UML Class Diagrams: An Empirical Study of Comprehension

  • Helen C. Purchase
  • Linda Colpoys
  • David Carrington
  • Matthew McGill
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 734)

Abstract

Software systems are typically very large and difficult to comprehend, hence techniques for visualisation and abstraction are required to assist software development and maintenance. Graphical representations of software systems have been common for many years. The Unified Modeling Language (UML) has recently emerged as a well-accepted, standardized notation for software visualisation and abstraction [26]. The aim of this research was to conduct empirical studies so to assist users of UML and designers of CASE tools as to how they may best display UML class diagrams to support human comprehension. Two aspects of the display of UML class diagrams were considered: notation and layout. This chapter presents the results of the two experiments that were performed — experiment 1 considered notation, experiment 2 considered layout.

Keywords

Product Line Nises 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Blackwell, A.F. & Green, T.R.G. A Cognitive Dimensions questionnaire optimised for users. In A.F. Blackwell & E. Bilotta (Eds.) Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Memoria, pp. 137–152, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman, M.K. & Stott Parker D., Aesthetics-based graph layout for human consumption. Software — Practice and Experience, 26(12), pp. 1415–1438, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cox, K., Cognitive Dimensions of Use Cases — Feedback from a student questionnaire. In A.F. Blackwell & E. Bilotta (Eds.) Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Memoria, pp. 99–121, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Battista, G., Eades, P., Tamassia, R. & Tollis, I., Algorithms for drawing graphs: An annotated bibliography. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications, 4. pp. 235–282, 1994.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eades, P., A Heuristic for Graph Drawing, Congressus Numerantium, 42, pp. 149–160, 1984MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enterprise Architect, http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/ea.htm, 2001
  7. 7.
    Evitts, P., A UML Pattern Language, Macmillan Technical Publishing, Indianapolis, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, M. & Scott, K, UML Distilled, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Reading, Mass, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gansner, E.R. & North, D.C., Improved force-directed layouts. In S.H. Whitesides, (Ed.), Proceedings of Graph Drawing Symposium 1998, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1547, pp. 364–373. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Green, T. R. G. & Petre, M. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7, pp. 131–174, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gurr C. & Stevens P., A cognitively informed approach to describing product lines in UML, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, unpublished, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gurr, C. & Tourlas, K., Towards the Principled Design of Software Engineering Diagrams, In IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM Press, pp. 509–518, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kutar, M., Britton, C. & Wilson, J., Cognitive Dimensions An Experience Report. In A.F. Blackwell & E. Bilotta (Eds.) Proceedings of the Twelth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Memoria, pp. 81–98, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Page-Jones, M., Fundamentals of Object-Oriented Design in UML, Dorset House Pub, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papakostas, A. & Tollis, I.G., Efficient orthogonal drawings of high degree graphs. Algorithmica, 26(1), pp. 100–125, 2000.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petre, M., Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing. Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of the ACM, 38(6), pp. 33–44, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Purchase, H.C., Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on Human understanding? In G. Di Battista (Ed.), Proceedings of Graph Drawing Symposium 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1353, Springer-Verlag, pp. 248–261, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Purchase, H.C. Allder, J-A. & Carrington, D., ‘User preference of Graph Layout Aesthetics: a UML study’, In J. Marks (Ed.) Proceedings of the Graph Drawing Symposium, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1984, Springer Verlag, pp. 5–18, 2000Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Purchase, H.C., Carrington, D. & Allder, J-A., Experimenting with aesthetics-based graph layout. In M. Anderson, P. Cheng & V. Haarslev (Eds.) Proceedings of the Theory and Application of Diagrams Conference, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1889, Springer Verlag, pp. 498–501, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Purchase, H.C., Cohen, R.F. & James, M., Validating Graph Drawing Aesthetics. In F.J. Brandenburg (Ed.) Proceedings of the Graph Drawing Symposium 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1027, Springer-Verlag, pp. 435–446, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill M., Carrington, D. and Britten, C., UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. Proceedings of the Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pp. 113–120, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Purchase, H.C., McGill M., Colpoys, L. and Carrington, D., Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of UML class diagrams: an empirical study. Proceedings of the Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pp. 129–137, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Purchase, H.C. Metrics for graph drawing aesthetics. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, vol. 13, pp. 501–516, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. & Booch, G., The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Reading, Mass, 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmuller, J., SAMS Teach Yourself UML in 24 hours, SAMS, Indianapolis, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tamassia, R., On embedding a graph in the grid with the minimum number of bends. SIAM J. Computing, 16(3), pp 421–444, 1987.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Waddle, V., Graph Layout for Displaying Data Structures. In J. Marks (Ed.) Proceedings of the Graph Drawing Symposium 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1984, Springer-Verlag, pp241–252, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen C. Purchase
    • 1
    • 2
  • Linda Colpoys
    • 2
  • David Carrington
    • 2
  • Matthew McGill
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceThe University of GlasgowUK
  2. 2.The School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations