Empirical validating the cognitive effectiveness of a new feature diagrams visual syntax

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 71, Issue , 2016, Pages 1-26

  Saeed, Mazin ^a   Saleh, Faisal ^a   Al Insaif, Sadiq ^a   El Attar, Mohamed ^a,b  

^a KING FAHD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND MINERALS   (Saudi Arabia)

^b MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Feature models; Software product lines; Visual syntax evaluation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SURVEYS; SYNTACTICS;

COMMONALITY AND VARIABILITY; CONTEXT FEATURES; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; FEATURE DIAGRAMS; FEATURE MODELS; SEMANTIC TRANSPARENCIES; SOFTWARE PRODUCT LINE; VISUAL SYNTAXES;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 84952767067     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.10.012     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adobe, 2014. Adobe Creative Suite family [WWW Document]. URL www.adobe.com/mena-en/products/creativesuite.html (accessed 26.05.14).
2. Asikainen T., Mannisto T., Soininen T. A unified conceptual foundation for feature modelling, Proceedings of the 10th International Software Product Line Conference 2006 31 40
3. Atienza M., Cantero J.L., Escera C. Auditory information processing during human sleep as revealed by event-related brain potentials Clin. Neurophysiol. 112 11 2001 2031 2045
4. Baddoo N., Hall T. Motivators of software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners' views J. Syst. Softw. 62 2002 85 96 10.1016/S0164-1212(01)00125-X
5. Benavides D., Segura S., Ruiz-Cortés A. Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: a literature review Inf. Syst. 35 2010 615 636 10.1016/j.is.2010.01.001
6. Bertin, J., 1983. Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps.
7. Blackwell, A., 2014. Cognitive Dimensions of Notations Resource Site [WWW Document]. URL http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/∼afb21/CognitiveDimensions/ (accessed 5.26.14).
8. Blackwell A., Green T. Notational systems-the cognitive dimensions of notations framework 2003 HCI Models Theor. Framew. Interdiscip. Sci. Morgan Kaufmann
9. Bresciani P., Perini A., Giorgini P., Giunchiglia F., Mylopoulos J. Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8 2004 203 236
10. Buhr R.J., Casselman R.S. Use case maps for object-oriented systems 1996 Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs
11. Czarnecki K., Eisenecker U.W. Components and generative programming, Software Engineering - ESEC/FSE'99 1999 Springer 2 19
12. Czarnecki K., Helsen S. Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches IBM 45 2006 621 645
13. Czarnecki K., Helsen S., Eisenecker U. Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 10 2005 7 29 10.1002/spip.213
14. Dagit J., Lawrance J., Neumann C., Burnett M., Metoyer R., Adams S. Using cognitive dimensions: advice from the trenches J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 17 2006 302 327
15. Dardenne A., Van Lamsweerde A., Fickas S. Goal-directed requirements acquisition Sci. Comput. Program. 20 1993 3 50
16. El-Attar, M., 2014. A comparative study of students and professionals in syntactical model comprehension experiments. Available Online http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/ICS/melattar/StudentProsExp.pdf. Last Accessed September 2014.
17. El-Attar M., Luqman H., Karpati P., Guttorm S., Opdahl A. Extending the UML statecharts notation to model security aspects IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2015 (Available Online)
18. Figl K., Mendling J., Strembeck M. The influence of notational deficiencies on process model comprehension J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14 2013 6 Article 1
19. Genon N., Amyot D., Heymans P. Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the UCM visual notation Kraemer F.A. Herrmann P. System Analysis and Modeling: About Models, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2011 Springer Berlin, Heidelberg 221 240
20. Genon N., Heymans P., Amyot D. Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation Software Language Engineering 2011 Springer 377 396
21. Goonetilleke R.S., Martins Shih H., Kai On H., Fritsch J. Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 55 2001 741 760
22. Gopalakrishnan S., Krogstie J., Sindre G. Adapting UML activity diagrams for mobile work process modelling: experimental comparison of two notation alternatives The Practice of Enterprise Modeling 2010 Springer 145 161
23. Green T.R., Blandford A.E., Church L., Roast C.R., Clarke S. Cognitive dimensions: achievements, new directions, and open questions J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 17 2006 328 365
24. Green T.R.G., Petre M. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a "cognitive dimensions" framework J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 7 1996 131 174
25. Griss M.L., Favaro J., d'Alessandro M. Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB, Proceedings of the IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse, 1998 76 85
26. Hall T., Rainer A., Baddoo N. Implementing software process improvement: an empirical study Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 7 2002 3 15 10.1002/spip.150
27. Haugen, Ø. 2012. Common Variability Language (CVL) - OMG Revised Submission. OMG document ad/2012-08-05.
28. Heymans P., Schobbens P., Trigaux J., Matulevicius R., Classen A., Bontemps Y. Towards a comparative evaluation of feature diagram languages Software and Services Variability Management Workshop - Concepts, Models and Tools, HUT-SoberIT-A3 2007 Helsinki Finland 1 16
29. Kang K.C., Cohen S.G., Hess J.A., Novak W.E., Peterson A.S. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study 1990 DTIC Document
30. Kang K.C., Lee J., Donohoe P. Feature-oriented product line engineering IEEE Softw 19 2002 58 65
31. Khan S.U., Niazi M., Ahmad R. Empirical investigation of success factors for offshore software development outsourcing vendors IET Softw 6 2012 1 10.1049/iet-sen.2010.0038
32. Lehmann E., D'Abrera H. Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks 1998 Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ
33. Mäder P., Cleland-Huang J. A visual traceability modeling language Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems 2010 Springer 226 240
34. Mendling J., Recker J., Reijers H.A. On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 1 2 2010 40 58
35. Miller G.A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information Psychol. Rev. 63 1956 81 97 10.1037/h0043158
36. Moody D. The "Physics" of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35 2009 756 779 10.1109/TSE.2009.67
37. Moody D., van Hillegersberg J. Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: an analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams Software Language Engineering 2009 Springer 16 34
38. Moody D.L., Heymans P., Matulevičius R. Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i∗visual notation Requir. Eng. 15 2010 141 175 10.1007/s00766-010-0100-1
39. Niazi M., Wilson D., Zowghi D. Critical success factors for software process improvement implementation: an empirical study Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 11 2006 193 211 10.1002/spip.261
40. OMG Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Specification 2.0 V0.9.15 2009 Object Management Group, Inc
41. OMG Unified Modeling Language, Version 2.4.1 2012 Object Managment Group, Inc
42. Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach 1990 Oxford University Press
43. Petre M. Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming Commun. ACM 38 1995 33 44
44. Palmer S.E. Common region: a new principle of perceptual grouping Cogn. Psychol. 24 3 1992 436 447
45. Pohl K., Böckle G., Linden F. van der Software product line engineering foundations, principles, and techniques 2005 Springer New York, NY
46. Possompès T., Dony C., Huchard M., Tibermacine C. Design of a UML profile for feature diagrams and its tooling implementation Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering Miami Beach, Florida,États-Unis 2011 693 698
47. Purchase H.C., Carrington D., Allder J.-A. Empirical evaluation of aesthetics-based graph layout Empir. Softw. Eng. 7 2002 233 255
48. Purchase H.C., Welland R., McGill M., Colpoys L. Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 61 2004 187 203
49. Riebisch M. Towards a more precise definition of feature models. position paper M. Riebisch J.O. Coplien D Streitferdt Modelling Variability for Object-Oriented Product Lines 2003
50. Reijers H.A., Mendling J. A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part Syst. Hum. 41 2011 449 462
51. Reinhartz-Berger I., Figl K. Comprehensibility of orthogonal variability modeling languages: the cases of CVL and OVM SPLC'14 1 2014 42 51
52. Saeed M., Saleh F., Al-Insaif S., El-Attar M. Evaluating the cognitive effectiveness of the visual syntax of feature diagrams Zowghi D. Jin Z. Requirements Engineering, Communications in Computer and Information Science 2014 Springer Berlin Heidelberg 180 194
53. Saleh F., El-Attar M. A Scientific evaluation of the misuse case diagrams visual syntax Inf. Softw. Technol. 2015 (Available Online)
54. Schobbens P., Heymans P., Trigaux J.-C. Feature diagrams: a survey and a formal semantics Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering 2006 IEEE 139 148
55. Shapiro S.S., Wilk M. An analysis of variance test for the exponential distribution (complete samples) Technometrics 14 1972 355 370
56. Siegel, S., Castellan, N., 1988. Non Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
57. Störrle H., Fish A. Towards an operationalization of the "Physics of Notations" for the analysis of visual languages Proc models 2013 2013
58. Trigaux J.C., Heymans P., Schobbens P.Y., Classen A. Comparative semantics of feature diagrams: FFD vs v DFD Proceedings of Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06) Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA 2006
59. Tseng M.M., Jiao J. Mass Customization Fellow, G.S.P.D. essor founding editor founding chair member scientist H.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial Engineering 2001 John 7Wiley & Sons, Inc. 684 709
60. Van der Heijden A.H.C. Perception for selection, selection for action, and action for perception Vis. Cogn. 3 4 1996 357 361
61. Wohlin C., Runeson P., Höst M., Ohlsson M.C., Regnell B., Wesslén A. Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction Kluwer Int. Ser. Softw. Eng. 2000
62. Yu E.S. Towards Modelling And Reasoning Support For Early-Phase Requirements Engineering 1997 IEEE 226 235
63. Saeed M., Saleh F., Al-Insiaf S., El-Attar M. Evaluating the Cognitive Effectiveness of the Visual Syntax of Feature Diagrams 1st Asia Pacific Requirements Engineering Symposium (APRES'14) 2014 Auckland, New Zealand