Abstract
As BPMN spreads among a constantly growing user group, it is indispensable to analyze the expectations of users towards the appearance of a BPMN model. The user groups are mostly inhomogeneous since users stem from different backgrounds, e.g. IT, managerial sciences or economics. It is conceivable that BPMN novices may have different issues compared to higher skilled modeling experts. When this large set of users starts modeling, the expectations considering the graphical outcome of the modeling process may differ significantly.
In this work, we analyze layout preferences of user groups when modeling with BPMN. We present a set of layout criteria that are formalized and then confirmed by a user study. The conduction of the study reveals preferences of single user groups with respect to secondary notation and layout aesthetics. From our results, proposals for adaptions of software tools towards different BPMN users can be derived.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Effinger, P., Siebenhaller, M., Kaufmann, M.: An Interactive Layout Tool for BPMN. IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology 1, 399–406 (2009)
Kitzmann, I., König, C., Lübke, D., Singer, L.: A Simple Algorithm for Automatic Layout of BPMN Processes. In: CEC, pp. 391–398 (2009)
Siebenhaller, M., Kaufmann, M.: Drawing activity diagrams. Technical Report WSI-2006-02, Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut (2006)
Siebenhaller, M., Kaufmann, M.: Drawing activity diagrams. In: Proceedings of ACM 2006 Symposium on Software Visualization, SoftVis 2006, pp. 159–160. ACM, New York (2006)
Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: PoEM, pp. 161–175 (2009)
Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. ACM Commun. 38(6), 33–44 (1995)
Green, T.R., Blackwell, A.F.: A tutorial on cognitive dimensions(1998) (last accessed 2010-05-31)
Purchase, H.C.: Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding. In: DiBattista, G. (ed.) GD 1997. LNCS, vol. 1353, pp. 248–261. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Purchase, H.C., Allder, J.A., Carrington, D.A.: User preference of graph layout aesthetics: A UML study. In: Marks, J. (ed.) GD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1984, pp. 5–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Tamassia, R., DiBattista, G., Eades, P., Tollis, I.: Graph Drawing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1999)
Siebenhaller, M.: Orthogonal Drawings with Constraints: Algorithms And Applications. PhD thesis, Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut, University of Tuebingen (2009) (to appear)
Seiz, S., Effinger, P., Jogsch, N., Wehrstein, T.: Forschungsprojekt: Usability-Evaluation von BPMN-konformer Geschäftsprozessmodellierungssoftware. In: Arbeitsberichte zur Wirtschaftsinformatik 35, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität Tübingen (April 2010) (German)
Ambler, S.W.: The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)
Huang, W., Hong, S.H., Eades, P.: Effects of sociogram drawing conventions and edge crossings in social network visualization. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 11(2), 397–429 (2007)
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Gehring, U.W., Weins, C.: Grundkurs Statistik für Politologen und Soziologen, 5th edn. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (2009) (German)
Petre, M.: Cognitive dimensions ‘beyond the notation’. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 17(4), 292–301 (2006)
Ware, C., Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M.: Cognitive measurements of graph aesthetics. Information Visualization 1(2), 103–110 (2002)
Sun, D., Wong, K.: On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension. In: IWPC, pp. 317–326 (2005)
Eichelberger, H.: Aesthetics and Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams, PhD thesis, Universität Würzburg (2005)
Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri nets: basic concepts, analysis methods and practical use. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, vol. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
Coleman, M.K., Parker, D.S.: Aesthetics-based graph layout for human consumption. Software – Practice and Experience 26(12), 1415–1438 (1996)
Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(3), 534–557 (2008)
Purchase, H.C., Cohen, R.F., James, M.I.: Validating graph drawing aesthetics. In: Brandenburg, F.J. (ed.) GD 1995. LNCS, vol. 1027, pp. 435–446. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
Apfelbacher, R., Knöpfel, A., Aschenbrenner, P., Preetz, S.: FMC visualization guidelines (2006), http://www.fmc-modeling.org/visualization_guidelines
Huang, W., Hong, S.H., Eades, P.: Effects of crossing angles. In: PacificVis, pp. 41–46 (2008)
Huang, W., Eades, P., Hong, S.H.: Beyond time and error: a cognitive approach to the evaluation of graph drawings. In: BELIV 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on BEyond Time and Errors, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2008)
Hahn, J., Kim, J.: Why are some diagrams easier to work with? effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive intergration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 6(3), 181–213 (1999)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Effinger, P., Jogsch, N., Seiz, S. (2010). On a Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models Using BPMN. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds) Business Process Modeling Notation. BPMN 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 67. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16298-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16298-5_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-16297-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-16298-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)