On the impact of layout quality to understanding UML diagrams

Practical experience suggests that use and understanding of UML diagrams is greatly affected by the quality of their layout. However, existing experimental evidence for this effect is been weak and inconclusive. In this paper, we explore two explanations. Firstly, we observe that the visual qualities of diagrams are more prominent in earlier life cycle phases so that the impact of layout quality should be more apparent in models and diagram types used there, an aspect not studied in previous research. Secondly, in practice, good layouts use many different heuristics simultaneously whereas previous research considered them in isolation only. In this paper, we report the results of a series of controlled experiments using compound layouts on requirements analysis models. With very high significance, we find a notable impact of the layout quality measured by different aspects of cognitive load.

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

[2]  Genny Tortora,et al.  Data Model Comprehension: An Empirical Comparison of ER and UML Class Diagrams , 2008, 2008 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension.

[3]  Jan Mendling,et al.  What Makes Process Models Understandable? , 2007, BPM.

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

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

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

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

[8]  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.

[9]  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.

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

[11]  Jan Mendling,et al.  The Impact of Secondary Notation on Process Model Understanding , 2009, PoEM.

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

[13]  David S. Ebert,et al.  Visualization and computer graphics , 2007 .

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

[15]  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.

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

[17]  Eugene Miya,et al.  On "Software engineering" , 1985, SOEN.

[18]  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.

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

[20]  Stephen A. White,et al.  Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.0 , 2004 .

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

[22]  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.

[23]  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.

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

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

[26]  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).

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

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

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

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

[31]  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.

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

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

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

[35]  Michael Kaufmann,et al.  A topology-shape-metrics approach for the automatic layout of UML class diagrams , 2003, SoftVis '03.