Advertisement

On the Impact of Layout Quality to Understanding UML Diagrams: Size Matters

  • Harald Störrle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8767)

Abstract

Practical experience suggests that usage and understanding of UML diagrams is greatly affected by the quality of their layout. While existing research failed to provide conclusive evidence in support of this hypothesis, our own previous work provided substantial evidence to this effect. When studying different factors like diagram type and expertise level, it became apparent that diagram size plays an important role, too. Since we lack an adequate understanding of this notion, in this paper, we define diagram size metrics and study their impact to modeler performance. We find that there is a strong negative correlation between diagram size and modeler performance. Our results are highly significant. We utilize these results to derive a recommendation on diagram sizes that are optimal for model understanding.

Keywords

Cognitive Load Expertise Level Diagram Type Diagram Element Good Layout 
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.
    Abrahão, S., Gravino, C., Insfrn, E., Scanniello, G., Tortora, G.: Assessing the Effectiveness of Sequence Diagrams in the Comprehension of Functional Requirements: Results from a Family of Five Experiments. IEEE Txn. SE 39(3), 327–342 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Britton, C., Kutar, M., Anthony, S., Barker, T., Beecham, S., Wilkinson, V.: An empirical study of user preference and performance with UML diagrams. In: Proc. IEEE 2002 Symp. Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (HCC/LE), pp. 31–33. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dawoodi, S.Y.P.: Assessing the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams via Eye Tracking. PhD thesis, Kent State University (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dwyer, T., Lee, B., Fisher, D., Quinn, K.I., Isenberg, P., Robertson, G., North, C.: A Comparison of User-Generated and Automatic Graph Layouts. IEEE Txn. Visualization and Computer Graphics 15(6), 961–968 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Effinger, P., Jogsch, N., Seiz, S.: On a Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models Using BPMN. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPMN 2010. LNBIP, vol. 67, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eichelberger, H.: Aesthetics of class diagrams. In: Proc. 1st Intl. Ws. Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis (VISSOFT), pp. 23–31. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eichelberger, H.: Aesthetics and automatic layout of UML class diagrams. PhD thesis, University of Würzburg (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eichelberger, H.: Automatic layout of UML use case diagrams. In: Proc. 4th ACM Symp. Software Visualization (SOFTVIS), pp. 105–114. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eichelberger, H., Schmid, K.: Guidelines on the aesthetic quality of UML class diagrams. Information and Software Technology 51(12), 1686–1698 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiglsperger, M.: Automatic layout of UML class diagrams: A topology-shape-metrics approach. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gopher, D., Braune, R.: On the Psychophysics of Workload: Why Bother with Subjective Measures? Human Factors 26(5), 519–532 (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koffka, K.: Principles of Gestalt Psychology. Routledge & Kegan Paul (1935)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Van Gerven, P.W.M.: Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist 38(1), 63–71 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pfleeger, S.L.: Experimental design and analysis in software engineering. Annals of Software Engineering 1(1), 219–253 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., Carrington, D.A., McGill, M.: UML Class Diagrams: An Emprical Study of Comprehension, pp. 149–178. Kluwer (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Purchase, H.C.: Metrics for Graph Drawing Aesthtetics. J. Visual Languages and Computing 13(5), 501–516 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Purchase, H.C., Allder, J.-A., Carrington, D.A.: Graph layout aesthetics in UML diagrams: user preferences. J. Graph Algorithms Applications 6(3), 255–279 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Purchase, H.C., Carrington, D., Allder, J.-A.: Empirical Evaluation of Aesthetics-based Graph Layout. J. Empirical Software Engineering 7(3), 233–255 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Purchase, H.C., Carrington, D., Allder, J.-A.: Experimenting with aesthetics-based graph layout. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds.) Diagrams 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1889, pp. 498–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D.: UML Collaboration Diagram Syntax: An Empirical Study of Comprehension. In: Proc. 1st Intl. Ws. Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis (VISSOFT), pp. 13–22. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Scanniello, G., Di Cerbo, F., Dodero, G.: On the comprehension of workflows modeled with a precise style: results from a family of controlled experiments. Software & Systems Modeling, 1–24 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ricca, F., Penta, M.D., Torchiano, M., Tonella, P., Ceccato, M.: How Developers’ Experience and Ability Influence Web Application Comprehension Tasks Supported by UML Stereotypes: A Series of Four Experiments. IEEE Txn. SE 36(1), 96–118 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seemann, J.: Extending the Sugiyama algorithm for drawing UML class diagrams: Towards automatic layout of object-oriented software diagrams. In: DiBattista, G. (ed.) GD 1997. LNCS, vol. 1353, pp. 415–424. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharif, B., Maletic, J.I.: An empirical study on the comprehension of stereotyped UML class diagram layouts. In: Proc. 17th IEEE Intl. Conf. Program Comprehension (ICPC), pp. 268–272. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sharif, B., Maletic, J.I.: The effect of layout on the comprehension of UML class diagrams: A controlled experiment. In: Proc. 5th IEEE Intl. Ws. Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis (VISSOFT), pp. 11–18. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharif, B., Maletic, J.I.: An eye tracking study on the effects of layout in understanding the role of design patterns. In: Proc. 2010 IEEE Intl. Conf. Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 41–48. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharif, B., Maletic, J.I.: The Effects of Layout on Detecting the Role of Design Patterns. In: Proc. 23rd IEEE Conf. Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), pp. 41–48. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Störrle, H.: On the Impact of Layout Quality to Unterstanding UML Diagrams. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2011), pp. 135–142. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Störrle, H.: On the Impact of Layout Quality to Unterstanding UML Diagrams: Diagram Type and Expertise. In: Costagliola, G., Ko, A., Cypher, A., Nichols, J., Scaffidi, C., Kelleher, C., Myers, B. (eds.) Proc. IEEE Symp. Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2012), pp. 195–202. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Störrle, H., Fish, A.: Towards an Operationalization of the “Physics of Notations” for the Analysis of Visual Languages. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 104–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Swan, J., Kutar, M., Barker, T., Britton, C.: User Preference and Performance with UML Interaction Diagrams. In: Proc. 2004 IEEE Symp. Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pp. 243–250. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wong, K., Sun, D.: On evaluating the layout of UML diagrams for program comprehension. Software Quality Journal 14(3), 233–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yusuf, S., Kagdi, H., Maletic, J.I.: Assessing the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams via Eye Tracking. In: 15th IEEE Intl. Conf. Program Comprehension (ICPC 2007), pp. 113–122. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harald Störrle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations