Advertisement

UML4ALL Syntax – A Textual Notation for UML Diagrams

  • Claudia Loitsch
  • Karin Müller
  • Stephan Seifermann
  • Jörg Henß
  • Sebastian Krach
  • Gerhard Jaworek
  • Rainer Stiefelhagen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10896)

Abstract

UML-based software modelling addresses the needs of sighted people but creates barriers for visually impaired people. Textual representations are a general premise to make modelling languages accessible for people with blindness, but their degree of accessibility differs. This paper presents the UML4ALL syntax designed to address the sequential way of working of blind people using screen reader technology. The proposed UML notation comprises four principles introduced in this paper. An evaluation with sighted and visually impaired people showed that the UML4ALL syntax has a good usability for both target groups.

Keywords

UML Textual notation Accessibility Disability UML4ALL 

References

  1. 1.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doherty, B., Cheng, B.H.C.: UML modeling for visually-impaired persons. In: HuFaMo@MoDELS (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Groenda, H., Seifermann, S., Müller, K., Jaworek, G.: The cooperate assistive teamwork environment for software description languages. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 217, 111–118 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horstmann, M., Lorenz, M., Watkowski, A., Ioannidis, G., Herzog, O., King, A., Evans, D.G., Hagen, C., Schlieder, C., Burn, A.M., King, N., Petrie, H., Dijkstra, S., Crombie, D.: Automated interpretation and accessible presentation of technical diagrams for blind people. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimedia 10(2), 141–163 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13614560412331326017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8(2), 29–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    King, A., Blenkhorn, P., Crombie, D., Dijkstra, S., Evans, G., Wood, J.: Presenting UML software engineering diagrams to blind people. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, Wolfgang L., Burger, D. (eds.) ICCHP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3118, pp. 522–529. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27817-7_76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loitsch, C., Weber, G.: Viable haptic UML for blind people. In: Miesenberger, K., Karshmer, A., Penaz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7383, pp. 509–516. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31534-3_75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Müller, K.: How to make unified modeling language diagrams accessible for blind students. In: Miesenberger, K., Karshmer, A., Penaz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7382, pp. 186–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31522-0_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Müller, K., Petrausch, V., Jaworek, G., Henß, J., Seifermann, S., Loitsch, C., Stiefelhagen, R.: UML4ALL: gemeinsam in diversity teams software modellieren. Informatik-Spektrum 40(6), 562–572 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-017-1073-y. (in German)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling LanguageTM Version 2.5 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petrausch, V., Jaworek, G., Müller, K.: Inklusives lehrmaterial für die unified modeling language (UML). In: Perspektiven im Dialog: XXXVI. Kongress für Blinden - und Sehbehindertenpädagogik. Edition Bentheim, Graz (2016). (in German)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrausch, V., Seifermann, S., Müller, K.: Guidelines for accessible textual UML modeling notations. In: Miesenberger, K., Bühler, C., Penaz, P. (eds.) ICCHP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9758, pp. 67–74. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41264-1_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seifermann, S., Groenda, H.: Survey on the applicability of textual notations for the unified modeling language. In: Hammoudi, S., Pires, L.F., Selic, B., Desfray, P. (eds.) MODELSWARD 2016. CCIS, vol. 692, pp. 3–24. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66302-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seifermann, S., Henß, J.: Comparison of QVT-O and henshin-TGG for synchronization of concrete syntax models. In: Eramo, R., Johnson, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Bidirectional Transformations (Bx 2017), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1827, pp. 6–14. CEUR-WS.org (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Braille Authority of North America: Guidelines and Standards for Tactile Graphics (2011). http://www.brailleauthority.org/tg/web-manual/index.html

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Loitsch
    • 1
  • Karin Müller
    • 1
  • Stephan Seifermann
    • 2
  • Jörg Henß
    • 2
  • Sebastian Krach
    • 2
  • Gerhard Jaworek
    • 1
  • Rainer Stiefelhagen
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.FZI Research Center for Information TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations