UML Class Diagram Syntax: An Empirical Study of Comprehension

Despite UML being considered a software engineering standard, the UML syntactic notations used in texts, papers, documentation and CASE tools are often different. The decision as to which of the semantically equivalent notational variations to use appears to be according to the personal preference of the author or publisher, rather than based on any consideration of the ease with which the notation can be understood by human readers. This paper reports on an experiment that takes a human comprehension perspective on UML class diagram notational variants. Five notations were considered: for each, two semantically equivalent, yet syntactically different, variations were chosen from published texts. Our experiment required subjects to indicate whether a supplied specification matched each of a set of experimental diagrams. The results reveal that the best performing notation may depend on the task for which it is used, and that our personal, intuitive predictions intuitions (which were based in the complexity of the notation) were partly confirmed.

[1]  Peter Eades,et al.  A Heuristic for Graph Drawing , 1984 .

[2]  PetreMarian Why looking isn't always seeing , 1995 .

[3]  Emden R. Gansner,et al.  Improved Force-Directed Layouts , 1998, GD.

[4]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Graph Drawing Aesthetics and the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams: An Empirical Study , 2001, InVis.au.

[5]  David A. Carrington,et al.  User Preference of Graph Layout Aesthetics: A UML Study , 2000, GD.

[6]  Karl Cox,et al.  Cognitive Dimensions of Use Cases: Feedback from a student questionnaire , 2000, PPIG.

[7]  Robert F. Cohen,et al.  Validating Graph Drawing Aesthetics , 1995, GD.

[8]  Marian Petre,et al.  Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming , 1995, CACM.

[9]  D. Stott Parker,et al.  Aesthetics-Based Graph Layout for Human Consumption , 1996, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[10]  Paul Evitts,et al.  A UML Pattern Language , 2000 .

[11]  Konstantinos Tourlas,et al.  Towards the principled design of software engineering diagrams , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium.

[12]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  A Cognitive Dimensions questionnaire optimised for users , 2000, PPIG.

[13]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Which Aesthetic has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding? , 1997, GD.

[14]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Metrics for Graph Drawing Aesthetics , 2002, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[15]  Joseph Schmuller,et al.  SAMS teach yourself UML in 24 hours , 1999 .

[16]  Marian Petre,et al.  Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' Framework , 1996, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[17]  Maria Kutar,et al.  Cognitive Dimensions: An experience report , 2000, PPIG.

[18]  Meilir Page-Jones,et al.  Fundamentals of object-oriented design in UML , 1999 .

[19]  Ioannis G. Tollis,et al.  Algorithms for Drawing Graphs: an Annotated Bibliography , 1988, Comput. Geom..

[20]  Ioannis G. Tollis,et al.  Efficient Orthogonal Drawings of High Degree Graphs , 2000, Algorithmica.

[21]  Roberto Tamassia,et al.  On Embedding a Graph in the Grid with the Minimum Number of Bends , 1987, SIAM J. Comput..

[22]  Perdita Stevens,et al.  A cognitively informed approach to describing product lines in UML , 1999 .

[23]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Experimenting with Aesthetics-Based Graph Layout , 2000, Diagrams.

[24]  Vance E. Waddle,et al.  Graph Layout for Displaying Data Structures , 2000, Graph Drawing.

[25]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The unified modeling language reference manual , 2010 .