Advertisement

Evaluating the Understandability of Hybrid Process Model Representations Using Eye Tracking: First Insights

  • Amine Abbad AndaloussiEmail author
  • Tijs SlaatsEmail author
  • Andrea BurattinEmail author
  • Thomas T. HildebrandtEmail author
  • Barbara WeberEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)

Abstract

The EcoKnow project strives to promote flexible case management systems in the public administration and empower end-users (i.e., case workers) to make sense of digitized models of the law. For this, a hybrid representation combining the declarative DCR notation with textual annotations depicting the law text and a simulation tool to simulate the execution of single process instances was proposed. This hybrid representation aims to overcome the notorious limitations of existing declarative notations in term of understandability. Using eye tracking, this paper investigates how users engage with the different artifacts of the hybrid representation.

References

  1. 1.
    De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Serral, E., Vanthienen, J.: Improving understandability of declarative process models by revealing hidden dependencies. In: Nurcan, S., Soffer, P., Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9694, pp. 83–98. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J., Poels, G.: Mixed-paradigm process modeling with intertwined state spaces. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 58(1), 19–29 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fahland, D., et al.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., van de Weijer, J.: Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. OUP, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pinggera, J., Porcham, T., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: LiProMo-literate process modeling. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 855, pp. 163–170 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Poole, A., Ball, L.J.: Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: current status and future. In: Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Idea Group Inc., Pennsylvania (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slaats, T., Schunselaar, D.M.M., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A.: The semantics of hybrid process models. In: Debruyne, C., et al. (eds.) OTM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10033, pp. 531–551. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S., Weber, B.: Effect of linked rules on business process model understanding. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10445, pp. 200–215. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: The impact of testcases on the maintainability of declarative process models. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 163–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Creating declarative process models using test driven modeling suite. In: Nurcan, S. (ed.) CAiSE Forum 2011. LNBIP, vol. 107, pp. 16–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29749-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Software and Process EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations