Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UCM Visual Notation

  • Nicolas Genon
  • Daniel Amyot
  • Patrick Heymans
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6598)


The Use Case Map (UCM) notation is a scenario modelling language part of ITU-T’s User Requirements Notation and intended for the elicitation, analysis, specification, and validation of requirements. Like many visual modelling languages, the concrete graphical syntax of the UCM notation has not been designed taking cognitive effectiveness formally into consideration. This paper conducts a systematic analysis of the UCM notation through an evaluation against a set of evidence-based principles for visual notation design. Several common weaknesses are identified and some improvements suggested. A broader goal of the paper is to raise the awareness of the modelling, language design, and standardization communities about the need for such evaluations and the maturity of the techniques to perform them.


Use Case Map language design and evaluation visual notation concrete syntax cognitive effectiveness Physics of Notations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bertin, J.: Sémiologie Graphique: Les Diagrammes - Les Réseaux - Les Cartes. Gauthier-VillarsMouton & Cie (1973)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biederman, I.: Recognition-by-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding. Psychological Review 94(2), 115–147 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buhr, R.J., Casselman, R.S.: Use Case Maps for Object-Oriented Systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Citrin, W.: Strategic Directions in Visual Languages Research. ACM Computing Surveys 24(4) (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Genon, N., Amyot, D., Heymans, P., Moody, D.L.: Applying the “Physics” of Notations to (URN) Use Case Maps. Tech. Rep., PReCISE - University of Namur (2010),
  7. 7.
    Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lohse, G.L.: The Role of Working Memory in Graphical Information Processing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 297–308 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodman, N.: Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis (1968)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Green, T., Blandford, A., Church, L., Roast, C., Clarke, S.: Cognitive Dimensions: Achievements, New Directions, and Open Questions. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 17, 328–365 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ITU-T: Recommendation Z.601 Data Architecture of One Software System. International Telecommunication Union (February 2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ITU-T: Recommendation Z.111 Notations to Define ITU-T Languages. International Telecommunication Union (November 2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ITU-T: Recommendation Z.151 User Requirements Notation (URN) Language Definition. International Telecommunication Union (November 2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, J., Hahn, J., Hahn, H.: How Do We Understand a Systeme with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning. Information Systems Research 11(3), 284–303 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jorgensen, H.: Process Models Representing Knowledge for Action: a Revised Quality Framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krogstie, J., Solvberg, A.: Information Systems Engineering - Conceptual Modeling in a Quality Perspective, Kompendiumforlaget. Kompendiumforlaget, Trondheim, Norway (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lamping, J., Rao, R.: The Hyperbolic Browser: a Focus + Context Technique for Visualizing Large Hierarchies. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7, 33–55 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Larkin, J., Simon, H.: Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–99 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lohse, G.: A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception. Human Computer Interaction 8(4), 353–388 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lynch, K.: The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Masri, K., Parker, D., Gemino, A.: Using Iconic Graphics in Entity Relationship Diagrams: The Impact on Understanding. Journal of Database Management 19(3), 22–41 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist 38(1), 43–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.: Seven Process Modelling Guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52(2), 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller, G.A.: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psycological Review, 81–97 (1956)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moody, D.L.: Theory Development in Visual Language Research: Beyond the Cognitive Dimensions of Notations. In: Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VLHCC 2009), pp. 151–154 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Visual Syntax Does Matter: Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of the i* Visual Notation. Requirements Engineering 15(2), 141–175 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moody, D.L., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family Of Diagrams. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Software Language Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paivio, A.: Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1986)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petre, M.: Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of ACM 38(6), 33–44 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Popper, K.R.: Science as Falsification. In: Routledge, Keagan, P. (eds.) Conjectures and Refutations, London, pp. 30–39 (1963)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schuette, R., Rotthowe, T.: The Guidelines of Modeling - An Approach to Enhance the Quality in Information Models. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 240–254. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shaft, T., Vessey, I.: The Role of Cognitive Fit in the Relationship between Software Comprehension and Modification. MIS Quarterly 30(1), 29–55 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Siau, K.: Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modelling Methods. Journal of Database Management 15(1), 73–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Turetken, O., Schuff, D., Sharda, R., Ow, T.: Supporting Systems Analysis and Design Through Fisheye Views. Communications of ACM 47(9), 72–77 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations Of Information Systems (Coopers And Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph No. 4). Coopers And Lybrand (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    White, A.W.: The Elements of Graphic Design: Space, Unity (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Winn, W.: An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18, 162–185 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu, E.: Towards Modeling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. In: Proc. of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1997), pp. 226–235. IEEE Computer Society, USA (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Genon
    • 1
  • Daniel Amyot
    • 2
  • Patrick Heymans
    • 1
  1. 1.PReCISEUniversity of NamurBelgium
  2. 2.University of OttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations