Number of co-authors:4
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:Markus Sohlenkamp:1Andreas Genau:1Christian Beilken:1
Thomas Berlage's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:Markus Sohlenkamp:5Michael Spenke:4Christian Beilken:3
Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them.
-- Alfred North Whitehead
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Publications by Thomas Berlage (bibliography)
Berlage, Thomas and Sohlenkamp, Markus (1999): Visualizing Common Artefacts to Support Awareness in Computer-Mediated Cooperation. In Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8 (3) pp. 207-238.
The idea of a "common artefact" is a useful metaphor for the design of CSCW systems. Our ACCT model of a common artefact describes structural elements that provide awareness about the work of others. The ACCT model identifies actors, contents, conversations, and tools as the central components of a common artefact, arranged on a shared background. The elements of a common artefact provide both a background visualization of the activity, but also permit dynamic notification of particular events. We explore this process of notification, which is composed of a selection and a presentation stage. We identify the critical factors of the process, in particular we highlight techniques related to temporal and spatial distortion. The framework helps to prepare design decisions of multi-user systems more consciously.
© All rights reserved Berlage and and/or Kluwer Academic Publishers
Spenke, Michael, Beilken, Christian and Berlage, Thomas (1996): FOCUS: The Interactive Table for Product Comparison and Selection. In: Kurlander, David, Brown, Marc and Rao, Ramana (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology November 06 - 08, 1996, Seattle, Washington, United States. pp. 41-50.
FOCUS, the Feature-Oriented Catalog USer interface, is an interactive table viewer for a common kind of table, namely the object-attribute table, also called cases-by-attribute table or relational table. Typical examples of these tables are the Roll Calls in BYTE where the features and test results of a family of hardware or software products are compared. FOCUS supports data exploration by a combination of a focus+context or fisheye technique, a hierarchical outliner for large attribute sets, and a general and easy-to-use dynamic query mechanism where the user simply clicks on desired values found in the table. A PC/Windows implementation of FOCUS is publicly available (http://www.gmd.de/fit/projects/focus.html). It is suited for tables with up to a few hundred rows and columns, which are typically stored and maintained by spreadsheet applications. Since we use a simple data format, existing tables can be easily inspected with FOCUS. With the rapidly increasing public interest in on-line services like the World Wide Web we expect a growing demand for access to on-line catalogues and databases. FOCUS satisfies this demand, allowing formulation of simple database queries with an interface as easy to use as a Web browser.
© All rights reserved Spenke et al. and/or ACM Press
Berlage, Thomas (1994): A Selective Undo Mechanism for Graphical User Interfaces Based on Command Objects. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1 (3) pp. 269-294.
It is important to provide a recovery operation for applications with a graphical user interface. A restricted linear undo mechanism can conveniently be implemented using object-oriented techniques. Although linear undo provides an arbitrarily long history, it is not possible to undo isolated commands from the history without undoing all following commands. Various undo models have been proposed to overcome this limitation, but they all ignore the problem that in graphical user interfaces a previous user action might not have a sensible interpretation in another state. Selective undo introduced here can undo isolated commands by copying them into the current state "if that is meaningful." Furthermore, the semantics of selective undo are argued to be more natural for the user, because the mechanism only looks at the command to undo and the current state and does not depend on the history in between. The user interface for selective undo can also be implemented generically. Such a generic implementation is able to provide a consistent recovery mechanism in arbitrary applications.
© All rights reserved Berlage and/or ACM Press
Berlage, Thomas and Genau, Andreas (1993): A Framework for Shared Applications with a Replicated Architecture. In: Hudson, Scott E., Pausch, Randy, Zanden, Brad Vander and Foley, James D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology 1993, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. pp. 249-257.
The interaction history of a document can be modelled as a tree of command objects. This model not only supports recovery (undo/redo), but is also suitable for cooperation between distributed users working on a common document. Various coupling modes can be supported. Switching between modes is supported by regarding different versions of a document as different branches of the history. Branches can then be merged using a selective redo mechanism. Synchronous cooperation is supported by replicating the document state and exchanging command objects. Optimistic concurrency control can be applied, because conflicting actions can later be undone automatically.
© All rights reserved Berlage and Genau and/or ACM Press
Berlage, Thomas (1992): Using Taps to Separate the User Interface from the Application Code. In: Mackinlay, Jock D. and Green, Mark (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology November 15 - 18, 1992, Monteray, California, United States. pp. 191-198.
A new mechanism based on taps is introduced to separate the output from the application code in a graphical interactive interfaces. The mechanism is implemented in GINA, an object-oriented application framework. Taps maintain a functional mapping from application data to interface objects that is described in a general-purpose programming language. Taps are triggered automatically by user actions. Compared to constraints or the MVC model, taps do not need execution or memory support from the application objects, at the expense of a performance penalty. Screen updates, which pose the largest performance problem, are minimized by checking for attribute changes and window visibility. A comparison operation is used to maintain structural consistency between hierarchies of application and interface objects. Taps can be defined interactively using formulas in a spreadsheet-like tool.
© All rights reserved Berlage and/or ACM Press
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)22 Feb 2010: Modified28 Apr 2003: Added
Page maintainer: The Editorial Team