Improving the effectiveness of visual representations in requirements engineering: An evaluation of i* visual syntax

Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 171-180

  Moody, Daniel L ^a   Heymans, Patrick ^b   Matulevicius, Raimundas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b University of Namur   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GOAL-ORIENTED; RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT; SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS; VISUAL NOTATIONS; VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS;

SYNTACTICS;

REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING;

EID: 73549111785     PISSN: 1090705X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/RE.2009.44     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. Avison, D.E. and G. Fitzgerald, Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools (3rd edition). 2003, Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific.
2. Ayala, C.P., C. Cares, J.P. Carvallo, G. Grau, Mariela Haya, G. Salazar, X. Franch, E. Mayol, and C. Quer. A Comparative Analysis of i*-Based Agent-Oriented Modeling Languages. in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology (AOSDM'2005). 2005.
3. Bar, M. and M. Neta, Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 2006. 17(8): p. 645-648.
4. Bertin, J., Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. 1983, Madison, Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Press.
5. Bertolini, D., A. Perini, A. Susi, and H. Mouratidis. The TROPOS Visual Modeling Language: A MOF 1.4 Compliant Metamodel. in Agent-Oriented Software Engineering Technical Forum. 2005. Ljubljana, Slovenia.
6. Bresciani, P., A. Perini, P. Giorgini, F. Giunchiglia, and J. Mylopolous, TROPOS: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2004. 8: p. 203-236.
7. Britton, C. and S. Jones, The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding by Untrained Users. Human Computer Interaction, 1999. 14: p. 191-244.
8. Checkland, P.B. and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology In Action. 1990, Chichester, England: Wiley.
9. Cheng, B.H. and J.M. Atlee. Research Directions in Requirements Engineering. in International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE07). 2007. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
10. Citrin, W., Strategic Directions in Visual Languages Research. ACM Computing Surveys, 1996. 24(4).
11. Dardenne, A., A. van Lamsweerde, and S. Fickas, Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition. Science of Computer Programming, 1993. 20: p. 3-50.
12. Dijkstra, E.W., On the Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science. Communications of the ACM, 1989. 32(12): p. 1398-1404.
13. Estrada, H., A.M. Rebollar, O. Pastor, and J. Mylopoulos. An Empirical Evaluation of the i* Framework in a Model-based Software Generation Environment. in CAiSE 2006 (LNCS 4001). 2006: Springer-Verlag.
14. Frutiger, A. and A. Bluhm, Signs and Symbols: Their Design and Meaning. 1998, New York, USA: Watson-Guptill Publications.
15. Ganek, A.G. and T.A. Corbi, The Dawning of the Autonomic Computing Era. IBM Systems Journal, 2003. 42(1): p. 5-19.
16. Goodman, N., Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. 1968, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co.
17. Grau, G., J. Horkoff, E. Yu, and S. Abdulhadi. i* Guide 3.0. (last updated August, 2007; accessed February 10, 2009); Available from: http://istar.rwth-aachen.de/tikiindex.php?page-ref-id=67.
18. Green, T.R.G. and M. Petre, Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1996. 7: p. 131-174.
19. Gurr, C.A., Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1999. 10: p. 317-342.
20. Hitchman, S., The Details of Conceptual Modelling Notations are Important - A Comparison of Relationship Normative Language. Communications of the AIS, 2002. 9(10).
21. Irani, P. and C. Ware, Diagramming Information Structures Using 3D Perceptual Primitives. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2003. 10(1): p. 1-19.
22. Kaindl, H., S. Brinkkemper, J.A. Bubenko, B. Farbey, S.J. Greenspan, C.L. Heitmeyer, J.C.S.P. Leite, N.R. Mead, J. Myopolous, and J. Siddiqui, Requirements Engineering and Technology Transfer: Obstacles, Incentives and Improvement Agenda. Requirements Engineering, 2002. 7: p. 113-123.
23. Larkin, J.H. and H.A. Simon, Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science, 1987. 11(1).
24. Lynch, M., The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences. Human Studies, 1988. 11: p. 201-234.
25. Mackinlay, J., Automating the Design of Graphical Presentations of Relational Information. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 1986. 5(2): p. 110 - 141.
26. Maiden, N.A.M., N. Kamdar, and D. Bush. Analysing I* System Models for Dependability Properties: The Uberlingen Accident. in REFSQ'06. 2006. Luxembourg.
27. Masri, K., D. Parker, and A. Gemino, Using Iconic Graphics in Entity Relationship Diagrams: The Impact on Understanding. Journal of Database Management, 2008. 19(3): p. 22-41.
28. Miller, G.A., The Magical Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two: Some Limits On Our Capacity For Processing Information. The Psychological Review, 1956. 63: p. 81-97.
29. Moody, D.L. Complexity Effects On End User Understanding Of Data Models: An Experimental Comparison Of Large Data Model Representation Methods. in Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS'2002). 2002. Gdansk, Poland.
30. Moody, D.L., The "Physics" of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2009. October.
31. Moody, D.L. and J. van Hillegersberg. Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Suite of Diagrams. in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE). 2008. Toulouse, France: Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
32. Nordbotten, J.C. and M.E. Crosby, The Effect of Graphic Style on Data Model Interpretation. Information Systems Journal, 1999. 9(2): p. 139-156.
33. OMG, MOF Core specification. 2006: Object Management Group.
34. Peirce, C.S., Charles S. Peirce: The Essential Writings (Great Books in Philosophy), ed. E.C. Moore. 1998, Amherst, USA: Prometheus Books.
35. Petre, M., Why Looking Isn't Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of the ACM, 1995. 38(6): p. 33-44.
36. Siau, K., Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modelling Methods. Journal of Database Management, 2004. 15(1): p. 73-86.
37. Tufte, E.R., Beautiful Evidence. 2006, Cheshire, Connecticut, USA: Graphics Press.
38. Wheildon, C., Type and Layout: Are You Communicating or Just Making Pretty Shapes? 2005, Hastings, Victoria, Australia: Worsley Press.
39. Winn, W.D., Encoding and Retrieval of Information in Maps and Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 1990. 33(3): p. 103-107.
40. Winn, W.D., An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1993. 18: p. 162-185.
41. Yu, E., Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering (PhD thesis). 1995: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.
42. Yu, E. Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'97). 1997. Washington D.C., USA.