Advertisement

Creative Object-Oriented Modelling: Support for Intuition, Flexibility, and Collaboration in CASE Tools

  • Christian Heide Damm
  • Klaus Marius Hansen
  • Michael Thomsen
  • Michael Tyrsted
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1850)

Abstract

A major strength in object-oriented development is the direct support for domain modelling offered by the conceptual framework underlying object-orientation. In this framework, domains and systems can be analysed and understood using models at a high level of abstraction. To support the construction of such models, a large number of Computer-Aided Software Engineering tools are available. These tools excel in supporting design and implementation, but have little support for elements such as creativity, flexibility, and collaboration. We believe that this lack of support partly explains the low adoption of CASE tools. Based on this, we have developed a tool, Knight, which supports intuition, flexibility, and collaboration by implementing gesture based UML modelling on a large electronic whiteboard. Such support improves CASE tools, and can thus potentially lead to increased adoption of CASE tools and thus ultimately help improving the overall quality of development projects.

Keywords

Gesture Recognition Case Tool Referent System Radar Window Drawing Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaen, I., Siltanen, A., Sørensen, C., & Tahvanainen, V.-P. (1992). A Tale of two Countries: CASE Experiences and Expectations. In Kendall, K.E., Lyytinen, K.,& DeGross, J. (Eds)., The impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development (pp 61–93). IFIP Transactions A (Computer Science and Technology), A-8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blomberg, J., Suchman, L., & Trigg, R. (1994). Reflections on a Work-Oriented Design Project. In Proceedings of PDC’ 94, pp. 99–109, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bly, S.A. & Minneman, S.L. (1990). Commune: A Shared Drawing Surface. In Proceedings of the Conference on Office Information Systems (pp. 184–192). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, M. & Sandvad, E. (1996). Integrated Tool support for design and implementation. In Proceedings of the Nordic Workshop on Programming Environment Research, Aalborg, May 29-31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen, M., Crabtree, A., Damm, C.H., Hansen, K.M., Madsen, O.L., Marqvardsen, P., Mogensen, P., Sandvad, E., Sloth, L., & Thomsen, M. (1998). The M.A.D. Experience: Multiperspective Application Development in Evolutionary Prototyping. In Proceedings of ECOOP’98, Bruxelles, Belgium, July, Springer-Verlag, LNCS series, volume 1445.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damm, C.H., Hansen, K.M., & Thomsen, M. (2000). Tool Support for Cooperative Object-Oriented Design: Gesture Based Modeling on an Electronic Whiteboard. In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction (CHI’2000). Haag, The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damm, C.H., Hansen, K.M., Thomsen, M., & Tyrsted, M. (2000). Tool Integration: Experiences and Issues in Using XMI and Component Technology. In Proceedings of TOOLS Europe’2000. Brittany, France.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebert, J., Süttenbach, S. & Uhe, I. (1997). Meta-CASE in Practice: a Case for KOGGE. In Olive, A.& Pastor, J.A. (Eds).: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, CAiSE’97, pp. 203–216, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, June 16–20, LNCS 1250, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Englebert, V. & Hainaut, J.-L. (1999). DB-MAIN. A Next Generation Meta-CASE. In Information Systems, pp. 99–112, 24(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns. Elements of Reusable Object/Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Andersen, H. (1994). Moving Out of the Control Room: Ethnography in System Design. In Proceedings of CSCW’94 (pp. 429–439). Chapel Hill: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iivari, J. (1996). Why Are CASE Tools Not Used? In Communications of the ACM, 39(10).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarzabek, S. & Huang, R. (1998) The Case for User-Centered CASE Tools. In Communications of the ACM, 41(8).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kemerer, C.F. (1992). How the Learning Curve Affects CASE Tool Adoption. In IEEE Software, 9(3).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurtenbach, G. (1993). The Design and Evaluation of Marking Menus. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landay, J.A. & Myers, B.A. (1995). Interactive Sketching for the Early Stages of User Interface Design. In Proceedings of CHI’95, 45–50.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lending, D. & Chervany, N.L. (1998). The Use of CASE Tools. In Agarwal, R. (Eds)., Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR Conference, ACM.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Madsen, O.L., Møller-Pedersen, B., & Nygaard, K. (1993). Object-Oriented Programming in the BETA Programming Language, ACM Press, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mankoff, J. & Abowd, G.D. (1998). Cirrin: A Word-Level Unistroke Keyboard for Pen Input. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin, J. & Odell, J.J. (1998). Object-Oriented Methods. A Foundation. Second Edition. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McLennan, M.J. (1993). [incr Tcl]: Object-Oriented Programming. In Proceedings of the Tcl/Tk Workshop, University of California at Berkeley, June 10–11.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moran, T.P., Chiu, P., Harrison, S., Kurtenbach, G., Minneman, S., & van Melle, W. (1996). Evolutionary Engagement in an Ongoing Collaborative Work Process: A Case Study. In Proceedings of CSCW’96, 150–159.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Object Managment Group (1998). XML Metadata Interchange (XMI), document ad/98-07-01, July.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ousterhout, J. (1994). Tcl and the Tk Toolkit. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pedersen, E.R., McCall, K., Moran, T.P., & Halasz, F.G. (1993). Tivoli: An Electronic Whiteboard for Informal Workgroup Meetings. In Proceedings of INTERCHI’93, 391–398.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perlin, K. (1998). Quikwriting: Continuous Stylus-Based Text Entry. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST)..Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reiss, S.P. (1996). Software Tools and Environments. In ACM Computing Surveys, 28(1), CRC Press, March 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogerson, D. (1997). Inside COM. Microsoft’s Component Object Model. Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rubine, D. (1991). Specifying Gestures by Example. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH’91, 329–337.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G. (1999). The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shaw, M. (1996). Some Patterns for Software Architectures. In Vlissides, Coplien, Kerth (Eds)., Patterns Languages of Program Design 2. Addison Wesley, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yates, C. (1999). Mimio: A Whiteboard without the Board. In PC Computing, June 28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Heide Damm
    • 1
  • Klaus Marius Hansen
    • 1
  • Michael Thomsen
    • 1
  • Michael Tyrsted
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AarhusAarhus NDenmark

Personalised recommendations