Guidelines on the aesthetic quality of UML class diagrams

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 51, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1686-1698

  Eichelberger, Holger ^a   Schmid, Klaus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HILDESHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aesthetic quality; Automatic layout; Layout guidelines; Modeling tools; Software engineering; UML class diagrams

Indexed keywords

AESTHETIC QUALITY; AUTOMATIC LAYOUT; LAYOUT GUIDELINES; MODELING TOOLS; UML CLASS DIAGRAMS;

ENCODING (SYMBOLS); GRAPHIC METHODS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SPECIFICATION LANGUAGES; TAXONOMIES;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 70349466419     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Ambler S.W. The Elements of UML 2.0 Style (2005), Cambridge University Press
2. O. Andriyevska, N. Dragan, B. Simoes, J.I. Maletic, Evaluating UML class diagram layout based on architectural importance, in: VISSOFT05, 2005.
3. Basili V.R., Shull F., and Lanubile F. Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25 4 (1999) 456-473
4. Basili V.R., and Weiss D.M. A method for collecting valid software engineering data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 10 6 (1984) 728-738
5. Cockburn A. Writing Effective Use Cases (2001), Addison Wesley
6. E. Dengler, W. Cowan, Human perception of laid-out graphs, in: S.H. Whitesides (Ed.), Graph Drawing: Sixth International Symposium, GD'98, Montréal, Canada, August 1998, Proceedings of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1547, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1998.
7. Dobing B., and Parsons J. How UML is used. Communications of the ACM 49 5 (2006) 109-113
8. Dybå T., Kitchenham B.A., and Jorgensen M. Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners. IEEE Software 22 1 (2005) 58-65
9. Egyed A. Automated abstraction of class diagrams. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11 4 (2002) 449-491
10. H. Eichelberger, Automatic layout of UML use case diagrams, in: Proceedings of SoftVis 2008, ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, September 16-17, 2008, Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany (accepted for presentation and publication).
11. H. Eichelberger, Evaluation-Report on the Layout Facilities of UML Tools, Technical Report 298, Institut für Informatik, University of Würzburg (July 2002). .
12. Eichelberger H. Nice class diagrams admit good design?. Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization (2003), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA
13. H. Eichelberger, Aesthetics and Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams, Ph.D. Thesis, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Würzburg University, Germany, July 2005.
14. H. Eichelberger, Y. Eldogan, K. Schmid, A Comprehensive Survey of UML Tool Capabilites and Compliance, Technical Report 1/08, Hildesheimer Informatik-Berichte, Institut für Informatik, University of Hildesheim, (internal report), 2008.
15. H. Eichelberger, K. Schmid, Experimental Material for the Software Engineering Experiment SoSe 2008, .
16. H. Koning, C. Dormann, H. van Vliet, Practical Guidelines for the Readability of IT-architecture Diagrams, in: SIGDOC'02, October 20-23, 2002, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2002.
17. C.F. Lange, B. DuBois, M.R. Chaudron, S. Demeyer, An experimental investigation of UML modeling conventions, in: O. Nierstrasz (Ed.), Models 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4199, 2006.
18. M. Lanza, Codecrawler - a lightweight software visualization tool, in: A. van Deursen, C. Knight, J.I. Maletic, M.-A. Storey (Eds.), Proceedings of Vissoft 2003, International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, IEEE, 2003.
19. OMG, Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure Version 2.1.1, Specification v1.3 2007-02-05, Object Management Group, online available at: (February 2007).
20. Petre M. Why looking is not always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM 38 6 (1995) 33-44
21. Purchase H., Allder J.-A., and Carrington D. Graph layout aesthetics in UML diagrams: user preferences. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications 6 3 (2002) 255-279
22. Purchase H., Colpoys L., Carrington D., and McGill M. UML class diagrams: an empirical study of comprehension. In: Zhang K. (Ed). Software Visualization - From Theory to Practice (2003), Kluwer
23. H.C. Purchase, J.-A. Allder, D. Carrington, User preference of graph layout aesthetics: A UML study, in: J. Marks (Ed.), Graph Drawing: Eighth International Symposium GD 2000, Colonial Williamsburg, VA, USA, September 20-23, 2000: Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1984, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2001.
24. Purchase H.C., Carrington D., and Allder J.-A. Empirical evaluation of aesthetics-based graph layout. Empirical Software Engineering 7 3 (2002) 233-255
25. H.C. Purchase, M. McGill, L. Colpoys, D. Carrington, Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of UML class diagrams: an empirical study, in: P. Eades, T. Pattison (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation, Australian Computer Society Inc., 2001.
26. D. Sun, K. Wong, On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC'05), IEEE, 2005.
27. Ware C. Information Visualization: Perception for Design (2000), Academic Press, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
28. Wohlin C., Runeson P., Hast M., Ohlsson M.C., Regnell B., and Wesslen A. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction (2000), Kluwer Academic Publisher
29. Yusuf S., Kagdi H., and Maletic J.I. Assessing the comprehension of UML class diagrams via eye tracking. ICPC '07: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (2007), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA
30. Zelkowitz M., and Wallace D. Experimental validation in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 39 11 (1997) 735-743