Recording the reasons for design decisions
ICSE '88 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Software engineering
gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion
ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)
SIBYL: a tool for managing group design rationale
CSCW '90 Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work
Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale
ICSE '91 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering
Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use
Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use
Design rationale
A process-oriented approach to design rationale
Design rationale
Model-Based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications
Model-Based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications
User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction
User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction
IHM '02 Proceedings of the 14th French-speaking conference on Human-computer interaction (Conférence Francophone sur l'Interaction Homme-Machine)
DREAMER: a design rationale environment for argumentation, modeling and engineering requirements
Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
QUIMERA: a quality metamodel to improve design rationale
Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems
HCSE'12 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Human-Centered Software Engineering
| Hi-index | 0.01 |
Justification of choices made throughout the design process of systems is a recurrent desire and quite often a formal request from certification authorities in the safety critical domain. However, even though some work has already been done in the early phases of the development processes, justifying choices in the later phases such as detailed design or implementation remain a cumbersome activity left (without any support) in the hands of the developers. This paper presents a notation called TEAM (Traceability, Exploration and Analysis Model) and its associated tool called DREAM (Design Rationale Environment for Argumentation and Modelling). The paper presents first the notation and its specificities with respect to other Design Rationale notations. Both the notation and the tools are presented on a case study showing how they can support design of interaction techniques for Air Traffic Control workstations. We also present the rationale that we have gathered while designing the graphical representation of the notation.