Advertisement

Use Case Diagrams for Mobile and Multi-channel Information Systems: Experimental Comparison of Colour and Icon Annotations

  • Sundar Gopalakrishnan
  • Guttorm SindreEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 248)

Abstract

In mobile information systems, it may be more important to capture where a user is supposed to perform an activity, as well as what type of device is going to be used, than what is the case for traditional, stationary information systems. Yet, mainstream diagram notations like use case diagrams seldom capture such information. In previous papers we have proposed some adaptations to use case diagrams to be able to include location and equipment requirements, but these adaptations have not been evaluated experimentally. This paper reports on a student experiment comparing two different notations, one using colour and the other using symbolic icons. The experiment also includes a task where the models contained both location and equipment information at the same time. In that case, one alternative used colour for locations and icons for equipment, while the other used icons both for colour and equipment. The results showed no significant difference between the two treatment groups, neither in the quality of answers to the experimental tasks, the time needed to perform the tasks, nor in their opinions given in post-task questionnaires about the notations they were exposed to.

Keywords

Mobile Multi-channel Information system Process model Diagram notation Visual communication 

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobson, I., et al.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gemino, A., Parker, D.: Use case diagrams in support of use case modeling: deriving understanding from the picture. J. Database Manag. (JDM) 20(1), 1–24 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siau, K., Lee, L.: Are use case and class diagrams complementary in requirements analysis? An experimental study on use case and class diagrams in UML. Requirements Eng. 9(4), 229–237 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walderhaug, S., Stav, E., Mikalsen, M.: Experiences from model-driven development of homecare services: UML profiles and domain models. In: Chaudron, M.R. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 199–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Figl, K., Recker, J.: Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences or process representations. Requirements Eng. 21, 1–23 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veijalainen, J.: Developing mobile ontologies; who, why, where, and how? In: 2007 International Conference on Mobile Data Management, pp. 398–401. IEEE, Manheim, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Extending use and misuse cases to capture mobile information systems. In: Fallmyr, T. (ed.) Norsk Konferanse for Organisasjoners Bruk av Informasjonsteknologi (NOKOBIT). Tapir, Trondheim (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Extending use and misuse case diagrams to capture multi-channel information systems. In: Zeki, A., Zamani, M., Chuprat, S., El-Qawasmeh, E., Abd Manaf, A. (eds.) ICIEIS 2011, Part I. CCIS, vol. 251, pp. 355–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35, 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moody, D.L., et al.: An instrument for empirical testing of frameworks for conceptual model quality frameworks. In: Seventh CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD-02), Toronto, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berander, P.: Using students as subjects in requirements prioritization. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Runeson, P.: Using students as experiment subjects – an analysis on graduate and freshmen student data. In: Linkman, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Empirical Assessment and Evaluation in Software Engineering (EASE 2003), pp. 95–102. Keele University, Staffordshire, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carver, J., et al.: Issues in using students in empirical studies in software engineering education. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Metrics Symposium (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Eliciting security requirements by misuse cases. In: TOOLS Pacific 2000. IEEE CS Press, Sydney (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sindre, G.: A look at misuse cases for safety concerns. In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences. IFIP, vol. 244, pp. 252–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alexander, I.F.: Initial industrial experience of misuse cases in trade-off analysis. In: 10th Anniversary IEEE Joint International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2002). IEEE, Essen, Germany (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saleh, F., El-Attar, M.: A scientific evaluation of the misuse case diagrams visual syntax. Inf. Softw. Technol. 66, 73–96 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berenbach, B., Borotto, G.: Metrics for model driven requirements development. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G.: Detection of conflicting functional requirements in a use case-driven approach: a static analysis technique based on graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whittle, J.: Specifying precise use cases with use case charts. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 290–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnston, S.: Rational UML Profile for business modeling. IBM Developer Works (2004). http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/5167.html
  25. 25.
    von der Maßen, T., Lichter, H.: Modeling variability by UML use case diagrams. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Product Lines. Citeseer (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bühne, S., Halmans, G., Pohl, K.: Modelling dependencies between variation points in use case diagrams. In: Proceeding of 9th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering. Citeseer (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wegmann, A., Genilloud, G.: The role of “Roles” in use case diagrams. In: Evans, A., Caskurlu, B., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 210–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Sindre, G.: Diagram notations for mobile work processes. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 52–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Capturing location in process models: comparing small adaptations of mainstream notation. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Design 3(3), 24–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Adapting UML activity diagrams for mobile work process modelling: experimental comparison of two notation alternatives. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 68, pp. 145–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Adapted UML activity diagrams for mobile work processes: experimental comparison of colour and pattern fills. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 314–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of uml: an analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the uml family of diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations