Skip to main content
Book cover

International Conference on Software Language Engineering

SLE 2008: Software Language Engineering pp 16–34Cite as

Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family of Diagrams

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNPSE,volume 5452)

Abstract

UML is a visual language. However surprisingly, there has been very little attention in either research or practice to the visual notations used in UML. Both academic analyses and official revisions to the standard have focused almost exclusively on semantic issues, with little debate about the visual syntax. We believe this is a major oversight and that as a result, UML’s visual development is lagging behind its semantic development. The lack of attention to visual aspects is surprising given that the form of visual representations is known to have an equal if not greater effect on understanding and problem solving performance than their content. The UML visual notations were developed in a bottom-up manner, by reusing and synthesising existing notations, with choice of graphical conventions based on expert consensus. We argue that this is an inappropriate basis for making visual representation decisions and they should be based on theory and empirical evidence about cognitive effectiveness. This paper evaluates the visual syntax of UML using a set of evidence-based principles for designing cognitively effective visual notations. The analysis reveals some serious design flaws in the UML visual notations together with practical recommendations for fixing them.

Keywords

  • Unify Modelling Language
  • Class Diagram
  • Visual Variable
  • Graphic Complexity
  • Redundant Code

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-00434-6_3
  • Chapter length: 19 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-642-00434-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biederman, I.: Recognition-by-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding. Psychological Review 94(2), 115–147 (1987)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Britton, C., Jones, S.: The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding by Untrained Users. Human Computer Interaction 14, 191–244 (1999)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Britton, C., Jones, S., Kutar, M., Loomes, M., Robinson, B.: Evaluating the intelligibility of diagrammatic languages used in the specification of software. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds.) Diagrams 2000. LNCS, vol. 1889, pp. 376–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng, P.C.-H., Lowe, R.K., Scaife, M.: Cognitive Science Approaches To Understanding Diagrammatic Representations. Artificial Intelligence Review 15(1/2), 79–94 (2001)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is Used. Communications of the ACM 49(5), 109–114 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Gehlert, A., Esswein, W.: Towards a Formal Research Framework for Ontological Analyses. Advanced Engineering Informatics 21, 119–131 (2007)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Glinz, M., Berner, S., Joos, S.: Object-oriented modeling with ADORA. Information Systems 27, 425–444 (2002)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodman, N.: Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Green, D.M., Swets, J.A.: Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Wiley, New York (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gurr, C.A.: Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 10, 317–342 (1999)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Harel, D.: On Visual Formalisms. Communications of the ACM 31(5), 514–530 (1988)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Jonkers, H., van Buuren, R., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Lankhorst, M., Veldhuijzen van Zanten, G.: ArchiMate Language Reference Manual (Version 4.1). Archimate Consortium, 73 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11(1) (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lee, J.: Design Rationale Systems: Understanding the Issues. IEEE Expert 12(3), 78–85 (1997)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Lohse, G.L.: The Role of Working Memory in Graphical Information Processing. Behaviour and Information Technology 16(6), 297–308 (1997)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Marr, D.C.: Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller, G.A.: The Magical Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two: Some Limits On Our Capacity For Processing Information. The Psychological Review 63, 81–97 (1956)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Moody, D.L.: Evidence-based Notation Design: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (under review, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moody, D.L.: Review of ArchiMate: The Road to International Standardisation, Report commissioned by the ArchiMate Foundation and BiZZDesign B.V., Enschede, The Netherlands, 77 pages (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moody, D.L., Mueller, R.M., Amrit, C.: Review of ORES Methodology, Notation and Toolset, Report commissioned by Egon-Sparenberg B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 53 pages (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Niemela, M., Saarinen, J.: Visual Search for Grouped versus Ungrouped Icons in a Computer Interface. Human Factors 42(4), 630–635 (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The Effect of Graphic Style on Data Model Interpretation. Information Systems Journal 9(2), 139–156 (1999)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Oberlander, J.: Grice for Graphics: Pragmatic Implicature in Network Diagrams. Information Design Journal 8(2), 163–179 (1996)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. OMG Unified Modeling Language Version 2.0: Superstructure. Object Management Group, OMG (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model. Software and Systems Modelling 1(1), 43–67 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Peirce, C.S.: Charles S. Peirce: The Essential Writings (Great Books in Philosophy). Prometheus Books, Amherst (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Petre, M.: Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of the ACM 38(6), 33–44 (1995)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Quinlan, P.T.: Visual Feature Integration Theory: Past, Present and Future. Psychological Bulletin 129(5), 643–673 (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  30. Rossion, B., Pourtois, G.: Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception 33, 217–236 (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  31. Rubin, E.: Synsoplerede Figuren. Gyldendalske, Copenhagen (1915)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shanks, G.G., Tansley, E., Weber, R.A.: Using Ontology to Validate Conceptual Models. Communications of the ACM 46(10), 85–89 (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W.: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1963)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Siau, K.: Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modelling Methods. Journal of Database Management 15(1), 73–86 (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Siau, K., Cao, Q.: Unified Modeling Language: A Complexity Analysis. Journal of Database Management 12(1), 26–34 (2001)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Tasker, D.: Worth 1,000 Words? Ha! Business Rules Journal 3(11) (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Treisman, A.: Perceptual Grouping and Attention in Visual Search for Features and for Objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, 194–214 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Treisman, A., Gelade, G.A.: A Feature Integration Theory of Attention. Cognitive Psychology 12, 97–136 (1980)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  39. Treisman, A., Gormican, S.: Feature Analysis in Early Vision: Evidence from Search Asymmetries. Psychological Review 95(1), 15–48 (1988)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. Wheildon, C.: Type and Layout: Are You Communicating or Just Making Pretty Shapes? Worsley Press, Hastings (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  41. White, A.W.: The Elements of Graphic Design: Space, Unity, Page Architecture and Type. Allworth Press, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Winn, W.D.: An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18, 162–185 (1993)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  43. Winn, W.D.: Encoding and Retrieval of Information in Maps and Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 33(3), 103–107 (1990)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  44. Yeh, M., Wickens, C.D.: Attention Filtering in the Design of Electronic Map Displays: A Comparison of Colour Coding, Intensity Coding and Decluttering Techniques. Human Factors 43(4), 543–562 (2001)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems & Change Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

    Daniel Moody & Jos van Hillegersberg

Authors
  1. Daniel Moody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jos van Hillegersberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing and Information Systems, Athabasca University, 1 University Drive, AB T9S 3A3, Athabasca, Canada

    Dragan Gašević

  2. Fachbereich 4, Institut für Informatik, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstraße 1, B127, 56070, Koblenz, Germany

    Ralf Lämmel

  3. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, MN 55455, Minneapolis, USA

    Eric Van Wyk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J. (2009). 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) Software Language Engineering. SLE 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5452. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00434-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00434-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00433-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00434-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)