Visual qualities of the unified modeling language: Deficiencies and improvements

Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC 2007

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 41-49

  Fish, Andrew ^a   Störrle, Harald ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ERRORS; INFORMATION THEORY; LINGUISTICS; QUERY LANGUAGES; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATIONS; HUMAN ERRORS.; INDUSTRIAL SETTINGS; UNIFIED MODELING; VISUAL NOTATIONS; VISUAL QUALITIES;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 47949083183     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/VLHCC.2007.62     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. M. N. Akkok. An Overview of the Unified Modeling Language and Diagrammatic Modeling Language Design Efforts in Software Engineering. Information Design Journal, 11(2/3):151-159, 2003.
2. J. Barwise and G. Allwein, editors. Logical Reasoning with Diagrams. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
3. J. Bertin. Graphics and Graphic Information-Processing. Walther de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1981.
4. M. Dastani. The role of visual perception in data visualization. J. Visual Languages and Computing, 13(6):601-622, 2002.
5. Y Engelhardt. Objects and Spaces: The Visual Language of Graphics. In Proc. Intl. Conf. Diagrams, pages 104-108, 2006.
6. C. A. Gurr. Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues. J. Visual Languages and Computing, 10(4):317-342, 1999.
7. C. A. Gurr and K. Tourlas. Formalising pragmatic features of graph-based notations. In Proc. 15th IEEE Symp. Visual Languages (VL'99), pages 220-227. IEEE Computer Society, 1999.
8. C. A. Gurr and K. Tourlas. Towards the principled design of software engineering diagrams. In Proc. Intl. Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 509-518, 2000.
9. E. Hammer and N. Danner. Towards a model theory of Venn diagrams. In Barwise and Allwein [2], pages 109-127.
10. A. v. Klopp Lemon and O. v. Klopp Lemon. Constraint matching for diagram design: Qualitative visual languages. In Proc. Intl. Conf. Theory and Application of Diagrams, volume 1889 of LNAI, pages 74-88. Springer Verlag, 2000.
11. J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1 ):65-99, 1987.
12. J. W. Marks and E. Reiter. Avoiding unwanted conversational implicatures in text and graphics. In Proc. 8th Nat. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pages 450-456, 1990.
13. J. Oberlander. Grice for graphics: pragmatic implicature in network diagrams. Information Design Journal, 8(6): 163-179, 1996.
14. th, 2007.
15. M. Petre and T. R. G. Green. Requirements of graphical notations for professional users: electronics CAD systems as a case study. Le Travail Humain, 55:47-70, 1992.
16. A. Shimojima. Operational Constraints in Diagrammatic Reasoning. Oxford University Press, 1996.
17. S.-J. Shin. Situation-theoretic account of valid reasoning with Venn diagrams. In Barwise and Allwein [2], pages 81-108.
18. K. Stenning and J. Oberlander. A Cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation. Cognitive Science, 19(1):97-140, 1995.
19. H. Störrle. Semantics of Interactions in UML 2.0. InJ. Hosking and P. Cox, editors, Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments, pages 129-136. IEEE Computer Society, 2003.
20. H. Störrle. UML 2 erfolgreich einsetzen. Addison-Wesley, 2005.
21. D. Wang, Y. Engelhardt, and H. Zeevat. Formai specification of a graphic design theory (extended abstract). Unpublished, available at cf.hum.uva.nl/ computerlinguistiek/henk/PUB/tvl.ps.gz.
22. D. Wang and H. Zeevat. A syntax directed approach to picture semantics. Technical Report CS-R9625, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI), 1996.