Advertisement

Vision Meets Visualization: Are Animated Videos an Alternative?

  • Melanie BuschEmail author
  • Oliver Karras
  • Kurt Schneider
  • Maike Ahrens
Conference paper
  • 59 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12045)

Abstract

[Context and motivation] Creating a shared understanding of requirements between all parties involved about a future software system is difficult. Imprecise communication can lead to misunderstanding of requirements. Vision videos demonstrate and visualize the functionality, use and impact of a software system before the actual development process starts. They stimulate discussions about the software system and its associated requirements. [Question/problem] Vision videos should be produced with as little effort as possible, in terms of resources and time consumption, yet with sufficient quality. This raises the questions: Does the presentation of a vision video influence its perception by the audience? Do animated vision videos offer an alternative to real videos to communicate a vision? [Principal ideas/results] We conducted an experiment with 20 participants comparing animated and real videos showing the same content. The videos illustrate the population decrease in rural areas and envision a possible solution to counteract the consequences of grocery store closings. The participants suggested own solutions for the problem of grocery store closings, rated the videos and chose their preferred type of video representation. The results of the experiment show no difference in neither the amount of solutions proposed nor the rating of the videos. Likewise, the results show no difference in the preferred type of video representation. [Contribution] Our study indicates that animated vision videos offer an adequate alternative to real videos. Thus, vision video producers have another viable option to choose for achieving a shared understanding of a future software system.

Keywords

Requirements engineering Animation Vision Video 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Grant No.: 289386339, project ViViReq. (2017–2019).

References

  1. 1.
    Informationen aus der Forschung des BBSR Nr. 3/2019. ISSN 1868-0089 (2019) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung: Federal mail will send bread. In rural areas, shopping gets increasing difficult - now, the postman could sell groceries on the doorstep (original in German), 15 September 2018Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennaceur, A., et al.: Feed me, feed me: an exemplar for engineering adaptive software. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 11th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), pp. 89–95, May 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAMS.2016.018
  4. 4.
    Brill, O., Schneider, K., Knauss, E.: Videos vs. use cases: can videos capture more requirements under time pressure? In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 30–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14192-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broll, G., Hussmann, H., Rukzio, E., Wimmer, R.: Using video clips to support requirements elicitation in focus groups-an experience report. In: SE 2007 Workshop on Multimedia Requirements Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Creighton, O., Ott, M., Bruegge, B.: Software cinema-video-based requirements engineering. In: 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2006), pp. 109–118, September 2006.  https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2006.59
  7. 7.
    Darby, A., Tsekleves, E., Sawyer, P.: Speculative requirements: design fiction and RE. In: 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 388–393. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fricker, S.A., Schneider, K., Fotrousi, F., Thuemmler, C.: Workshop videos for requirements communication. Requir. Eng. 21(4), 521–552 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-015-0231-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glinz, M., Fricker, S.A.: On shared understanding in software engineering: an essay. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 30(3), 363–376 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-014-0256-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jirotka, M., Luff, P.: Supporting requirements with video-based analysis. IEEE Softw. 23(3), 42–44 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2006.84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karras, O.: Software professionals’ attitudes towards video as a medium in requirements engineering. In: Kuhrmann, M., et al. (eds.) PROFES 2018. LNCS, vol. 11271, pp. 150–158. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03673-7_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karras, O.: Communicating stakeholders’ needs - vision videos to disclose, discuss, and align mental models for shared understanding. IEEE Softw. Blog (2019). http://blog.ieeesoftware.org/2019/10/communicating-stakeholders-needs-with.html
  13. 13.
    Karras, O., Schneider, K.: Software professionals are not directors: what constitutes a good video? In: 2018 1st International Workshop on Learning from Other Disciplines for Requirements Engineering (D4RE), pp. 18–21. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karras, O., Schneider, K., Fricker, S.A.: Representing software project vision by means of video: a quality model for vision videos. J. Syst. Softw. (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maiden, N., Seyff, N., Grunbacher, P., Otojare, O.O., Mitteregger, K.: Determining stakeholder needs in the workplace: how mobile technologies can help. IEEE Softw. 24(2), 46–52 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mancini, C., et al.: Contravision: exploring users’ reactions to futuristic technology. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2010, pp. 153–162. ACM, New York (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753350
  17. 17.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books Inc., New York (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pham, R., Meyer, S., Kitzmann, I., Schneider, K.: Interactive multimedia storyboard for facilitating stakeholder interaction: supporting continuous improvement in IT-ecosystems. In: 2012 Eighth International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 120–123. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Porsche, L., Milbert, A.: Kleinstädte in Deutschland - Ein Überblick (in English: Small Towns in Germany - An Overview). Informationen zur Raumentwicklung des BBSR Nr. 6/2018 (6) (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabiser, R., Seyff, N., Grunbacher, P., Maiden, N.: Capturing multimedia requirements descriptions with mobile RE tools. In: 2006 First International Workshop on Multimedia Requirements Engineering, p. 2. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodden, T.A., Fischer, J.E., Pantidi, N., Bachour, K., Moran, S.: At home with agents: exploring attitudes towards future smart energy infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2013, pp. 1173–1182. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider, K., Karras, O., Finger, A., Zibell, B.: Reframing societal discourse as requirements negotiation: vision statement. In: 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp. 188–193, September 2017Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneider, K., Bertolli, L.M.: Video variants for crowdRE: how to create linear videos, vision videos, and interactive videos. In: The 3rd International Workshop on Crowd-Based Requirements Engineering (CrowdRE 2019), International IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE 2019), Jeju Island, South Korea (2019)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schneider, K., Busch, M., Karras, O., Schrapel, M., Rohs, M.: Refining vision videos. In: Knauss, E., Goedicke, M. (eds.) REFSQ 2019. LNCS, vol. 11412, pp. 135–150. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15538-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stangl, H., Creighton, O.: Continuous demonstration. In: 2011 Fourth International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering (MERE 2011), pp. 38–41. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vistisen, P., Poulsen, S.: Investigating user experiences through animation-based sketching. In: Murnieks, A., Rinnert, G., Stone, B., Tegtmeyer, R. (eds.) Motion Design Education Summit 2015 Edited Conference Proceedings, pp. 29–38. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams, A.M., Alspaugh, T.A.: Articulating software requirements comic book style. In: 2008 Third International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering - Beyond Mere Descriptions and with More Fun and Games, pp. 4–8, September 2008.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MERE.2008.3
  28. 28.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu, H., Creighton, O., Boulila, N., Bruegge, B.: From pixels to bytes: evolutionary scenario based design with video. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2012, pp. 31:1–31:4. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zachos, K., Maiden, N., Tosar, A.: Rich-media scenarios for discovering requirements. IEEE Softw. 22(5), 89–97 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zibell, B., Diez, J.R., Heineking, I., Preuß, P., Bloem, H., Sohns, F.: Zukunft der Nahversorgung in ländlichen Räumen: Bedarfsgerecht und maßgeschneidert. In: Fachinger, U., Künemund, H. (eds.) Gerontologie und ländlicher Raum. VBG, pp. 141–165. Springer, Wiesbaden (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09005-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie Busch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Oliver Karras
    • 1
  • Kurt Schneider
    • 1
  • Maike Ahrens
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering GroupLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations