Skip to main content
Log in

Visual Depiction of Decision Statements: What is Best for Programmers and Non-Programmers?

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results of two experiments investigating differences in comprehensibility of textual and graphical notations for representing decision statements. The first experiment was a replication of a prior experiment that found textual notations to be better than particular graphical notations. After replicating this study, two other hypotheses were investigated in a second experiment. Our first claim is that graphics may be better for technical, non-programmers than they are for programmers because of the great amount of experience that programmers have with textual notations in programming languages. The second is that modifications to graphical forms may improve their usefulness. The results support both of these hypotheses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Basili, V. R. A., Selby, R. W., and Hutchens, D. H. 1986. Experimentation in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(6): 758–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, M. M., and Baker, M. J. 1993. A classification system for visual programming languages. Technical report 93-60-14. Oregon State University, June 1993.

  • Chang, S., ed. 1990. Visual Languages and Visual Programming. New York: Plenum Press.

  • Cox, P. T., and Pietrzykowski. 1988. Using a pictorial representation to combine dataflow and object-orientation in a language independent programming mechanism. Proceedings International Computer Science Conference, 695–704.

  • Curtis, B., Sheppard, S., Kruesi-Bailey, J., and Boehm-Davis, D. 1989. Experimental evaluation of software documentation formats. Journal of Systems and Software 9(2): 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. P. 1989. Skill levels and strategic differences in plan comprehension and implementation in programming. In A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay (eds.), People and Computers V. Cambridge University Press.

  • Fenton, N., Pfleeger, S. L., and Glass, R. L. 1994. Science and substance: a challenge to software engineers. IEEE Software 11(4): 86–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinert, E. P., ed. Visual Programming Environments: Applications and Issues. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

  • Green, T. R. G. 1977. Conditional program statements and their comprehensibility to professional programmers. Journal of Occupational Psychology 59: 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, T. R. G., Petre, M., and Bellamy, R. K. E. 1991. Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: a test of superlativism against the ‘match-mismatch’ conjecture. Empirical studies of programmers: fourth workshop, Jürgen Koenemann-Belliveau, Thomas G. Moher, Scott P. Robertson (eds.). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, T. R. G., and Petre, M. 1992. When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. ECCE-6: Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, September 1992.

  • Ichikawa, T., and Hirakawa, M. 1990. Iconic programming: where to go? IEEE Software 7(7): 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiper, J. D., Howard, E., and Ames, C. 1996. Criteria for evaluation of visual programming languages. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 8(2) 175–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, T., Mak, D. C., Blumenthal, B., and Leventhal, L. M. 1993. Comparing the comprehensibility of textual and graphical programs: the case of Petri nets. Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop, C. R. Cook, J. C. Schotz, and J. C. Spohner (eds.), 137–161.

  • Myers, B. A. 1990. Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 1(1): 97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey, R., and Burnett, M. 1993. Is it easier to write matrix multiplication visually or textually? An empirical study. Proceeding of 1993 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 344–351.

  • Petre, M., and Green, T. R. G. 1993. Learning to read graphics: some evidence that "seeing’ an information display is an acquired skill. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4: 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petre, M. 1995. Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM 38(6): 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, B. A., Baecker, R. M., and Small, I. S. 1993. A principled taxonomy of software visualization. Journal of Visual Languages 4(3): 211–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlan, D. A. 1989. Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: an experimental comparison. IEEE Software 6(5): 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B., Mayer, R., McKay, D., and Heller, P. 1977. Experimental investigations of the utility of detailed flowcharts in programming. Communications of the ACM 20(6): 373–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Mayrhauser, A., and Vans, A. M. 1995. Program understanding: models and experiments. Advances in Computers Vol. 40. M. C. Yovits and M. V. Zelkowitz (eds.). San Diego: Academic Press, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vose, G. M., and Williams, G. 1986. LabVIEW: Laboratory Virtual Instrument Engineering Workbench. Byte September: 84–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kiper, J.D., Auernheimer, B. & Ames, C.K. Visual Depiction of Decision Statements: What is Best for Programmers and Non-Programmers?. Empirical Software Engineering 2, 361–379 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009797801907

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009797801907

Navigation