User requirements and preferences for ITS Chapter | 4 61Fu, J., Bastani, F.B., & Yen, I.L. (2006). Automated AI planning and code pattern based code syn-
thesis. In 2006 18th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence
(ICTAI’06) (pp. 540-546). IEEE.
Goguen, J.A. and Linde, C., 1993. Techniques for requirements elicitation. In [1993] Proceedings of
the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (pp. 152-164). IEEE.
Hickey, A.M. and Davis, A.M. 2003, September. Elicitation technique selection: how do experts do
it? In Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2003.
(pp. 169-178). IEEE.
Hofmann, H. F., & Lehner, F. (2001). Requirements engineering as a success factor in software
projects. IEEE software(4), 58–66.
Hong, D., Chiu, D.K. and Shen, V.Y. 2005, August. Requirements elicitation for the design of con-
text-aware applications in a ubiquitous environment. In Proceedings of the 7th international
conference on Electronic commerce (pp. 590-596). ACM.
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing con-
structivist learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 47 (1),
61–79.
Kaenampornpan, M. & O’Neil, E. (2004). Modality context: an activity theory approach’. In
P. Markopoulos, B. Eggen, E. Aarts, J. L. Crowley, (Eds.). Ambient Intelligence: Second Euro-
pean Symposium (EUSAI 2004) (pp. 367–374). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.. Berlin: Springer.
Komi-Sirviö, S., & Tihinen, M. (2003). Great Challenges and Opportunities of Distributed Software
Development-An Industrial Survey. In SEKE (pp. 489–496).
Kotonya, G., & Sommerville, I. (1998). Requirements engineering: processes and techniques.
Wiley Publishing.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction re-
search. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction, 1744.
Lawrence, B., Wiegers, K., & Ebert, C. (2001). The top risk of requirements engineering. IEEE
Software, 18 (6), 62–63.
Litman, T. (2017). Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Victoria, Canada: Victoria
Transport Policy Institute p. 28.
Mc Clendon, C.M., Regot, L. and Akers, G. 1996. The Analysis and Prototyping of Effective Graph-
ical User Interfaces. Project supervised by Sauter V.L. University of Missouri–St. Louis. Avail-
able online at: http://www.umsl.edu/∼sauterv/analysis/prototyping/intro.html.
McGrath, G.M. and Uden, L. 2000, January. Modelling “softer” aspects of the software develop-
ment process: An activity theory based approach. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 9-pp). IEEE.
Mead, N. R., & Stehney, T. (2005). Security quality requirements engineering (SQUARE) method-
ology. ACM, 30 (4), 1–7.
Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an activity theory based methodol-
ogy to guide computer system design. In Michitaka Hirose, (Ed), Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, July 9-13, 2001.
(pp. 342–349) Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Nuseibeh, B. & Easterbrook, S. (2000). Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In Proceedings of
the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering (pp. 35-46). ACM.
Paetsch, F., Eberlein, A., & Maurer, F. (2003). Requirements engineering and agile software de-
velopment. In: WET ICE 2003. Proceedings of the twelfth IEEE international workshops on
enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (pp. 308–313). IEEE.
Probert, S. K. (1999). Requirements engineering, soft systems methodology and workforce empow-
erment. Requirements Engineering, 4 (2), 85–91.