Abstract
[Context and motivation] Writing good specifications is difficult and takes time. There are several guidelines such as the Volere template to assist writing a good specification. They provide a table of contents which can be used like a checklist to consider all relevant aspects. Voluminous specifications take more time to write, and also more time to read. A larger specification is not always a better one. [Question/Problem] A requirements engineer should be aware of how readers make use of a specification and consider their interests in writing it. In addition, some people prefer reading on a screen while others hold a preference for paper printouts. Some parts or aspects may be read differently in both representations. [Principal ideas/results]: We have conducted an Eye Tracking study investigating how specifications are read. We compared paper-based with on-screen presentation, and different reading perspectives such as UI designers, tester, software architects etc. We derived study goals by using GQM down to the level of quantitative and statistical eye tracking analyses. [Contribution]: There is a two-fold contribution: (a) Observations and findings about the way specifications are read; e.g., we had expected paper-based reading to be faster. Instead, we found similar reading patterns on paper versus on screen. (b) Insights with respect to eye tracking as a research method for requirements engineering. We discuss strengths and shortcomings, and provide lessons learned.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Rupp, C.: Requirements-Engineering und -Management: professionelle, iterative Anforderungsanalyse für die Praxis. Hanser, Munich (2004)
Robertson, S., Robertson, J.: Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1999)
Gross, A., Dörr, J.: What do software architects expect from requirements specifications. In: First IEEE International Workshop on the Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture (TwinPeaks), Chicago, Illinois, USA (2012)
Fricker, S.: Requirements value chains: stakeholder management and requirements engineering in software ecosystems. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 60–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Schneider, K., Stapel, K., Knauss, E.: Beyond documents: visualizing informal communication. In: Proceedings of Third International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV 2008), Barcelona, Spain (2008)
Stapel, K., Schneider, K.: Managing knowledge on communication and information flow in global software projects. Expert Systems - Special Issue on Knowledge Engineering in Global Software Development (2012)
Fricker, S., Schneider, K., Fotrousi, F., Thuemmler, C.: Workshop videos for requirements communication. Requirements Engineering Journal, Springer, pp. 1–32 (2015)
Liskin, O.: How artifacts support and impede requirements communication. In: Fricker, S.A., Schneider, K. (eds.) REFSQ 2015. LNCS, vol. 9013, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)
Gross, A.: Anforderungen an die Anforderungsspezifikation aus Sicht von Architekten und Usability Experten. Softwaretechnik-Trends 32(4), 7–8 (2012)
Adam, S., Riegel, N., Doerr, J.: TORE - a framework for systematic requirements development in information systems. Requirements Eng. Mag. (2014). Online Journal, No. 4
Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 646–661. Wiley, Hoboken (1994)
van Solingen, R., Berghout, E.: The Goal/Question/Metric Method: a Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York (1999)
Gross, A., Dörr, J.: What you need is what you get! The vision of view-based requirements specifications. In: 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA (2012)
Gross, A., Hess, S.: UX meets RE: Hohe User Experience durch bedarfsgerechte Anforderungsspezifikation. In: Usability Professionals 2011 - Tagungsband, German UPA e.V., pp. 24–29 (2011)
Dillon, A.: Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35(10), 1297–1326 (1992)
Brill, O., Schneider, K., Knauss, E.: Videos vs. use cases: can videos capture more requirements under time pressure? In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 30–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Suchman, L.A.: Plans and Situated Actions: the Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)
Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1983)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ahrens, M., Schneider, K., Kiesling, S. (2016). How Do We Read Specifications? Experiences from an Eye Tracking Study. In: Daneva, M., Pastor, O. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9619. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30281-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30282-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)