Evaluation of software visualization tools: Lessons learned

Proceedings of VISSOFT 2009 - 5th IEEE International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 19-26

  Sensalire, Mariam ^a   Ogao, Patrick ^a   Telea, Alexandru ^b  

^a MAKERERE UNIVERSITY   (Uganda)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION EXPERIMENTS; LESSONS LEARNED; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT; SOFTWARE VISUALIZATION; SOFTWARE VISUALIZATION TOOL;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; VISUALIZATION;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 73649142007     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/VISSOF.2009.5336431     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (43)

1. BASSIL, S., AND KELLER, R. A Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Software Visualization Tools. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Software Visualization, 33-37.
2. BYELAS, H., AND TELEA, A. 2006. Visualization of areas of interest in software architecture diagrams. In Proc. SoftVis, ACM, 105-114.
3. BYELAS, H., AND TELEA, A. 2009. Towards visual realism in drawing areas of interest on software architecture diagrams. J. Visual Languages and Computing 20, 2, 110-128.
4. BYELAS, H., AND TELEA, A. 2009. Visualizing metrics on areas of interest in software architecture diagrams. In Proc. PacificVis, IEEE, 201-209.
5. DI LUCCA, G., AND DI PENTA, M. 2006. Experimental settings in program comprehension: Challenges and open issues. In 14th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, 2006. ICPC 2006, 229-234.
6. DI PENTA, M., STIREWALT, R., AND KRAEMER, E. 2007. Designing your next empirical study on program comprehension. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA, 281-285.
7. DIEHL, S. 2006. Software Visualization: Visualizing The Structure, Behaviour, And Evolution Of Software. Springer.
8. ELLIS, G., AND DIX, A. 2006. An explorative analysis of user evaluation studies in information visualisation. In Proceedings of the 2006 AVI workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization, ACM New York, NY, USA, 1-7.
9. HUNDHAUSEN, C., DOUGLAS, S., AND STASKO, J. 2002. A meta-study of software visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 13, 3, 259-290.
10. KANNUSMAKI, O., MORENO, A., MYLLER, N., AND SUTINEN, E. What a novice wants: students using program visualization in distance programming course. In Program Visualization Workshop, 126.
11. KEOWN, L. 2000. Virtual 3d worlds for enhanced software visualisation. Master's thesis, University of Canterbury, Department of Computer Science.
12. KNIGHT, C. 2001. Visualisation effectiveness. In 2001 International Conference on Imaging Science, Systems, and Technology (CISST 2001), 249-254.
13. KOSCHKE, R. 2003. Software visualization in software maintenance, reverse engineering, and re-engineering: a research survey. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 15, 2, 87-109.
14. KRAEMER, E. 2008. Designing, conducting, and analyzing empirical studies. Electronic Communications of the EASST 13.
15. LATTU, M., AND TARHIO, J. 2000. How a visualization tool can be used: Evaluating a tool in a research and development project. In 12th workshop of Psychology of Programming Interest Group.
16. LAWRENCE, A., BADRE, A., AND STASKO, J. 1994. Empirically evaluating the use of animations to teach algorithms. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 1994. Proceedings., 48-54.
17. LORENSEN, B. 2004. On the death of visualization: Can it survive without customers? In Proc. NIH/NSF Fall 2004 Workshop on Visualization Research Challenges, NIH/NSF Press.
18. MARCUS, A., COMORSKI, D., AND A SERGEYEV, A. 2005. Supporting the evolution of a software visualization tool through usability studies. Proceedings of 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, 307- 316.
19. MURPHY, G., WALKER, R., AND BANLASSAD, E. 1999. Evaluating emerging software development technologies: lessons learned from assessing aspect-oriented programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25, 4, 438-455.
20. O'BRIEN, M., BUCKLEY, J., AND EXTON, C. 2005. Empirically studying software practitioners-bridging the gap between theory and practice. In Software Maintenance, 2005. ICSM'05. Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on, 433-442.
21. PACIONE, M., ROPER, M., AND WOOD, M. 2003. A comparative evaluation of dynamic visualization tools. Proceed- ings of the 10th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE),Victoria, BC,Los Alamitos, pp. 80-89, CA: IEEE CS Press,, 80-89.
22. PFLEEGER, S. 1995. Experimental design and analysis in software engineering. Annals of Software Engineering 1, 1, 219-253.
23. PLAISANT, C. 2004. The challenge of information visualization evaluation. Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, 109-116.
24. POPPENDIECK, M., AND POPPENDIECK, T. 2006. Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash. Addison-Wesley.
25. PRICE, A., BAECKER, R., AND SMALL, I. 1993. A principled taxonomy of software visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4(3):211-266.
26. RAJLICH, V., AND WILDE, N. 2002. The role of concepts in program comprehension. The InternationalWireless Industry Consortium, 271-278.
27. REISS, S. P. 2005. The paradox of software visualization. In Proc. VISSOFT, IEEE, 59-63.
28. SENSALIRE, M., AND OGAO, P. 2007. Tool users requirements classification: how software visualization tools measure up. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Computer graphics, virtual reality, visualisation and interaction in Africa, ACM New York, NY, USA, 119-124.
29. SENSALIRE,M., AND OGAO, P. 2007. Visualizing object oriented software: towards a point of reference for developing tools for industry. In 4th IEEE International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, 2007. VISSOFT 2007, 26-29.
30. SENSALIRE, M., OGAO, P., AND TELEA, A. 2008. Classifying desirable features of software visualization tools for corrective maintenance. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM symposium on Software visuallization, ACM New York, NY, USA, 87-90.
31. SHNEIDERMAN, B., AND PLAISANT, C. 2006. Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools: multi-dimensional indepth long-term case studies. In Proceedings of the 2006 AVI workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization, ACM New York, NY, USA, 1-7.
32. SILLITO, J., MURPHY, G., AND DE VOLDER, K. 2008. Asking and answering questions during a programming change task. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 34, 4, 434-451.
33. SILLITO, J. 2006. Asking and Answering Questions During a Programming Change Task. PhD thesis.
34. SJ∅BERG, D., DYBÅ, T., AND J∅RGENSEN, M. 2007. The future of empirical methods in software engineering research. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE, 358-378.
35. STOREY, M. 1998. A cognitive framework for describing and evaluating software exploration tools. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University.
36. TELEA, A. 2008. Software evolution assessment study. In www. cs.rug.n1/\ ∼alext/Assignment, Univ. of Groningen, the Netherlands.
37. TORTOISE SVN. 2009. The TortoiseSVN repository browser. In tortoisesvn.tigtis.org.
38. TORY, M., AND MOLLER, T. 2004. Human factors in visualization research. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics Vol 10, No.1.
39. TRUST 4ALL . 2007. The Trust4All ITEA research project. In www.win.tue.nl/trust4all.
40. VAN HAASTER, K., AND HAGAN, D. 2004. Teaching and learning with BlueJ: an Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool. In Information Science+ Information Technology Education Joint Conference, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
41. VOINEA, L., AND TELEA, A. 2006. CVSgrab: Mining the history of large software projects. IEEE, 197-205.
42. VOINEA, L., AND TELEA, A. 2008. Visual querying and analysis of large software repositories. Empirical Software Engineering.
43. ZANNIER, C., MELNIK, G., AND MAURER, F. 2006. On the success of empirical studies in the international conference on software engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, ACMNew York, NY, USA, 341-350.