On evaluating the layout of UML diagrams for program comprehension

Software Quality Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 233-259

  Wong, Kenny ^a   Sun, Dabo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TOOLS;

PERCEPTUAL FACTORS; PERCEPTUAL THEORIES; PROGRAM COMPREHENSION; PROGRAM UNDERSTANDING; SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS; STATIC STRUCTURES; UML DIAGRAMS;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 33746459809     PISSN: 09639314     EISSN: 15731367     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11219-006-9218-2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. UML: UML resource page 2006. http://www.uml.org/.
2. Ambler, S.W. Introduction to UML 2 Sequence Diagrams 2006. http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/sequenceDiagram.htm.
3. Tilley, S., Huang, S. 2003. A qualitative assessment of the efficacy of UML diagrams as a form of graphical documentation in aiding program understanding. In: SIGDOC 2003: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Documentation, pp. 184-191, ACM Press.
4. Eichelberger, H. 2003. Nice class diagrams admit good design? In: SoftVis 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pp. 159-168, ACM Press.
5. Battista, G.D., Eades, P., Tamassia, R., Tollis, I.G. 1999. Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Prentice Hall.
6. Herman, I., Melançon, G., Marshall, M.S. 2000. Graph visualization and navigation in information visualization: A survey. 2000. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 6(1):24-43.
7. Eiglsperger, M., Kaufmann, M., Siebenhaller, M. 2003. A topology-shape-metrics approach for the automatic layout of UML class diagrams. In: SoftVis 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pp. 189-198, ACM Press.
8. Eichelberger, H. 2002. Aesthetics of class diagrams. In: VISSOFT 2002: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, pp. 23-31, IEEE Computer Society Press.
9. Gutwenger, C., Jünger, M., Klein, K., Kupke, J., Leipert, S., Mutzel, P. 2003. A new approach for visualizing UML class diagrams. In: SoftVis 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pp. 179-188, ACM Press.
10. Dwyer, T. 2001. Three dimensional UML using force directed layout. In: CRPITS 2001 : Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pp. 77-85, Australian Computer Society, Inc.
11. Bist, G., MacKinnon, N., Murphy, S. 2004. Sequence diagram presentation in technical documentation. In: SIGDOC 2004: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Design of Communication, New York, NY, USA, pp. 128-133, ACM Press.
12. Poranen, T., Mäkinen, E., Nummenmaa, J. 2003. How to draw a sequence diagram. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Programming Languages and Software Tools, SPLST 2003, University of Kuopio, Department of Computer Science pp. 91-102.
13. Purchase, H.C. 1997. Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding? In: GD 1997: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Graph Drawing, pp. 248-261, Springer-Verlag.
14. Purchase, H.C., Allder, J.A., Carrington, D.A. 2002. Graph layout aesthetics in UML diagrams: User preferences. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications 6(3):255-279.
15. Purchase, H.C., Cohen, R.F., James, M. 1996. Validating graph drawing aesthetics. In: GD 1995: Proceedings of the Symposium on Graph Drawing, pp. 435-446, Springer-Verlag.
16. Purchase, H.C., McGill, M., Colpoys, L., Carrington, D. 2001. Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of UML class diagrams: an empirical study. In: CRPITS 2001: Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pp. 129-137, Australian Computer Society, Inc.
17. Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D., Britton, C. 2001. UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In: CRPITS 2001: Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, pp. 113-120, Australian Computer Society, Inc.
18. Borland: Borland Together 2006. http://www.borland.com/together/.
19. IBM: IBM Rational Software 2006. http://www-306.ibm.com/software/ rational/.
20. Sun, D., Wong, K. 2004. On understanding software tool adoption using perceptual theories. In: ACSE 2004: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Adoption-Centric Software Engineering, pp. 51-55, Institution of Electrical Engineers.
21. Ware, C. 2000. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann.
22. Petre, M., Blackwell, A., Green, T. 1998. 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, pp. 453-480, MIT Press.
23. Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. W.H. Freeman.
24. Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25. Benjafleld, J.G. 1997. Cognition. 2nd edn. Prentice Hall.
26. Moore, P., Fitz, C. 1993. Gestalt theory and instructional design. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 23(2):137-157.
27. Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J.P. 1986. Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Volume II. Cognitive Processes and Performance. Wiley-Interscience.
28. Goldstein, B.E. 2002. Sensation and Perception. 6th edn. Wadsworth-Thomson Learning.
29. Schiffman, H.R. 2001. Sensation and Perception: An Integrated Approach. 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons.
30. Kimchi, R., Behrmann, M., Olson, C.R. 2003. Perceptual Organization in Vision: Behavioral and Neural Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Ware, C., Purchase, H., Colpoys, L., McGill, M. 2002. Cognitive measurements of graph aesthetics. Information Visualization 1(2): 103-110.
32. Ambler, S.W.: Modeling Style Guidelines 2006. http://www.agilemodeling. com/style/.
33. Ambler, S.W. 2003. The Elements of UML Style. Cambridge University Press.
34. Petre, M. 1995. Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Communication of the ACM 38(6):33-44.
35. Diaz, J., Petit, J., Serna, M. 2002. A survey of graph layout problems. ACM Computing Surveys 34(3):313-356.
36. Tamassia, R., Battista, G.D., Batini, C. 1988. Automatic graph drawing and readability of diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 18(1):61-79.
37. Himsolt, M. 1995. Comparing and evaluating layout algorithms within GraphEd. Journal of Visual Language and Computing 6(3):255-273.
38. Andriyevska, O., Dragan, N., Simoes, B., Maletic, J.I. 2005. Evaluating UML class diagram layout based on architectural importance. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, VISSOFT 2005, pp. 14-19, IEEE Computer Society Press.
39. Wampler, B.E. 2002. The Essence of Object-Oriented Programming with Java and UML. Addison Wesley.
40. Hou, D., Wong, K., Hoover, H.J. 2005. What can programmer questions tell us about frameworks? In: IWPC 2005: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 87-96, IEEE Computer Society Press.
41. JGraph: JGraph web site (2006). http://www.jgraph.com/.