Towards an Operationalization of the "Physics of Notations" for the Analysis of Visual Languages

We attempt to validate the conceptual framework "Physics of Notation" PoN as a means for analysing visual languages by applying it to UML Use Case Diagrams. We discover that the PoN, in its current form, is neither precise nor comprehensive enough to be applied in an objective way to analyse practical visual software engineering notations. We propose an operationalization of a part of the PoN, highlight conceptual shortcomings of the PoN, and explore ways to address them.

[1]  Chris Roast,et al.  An Investigation into the Validation of Formalised Cognitive Dimensions , 2006, DSV-IS.

[2]  W. Hays.  Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams Networks Maps. , 1985 .

[3]  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.

[4]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation , 2010, SLE.

[5]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[6]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  CHAPTER 5 – Notational Systems—The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations Framework , 2003 .

[7]  Andrew Fish,et al.  Layout of (Software) Engineering Diagrams , 2007 .

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

[9]  Atsushi Shimojima,et al.  Inferential and Expressive Capacities of Graphical Representations: Survey and Some Generalizations , 2004, Diagrams.

[10]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  Cognitive dimensions of notations , 1990 .

[11]  Jacques Bertin,et al.  Graphics and graphic information-processing , 1981 .

[12]  Corin A. Gurr,et al.  Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues , 1999, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[13]  John J. Bertin,et al.  The semiology of graphics , 1983 .

[14]  John G. Hosking,et al.  Ruru: A spatial and interactive visual programming language for novice robot programming , 2011, 2011 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[15]  Peter Herrmann,et al.  System Analysis and Modeling: About Models , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Maria Kutar,et al.  A Comparison of Empirical Study and Cognitive Dimensions Analysis in the Evaluation of UML Diagrams , 2002, PPIG.

[18]  Laurence Tratt,et al.  Eco: A Language Composition Editor , 2014, SLE.

[19]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  How UML is used , 2006, CACM.

[20]  John Millar Carroll.  HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science , 2003 .

[21]  Jacques D. Fleuriot,et al.  Diagrammatically-Driven Formal Verification of Web-Services Composition , 2012, Diagrams.

[22]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UMLFamily of Diagrams , 2009, SLE.

[23]  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).

[24]  Qing Li,et al.  Unified Modeling Language , 2009 .

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

[26]  Andrew Fish,et al.  Visual qualities of the Unified Modeling Language:Deficiencies and Improvements , 2007, IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2007).

[27]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the UCM visual notation , 2010, SAM'10.

[28]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Cognitive dimensions: Achievements, new directions, and open questions , 2006, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..