A cognitive perspective on developer comprehension of software design documentation

SIGDOC'11 - Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 211-218

  Schoonewille, Hugo H ^a   Heijstek, Werner ^a   Chaudron, Michel R V ^a   Kühne, Thomas ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

cognitive theory of multimedia learning; software design comprehension

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE PROCESS; COGNITIVE THEORY OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING; COMMON SENSE; DESIGN DOCUMENTATION; DESIGN REPRESENTATION; EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE; GROUNDED THEORY; POSITIVE CORRELATIONS; SINGLE MEDIUM; SOFTWARE DOCUMENTATION; THINK ALOUD;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; RATING; SURVEYS;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 80054784947     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2038476.2038517     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. AGARWAL, R., AND SINHA, A. Object-oriented modeling with UML: a study of developers' perceptions. Communications of the ACM 46, 9 (2003), 248-256.
2. BADDELEY, A. D. Is working memory still working? European Psychology 7, 2nd (June 2002), 85-97.
3. BADDELEY, A. D. Working memory. Current Biology 20, 4 (February 2010), 136-140.
4. BADDELEY, A. D., KOPELMAN, M. D., AND WILSON, B. A., Eds. The Essential Handbook of Memory Disorders for Clinicians. John Wiley and Sons, 2004.
5. CHARMAZ, K. Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, 2006.
6. CURTIS, B., KRASNER, H., AND ISCOE, N. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Comm. of the ACM 31, 11 (November 1988), 1268-1287.
7. DONAHUE, G., WEINSCHENK, S., AND NOWICKI, J. Usability is good business. from http://www.yucentrik.ca/usability.pdf (02/06/2011) (1999).
8. DUMAS, J. User-based evaluations. In The Human-computer Interaction Handbook (2002), J. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds., L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, pp. 1093-1117.
9. ERICSSON, K. A., AND SIMON, H. A. Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data, 2nd ed. MIT Press, 1993.
10. GIBBS, G. R. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Sage Publications, 2007.
11. GLASER, B., AND STRAUSS, A. Grounded Theory: The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: De Gruyter, 1967.
12. HAYES, J. H. Do you like pinã coladas? How improved communication can improve software quality. IEEE Software 20, 1 (2003), 90-92.
13. HEALY, A. F., PROCTOR, R. W., WEINER, I. B., FREEDHEIM, D. K., AND SCHINKA, J. A., Eds. Handbook of Psychology: Experimental psychology. John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
14. HEIJSTEK, W., KÜHNE, T., AND CHAUDRON, M. R. V. Experimental analysis of textual and graphical representations for software architecture design. ESEM (2011).
15. HERBSLEB, J. D. Global software engineering: The future of socio-technical coordination. In FOSE (2007).
16. HERBSLEB, J. D., AND MOITRA, D. Global software development. IEEE Software 18, 2 (March/April 2001), 16-20.
17. HOLMES, J. Expressing doubt and certainty in english. RELC Journal 13, 9 (1982), 9-28.
18. KALYUGA, S. Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction 19 (2009), 402-410.
19. KOTLARSKY, J., VAN FENEMA, P. C., AND WILLCOCKS, l. P. Developing a knowledge-based perspective on coordination: the case of global software projects. Information and Management 45 (2008), 96-108.
20. KRAUT, R. E., AND STREETER, L. A. Coordination in software development. Comm. of the ACM 38, 3 (March 1995), 69-81.
21. KUHN, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
22. LANGE, C. F. J., AND CHAUDRON, M. R. V. Managing model quality in UML-based software development. In Int. Workshop on S.Tech. and Eng. Practice (2005), pp. 15-23.
23. LARKIN, J., AND SIMON, H. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science 11, 1 (1987), 65-100.
24. LATOZA, T. D., VENOLIA, G., AND DELINE, R. Maintaining mental models: A study of developer work habits. In ICSE (2006), pp. 492-501.
25. LEE, G., DELONE, W., AND ESPINOSA, J. Ambidextrous coping strategies in globally distributed software development projects. Comm. of the ACM 49, 10 (2006), 35-40.
26. LYONS, E., AND COYLE, A., Eds. Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology. Sage Publications, 2007.
27. MAYER, R. E. Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
28. MOODY, D. The "physics" of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. (2009), 756-779.
29. MOODY, D. L., and van Hillegersberg, J. Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: An analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. Software Language Engineering 5452 (2009), 16-34.
30. MÜLLER, M., AND TICHY, W. Case study: Extreme programming in a university environment. ICSE (2001), 537-544.
31. NUGROHO, A. Level of detail in UML models and its impact on model comprehension: A controlled experiment. Information & Software Technology 51, 12 (2009), 1670-1685.
32. OLSON, G. M., AND OLSON, J. S. Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15 (2000), 139-178.
33. PARNAS, D. L. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Comm. of the ACM 15, 12 (December 1972), 1053-1058.
34. ÅGERFALK, P. J., AND FITZGERALD, B. Flexible and distributed software processes: Old petunias in new bowls? Communications of the ACM 49, 10 (October 2006), 27-34.
35. TVERSKY, A., AND KAHNEMAN, D. Judgements under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974), 1124-1131.
36. VAN VLIET, H. Software Engineering: Principles and Practice, 3rd ed. Wiley, June 2008.
37. WOHLIN, C., RUNESON, P., HÓST, M., OHLSSON, M. C., REGNELL, B., AND WESSLÉN, . Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 2000.