC '19: Proceedings of the 18th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        October 2019
        679 pages
        ISBN:9781450369718
        DOI:10.1145/3357155

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 22 October 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        IHC '19 Paper Acceptance Rate56of165submissions,34%Overall Acceptance Rate331of973submissions,34%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader