1. ANNOTATION OF
KNOWLEDGE OF
THE DOMAIN
Created by Traitet Th.
Subject: E-menu on iPad for Thai restaurant
Created Date 31 July 2012
Topic: Annotation Revised Date 7 Sep 2012
Revision No. 1.0
Content: Annotation of knowledge of the domain
Document Name A01-001

2. 2 KEY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOMAIN
1. Electronic menu (e-menu) for restaurants
2. Restaurant service process
3. Software usability and Human-Computer Interaction
(HCI)
4. Software development methodologies and
prototyping technique
5. Mobile application development for e-menu on iOS or
Android devices

3. 1) E-menu for Restaurants
3

4. 4 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT
Main Objectives of e-menu (Jenie 2011)
• Display list of food and beverages including images
• Process the restaurant services from ordering to payment
Three general kinds of touch screen e-menu system (Conceptic no
date)
• Table side touch screen e-menu
• E-menu for waiting area
• Tablet e-menu
Pictures are taken from Emenu USA (2011) and Conceptic (no date)

5. 5 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT
1 Table-side touch screen e-menu
Table-side touch screen e-menu
• Equipment: Personal computer
• Installation: Need to modify table
Benefits
• No falling problem
Disadvantages
• Difficult to install
Difficult to install & • Need to prepare electrical plugs at all tables
Need electrical plugs
Pictures are taken from Emenu USA (2011) and Conceptic (no date)

6. 6 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT
2 E-menu for waiting area
E-menu for waiting area
• Equipment: LCD TV with touch screen
• Installation: Need to prepare area to install
Benefits
• Bigger images
• Less cost because it requires only one touch screen
LCD TV
Disadvantages
• Only one person can order at a time.
Cannot order • Not suitable for this case study restaurant because
customers can not order on their tables.
at dining table • Need extra space to install.
Pictures are taken from Emenu USA (2011) and Conceptic (no date)

7. 7 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT
3 Tablet e-menu
Tablet E-menu
• Equipment: Tablet e.g. iPad
• Installation: Don’t need to modify table
Benefits
• Slim and small size
• Easy to install
• Build-in wireless connection
Disadvantages
Small & • Falling problem
• Smaller screen size than others
Easy to use • Theft

8. 8 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT
After discussion with the restaurant manager and staff, we found that the tablet e-menu was the most
suitable because it was smaller and simpler to install.
Order at
No Compared Item Size Installation Summary
table
It is not suitable for this restaurant because
1 E-menu at waiting area No Big Difficult
it is inconvenient for the customers.
Table side touch screen e- It is difficult to install because of its size
2 Yes Medium Difficult
menu and it needs power supply.
It can order at the dinning table and
3 Tablet e-menu Yes Small Easy
it is cheaper and easier to install.
Final decision with restaurant manager: Tablet e-menu

9. 2) RESTAURANT SERVICE PROCESS
9

10. 10 2) RESTAURANT SERVICE PROCESS
Analysis of a existing restaurant service process
Issues of existing system
1. Need to wait for waiting staff
before giving order and making
payment.
2. Waiting staff must deliver order
to kitchen and bar.
E-menu system
1. Order is send directly from a
table to bar and kitchen.
Process of taking order & making payment can be improve by e-menu.
Pictures are adopted from Crowston, Rubleske and Howison (2006)

11. 11 2) RESTAURANT SERVICE PROCESS
Problem: Personal contact between waiting staff and customers
Description
Service Request Diagram
• E-menu may reduce the personal
contact between customers and
waiting staff (Studentwebstaff 2009).
Solution
• The system should have a “service
request” feature to call waiting staff.
• Request Waiter
• Request Main Benefits
Course
• Customers can request services
• Request Bill
easier compared to the existing
system.
• Customers don’t want to look around
to find a waiter.
Solution: Customers can request a waiter from e-menu system.
Benefits: Customers can easily request a waiter.
Pictures are adopted from Crowston, Rubleske and Howison (2006)

12. 12 2 ) R E S TA U R A N T S E RV I C E P R O C E S S
As-it or current system
1. Ordering Issues
2
• A waiter must spend time to
Service
Request
take and transfer an order to
the kitchen and bar.
• Customers are less inclined to
1
order more food during busy
Ordering
time.
• Paper-based menus have
insufficient information e.g.
pictures and details of food.
2. Request Service Issues
• A waiter has to observe
customers when they want to
request a main course.
• The customers have to look
around to request waiter and
These issues can be solved by e-menu system
bill.

13. 13 2 ) R E S TA U R A N T S E RV I C E P R O C E S S
New Service Process by e-menu system
1. Ordering
2
- Order is transferred to bar and
Service
Request
kitchen automatically.
- Customers find it easy to order
more food and beverages.
- Customers can check their
1
order status.
Ordering
- Customers can select menu
with full details and pictures.
2. Service request
- Customers can request service
on e-menu
- Waiters have more time to
provide service.
E-menu can enhance ordering and requesting services

14. 3) SOFTWARE USABILITY & HCI
HCI: Human-Computer Interaction
14

15. 15 SOFTWARE USABILITY & HCI
HCI: Human-Computer Interaction
Improving Software Quality by HCI design
• Quality of software should support
• Users can use software without specialised business needs.
IT knowledge • HCI is an important factor to measure
• Easy to use & without long instruction a quality of software (Gulati and
(Edexcel 2010) Dubey 2012 , Majid 2011)
• Touch screen interfaces can enhance usability because it is easy to use.
• Developing e-menu system should concern HCI design.

16. 16 SOFTWARE USABILITY & HCI
How to measure HCI Design?
Good HCI Design & Example of applying
No Description
Usability the concept for e-menu
1 Visibility Know result of each operation Screen is updated after placing order
Customers can always return to a previous
2 Feedback Easy to return to a previous screen
screen of e-menu.
Easy to recognize when use software Make user-friendly and non-complex user
3 Memorability
again interfaces
4 Learnability Easy to accomplish basic tasks Reduce unnecesaary steps as much as possible
5 Efficiency Quick to learn and perform tasks Make it be simple and easy to use
6 Satisfaction Pleasant to use software Put nice images and suitable colours
(Norman and Nielsen 2011; Nielsen 1993)
Above criteria should always be concerned when developing an e-menu application.
However, only usability is insufficient. Developers must be aware of SW development
methodology.

17. 4) SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
METHODOLOGIES AND PROTOTYING
TECHNIQUE
17

18. 4 ) S O F T WAR E D E V E L O P M E N T
18 METHODOLOGIES
AN D P R O TO T Y P I N G T E C H N I Q U E
Comparison table among Waterfall, Agile and RAD with prototyping approach
RAD with
No Compared Item Waterfall Agile Description
Prototyping
Waterfall approach clearly separates development
1 Traditional approach Yes No No processes, and doesn't return to a previous stage.
(Khan et al. 2011)
Iterative process can improve a quality of application
Uses iterative process
2 No Yes Yes and increase customer satisfaction (Hoffer, George
and Valacich 2008).
Agile and RAD use a iterative process, which is
Software is likely fit with business
3 No Yes Yes flexible when a requirement is changed (Kendal
needs. 2011).
RAD is an experimental method, which may result in
4 Experimental approach No No Yes insufficiently understand the overall business
requirements (Khan et al. 2011).
Iterative process able to increase the overall cost and
Able to increase the overall cost
5 No Yes Yes time. For example, after requirements are changed, a
and implementation time project will need more time to develop (Cobb 2011).
A large project needs a lot of developers and much
time to implement. It is difficult to observe at a
6 Appropriate for a large project Yes Yes No customer site and make a prototype at a short time
(Meso and Jain 2011)
The software development methodology is considered in the “Justification of the approach” section

19. 4 ) S O F T WAR E D E V E L O P M E N T
19 METHODOLOGIES
AN D P R O TO T Y P I N G T E C H N I Q U E
Mapping RAD Modeling with e-menu development
Capture Requirements What?
Observation – Discussion – Interview
(Observation at the restaurant) • Develop a final prototypes of e-menu application
Where?
2.5 months for prototype
Quick Analysis and Design Iterate
(UML and other design • At a Thai casual dinning restaurant
process
documents)
development
How?
Develop Prototype • Observation at a restaurant to gather requirements
(1st by .Net & 2nd by .NET & • Discussion with manager to summarise needs
Xcode) • Develop the first prototype by .NET & Web services
• Develop the final prototype on iPad (Objective-c language on
Customer Evaluation of Prototype xCode software)
Throughout (Get feedback from observation, • Observation, discussion and interviews
development
discussion and interviews)  Observation to understand as-it system.
process  Discussion to gather requirements
 Interviews the restaurant manager, waiting staff and
Develop Final Product chefs
RAD Prototype Model (Sommerville 2004) Reason using .Net to develop the first prototype
• Saving time: Researcher is more familiar with .NET
• Testing web services: Website developed by .NET can test
web services before integrating with xCode (iPad)
Key concepts of RAD methodology When?
• Gather requirements & evaluate prototype by observation, • Developing and observing between July and August 2012
discussion and interview. • Presenting the first and final prototypes in July and August
2012, respectively.
• Working closely with users throughout the developing process.

20. 4) MOBILE APPLICATION
DEVELOPMENT FOR E-MENU ON iOS
AND ANDROID DEVICES
20

21. 4 ) M O B I L E AP P L I C AT I O N D E V E L O P M E N T F O R
21
E - M E N U O N I O S AN D AN D R O I D D E V I C E S
Comparison table between Apple’s iOS and Google Andriod
Objective
• To chose an effective way to develop a
No Platform Apple's iOS Google's Android prototype of e-menu system.
1 Owner Apple Google System analysis
2 Tablet devices iPad Samsung, HTC, HP, and etc.
• It is better if e-menu system can support
both iOS and Andriod devices because
3 Sizes of tablet screens 1 Several sizes based on devices both of them are famous platforms.
4 Operating system (OS) iOS Android based on Linux OS
Conditions
5 Programming language Objective-C Mainly in Java • Only two months for developing a
Object Oriented prototype.
6 Yes Yes
Programming (OOP) • They use different tools and languages.
Apple Xcode and Google App Inventor, IBM Eclipse
7 Preferred developing tool
Interface builder and Netbean Solutions
• Develop web services on .NET
8 Open source platform No Yes
• Provide web services to both Apple and
9 Annual fee for development $99 per year One time registration fee $25 Andriod devices
Software approval before Spend 3-4 weeks for app approval • However, the prototype is developed on
10 No need iPad (Apple device) for this case study
publishing by Apple
first.
(Ray 2012; Wei-Meng Lee 2012; Goadrich 2011)
Reasons
Problem: How to develop e-menu to support both Apple and Android devices • Restaurant owner, staff and the learner
? are more familiar with iPad than Andriod
devices.
• iPad has only one size of screen, which is
Solutions: Use Web services (platform independent) to provide easier to develop.
• Using Web services because they are
functionalities to iOS and Andriod platforms.
platform independent.

22. 4 ) M O B I L E AP P L I C AT I O N D E V E L O P M E N T F O R
22
E - M E N U O N I O S AN D AN D R O I D D E V I C E S
Use web services to support both iPad and Andriod devices
Key concept
- Development based on Model-
View-Controller (MVC) model
Web Services
Separate layers to three layers;
- Data Model Layer
- Controller Layer
Platform independent by web services
- Model Layer
Decision for this case study
- ASP.Net: It can develop web
services more easily because the
learner is familiar with this platform.
- SQL Server: It is compatible with
.Net because their owners are the
same (Microsoft).
- iPad or iOS platform: The
restaurant manager and staff are
more familiar with iPad than
Adopted from Microsoft ASP.NET Team (2009).

23. REFERENCES
23

24. 24 REFERENCES
CONCEPTIC (no date). iPad eMenu for restaurant. [online]. Last accessed 9 August 2012 at: http://www.emenu-international.com/iPad-
menu-for-restaurants.
CROWSTON, Kevin, RUBLESKE, Joseph and HOWISON, James (2006). Coordination Theory: A Ten-Year Retrospective. [online]. Last
accessed 8 August at: http://crowston.syr.edu/system/files/CT%20Review%20to%20distribute.pdf.
EDEXCEL (2010). Human Computer Interaction. [online]. Last accessed 7 August at:
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/BTEC%20Nationals%20from%202010/Unit-23-Human-Computer-Interaction.pdf.
EMENU USA (2011). eMenu Pictures. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at: http://www.emenuny.com/pictures.html.
GANTTHEAD (2010). Rapid Application Development process. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at:
http://www.gantthead.com/content/processes/11306.cfm.
GULATI, Anubha and DUBEY, Sanjay Kumar (2012). Critical Analysis on Usability Evaluation Techniques. [online]. International Journal of Engineering
Science and Technology (IJEST), 4(3), 990-997. Article from IJEST last accessed 3 September 2012 at: http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST12-04-03-
118.pdf.
JENIE, Renan Prasta, et al. (2011). Designing user interface e-menu based on Android platform. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at:
http://ict.binus.edu/metamorph/file/research/Journal%20-%20Android%20Komodo%202.pdf.
MAJID, Rogayah Abd, et al. (2011). Users’ frustration and HCI in the software development life cycle. [online]. International Journal of
Information Processing and Management, 2 (1.5), 44-48. Article from Human and Sciences Research Center last accessed 8 August at:
http://www.humanpub.org/ijipm/ppl/4_%20IJIPM%20Vol2%20No.1-4.pdf.
MESO, Peter, JAIN, Radhika (2006). Agile Software Development: Adaptive Systems Principles and Best Practices. [online]. Information
Systems Management, 23(3), 19-30. Article from Mendeley last accessed 9 August at: http://www.mendeley.com/research/Agile-
software-development-adaptive-systems-principles-best-practices
MICROSOFT ASP.NET TEAM (2009). ASP.NET MVC Overview. Last accessed 9 Aug 2012at: http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/older-
versions/overview/asp-net-mvc-overview.
NIELSEN, Jakob (1993). Usability Engineering. San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann.
NORMAN, Donald A. and NIELSEN, Jakob (2010). Gestural interfaces: A step backward in usability. Interactions, 17 (5), 46-49.
STUDENTWEBSTAFF (2009). Use of E-Menus in the Restaurant Industry. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at:
http://www.studentwebstuff.com/mis/showthread.php?t=8049