Constraint programming for automatic user interface construction

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The paper considers the task of automated design of graphical user interfaces (GUI). A system based on the constraint programming paradigm takes the rules for the arrangement of controls, the controls themselves, and determines some number of arrangements that satisfy the rules. The system is implemented as a web application and allows one to get responses gradually, within a reasonable time.

About the authors

P. A. Lozov

St. Petersburg State University

Email: lozov.peter@gmail.com
St Petersburg, 199034, Universitetskaya emb., 7–9

D. S. Kosarev

St. Petersburg State University

Email: d.kosarev@spbu.ru
St Petersburg, 199034, Universitetskaya emb., 7–9

D. Y. Boulytchev

St. Petersburg State University

Email: dboulytchev@math.spbu.ru
St Petersburg, 199034, Universitetskaya emb., 7–9

References

  1. Haft M., Humm B., Siedersleben J. The Architect’s Dilemma – Will Reference Architectures Help? Quality of Software Architectures and Software Quality, 2005. P. 106–122.
  2. Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. ISO 9241-210:2019, International Organization for Standardization, 2019.
  3. Gerber E., Carroll M. The psychological experience of prototyping. Design Studies. 2012. V. 33. № 1. 2012. P. 64–84.
  4. Friedman D.P., William W.E., Kiselyov O., Hemann J. The Reasoned Schemer. The MIT Press, 2nd edition, Cambridge, USA, 2005. 224 p.
  5. Lozov P., Verbitskaia E., Boulytchev D. Relational Interpreters for Search Problems. In miniKanren and Relational Programming Workshop, 2019.
  6. Leonardo de Moura, Bjørner N. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2008. P. 337–340.
  7. Bengfort J. Thin vs. Thick vs. Zero Client: What’s the Right Fit for Your Business? Online. https://biztechmagazine.com / article / 2018 / 10 / thin-vs-thick-vs-zero-client-whats-right-fit-your-business-perfcon (accessed: 10.11.2024)
  8. IntelliJ platform UI guidelines: Layout (online). JetBrains s.r.o., 2000–2022. https://jetbrains.github.io / ui / principles / layout (accessed: 10.11.2024)
  9. Garey M.R., Johnson D.S. Computers and intractability. Vol. 174. San Francisco: Freeman, 1979.
  10. Kosarev D., Boulytchev D. Typed Embedding of a Relational Language in OCaml. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science. 2016. P. 1–22.
  11. Kiselyov O., Chung-chieh Shan, Friedman D.P., Amr S. Backtracking, Interleaving, and Terminating Monad Transformers: (Functional Pearl). In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, New York, USA, 2005. P. 192–203.
  12. Rozplokhas D., Vyatkin A., Boulytchev D. Certified Semantics for Relational Programming. Programming Languages and Systems, APLAS 2020, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. V. 12470. Springer, Cham. P. 167–185.
  13. Comon H. Disunification: A Survey. Computational Logic – Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson. MIT Press. 1991. P. 322–359.
  14. Alvis C.E., Willcock J.J., Carter K.M., Byrd W.E., Friedman D.P. cKanren: miniKanren with Constraints. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Workshop on Scheme and Functional Programming, 2011.
  15. Byrd W.E., Friedman D.P. aKanren A Fresh Name in Nominal Logic Programming. In Scheme and Functional Programming, 2007.
  16. Abramov S., Glück R. From Standard to Non-Standard Semantics by Semantics Modifiers. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science. 2001. V. 12. № 2. P. 171–211. DOI: 10.1142 / S0129054101000448.
  17. Abramov S., Glück R. Combining Semantics with Non-standard Interpreter Hierarchies. FST TCS 2000: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2000. P. 201–213.
  18. Byrd W.E., Holk E., Friedman D.P. MiniKanren, Live and Untagged: Quine Generation via Relational Interpreters (Programming Pearl). Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Scheme and Functional Programming, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, 2012. P. 8–29.
  19. Byrd W.E., Ballantyne M., Rosenblatt G., Might M. A Unified Approach to Solving Seven Programming Problems (Functional Pearl). Proceedings of ACM Program. Lang., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, 2017. P. 8:1–8:26.
  20. Kosarev D., Lozov P., Boulytchev D. Relational Synthesis for Pattern Matching. Programming Languages and Systems, Springer International Publishing, Cham. 2020. P. 293–310.
  21. Guthmann O., Strichman O., Trostanetski A. Minimal Unsatisfiable Core Extraction for SMT. 2016 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), Mountain View, CA, USA, 2016. P. 57–64. DOI: 10.1109 / FMCAD.2016.7886661.
  22. React: A JavaScript Library for Building User Interfaces. Meta Platforms, Inc. https://reactjs.org / (accessed: 10.11.2024)
  23. Jetpack Compose. Android Developers. https://developer.android.com / compose (accessed: 10.11.2024)
  24. Streamlit framework site. https://docs.streamlit.io (accessed: 10.11.2024)
  25. Streamlit layouts and containers. https://docs.streamlit.io / develop / api-reference / layout (accessed: 10.11.2024)
  26. Borning A. Wallingford: Toward a Constraint Reactive Programming Language. Companion Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Modularity, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016. P. 45–49. DOI: 10.1145 / 2892664.2892667.
  27. Badros G.J., Borning A., Stuckey P.J. The Cassowary Linear Arithmetic Constraint Solving Algorithm. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., vol. 8, iss. 4, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2001. P. 267–306. DOI: 10.1145 / 504704.504705.
  28. Cai B., Luo J., Feng Z. A novel code generator for graphical user interfaces. Scientific Reports. 2023. V. 13. DOI: 10.1038 / s41598-023-46500-6.
  29. Bielik P., Fischer M., Vechev M. Robust relational layout synthesis from examples for Android. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 2, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018. DOI: 10.1145 / 3276526.
  30. Android ConstraintLayout widget. https://developer.android.com / reference / androidx / constraintlayout / widget / ConstraintLayout (accessed: 10.11.2024)
  31. Brückner L., Leiva L.A., Oulasvirta A. Learning GUI Completions with User-defined Constraints. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., vol. 12, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022. DOI: 10.1145 / 3490034.
  32. Shiripour M., Dayama N.R., Oulasvirta A. Grid-based Genetic Operators for Graphical Layout Generation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 5, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2021. DOI: 10.1145 / 3461730.
  33. Swearngin A., Wang C., Oleson A., Fogarty J., Amy J. Ko. Scout: Rapid Exploration of Interface Layout Alternatives through High-Level Design Constraints. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Academy of Sciences