Abbasi et al

1/44

The Anatomy of a Web Sales Configurator

Ebrahim ABBASI Dr. Arnaud HUBAUX Dr. Mathieu ACHER Quentin BOUCHER

Prof. Patrick HEYMANS

CAiSE 2013

2/44

Introduction Problem

Statement Findings Good & bad

Practices Ongoing Work

Web Sales

Configurators

3/44

Product

Web Sales Configurator (SC)

4/44

Configuration Environment


5/44

Options


Options are represented using widgets

6/44

Constraint


7/44

Configuration Process


8/44


9/44


10/44

Building SCs can be done in many ways

Research has also been working a lot on configuration

What is the current practice?

Objective

11/44




Research Questions

Research Method

Data extraction process

12/44

Client-side Analysis

RQ1 How are options visually represented? What are their semantics? RQ2 What kind of constraints are supported by the SCs? How are constraints enforced? RQ3 How is the configuration process enforced by the SCs?

Research Questions

13/44

Configurator Selection

Is configurator in English?

No

Is configurator in Flash or

not a configurator?

Yes Ignore configurator

Yes

No

Is configurator accessible? No

Yes

2

4

7

Configurator Database800+ Configurators

29 Industries

1

388 Configurators25 Industries

3


5



8

10

Randomly select 25% of configurators in each

industry

6

Add 18 configurators

manually

9

Distribution of selected configurators by industry

!""#$$%&'#$(!)*#&+$',-(./0#&'/1(!22/&#1(!30%4%5'1#(6#/307(8%,$0&3"+%,(91#"0&%,'"$(9,0#&0/',4#,0(9:3'24#,0(;%&(8<'1)&#,(9:3'24#,0(;%&(=#0$(;%%)(;%%0>/&#(;3&,'03&#(?'@>/&#(A%3$#(B(?/&)#,(.3$'"(C2+"'/,(=&',0(D2%&0(B(E#'$3&#(D0/+%,#&7(D0##1(

14/44


Firebug extension = search engine + simulator

15/44

Firebug extension: implements a source code pattern matching algorithm


16/44


<pattern data-att-met-pattern-name="options" data-att-met-pattern-type="option"> <td> <input type="radio" data-att-met-unique="true"/> </td> <td></td> <td> <h6> <label> data-tex-mar-option-name </label> </h6> <p> skip(all) data-tex-mar-description </p> </td> </pattern>

17/44




Patterns

Quantitative empirical results

18/44

RQ1: Option representation

!"

#!"

$!"

%!"

&!"

'!"

(!"

)!"

*+,-"./," 0123/".45/6"

7/8./"./,"

7/8./"./,"3-+8"

79+:;"./,"

<81=+" >-9+?"

<81=+@<-+8"

<81=+@7/8./"./,"

<81=+@79+:;"./,"

<81=+@0123/".45/6"

>-9+?A"

B4?+"7/8./"./,"3-+8A"

7/8./"./,"

*+,-"./,"

B4?+"381=+"

B4?+"79+:;"./,"

B4?+"0123/".45/6"

19/44

RQ1: Semantic constructs

Alternative (XOR)

Multiple choice (OR)

Alternative (97%)

Multiple choice (8%) One and only one option must be selected.

At least one option must be selected.

20/44

RQ1: Semantic constructs

Interval

The specific lower and upper bounds on the number of selectable options is determined.

Alternative (97%)

Multiple choice (8%)

Interval (4%)

21/44

RQ2: Constraints

Ensures that the value set by the user is valid. Formatting (59%) •  Type correctness: Integer, String, and Real •  Range control: upper & lower bounds, valid characters •  Formatted values: date, email, file extension •  Case-sensitive values

22/44

RQ2: Constraints

Defines the number of options that can be selected from a group of options.

Formatting (59%)

Group (99%)

Alternative (XOR)

Multiple choice (OR)

23/44

RQ2: Constraints

Require

Exclude

Is defined over two or more options regardless of their inclusion in a group.

Formatting (59%)

Group (99%)

Cross-cutting (55%)

24/44

RQ2: Decision propagation

Automatic (97%) SC automatically propagates the required changes to all the impacted options.

25/44


SC asks the user to confirm or discard a decision before altering other options.

Automatic (97%)

Controlled (8%)

26/44


SC needs the user’s help to proceed. It proposes a choice to the user.

Automatic (97%)

Controlled (8%)

Guided (3%)

27/44

RQ3: Configuration process

Single-step (48%) All the options are displayed to the user in a single graphical container.

28/44


Configuration Process

SC presents the options across several graphical containers that are displayed one at a time.

Single-step (48%)

Basic Multi-step (45%)

29/44


step

Inner steps

Single-step (48%)

Basic Multi-step (45%)

Hierarchical Multi-step (7%)

30/44

RQ3: Backward navigation

Stateless (14%) The user can go back to any previous step but all configuration choices made in steps following the one reached are discarded.

31/44

RQ3: Backward navigation

The user can go back to any previous step and all configuration choices are saved.

Stateless (14%)

Stateful (69%)

Not supported (17%)

32/44




33/44

Bad Practices

Incomplete reasoning

34/44

Bad Practices


Counter-intuitive representation

35/44

Bad Practices


Counter-intuitive representation

Stateless backward navigation

36/44

Good Practices

Guided consistency checking

37/44

Good Practices


38/44

Good Practices


Self-explanatory process

A

B

B CD

E

39/44

Good Practices



Present constraints to the user

40/44

Good Practices



Stateful backward navigation

Undo

41/44




42/44

Many opportunities to improve Reliability, Efficiency, Consistency, Maintainability… of SCs

Re-engineering Web Configurators

Ongoing work

43/44

Re-engineering Approach

Forward Engineering

Original ad hoc configurator

source code

Configuration GUI

Extract variability data

Generate Configuration GUI

Validate variability model

Re-engineered Configurator

Reverse Engineering

Configuration solver instance

source code

Configuration GUI

Options

Descriptive information

Constraints

Documentation

Web objects

Variability model

44/44

Very few empirical studies on configurators •  Product configuration from the customer's perspective: A comparison of

configuration systems in the apparel industry (Rogoll et al.)

•  Are de facto Standards a Useful Guide for Designing Human-Computer Interaction Processes? (Streichsbier et al.)

Contributions of THIS study •  The study of underlying concepts of web SCs: representation and management

•  Good and bad practices

•  The use of automated reverse engineering tools to produce quantitative observations

2 take-away messages •  The SCs’ lack of convincing support for consistency checking

•  Usability is rather weak: e.g., lack of guidance during configuration process

Wrap-up

Technology

Abbasi et al