On a Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models Using BPMN

  • Philip Effinger
  • Nicole Jogsch
  • Sandra Seiz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 67)


As BPMN spreads among a constantly growing user group, it is indispensable to analyze the expectations of users towards the appearance of a BPMN model. The user groups are mostly inhomogeneous since users stem from different backgrounds, e.g. IT, managerial sciences or economics. It is conceivable that BPMN novices may have different issues compared to higher skilled modeling experts. When this large set of users starts modeling, the expectations considering the graphical outcome of the modeling process may differ significantly.

In this work, we analyze layout preferences of user groups when modeling with BPMN. We present a set of layout criteria that are formalized and then confirmed by a user study. The conduction of the study reveals preferences of single user groups with respect to secondary notation and layout aesthetics. From our results, proposals for adaptions of software tools towards different BPMN users can be derived.


user study secondary notation BPMN models layout aesthetics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Effinger, P., Siebenhaller, M., Kaufmann, M.: An Interactive Layout Tool for BPMN. IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology 1, 399–406 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kitzmann, I., König, C., Lübke, D., Singer, L.: A Simple Algorithm for Automatic Layout of BPMN Processes. In: CEC, pp. 391–398 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siebenhaller, M., Kaufmann, M.: Drawing activity diagrams. Technical Report WSI-2006-02, Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siebenhaller, M., Kaufmann, M.: Drawing activity diagrams. In: Proceedings of ACM 2006 Symposium on Software Visualization, SoftVis 2006, pp. 159–160. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: PoEM, pp. 161–175 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. ACM Commun. 38(6), 33–44 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, T.R., Blackwell, A.F.: A tutorial on cognitive dimensions(1998) (last accessed 2010-05-31)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Purchase, H.C.: Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding. In: DiBattista, G. (ed.) GD 1997. LNCS, vol. 1353, pp. 248–261. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Purchase, H.C., Allder, J.A., Carrington, D.A.: User preference of graph layout aesthetics: A UML study. In: Marks, J. (ed.) GD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1984, pp. 5–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tamassia, R., DiBattista, G., Eades, P., Tollis, I.: Graph Drawing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siebenhaller, M.: Orthogonal Drawings with Constraints: Algorithms And Applications. PhD thesis, Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut, University of Tuebingen (2009) (to appear)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seiz, S., Effinger, P., Jogsch, N., Wehrstein, T.: Forschungsprojekt: Usability-Evaluation von BPMN-konformer Geschäftsprozessmodellierungssoftware. In: Arbeitsberichte zur Wirtschaftsinformatik 35, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität Tübingen (April 2010) (German)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ambler, S.W.: The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang, W., Hong, S.H., Eades, P.: Effects of sociogram drawing conventions and edge crossings in social network visualization. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 11(2), 397–429 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gehring, U.W., Weins, C.: Grundkurs Statistik für Politologen und Soziologen, 5th edn. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (2009) (German)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petre, M.: Cognitive dimensions ‘beyond the notation’. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 17(4), 292–301 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware, C., Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M.: Cognitive measurements of graph aesthetics. Information Visualization 1(2), 103–110 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun, D., Wong, K.: On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension. In: IWPC, pp. 317–326 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eichelberger, H.: Aesthetics and Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams, PhD thesis, Universität Würzburg (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri nets: basic concepts, analysis methods and practical use. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, vol. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coleman, M.K., Parker, D.S.: Aesthetics-based graph layout for human consumption. Software – Practice and Experience 26(12), 1415–1438 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(3), 534–557 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Purchase, H.C., Cohen, R.F., James, M.I.: Validating graph drawing aesthetics. In: Brandenburg, F.J. (ed.) GD 1995. LNCS, vol. 1027, pp. 435–446. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Apfelbacher, R., Knöpfel, A., Aschenbrenner, P., Preetz, S.: FMC visualization guidelines (2006),
  26. 26.
    Huang, W., Hong, S.H., Eades, P.: Effects of crossing angles. In: PacificVis, pp. 41–46 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huang, W., Eades, P., Hong, S.H.: Beyond time and error: a cognitive approach to the evaluation of graph drawings. In: BELIV 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on BEyond Time and Errors, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hahn, J., Kim, J.: Why are some diagrams easier to work with? effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive intergration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 6(3), 181–213 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Effinger
    • 1
  • Nicole Jogsch
    • 2
  • Sandra Seiz
    • 2
  1. 1.Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut für InformatikEberhard-Karls-Universität TübingenGermany
  2. 2.Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche FakultätEberhard-Karls-Universität TübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations