Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ISRE: immersive scenario-based requirements engineering with virtual prototypes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Virtual prototyping is a useful approach for refining requirements for complex designs. However, the use of virtual reality (VR) technology can cause usability problems that can be interpreted as “false positive” requirements errors. The immersive scenario-based requirements engineering (ISRE) method guides the analysis of problems encountered during the testing of virtual prototypes and helps assign causes to either genuine requirements defects or to usability issues with VR technology. The method consists of techniques for walkthrough testing, testing with users, causal analysis of observed problems and the design of scenario-based analysis sessions. The method is described and its use illustrated with a case study of validating requirements for an aircraft maintenance application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8a, b

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stone RJ (2001) Virtual reality for interactive training: an industrial practitioners viewpoint. Int J Hum Comput Stud 55:699–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sutcliffe AG (1995) Requirements rationales: integrating approaches to requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’95), Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 1995. ACM Press, New York, pp 33–42

  3. Sutcliffe AG, Ryan M (1998) Experience with SCRAM: a scenario requirements analysis method. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’98), Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 1998. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 164–171

  4. Sutcliffe AG (2003) Multimedia and virtual reality: designing multisensory user interfaces. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stone RJ (2002) Applications of virtual environments: an overview. In: Stanney K (ed) Handbook of virtual environments: design, implementation, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 827–856

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sutcliffe AG, Kaur KD (2000) Evaluating the usability of virtual reality user interfaces. Behav Inform Technol 19:415–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gabbard JL, Hix D, Swan JE (1999) User-centered design and evaluation of virtual environments. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 19:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bowman DA, Koller D, Hodges LF (1997) Travel in immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In: Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium (VRAIS’97), Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 1997. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 45–52

  9. Potts C (1999) ScenIC: a strategy for inquiry-driven requirements determination. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’99), Limerick, Ireland, June 1999. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 58–65

  10. Sutcliffe AG (1998) Scenario-based requirements analysis. Requirements Eng 3:48–65

    Google Scholar 

  11. van Lamsweerde A (2000) Requirements engineering in the year 00: a research perspective. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on software engineering, Limerick, Ireland, June 2000. ACM Press, New York, pp 5–19

  12. Dubois P, Dubois E, Zeippen J (1997) On the use of a formal representation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’97), Annapolis, Maryland, January 1997. IEEE computer society press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 128–137

  13. Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM, Minocha S, Manuel D (1998) Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Software Eng 24:1072–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Monk A, Wright P, Haber J, Davenport L (1993) Improving your human–computer interface: a practical technique. Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. John BE, Kieras RE (1995) The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 3:320–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wharton C, Reiman J, Lewis C, Polson P (1994) The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioners guide. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York, pp 105–140

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ravden S, Johnson G (1989) Evaluating usability of human–computer interfaces. Ellis Horwood, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. International Organization for Standardization (1997) ISO 9241: ergonomic requirements for office systems with visual display terminals (VDTs)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic Press, Boston, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ivory M, Hearst M (2001) The state of the art in automated usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput Surv 33:173–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hix D, Hartson HR (1993) Developing user interfaces: ensuring usability through product and process. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Andre TS, Hartson HR, Belz SM, McCreary FA (2001) The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54(1):107–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Norman DA (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sutcliffe AG, Springett MV (1992) From users’ problems to design errors: linking evaluation to improving design practice. In: Proceedings of the HCI’92 conference on people and computers VII, York, UK, September 1992. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 117–134

  25. Sutcliffe AG, Ryan M, Doubleday A, Springett MV (2000) Model mismatch analysis: towards a deeper explanation of users’ usability problems. Behav Inform Technol 19:43–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shneiderman B (2002) Designing the user interface, strategies for effective human–computer interaction. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sutcliffe AG, Economou A, Markis P (1999) Tracing requirements errors to problems in the requirements engineering process. Requirements Eng 4:134–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cockton G, Lavery D (1999) A framework for usability problem extraction. In: Proceedings of the 7th IFIP conference on human–computer interaction (INTERACT’99), Edinburgh, Scotland, August/September 1999. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 347–355

  29. Gabbard JL, Hix D (1997) A taxonomy of usability characteristics in virtual environments. Deliverable to the Office of Naval Research, grant number N00014-96-1-0385, from the Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia

  30. International Organization for Standardization (1995) ISO 13407: human-centred design processes for interactive systems

    Google Scholar 

  31. Slater M (1999) Measuring presence: a response to the Witmer and Singer questionnaire. Presence Teleop Virt 8:560–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1994) The depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence 3:130–144

    Google Scholar 

  33. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1999) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7:225–240

    Google Scholar 

  34. Norman DA (1986) Cognitive engineering. In: Norman DA, Draper SW (eds) User-centred system design: new perspectives on human–computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kaur K (1998) Designing virtual environments for usability. PhD thesis. Centre for HCI Design, School of Informatics, City University, London

  36. Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sutcliffe AG (2002) User-centred requirements engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Galliers JR, Sutcliffe AG, Minocha S (1999) Models and a method for safety critical user interface design. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 6(4):341–369

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nielsen J, Molich R (1990) Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’90), Seattle, Washington, April 1990, pp 249–156

  40. Cockburn A (2001) Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mackay WE (2000) Augmented reality: dangerous liaisons or the best of both worlds? In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing augmented reality environments (DARE 2000), Elsinore, Denmark, April 2000. ACM Press, New York, pp 171–172

  42. Muller MJ (2001) Layered participatory analysis: new developments in the CARD technique. In: In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2001), Seattle, Washington, April 2001. ACM Press, New York, pp 91–97

  43. Potts C (1995) Invented requirements and imagined customers: requirements engineering for off-the-shelf software. In: Briefing for working group 2, proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’95), York, UK, March 1995. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 128–130

  44. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fernando T, Murray N, Tan K (1999) Software architecture for a constraint based virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology (VRST’99), London, UK, December 1999. ACM Press, New York, pp 147–154

  46. Fickas S, Feather MS (1995) Requirements monitoring in dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’95), York, UK, March 1995. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 140–147

  47. Carroll JM (ed) (1995) Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rolland C, Prakash N, Benjamin A (1999) A multi-model view of process modelling. Requirements Eng 4:169–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Alexander I (2002) Initial industrial experience of misuse cases in trade-off analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering, Essen, Germany, September 2002. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 61–70

  50. Sutcliffe AG, Shin JE, Gregoriades AA (2002) Tool support for scenario-based functional allocation. In: Johnson CW (ed) Proceedings of the 21st European conference on human decision making and control, Glasgow, Scotland, July 2002. GIST report 2002–1, pp 81–88

  51. Heitmeyer CL, Kirby J, Labaw B (1997) Tools for formal specification, verification, and validation of requirements. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on computer assurance (COMPASS’97), Gaithersburg, Maryland, June 1997

  52. Sutcliffe AG, Galliers J, Minocha S (1999) Human errors and system requirements. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’99), Limerick, Ireland, June 1999. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 23–30

  53. Sutcliffe AG, Gregoriades A (2002) Validating functional system requirements with scenarios. In: Proceedings of the IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering, Essen, Germany, September 2002. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp 181–188

  54. Muller MJ, Hanswanter JH, Dayton T (1997) Participatory practice in the software lifecycle. In: Helander MG, Landauer TK, Prabhu PV (eds) Handbook of human–computer interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially funded by EPSRC grant number GR M68749, “Immersive scenario-based requirements engineering.” The authors wish to thank Terrence Fernando and Luis Marcelino at the Centre for Virtual Environments, University of Salford, UK for their help in testing the aircraft maintenance application.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for HCI Design, School of Informatics, University of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK

    Alistair Sutcliffe & Brian Gault

  2. Centre for HCI Design, School of Informatics, City University, London, EC1V 0HB, UK

    Neil Maiden

Authors
  1. Alistair Sutcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Gault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil Maiden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alistair Sutcliffe.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Presence questionnaire

The subjects were asked to rate each virtual environment (VE) against each question on a scale of 1–7, where 1=negative rating and 7=positive rating:

  1. 1.

    How well were you able to control the system?

  2. 2.

    How responsive was the environment to actions that you initiated (or performed)?

  3. 3.

    How natural did your interactions with the environment seem?

  4. 4.

    How natural was the mechanism which controlled movement through the environment?

  5. 5.

    How aware were you of events occurring in the real world around you?

  6. 6.

    How aware were you of your display and control devices?

  7. 7.

    How compelling was your sense of objects moving through space?

  8. 8.

    How far did your experiences in the VE seem consistent with your real-world experiences?

  9. 9.

    Were you able to anticipate what would happen next in response to the actions that you performed?

  10. 10.

    How completely were you able to actively survey or search the environment using vision?

  11. 11.

    How compelling was your sense of moving around inside the VE?

  12. 12.

    How closely were you able to examine objects?

  13. 13.

    How well could you examine objects from multiple viewpoints?

  14. 14.

    How well could you move or manipulate objects in the VE?

  15. 15.

    How involved were you in the VE experience?

  16. 16.

    How much delay did you experience between your actions and expected outcomes?

  17. 17.

    How quickly did you adjust to the VE experience?

  18. 18.

    How proficient in moving and interacting with the VE did you feel at the end of the experience?

  19. 19.

    Were you involved in the experimental task to the extent that you lost track of time?

  20. 20.

    How effective was the sense of perspective (depth of field)?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sutcliffe, A., Gault, B. & Maiden, N. ISRE: immersive scenario-based requirements engineering with virtual prototypes. Requirements Eng 10, 95–111 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-004-0198-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-004-0198-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation