On the Impact of Layout Quality to Understanding UML Diagrams: Size Matters

Practical experience suggests that usage and understanding of UML diagrams is greatly affected by the quality of their layout. While existing research failed to provide conclusive evidence in support of this hypothesis, our own previous work provided substantial evidence to this effect. When studying different factors like diagram type and expertise level, it became apparent that diagram size plays an important role, too. Since we lack an adequate understanding of this notion, in this paper, we define diagram size metrics and study their impact to modeler performance. We find that there is a strong negative correlation between diagram size and modeler performance. Our results are highly significant. We utilize these results to derive a recommendation on diagram sizes that are optimal for model understanding.

[1]  Jonathan I. Maletic,et al.  An empirical study on the comprehension of stereotyped UML class diagram layouts , 2009, 2009 IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension.

[2]  Shehnaaz Yusuf Patel Dawoodi.  Assessing the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams via Eye Tracking , 2007 .

[3]  Markus Eiglsperger,et al.  Caesar Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams , 2001, GD.

[4]  Jonathan I. Maletic,et al.  Assessing the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams via Eye Tracking , 2007, 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC '07).

[5]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Experimental design and analysis in software engineering , 1995, Ann. Softw. Eng..

[6]  Jonathan I. Maletic,et al.  The Effects of Layout on Detecting the Role of Design Patterns , 2010, 2010 23rd IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training.

[7]  Holger Eichelberger,et al.  Automatic layout of UML use case diagrams , 2008, SOFTVIS.

[8]  D. Gopher,et al.  On the Psychophysics of Workload: Why Bother with Subjective Measures? , 1984 .

[9]  Giuseppe Scanniello,et al.  On the comprehension of workflows modeled with a precise style: results from a family of controlled experiments , 2013, Software & Systems Modeling.

[10]  Klaus Schmid,et al.  Guidelines on the aesthetic quality of UML class diagrams , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[11]  Maria Kutar,et al.  An empirical study of user preference and performance with UML diagrams , 2002, Proceedings IEEE 2002 Symposia on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments.

[12]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Graph Layout Aesthetics in UML Diagrams: User Preferences , 2002, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[13]  Holger Eichelberger,et al.  Aesthetics and automatic layout of UML class diagrams , 2005 .

[14]  Andrew Fish,et al.  Towards an Operationalization of the "Physics of Notations" for the Analysis of Visual Languages , 2013, MoDELS.

[15]  Holger Eichelberger,et al.  Aesthetics of class diagrams , 2002, Proceedings First International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis.

[16]  Harald Störrle.  On the impact of layout quality to understanding UML diagrams: Diagram type and expertise , 2012, VL/HCC.

[17]  Sandra Seiz,et al.  On a Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models Using BPMN , 2010, BPMN.

[18]  Harald Störrle.  On the impact of layout quality to understanding UML diagrams , 2011, 2011 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[19]  O. Reiser,et al.  Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[20]  Chris North,et al.  A Comparison of User-Generated and Automatic Graph Layouts , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[21]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[22]  Maria Kutar,et al.  User Preference and Performance with UML Interaction Diagrams , 2004, 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing.

[23]  Jochen Seemann,et al.  Extending the Sugiyama Algorithm for Drawing UML Class Diagrams: Towards Automatic Layout of Object-Oriented Software Diagrams , 1997, GD.

[24]  Silvia Mara Abrahão,et al.  Assessing the Effectiveness of Sequence Diagrams in the Comprehension of Functional Requirements: Results from a Family of Five Experiments , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[25]  Jonathan I. Maletic,et al.  An eye tracking study on the effects of layout in understanding the role of design patterns , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance.

[26]  Kenny Wong,et al.  On evaluating the layout of UML diagrams for program comprehension , 2006, Software Quality Journal.

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

[28]  Marco Torchiano,et al.  How Developers' Experience and Ability Influence Web Application Comprehension Tasks Supported by UML Stereotypes: A Series of Four Experiments , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[29]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Aesthetics-based Graph Layout , 2002, Empirical Software Engineering.

[30]  David A. Carrington,et al.  UML collaboration diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension , 2002, Proceedings First International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis.

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

[32]  Jonathan I. Maletic,et al.  The effect of layout on the comprehension of UML class diagrams: A controlled experiment , 2009, 2009 5th IEEE International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis.

[33]  David A. Carrington,et al.  UML Class Diagram Syntax: An Empirical Study of Comprehension , 2001, InVis.au.