Nice Class Diagrams Admit Good Design?

Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Software Visualization

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 159-167

  Eichelberger, Holger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; HCI; Metrics; Software engineering; UML class diagrams

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING;

CLASS DIAGRAMS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0141929388     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/774833.774857     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. BANSIYA, J., ETZKORN, L., DAVIS, C., AND LI, W. 1999. A Class Cohesion Metric for Object-Oriented Designs. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 11, 8 (Jan.), 47-52.
2. BASILI, V. R., BRIAND, L. C., AND MELO, W. L. 1996. A Validation of Object-Oriented Design Metrics as Quality Indicators. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-22, 10, 751-761.
3. BATINI, C., FURLANI, L., AND NARDELLI, E. 1985. What is a Good Diagram? A Pragmatic Approach. In Entity-Relationship Approach: The Use of ER Concept in Knowledge Representation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 29-30 October 1985, IEEE Computer Society and North-Holland, P. P. Chen, Ed., IEEE, 312-319.
4. BATTISTA, G. D., EADES, P., TAMASSIA, R., AND TOLLIS, I. 1999. Graph Drawing. Prentice Hall.
5. BRIAND, L. C., DALY, J. W., AND WÜST, J. K. 1999. A Unified Framework for Coupling Measurement in Object-Oriented Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-25, 1 (January/February), 91-121.
6. BRIDGEMAN, S., AND TAMASSIA, R. 2000. Difference Metrics for Interactive Orthogonal Graph Drawing Algorithms. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications 4, 3, 47-74.
7. BRITO E ABREU, F., AND MELO, W. 1996. Evaluating the Impact of Object-Oriented Design on Software Quality. In Proceedings of the 3 rd International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS '96), Berlin, Germany, IEEE, 90-99.
8. CHIDAMBER, S., AND KEMERER, C. 1994. A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-20, 6 (June), 476-492. Copy.
9. COLEMAN, M. K., AND PARKER, D. S. 1996. Aesthetics-based graph layout for human consumption. Software - Practice and Experience 26, 12, 1415-1438.
10. DAVIDSON, R., AND HAREL, D. 1996. Drawing Graphs Nicely Using Simulated Annealing. ACM Transactions on Graphics 15, 4 (Oct.), 301-331.
11. DISKIN, Z., KADISH, B., PIESSENS, F., AND JOHNSON, M. 2000. Universal Arrow Foundations for Visual Modeling. In Diagrams 2000, Springer-Verlag, vol. 1889 of LNAI, Springer, 345-357. M. Anderson, P. Cheng, V. Haarslev (Eds.): Diagrams 2000.
12. DISKIN, Z. 2002. Visualization vs. Spezification in Diagrammatic Notations: A Case Study With UML. In Diagrams 2002, Springer-Verlag, M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, and H. Naranyanan, Eds., vol. 2317 of LNAI, Springer, 112-115.
13. EICHELBERGER, H., AND WOLFF VON GUDENBERG, J. 2002. On the Visualization of Java Programs. In Software Visualization, State-of-the-Art Survey, Springer, S. Diehl, Ed., vol. 2269 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 295-306.
14. EICHELBERGER, H. 2002. Aesthetics of Class Diagrams. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, Paris, France, IEEE, IEEE, 23-31.
15. EICHELBERGER, H. 2002. Evaluation-Report on the Layout Facilities of UML Tools. TR 298, Institut für Informatik, Universität Würzburg, jul.
16. EICHELBERGER, H., 2002. Layout in UML and CASE, homepage of SugiBib. via http://www.sugibib.de/english.html.
17. FRUCHTERMAN, T. M. J., AND REINGOLD, E. M. 1991. Graph Drawing by Force-directed Placement. Software - Practice and Experience 21, 11 (Nov.), 1129-1164.
18. GAMMA, E., HELM, R., JOHNSON, R., AND VLISSIDES, J. 2000. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.
19. GANSNER, E. R., NORTH, S. C., AND Vo, K. P. 1988. DAG: A program that draws directed graphs. Software - Practice and Experience 18, 11 (Nov.), 1047-1062.
20. GENERO, M., PIATTINI, M., AND CALERO, C. 2000. Early measures for UML class Diagrams. L'Objet 6, 4.
21. GREEN, T., AND BLACKWELL, A., 1998. Cognitive Dimensions of Information Artefacts: a tutorial. Version 1.2, October 1998, via http://www.ndirect.co.uk/̃thomas.green/workStuff /Papers/.
22. GUTWENGER, C., JÜNGER, M., KLEIN, K., KUPKE, J., LEIPERT, S., AND MUTZEL, P. 2002. Caesar Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams. In Proc. Graph Drawing, 9th International Symposium, GD '02, Springer, P. Mutzel, M. Jünger, and S. Leipert, Eds., vol. 2265 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 461-462.
23. HERMAN, I., DELEST, M., AND MELANÇON, G. 1998. Tree Visualization and Navigation Clues for Information Visualization. Computer Graphics Forum 17, 2, 153-167.
24. IRANI, P., AND WARE, C. 1999. The Geon Diagram. In Graphics Interface '99, Kingston, Ontario, IRIS/PRECARN. Poster Abstracts.
25. JACOBSON, I., RUMBAUGH, J., AND BOOCH, G. 1999. The Unified Software Development Process. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
26. KOSAK, C., MARKS, J., AND SHIEBER, S. 1994. Automating the layout of network diagrams with specified visual organization. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-24, 3, 440-454.
27. KÖTH, O., AND MINAS, M. 2002. Structure, Abstraction and Direct Manipulation in Diagram Editors. In Diagrams 2002, Springer-Verlag, M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, and H. Naranyanan, Eds., vol. 2317 of LNAI, Springer, 290-304.
28. LI, W., HENRY, S., KAFURA, D., AND SCHULMAN, R. 1995. Measuring Object-Oriented Design. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming (July-August), 48-55.
29. LORENZ, M., AND KIDD, J. 1994. Object-Oriented Software Metrics. Prentice Hall.
30. nd Euromicro Conference on Software maintenance an reengineering, JSA, 67-73.
31. OMG, 1999. XML Metadata Interchange (XMI). Version 1.1, via http://cgi.omg.org/docs/ad/99-10-02.pdf.
32. OMG, 2001. Unified Modeling Language Specification. Version 1.4, February 2001 via http://www.omg.org.
33. PURCHASE, H., ALLDER, J.-A., AND CARRINGTON, D. 2000. User Preference of Graph Layout Aesthetics: A UML Study. In Graph Drawing - 8th Internation Symposium, Springer, J. Marks, Ed., vol. 1984 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 5-18.
34. PURCHASE, H., McGILL, M., COLPOYS, L., AND CARRINGTON, D. 2001. Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of UML class diagrams: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, Australian Computer Society Inc., P. Eades and T. Pattison, Eds., vol. 9, Australian Computer Society Inc.
35. SUGIYAMA, K., TAGAWA, S., AND TODA, M. 1981. Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical system structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-11, 2 (Feb.), 109-125.
36. SUMMERVILLE, I. 1996. Software Engineering. Prentice Hall.
37. TAMASSIA, R., DI BATTISTA, G., AND BATINI, C. 1988. Automatic Graph Drawing and Readability of Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-18, 1 (Jan./ Feb.), 61-79.
38. WARE, C. 2000. Information visualization: design for perception. Academic Press.
39. WETHERELL, C., AND SHANNON, A. 1979. Tidy drawings of trees. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-5, 5, 514-520.
40. WIESE, R., EIGELSPERGER, M., AND KAUFMANN, M. 2002. yFiles: Visualization and Automatic Layout of Graphs. In Proc. Graph Drawing, 9th International Symposium, GD '02, Springer, P. Mutzel, M. Jünger, and S. Leipert, Eds., vol. 2265 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 453-454.
41. ZUSE, H. 1998. A framework of Software Measurement. deGruyter.