The Lean Cuisine+ notation was developed by Chris Phillips (1995) as an executable semi-formal graphical
notation for describing the underlying behaviour of event-based direct manipulation interfaces. Lean
Cuisine+ builds on the original Lean Cuisine notation introduced in Apperley & Spence (1989). During the
construction of a CASE tool for the notation, as well as further research into the use of the Lean Cuisine+
notation, various changes have been made and the revised notation is presented here. The format and much of
the content of this document follows that of Appendix C of Phillips (1993) in order to easily distinguish
between the earlier and later versions of the notation

Scogings, Chris

English

Massey Research Online

Res. Lett. Inf. Math. Sci., (2000) 1, 17-23Available online at http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwiims/rlims/The Lean Cuisine+ Notation RevisedChris ScogingsI.I.M.S., Massey University Albany Campus, Auckland, N.Z.C.Scogings@massey.ac.nzAbstractThe Lean Cuisine+ notation was developed by Chris Phillips (1995) as an executable semi-formal graphicalnotation for describing the underlying behaviour of event-based direct manipulation interfaces.  LeanCuisine+ builds on the original Lean Cuisine notation introduced in Apperley & Spence (1989).  During theconstruction of a CASE tool for the notation, as well as further research into the use of the Lean Cuisine+notation, various changes have been made and the revised notation is presented here.  The format and much ofthe content of this document follows that of Appendix C of Phillips (1993) in order to easily distinguishbetween the earlier and later versions of the notation.The Object ModelThe object model has been removed from the Lean Cuisine+ notation in order to improve the clarity of thediagrams, since boxes around menemes as well as subtypes are no longer required.  The distinction betweenactions, syntactic objects and semantic objects was often difficult to determine, particularly in the automaticgeneration of Lean Cuisine+ diagrams for existing interfaces.  The work on the automatic generation of LeanCuisine+ diagrams has been published in Phillips & Scogings (1997) and Scogings & Phillips (1998).Since the object structure of the interface has been removed from the Lean Cuisine+ dialogue tree, it needs tobe described elsewhere.  Further work is required to decide on the most suitable notation for this, but onepossibility would be to use UML case diagrams as described in Fowler (1997).1. Basic features and definitions:DialogueA dialogue is described by a set of selectable primitives, menemes, arranged in a tree structure, and a set ofconstraints over these primitives.  The total dialogue state at any time is the sum of all the meneme statesplus the values of any state variables.The top level or root dialogue, when made available through selection of its dialogue header (the root node),provides access to the subdialogue(s) and/or state variable values immediately below it, subject to anyconstraints applying.MenemesThe meneme is the dialogue primitive, and is an individual selectable representation of an object, operation,state, or value.  Menemes may be real or virtual.Real menemes represent specific selectable options, and may be terminal or non-terminal.  Non-terminal realmenemes are headers to further subdialogues.  Virtual menemes are always non-terminal and are used topartition a dialogue or subdialogue into further constituent syntactic meneme groupings.  They are notavailable for selection.  It is possible to depict the selection of a virtual meneme in a task action sequence butthis indicates that one or more of the real menemes within the subdialogue may be selected at that point inthe task.  See Task Action Sequences below.In each dialogue state, a meneme is either available (for selection) or unavailable, and either selected or notselected.  This gives rise to four possible meneme states.  The state may be changed either by directexcitation, or by indirect modification, subject to any constraints applying.  Menemes may be bistable(default), select-only, deselect-only, monostable or passive.  The default type may be explicitly overridden by18 R.L.I.M.S  Vol. 1. Sept. 2000specifying one of the other types through the use of meneme designators (which are summarised at the end ofthis section).Each meneme can have attributes attaching to it.  These can be either meneme state variables (MSVs) orselection preconditions.  MSVs can also exist as parameters to options which may modify them as dialogueprogresses.  The exact form of presentation of MSVs on a Lean Cuisine+ tree diagram is implementationdependent.A selection precondition is a precondition for the availability (for selection) of a meneme in the LeanCuisine+ notation, which may involve the state of a meneme in another part of a dialogue, or the existence ofsome other state or condition, or both.  The exact form of presentation is implementation dependent.SubdialoguesMenemes may be grouped into subdialogues to any level of nesting.  A subdialogue is a logical grouping ofmenemes within the body of a Lean Cuisine+ dialogue.  The subdialogue corresponding to a non-terminalmeneme in a dialogue tree consists of all the menemes with which the subdialogue header is connected bydownward directed branches.  When made available through selection of its header, a subdialogue providesaccess to the options represented by these menemes, subject to any constraints applying.  A subdialogue isavailable for selection only if its parent dialogue is active.The grouping of menemes within a subdialogue places constraints on their behaviour.  The grouping may beeither mutually exclusive (1-from-N) or mutually compatible (M-from-N).  In the latter case, selection may begoverned by a condition.  In the Lean Cuisine+ notation these structures are represented graphically asfollows:(a) (b)(a) A mutually compatible meneme group within the subdialogue headed by the real meneme A.(b) A mutually exclusive meneme group within the subdialogue headed by the virtual meneme P.Where a group of options constitute a homogeneous set, they may be represented graphically using a forksymbol, as shown below:(c) (d)(c) The tree diagram for a mutually compatible homogeneous group.(d) The tree diagram for a mutually exclusive homogeneous group.C. Scogings,  The Lean Cuisine+ Notation Revised 19Modal subdialoguesA subdialogue may be modal, in which case, following its selection, options in all other parts of the dialoguebecome unavailable.  A modal subdialogue which involves a subtree is distinguished by a bar across the arcabove the meneme which heads it.  An example (S) appears in Figure (e).A modal subdialogue may be simple, in which case it is represented by a monostable meneme, shown thus(⊥).  An example (T) appears in Figure (e).  Following selection, a meneme of this type reverts to anunselected state on completion of the operation it represents, through system action.Simple subdialogues are normally terminal nodes.  Alternatively they may have explicit modal subdialoguesassociated with them which are triggered under certain conditions.  In such cases the operation represented bythe monostable meneme becomes suspended pending user termination of the further modal subdialogue, whenit completes in the usual way.  An example (U) appears in Figure (e).(e) S represents a modal subdialogue, and T a simple modal subdialogue.U represents a simple modal subdialogue which under certain conditions triggers afurther modal subdialogue W requiring user action.Stepwise refinementTo support stepwise refinement, a dialogue or subdialogue tree may be represented visually by an ellipsis toindicate that the detail is developed in a separate diagram.  In the case of a subdialogue, the lower leveldiagram is headed by an ellipsis in order to visually complete the association:(f) Meneme D heads a subdialogue which is separately developed.Further subdialogue constraintsA subdialogue header may be tagged to indicate a required choice group (§).  This places the additionalconstraint on the relationships between the menemes of that group that a valid selection is always required.An initial default choice, which indicates a meneme that is to be initially in the selected state, must beshown (*) under these circumstances (see Figure (g) below).  A dynamic default is a default which takes onthe value of the last user selection from that group (•).  It may have an initial assignment, or it may be20 R.L.I.M.S  Vol. 1. Sept. 2000initially unassigned, in which case the first user choice from that group becomes its first value (see Figures(h) and (j) below).(g) (h) (j)(g) A is a required choice group, and C is the initial default.(h) An unassigned dynamic default applying to the subgroup FGH.(j) A dynamic default applying to the group QRS, initially assigned to R.Meneme designatorsThe following meneme designators are used in the Lean Cuisine+ notation.{} Virtual meneme: a non-selectable meneme which is used to partition a dialogue or subdialogue.The meneme name appears between the braces.⊥ Monostable meneme: a meneme which, following user selection, reverts to an unselected stateon completion of the simple modal subdialogue it represents, through system action.↑ Select-only meneme: a meneme of this type cannot be directly deselected by the user, but may bedeselected through selection of another mutually exclusive option.↓ Deselect-only meneme: a meneme of this type cannot be directly selected by the user, but maybecome selected as an indirect result of some other action.⊗ Passive meneme: a meneme of this type is unavailable for selection or deselection by the user,and can only be selected and/or deselected by the system.* Default choice: indicates a meneme that is to be in the selected state at the commencement of adialogue or subdialogue.§ Required choice: is associated with a subdialogue header and indicates a meneme group fromwhich a valid choice is always required.• Dynamic default: may be associated with a meneme (assigned) or a meneme group (unassigned)and indicates a default choice which takes on the value of the last user selection from that group.2.  Selection TriggersA selection trigger is a directed link between menemes such that the selection or deselection of a menemetriggers (possibly conditionally) the selection or deselection of one or more other menemes.  Selectiontriggers represent a system response to another action and are annotated as shown below.C. Scogings,  The Lean Cuisine+ Notation Revised 21Triggers are either unconstrained, in which case further "knock on" effects are possible, or constrained, inwhich case the behaviour of the selected or deselected meneme is modified, inhibiting further links, andpreventing side effects such as cycles.  An example appears in Figure (k).(k) Selection (∆) of C causes deselection (∇) of E provided the condition is true.The selection of G is not triggered because the first trigger is constrained.3. Task Action SequencesA task action sequence describes a higher level user task in terms of primitive actions (and associated events),capturing any temporal relationships between them.  The task action sequence is overlayed on the dialoguetree diagram and is orthogonal to the constraint-based behavioural interface model.22 R.L.I.M.S  Vol. 1. Sept. 2000Figure l.  The task action sequence for the task "Construct a Timetable".  Theselection of the virtual meneme "Controls" actually indicates the selection of at leastone of the menemes in the subdialogue.  The double-headed arrow indicates that anycombination of the menemes in the subdialogue may be selected.  The dashed arrowindicates the system selection of "Display Timetable" in response to the selectiontrigger.The notation distinguishes user initiated and system initiated events by means of the arrows connectingselections.  A solid arrow between two selections denotes that the new selection is the result of a user action,whereas a dashed arrow indicates that the new selection is a system response triggered by some other action.Selection and deselection actions are indicated as defined above for selection triggers.A virtual meneme can be shown as being selected in a task action sequence.  This implies the selection of anyallowable combination of menemes in the subdialogue below it.  The double headed arrow indicates that anaction may be repeated.  This may be used in conjunction with the selection of a virtual meneme.The example provided in Figure l above, as well as further discussion on the usefulness of the new LeanCuisine+ task sequence notation, have been published in Phillips & Scogings (2000).4. Execution of a Lean Cuisine+ specificationA Lean Cuisine+ dialogue diagram can be "marked" to show its state at a given point in the dialogue interms of meneme states.  Menemes can be shown as being either selected or unselected, and either availablefor selection or unavailable.  This provides for the "execution" of a Lean Cuisine+ specification - that is ofsimulating dynamically the behaviour of the dialogue as selections are made.  This process takes cognisanceof all specified constraints, such as selection triggers.C. Scogings,  The Lean Cuisine+ Notation Revised 23The exact form of presentation of the "execution" process within the context of a  Lean Cuisine+ tree diagramis implementation dependent.ReferencesApperley, M.D. & Spence, R. (1989): Lean Cuisine: A low-fat notation for menus,Interacting with Computers, vol 1, no 1.Fowler M. & Scott K. (1997): UML Distilled, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsPhillips C.H.E. (1993): The Development of an Executable Graphical Notation for Describing DirectManipulation Interfaces, PhD Thesis, Massey University.Phillips C.H.E. (1995): Lean Cuisine+: An Executable Graphical Notation for Describing DirectManipulation Interfaces, Interacting with Computers, vol 7, no 1.Phillips C.H.E. & Scogings C.J. (1997): Modelling the mock-up: towards the automatic specification of thebehaviour of early prototypes, Proc. INTERACT'97, Sydney.Phillips C.H.E. & Scogings C.J. (2000): Task and Dialogue modelling: Bridging the divide with LeanCuisine+, Australian Computer Science Communications, vol 22, no 5.Scogings C.J. & Phillips C.H.E. (1998): Beyond the interface: Modelling the Interaction in a VisualDevelopment Environment, Proc. HCI'98, Sheffield.24 R.L.I.M.S  Vol. 1. Sept. 2000

The Lean Cuisine+ notation revised

https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/10179/4392/1/The_Lean_Cuisine%2b_Notation_Revised.pdf

The Lean Cuisine+ notation revised

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Massey Research Online