On the cognitive effectiveness of routing symbols in process modeling languages

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 47 LNBIP, Issue , 2010, Pages 230-241

  Figl, Kathrin ^a   Mendling, Jan ^b   Strembeck, Mark ^a   Recker, Jan ^c  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

^b HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

BPMN; Cognitive analysis; EPCs; Process modeling; UML; YAWL

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PROCESS ENGINEERING; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

BPMN; COGNITIVE ANALYSIS; EPCS; PROCESS MODELING; UML; YAWL;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84876355463     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-12814-1_20     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4) (June 2005)
2. Aranda, J., Ernst, N., Horkoff, J., Easterbrook, S.M.: A framework for empirical evaluation of model comprehensibility. ?In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2007), Minneapolis, USA (2007)
3. Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G.: Working memory. In: The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 8, pp. 47-89. Academic Press, New York (1974)
4. Bajaj, A., Rockwell, S.: COGEVAL: A Propositional Framework Based on Cognitive Theories To Evaluate Conceptual Models. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research, pp. 255-282. Idea Group Publishing, USA (2005)
5. Chandler, P., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(2), 151-170 (1996) (Pubitemid 126482120)
6. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9(4), 248-260 (2004) (Pubitemid 39660033)
7. Keller, G., N?uttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK) (1992)
8. Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them. Memory & Cognition 37(5), 615-623 (2009)
9. Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Informatica 39(3), 143-209 (2003) (Pubitemid 36467936)
10. Kirschner, P.A.: Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 12(1), 1-10 (2002) (Pubitemid 39659593)
11. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65-100 (1987)
12. Maes, A., Poels, G.: Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 63(3), 701-724 (2007)
13. Mayer, R.E.: Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)
14. Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A.: On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 1(2) (2010)
15. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst,W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information and Software Technology (2) (2010)
16. Mendling, J., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Getting rid of or-joins and multiple start events in business process models. Enterprise Information Systems 2(4), 403-419 (2008)
17. Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63, 81-97 (1956)
18. Moody, D., Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family of Diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16-34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
19. Nielsen, J.: Usability 101: Introduction to usability (2009)
20. Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Information Systems Journal 9(2), 139-155 (1999)
21. OMG. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.2, formal 2009-01-03, The Object Management Group (January 2009), http://www.omg.org/spec/ BPMN/1.2/
22. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML): Superstructure, Version 2.2, formal 2009-02-02, The Object Management Group (February 2009), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm
23. Paivio, A.: Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology 45(3), 255-287 (1991)
24. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: How good is bpmn really? insights from theory and practice. In: Ljungberg, J., Andersson, M. (eds.) 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden, pp. 1582-1593. Association for Information Systems (2006)
25. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling- a comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(4), 333-363 (2009)
26. Santa, J.L.: Spatial transformations of words and pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory 3, 418-427 (1977)
27. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 45(2), 185-213 (1996) (Pubitemid 126360243)
28. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 12(2), 257-285 (1988)
29. Verbeek, H.M.V., van der Aalst,W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Verifying workflows with cancellation regions and or-joins: An approach based on relaxed soundness and invariants. The Computer Journal 50(3), 294-314 (2007)
30. Vessey, I.: Cognitive Fit: A Theory-Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature. Decision Sciences 22(2), 219-240 (1991)