Dealing with "Map Shock": A systematic approach for managing complexity in requirements modelling

REFSQ 2006 - Proceedings of the 12th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, In Conjunction with CAiSE 2006

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 225-240

  Moody, Daniel L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING;

COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; NON-TECHNICAL USERS; REQUIREMENTS MODELLING; REQUIREMENTS MODELS; SOFTWARE QUALITY; SYNTHESISED; UNDERLYING SYSTEMS;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 84905822006     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (70)

1. Ackoff, R.L., Management Misinformation Systems. Management Science, 1964.
2. Baddeley, A. and G. Hitch, Working Memory, in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Volume 8, G.H. Bower, Editor. 1974, Academic Press: London.
3. Baskerville, R.L., Investigating Information Systems with Action Research: A Tutorial. Communications of the AIS, 1999. 2(19).
4. Blankenship, J. and D.F. Dansereau, The Effect of Animated Node-Link Displays on Information Recall. The Journal of Experimental Education, 2000. 68(4): p. 293-308.
5. 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.
6. Browne, G.J. and V. Ramesh, Improving Information Requirements Determination: A Cognitive Perspective. Information & Management, 2002. 39: p. 625-645.
7. Chandler, P. and J. Sweller, Cognitive Load While Learning to Use a Computer Program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1996. 10: p. 151-170.
8. Chandra, A. and R. Krovi, Representational Congruence and Information Retrieval: Towards an Extended Model of Cognitive Fit. Decision Support Systems, 1999. 25: p. 271-288.
9. Chen, P.P., The Entity Relationship Model: Towards An Integrated View Of Data. ACM Transactions On Database Systems, 1976. 1(1): p. 9-36.
10. Davies, I., P. Green, and M. Rosemann, Modelling in Australian Practice-Preliminary Insights. Information Age, 2003: p. 34-42.
11. Dijkstra, E.W., On the Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science. Communications of the ACM, 1989. 32(12): p. 1398-1404.
12. Dix, A., J. Finlay, G. Abowd, and R. Beale, Human Computer Interaction. 1993, London: Prentice Hall.
13. Ericsson, K.A., W.G. Chase, and S. Faloon, Acquisition of a Memory Skill. Science, 1980. 208: p. 1181-1182.
14. Ganek, A.G. and T.A. Corbi, The Dawning of the Autonomic Computing Era. IBM Systems Journal, 2003. 42(1): p. 5-19.
15. Gurr, C.A., Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1999. 10: p. 317-342.
16. Hahn, J. and J. Kim, Why Are Some Diagrams Easier to Work With? Effects of Diagrammatic Representation on the Cognitive Integration Process of Systems Analysis and Design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1999. 6(3): p. 181-213.
17. Henderson, D.A. and S.K. Card, Rooms: The use of multiple virtual workspaces to reduce space contention in a window based graphical user interface. ACM Transactions on Computer Graphics, 1986. 5: p. 211-243.
18. Hitchman, S., Practitioner Perceptions On The Use Of Some Semantic Concepts In The Entity Relationship Model. European Journal of Information Systems, 1995. 4(1): p. 31-40.
19. Hitchman, S., The Details of Conceptual Modelling Notations are Important-A Comparison of Relationship Normative Language. Communications of the AIS, 2002. 9(10).
20. Horn, R.E., Structured Writing as a Paradigm, in Instructional Development: State of the Art, A. Romiszowski and C. Dills, Editors. 1998, Educational Technology Publications: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
21. Kim, J., J. Hahn, and H. Hahn, How Do We Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning. Information Systems Research, 2000. 11(3): p. 284-303.
22. Kimball, R., Is ER Modeling Hazardous to DSS? DBMS Magazine, 1995.
23. Kosslyn, S.M., Understanding Charts And Graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1989. 3: p. 185-226.
24. Kumpf, E.P., Visual Metadiscourse: Designing the Considerate Text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 2000. 9(4): p. 401-424.
25. Lambiotte, J.B., D.F. Dansereau, D.R. Cross, and S.B. Reynolds, Multi-relational Semantic Maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1989. 1: p. 331-367.
26. Lindland, O.I., G. Sindre, and A. Sølvberg, Understanding Quality In Conceptual Modelling. IEEE Software, 1994. 11(2): p. 42-49.
27. Lipowski, Z.J., Sensory And Information Inputs Overload: Behavioural Effects. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1975. 16(3): p. 105-124.
28. Lohse, G.L., A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 1993. 8(4): p. 353-388.
29. Lohse, G.L., D. Min, and J.R. Olson, Cognitive Evaluation of System Representation Diagrams. Information & Management, 1995. 29: p. 79-94.
30. Maier, R. Benefits And Quality Of Data Modelling: Results Of An Empirical Analysis. in Proceedings Of The Fifteenth International Conference On The Entity Relationship Approach. 1996. Cottbus, Germany: Elsevier.
31. Mayer, R.E. and R. Moreno, Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 2003. 38(1): p. 43-52.
32. 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.
33. Moody, D.L. A Practical Methodology For The Representation Of Large Data Models. in Proceedings Of The Australian Database And Information Systems Conference. 1991. University Of N.S.W., Sydney, Australia.
34. Moody, D.L., Dealing with Complexity: A Practical Method for Representing Large Entity Relationship Models. 2001, Department Of Information Systems, University of Melbourne: Melbourne, Australia.
35. Moody, D.L. Comparative Evaluation of Large Data Model Representation Methods: The Analyst's Perspective. in 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'2002). 2002. Tampere, Finland.
36. 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.
37. Mousavi, S., R. Low, and J. Sweller, Reducing Cognitive Load by Mixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1995. 77: p. 272-284.
38. Noik, E.G., Dynamic Fisheye Views: Combining Dynamic Queries and Mapping with Database View Definition (Doctoral Dissertation). 1996, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto: Toronto, Canada.
39. 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.
40. OMG, Unified Modeling Language Version 2.0: Superstructure. 2005: Object Management Group (OMG).
41. Opdahl, A.L. and B. Henderson-Sellers, Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model. Software and Systems Modelling, 2002. 1(1): p. 43-67.
42. Paas, F., Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem Solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive Load Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1992. 84: p. 429-434.
43. Parnas, D.L., On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM, 1972. 15(12): p. 1053-1058.
44. Patrignani, M., Visualization of Large Graphs, in Dottorato di Ricerca (Doctoral Dissertation), Ingegneria Informatica. 2003, Università degli Studi di Roma: La Sapienza, Italy.
45. Peebles, D. and P.C.-H. Cheng, Modelling the Effect of Task and Graphical Representation on Response Latency in a Graph Reading Task. Human Factors, 2003. 45(1): p. 28-46.
46. Petre, M., Why Looking Isn't Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of the ACM, 1995. 38(6): p. 33-44.
47. Peuquet, D.J. and M.-J. Kraak, Geobrowsing: Creative Thinking and Knowledge Discovery Using Geographic Visualisation. Information Visualisation, 2002. 1: p. 80-91.
48. Purchase, H.C. and J. Worrill, An Empirical Study of On-line Help Design: Features and Principles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2002. 56: p. 539-567.
49. Renkl, A. and R.K. Atkinson, Structuring the Transition From Example Study to Problem Solving in Cognitive Skill Acquisition: A Cognitive Load Perspective. Educational Psychologist, 2003. 38(1): p. 15-23.
50. Robinson, A.H., J.L. Morrison, P.C. Muehrcke, A.J. Kimerling, and S.C. Guptill, Elements of Cartography (6th Edition). 1995, New York: Wiley.
51. Rubin, R., Foundations of Library and Information Science. 2000, New York, USA: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
52. Sellen, A. and R. Harper. Paper as an Analytic Resource for the Design of New Technologies. in Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'97). 1997. Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
53. Shanks, G.G., The Challenges Of Strategic Data Planning In Practice: An Interpretive Case Study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 1997. 6(1): p. 69-90.
54. Siau, K., Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modelling Methods. Journal of Database Management, 2004. 15(1): p. 73-86.
55. Simon, H.A., Sciences Of The Artificial (3rd edition). 1996, Boston, USA: MIT Press. 215.
56. Sweller, J., Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 1988. 12: p. 257-285.
57. Sweller, J., Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty and Instructional Design. Learning and Cognition, 1994. 4: p. 295-312.
58. Tasker, D., Worth 1, 000 Words? Ha! Business Rules Journal, 2002. 3(11).
59. Thalheim, B., Entity Relationship Modeling: Foundations of Database Technology. 2000, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. xii, 627.
60. Verdi, M.P., J.T. Johnson, W.A. Stock, R.W. Kulhavy, and P. Whitman-Ahern, Organized Spatial Displays And Texts: Effects Of Presentation Order And Display Type On Learning Outcomes. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1997. 65(4): p. 303-317.
61. Wand, Y. and R.A. Weber, On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars. Journal of Information Systems, 1993. 3(4): p. 217-237.
62. Wand, Y. and R.A. Weber, Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modelling-A Research Agenda. Information Systems Research, 2002. 13(4): p. 363-376.
63. Watts-Perotti, J. and D.D. Woods, How Experienced Users Avoid Getting Lost in Large Display Networks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1999. 11(4): p. 169-299.
64. Weber, R.A., Are Attributes Entities? A Study Of Database Designers' Memory Structures. Information Systems Research, 1996. 7(2): p. 137-162.
65. Weber, R.A., Ontological Foundations Of Information Systems (Coopers And Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph No. 4). 1997, Melbourne, Australia: Coopers And Lybrand. 212.
66. Wertheimer, M., Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms, in A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, W. Ellis, Editor. 1938, Routledge and Kegan Paul (originally published in 1923 in German as Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II, in Psycologische Forschung, 4, 301-350): London. p. 71-88.
67. Winn, W.D., An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1993. 18: p. 162-185.
68. Woods, D.D. and J.C. Watts, How Not to Have to Navigate Through Too Many Displays, in Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, M.G. Helander, T.K. Landauer, and P.V. Prabhu, Editors. 1997, Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, Netherlands. p. 617-650.
69. Yin, R.K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). 2003, Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications.
70. Zantout, H. and F. Marir, Document Management Systems from Current Capabilities Towards Intelligent Information Retrieval: An Overview. International Journal of Information Management, 1999. 19(6): p. 471-484.