Evaluating the Intelligibility of Diagrammatic Languages Used in the Specification of Software

  • Carol Britton
  • Sara Jones
  • Maria Kutar
  • Martin Loomes
  • Brian Robinson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1889)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to evaluating the intelligibility of diagrammatic languages used in the specification of software. Research suggests that specification languages can be assessed in terms of properties that influence the intelligibility of representations produced using the languages. The paper describes the properties identified and highlights three in particular that have been shown to influence the intelligibility of representations: motivation of symbols in the language; the extent to which the language allows exploitation of human visual perception; and the amount of structure inherent in the language. The paper argues that the first two of these properties are not present to any great extent in diagrammatic languages used in software specification. In order to enhance the intelligibility of software specifications, we suggest that more attention should be paid to ways in which these languages can exploit the amount of structure inherent in the language.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Booch, G., Jacobson, I. and Rumbaugh, J. (1999) The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Britton, C, Loomes, M. and Mitchell, R. (1993) Formal Specifications as Constructive Diagrams, Microprocessing and Microprogramming, Vol. 37, pp. 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Britton, C. and Jones, S. (1997) Which properties make a modelling notation easy for untrained users to understand? Proceedings of the International Workshop on Representations, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University, pp. 2–10. Available from Department of Computer Science, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Britton, C, Jones, S. & Lam, W. (1998). Separating the system interface from its internal state: an alternative structure for Z specifications. Proceedings of Formal Aspects of the Human Computer Interaction, BCS-FACS Workshop, 87–102, Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Britton, C. and Jones, S. (1999) The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding in Untrained Users, Human Computer Interaction, 14, pp. 191–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Brun, P. and Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (1995) A taxonomy and evaluation of formalisms for the specification of interactive systems, in M. Kirby, A. Dix and J. Finlay (Eds.), People and Computers X, Proceedings of HC’95, 197–212, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Cox, R. & Brna, P. (1993). Analytical reasoning with external representations. Proceedings of the AI-ED 93 Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning and Communication. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Davis, A. (1988) A Comparison of Techniques for the Specification of External System Behavior, Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1098–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Davis, A. (1993) Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States, Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Eysenck, M. & Keane, M. (1990). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook.. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Farbey, B. (1993) Software Quality Metrics: Considerations about Requirements and Requirement Specifications, in R. Thayer and A. McGetterick (Eds.), Software Engineering: a European Perspective, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 138–142.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Fertuck, L. (1992) Systems Analysis and Design, Wm. C. Brown Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Green, T. (1980) Programming as a Cognitive Activity, in H. Smith and T. Green (Eds.), Human Interaction with Computers, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Green, T. (1983) Learning Big and Little Programming Languages, in A. Wilkinson (Ed.), Classroom Computers and Cognitive Science, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Green, T. (1989) Cognitive Dimensions of Notations, in A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay (Eds.), People and Computers V, Proceedings of HCI’89, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Green, T. (1991) Describing information artefacts with cognitive dimensions and structure maps, in D. Diaper, and N. Hammond (Eds.), People and Computers VI, Proceedings ofHCI’91, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Green, T. and Blackwell, A. (1996) Thinking about visual programs, in Thinking with diagrams, IEE Colloquium Digest No: 96/010, Institute for Electronic Engineers, London.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Green, T., Petre, M. and Bellamy, R. (1991) Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of superlativism against the “Match Mismatch” conjecture, in J. Koenemann-Belliveau, T. Moher and S. Robertson (Eds.), Empirical studies of programmers, 121–146, Norwood NJ, Ablex.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Haywood, E. and Dart, P. (1996) Analysis of Software System Requirements Models, in Proceedings of Australian Software Engineering Conference, 131–138, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Johnson, C, McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. (1995) Using a formal language to support natural language in accident reports, Ergonomics, 38(6).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Kutar, M., Britton, C. and Jones, S. (1998) A Graphical Representation for Communicating Sequential Processes, Proceedings of Formal Aspects of the Human Computer Interaction, BCS-FACS Workshop, Sheffield Hallam University, pp. 145–162.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Mackinlay, J. (1986) Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(2), 110–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Meyer, B. (1985) On Formalism in Specifications, IEEE Software, 2(1).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Modugno, F., Green T. and Myers B. (1994) Visual programming in a visual domain: A case study of cognitive dimensions, in People and Computers IX, Proceedings ofHCI’94, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Myers M., Kaposi A., (1997) A First Systems Book, Kaposi AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Patching, D. (1990) Practical Soft Systems Analysis, Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Petre, M. (1995) Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming, Communications of the ACM, 38(6).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Pfleeger, S. L.(1998) Software Engineering: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Roast, C. (1997) Formally comparing and informing notation design, in H. Thimblely, B. OĆonaill and P. Thomas (Eds.), People and Computers XII, Proceedings ofHCI’97, Springer.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F. and Lorensen, W. (1991) Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Sampson, G. (1985) Writing systems, Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. (1996) External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Sengler, H. (1983) A model of program understanding, in T. Green, S. Payne. and G. van der Veer, (Eds.), The Psychology of Computer Use, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Sommerville, I. (1995) Software Engineering (5th edn), Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Sommerville, I. and Sawyer, P. (1997) Requirements engineering: A good practice guide, Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J. (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation, Cognitive Science, 19, 97–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Williams, R. (1994) The Non-Designer’s Design Book, Peachpit Press.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Winn, W. (1993) An account of how readers search for information in diagrams, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Britton
    • 1
  • Sara Jones
    • 1
  • Maria Kutar
    • 1
  • Martin Loomes
    • 1
  • Brian Robinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations