Comprehension of diagram syntax: An empirical study of entity relationship notations

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 61, Issue 2 SPEC. ISS., 2004, Pages 187-203

  Purchase, Helen C ^a   Welland, Ray ^a   McGill, Matthew ^b   Colpoys, Linda ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DATABASE SYSTEMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

DIAGRAM SYNTAX; DOCUMENTATION; ENTITY RELATIONSHIPS (ER);

COMPUTER SCIENCE;

EID: 3042823149     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Blackwell, A., Green, T., 2000. A cognitive dimensions questionnaire optimised for users. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Corigliano Calabro, Cosenza, Italy, pp. 137-152.
2. Chen P. The entity relationship model - towards a unified view of data. ACM Transaction on Database Systems. 1(1):1976;9-16.
3. Cox, K., 2000. Cognitive dimensions of use cases - feedback from a student questionnaire. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Corigliano Calabro, Cosenza, Italy, pp. 99-121.
4. Green T., Petre M. Usability analysis of visual programming environments. a 'cognitive dimensions' framework Journal of Visual Languages and Computing. 7:1996;131-174.
5. Gurr C., Stevens P. A cognitively informed approach to describing product lines in UML. 1999;University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
6. Gurr, C., Tourlas, K., 2002. To the principled design of software engineering diagrams. 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 509-518.
7. Kutar, M., Britton, C., Wilson, J., 2000. Cognitive dimensions: an experience report. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Corigliano Calabro, Cosenza, Italy, pp. 81-98.
8. Purchase H.C. Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding? Di Battista G. Proceedings of the Graph Drawing Symposium, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 1353:1997;248-261 Springer, Rome.
9. Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D., Britton, C., 2001. UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In: Eades, P., Pattison, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, Sydney, pp. 113-120.
10. Purchase H.C., Carrington D.A., Allder J.-A. Graph layout aesthetics in UML diagrams. user preferences Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications. 6(3):2002;255-279.
11. Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D., 2002b. UML collaboration diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In: Knight, C., Storey, M.-A., Munro, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop of Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, Paris, pp. 13-22.
12. Weaver P.L. Practical SSADM Version 4 - A Complete Tutorial Guide. 1993;Pitman, London.