On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension

Proceedings - IEEE Workshop on Program Comprehension

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 317-326

  Sun, Dabo ^a   Wong, Kenny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Graph layout; Perceptual theory; UML class diagrams; UML modeling tools

Indexed keywords

AESTHETICS; GRAPH LAYOUT; PERCEPTUAL FACTORS; UML CLASS DIAGRAMS; UML MODELING TOOLS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; GRAPH THEORY; XML;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 27744508581     PISSN: 10928138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WPC.2005.26     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Borland Together, http://www.borland.com/together/.
2. IBM Rational Software. http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/.
3. JUnit web site, http://www.junit.org/index.htm.
4. UML resource page, http://www.uml.org/.
5. S. W. Ambler. Modeling Style Guidelines. http://www.agilemodeling.com/ style/.
6. S. W. Ambler. The Elements of UML Style. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
7. G. D. Battista, P. Eades, R. Tamassia, and I. G. Tollis. Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Prentice Hall, 1999.
8. J. G. Benjafield. Cognition. Prentice Hall, 1992.
9. K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. P. Thomas. Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Volume II. Cognitive Processes and Performance. Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1986.
10. T. Dwyer. Three dimensional UML using force directed layout. In CRPITS '01: Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pages 77-85. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2001.
11. H. Eichelberger. Aesthetics of class diagrams. In VIS-SOFT '02: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, page 23. IEEE Computer Society, 2002.
12. H. Eichelberger. Nice class diagrams admit good design? In SoftVis '03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pages 159-168. ACM Press, 2003.
13. M. Eiglsperger, M. Kaufmann, and M. Siebenhaller. A topology-shape- metrics approach for the automatic layout of UML class diagrams. In SoftVis '03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pages 189-198. ACM Press, 2003.
14. J. J. Gibson. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
15. B. E. Goldstein. Sensation and Perception. Wadsworth-Thomson Learning, 6th edition, 2002.
16. C. Gutwenger, M. Jünger, K. Klein, J. Kupke, S. Leipert, and P. Mutzel. A new approach for visualizing UML class diagrams. In SoftVis '03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pages 179-188. ACM Press, 2003.
17. I. Herman, G. Melanon, and M. S. Marshall. Graph visualization and navigation in information visualization: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 6(1):24-43, 2000.
18. M. Himsolt. Comparing and evaluating layout algorithms within GraphEd. Journal of Visual Language and Computing, 6(3):255-273, 1995.
19. R. Kimchi, M. Behrmann, and C. R. Olson. Perceptual Organization in Vision: Behavioral and Neural Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.
20. D. Marr. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. WH Freeman, 1982.
21. P. Moore and C. Fitz. Gestalt theory and instructional design. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 23(2): 137-157, 1993.
22. M. Petre, A. Blackwell, and T. Green. Cognitive questions in software visualisation. Invited chapter in: Stasko, J., Domingue, J., Brown, M., and Price, B. (Eds.), Software Visualization: Programming as a Multimedia Experience. MIT Press., pages 453-480, 1998.
23. H. C. Purchase. Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding? In GD '97: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Graph Drawing, pages 248-261. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
24. H. C. Purchase, J.-A. Allder, and D. A. Carrington. User preference of graph layout aesthetics: A UML study. In GD '00: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Graph Drawing, pages 5-18. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
25. H. C. Purchase, R. F. Cohen, and M. James. Validating graph drawing aesthetics. In GD '95: Proceedings of the Symposium on Graph Drawing, pages 435-446. Springer-Verlag, 1996.
26. H. C. Purchase, L. Colpoys, M. McGill, D. Carrington, and C. Britton. UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In CRPITS '01: Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pages 113-120. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2001.
27. H. C. Purchase, M. McGill, L. Colpoys, and D. Carrington. Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of UML class diagrams: an empirical study. In CRPITS '01: Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pages 129-137. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2001.
28. H. R. Schiffman. Sensation and Perception: An Integrated Approach. John Wiley & Sons, 5th edition, 2001.
29. D. Sun and K. Wong. On understanding software tool adoption using perceptual theories. In ACSE '04: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Adoption-Centric Software Engineering, pages 51-55. Institution of Electrical Engineers, 2004.
30. S. Tilley and S. Huang. A qualitative assessment of the efficacy of UML diagrams as a form of graphical documentation in aiding program understanding. In SIGDOC '03: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Documentation, pages 184-191. ACM Press, 2003.
31. B. E. Wampler. The Essence of Object-Oriented Programming with Java and UML. Addison Wesley, 2002. http://www.objectcentral.com/oobook/book-code.zip.
32. C. Ware. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000.
33. C. Ware, H. Purchase, L. Colpoys, and M. McGill. Cognitive measurements of graph aesthetics. Information Visualization, 1(2): 103-110, 2002.