The Role of Tangibility and Iconicity in Collaborative Modelling Tasks

In collaborative modelling, a group of stakeholders construct a shared graphical representation of a system. In practice, not all stakeholders may fully comprehend the modelling language. This may reduce their participation, which results in reduced model quality. Our goal is to investigate which features of modelling languages help stakeholders contribute to collaborative modelling tasks. Earlier research shows that iconicity, ie similarity between sign and object, improves understandability, and that tangibility, ie physical graspability of signs, improves participation of stakeholders. In this paper we report on a 2x2 factorial experiment that explores for the first time the interaction between iconicity and tangibility in the context of collaborative modelling. In this experiment, tangibility promoted equal participation, and iconicity had a beneficial impact on understandability, modelling speed and model quality. Notably, tangibility magnified the effects of iconicity. We relate these results to previous findings and interpret them in terms of existing theories.

[1]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces , 1995, CHI '95.

[2]  Marija Bjekovic,et al.  Embracing Pragmatics , 2014, ER.

[3]  Christine D. Wilson,et al.  Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  T. L. Short.  Peirce's Theory of Signs , 2007 .

[5]  Robert J. McQueen,et al.  Contribution by participants in face‐to‐face business meetings: Implications for collaborative technology , 1999 .

[6]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Tangible Business Process Modeling - Methodology and Experiment Design , 2009, Business Process Management Workshops.

[7]  Lerina Aversano,et al.  Understanding SQL through iconic interfaces , 2002, Proceedings 26th Annual International Computer Software and Applications.

[8]  Alexander Lübbe,et al.  Tangible business process modeling : design and evaluation of a process model elicitation Technique , 2011 .

[9]  Kenneth John Small,et al.  The Icon Book: Visual Symbols for Computer Systems and Documentation , 1994 .

[10]  W. S. Robinson.  The Logical Structure of Analytic Induction , 1951 .

[11]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Cognitive Mechanisms of Conceptual Modelling - How Do People Do It? , 2013, ER.

[12]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Frank van der Velde,et al.  Communication, concepts and grounding , 2015, Neural Networks.

[14]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[15]  Peter Hall,et al.  Logical Lego? Co-Constructed Perspectives on Service Design , 2014 .

[16]  Irena Turnau,et al.  "Signs and Symbols. Their Design and Meaning", Adrian Frutinger, London 1989 : [recenzja] / Irena Turnau. , 1991 .

[17]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[18]  Andrea Ceccarelli,et al.  A Hazus-Based Method for Assessing Robustness of Electricity Supply to Critical Smart Grid Consumers during Flood Events , 2016, 2016 11th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES).

[19]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[20]  Oren Zuckerman,et al.  To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  P. Bordia.  Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature , 1997 .

[22]  Michael S. Horn,et al.  Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education , 2009, CHI.

[23]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[24]  Roelf J. Wieringa,et al.  The influence of conceptual user models on the creation and interpretation of diagrams representing reactive systems , 2006 .

[25]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[26]  Bhuvan Unhelkar.  Verification and Validation for Quality of UML 2.0 Models , 2005 .

[27]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Tangible Modelling to Elicit Domain Knowledge: An Experiment and Focus Group , 2015, ER.

[28]  Marc Rettig,et al.  Prototyping for tiny fingers , 1994, CACM.

[29]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[30]  Werner Schmidt,et al.  Tangible or Not Tangible - A Comparative Study of Interaction Types for Process Modeling Support , 2014, HCI.

[31]  Florian Znaniecki,et al.  The method of sociology , 1934 .

[32]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  The Impact of Tangible User Interfaces on Designers' Spatial Cognition , 2008, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering , 2014, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[34]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Focused Conceptualisation: Framing Questioning and Answering in Model-Oriented Dialogue Games , 2010, PoEM.

[35]  Ashis Jalote-Parmar,et al.  Tangible user interface for increasing social interaction among rural women , 2009, TEI.

[36]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  A Study on Tangible Participative Enterprise Modelling , 2016, ER Workshops.

[37]  Elise van den Hoven,et al.  Tangible interaction in tabletop games: studying iconic and symbolic play pieces , 2007, ACE '07.