Advertisement

Tackling the Flexibility-Usability Trade-off in Component-Based Software Development

  • Ondřej DvořákEmail author
  • Robert PerglEmail author
  • Petr KrohaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 569)

Abstract

“Increase flexibility, decrease usability” is a known trade-off influencing the effectiveness of reusing artefacts in many engineering disciplines. We claim that software development is influenced, too. The goal of this paper is to elaborate on flexibility and usability in component-based software development. It explains that equally flexible components can considerably differ in usability costs. Therefore, the architecture of components matters to evaluate final cost on building software. We propose a model of building components that can help to decrease costs on software development, while providing a demanded level of flexibility.

Keywords

Component-based systems Flexibility Usability Reusability Costs of software building and evolving 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This paper was supported by SGS16/120/OHK3/1T/18.

References

  1. 1.
    Self programming language. http://www.selflanguage.org/
  2. 2.
    Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals. ISO 9241-11, ISO, Geneva (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML). Superstructure, V2.1.2 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abbasi, N., Wajid, I., Iqbal, Z., Zafar, F.: Project failure case studies and suggestion. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 86(6), 34–39 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antovski, L., Imeri, F.: Review of software reuse processes (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, K., Andres, C.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm, B.W., Madachy, R., Steece, B., et al.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II with Cdrom. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garmus, D.: Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Software Projects, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietz, J.L.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan, N.B.: Capturing flexibility of information technology infrastructure: a study of resource characteristics and their measure. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 12(2), 37–57 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ElMaraghy, H.A.: Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. Int. J. Flex. Manuf. Syst. 17(4), 261–276 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferré, X., Juristo, N., Windl, H., Constantine, L.: Usability basics for software developers. IEEE Softw. 18(1), 22 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gajender, P., Manish, K., Kuldeep, B.: A review paper on COCOMO model. Int. J. Res. Dev. Organ. 1(4), 83–87 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gemino, A., Parker, D.: Use case diagrams in support of use case modeling: deriving understanding from the picture. J. Database Manag. 20(1), 1–24 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haugan, G.T.: Effective work breakdown structures. Man. Concepts Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J.: Universal principles of design, revised and updated: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design. Rockport Pub. (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mannaert, H., Verelst, J.: Normalized systems. Proc. IEEE 68(9), 1068 (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McIlroy, M.D., Buxton, J., Naur, P., Randell, B.: Mass-produced software components, pp. 88–98 (1968)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naab, M., Stammel, J.: Architectural flexibility in a software-system’s life-cycle: systematic construction and exploitation of flexibility. In: Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Quality of Software Architectures, pp. 13–22. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Valiente, G.: Algorithms on Trees and Graphs. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations