Abstract
This paper presents an approach to evaluating the intelligibility of diagrammatic languages used in the specification of software. Research suggests that specification languages can be assessed in terms of properties that influence the intelligibility of representations produced using the languages. The paper describes the properties identified and highlights three in particular that have been shown to influence the intelligibility of representations: motivation of symbols in the language; the extent to which the language allows exploitation of human visual perception; and the amount of structure inherent in the language. The paper argues that the first two of these properties are not present to any great extent in diagrammatic languages used in software specification. In order to enhance the intelligibility of software specifications, we suggest that more attention should be paid to ways in which these languages can exploit the amount of structure inherent in the language.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Booch, G., Jacobson, I. and Rumbaugh, J. (1999) The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Addison-Wesley.
Britton, C, Loomes, M. and Mitchell, R. (1993) Formal Specifications as Constructive Diagrams, Microprocessing and Microprogramming, Vol. 37, pp. 175–178.
Britton, C. and Jones, S. (1997) Which properties make a modelling notation easy for untrained users to understand? Proceedings of the International Workshop on Representations, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University, pp. 2–10. Available from Department of Computer Science, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University.
Britton, C, Jones, S. & Lam, W. (1998). Separating the system interface from its internal state: an alternative structure for Z specifications. Proceedings of Formal Aspects of the Human Computer Interaction, BCS-FACS Workshop, 87–102, Sheffield Hallam University.
Britton, C. and Jones, S. (1999) The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding in Untrained Users, Human Computer Interaction, 14, pp. 191–244.
Brun, P. and Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (1995) A taxonomy and evaluation of formalisms for the specification of interactive systems, in M. Kirby, A. Dix and J. Finlay (Eds.), People and Computers X, Proceedings of HC’95, 197–212, Cambridge University Press.
Cox, R. & Brna, P. (1993). Analytical reasoning with external representations. Proceedings of the AI-ED 93 Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning and Communication. Edinburgh.
Davis, A. (1988) A Comparison of Techniques for the Specification of External System Behavior, Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1098–1115.
Davis, A. (1993) Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States, Prentice Hall International.
Eysenck, M. & Keane, M. (1990). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook.. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Farbey, B. (1993) Software Quality Metrics: Considerations about Requirements and Requirement Specifications, in R. Thayer and A. McGetterick (Eds.), Software Engineering: a European Perspective, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 138–142.
Fertuck, L. (1992) Systems Analysis and Design, Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Green, T. (1980) Programming as a Cognitive Activity, in H. Smith and T. Green (Eds.), Human Interaction with Computers, Academic Press.
Green, T. (1983) Learning Big and Little Programming Languages, in A. Wilkinson (Ed.), Classroom Computers and Cognitive Science, Academic Press, New York.
Green, T. (1989) Cognitive Dimensions of Notations, in A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay (Eds.), People and Computers V, Proceedings of HCI’89, Cambridge University Press.
Green, T. (1991) Describing information artefacts with cognitive dimensions and structure maps, in D. Diaper, and N. Hammond (Eds.), People and Computers VI, Proceedings ofHCI’91, Cambridge University Press.
Green, T. and Blackwell, A. (1996) Thinking about visual programs, in Thinking with diagrams, IEE Colloquium Digest No: 96/010, Institute for Electronic Engineers, London.
Green, T., Petre, M. and Bellamy, R. (1991) Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of superlativism against the “Match Mismatch” conjecture, in J. Koenemann-Belliveau, T. Moher and S. Robertson (Eds.), Empirical studies of programmers, 121–146, Norwood NJ, Ablex.
Haywood, E. and Dart, P. (1996) Analysis of Software System Requirements Models, in Proceedings of Australian Software Engineering Conference, 131–138, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Johnson, C, McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. (1995) Using a formal language to support natural language in accident reports, Ergonomics, 38(6).
Kutar, M., Britton, C. and Jones, S. (1998) A Graphical Representation for Communicating Sequential Processes, Proceedings of Formal Aspects of the Human Computer Interaction, BCS-FACS Workshop, Sheffield Hallam University, pp. 145–162.
Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Mackinlay, J. (1986) Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(2), 110–141.
Meyer, B. (1985) On Formalism in Specifications, IEEE Software, 2(1).
Modugno, F., Green T. and Myers B. (1994) Visual programming in a visual domain: A case study of cognitive dimensions, in People and Computers IX, Proceedings ofHCI’94, Cambridge University Press.
Myers M., Kaposi A., (1997) A First Systems Book, Kaposi Associates
Patching, D. (1990) Practical Soft Systems Analysis, Pitman Publishing.
Petre, M. (1995) Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming, Communications of the ACM, 38(6).
Pfleeger, S. L.(1998) Software Engineering: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall.
Roast, C. (1997) Formally comparing and informing notation design, in H. Thimblely, B. OĆonaill and P. Thomas (Eds.), People and Computers XII, Proceedings ofHCI’97, Springer.
Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F. and Lorensen, W. (1991) Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall.
Sampson, G. (1985) Writing systems, Hutchinson.
Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. (1996) External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185–213.
Sengler, H. (1983) A model of program understanding, in T. Green, S. Payne. and G. van der Veer, (Eds.), The Psychology of Computer Use, Academic Press.
Sommerville, I. (1995) Software Engineering (5th edn), Addison Wesley.
Sommerville, I. and Sawyer, P. (1997) Requirements engineering: A good practice guide, Wiley.
Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J. (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation, Cognitive Science, 19, 97–140.
Williams, R. (1994) The Non-Designer’s Design Book, Peachpit Press.
Winn, W. (1993) An account of how readers search for information in diagrams, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Britton, C., Jones, S., Kutar, M., Loomes, M., Robinson, B. (2000). Evaluating the Intelligibility of Diagrammatic Languages Used in the Specification of Software. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds) Theory and Application of Diagrams. Diagrams 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1889. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_32
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67915-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44590-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive