skip to main content
10.1145/2038476.2038517acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A cognitive perspective on developer comprehension of software design documentation

Published:03 October 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Software design documentation is an important aid for communication during software development and maintenance. Nevertheless, little empirical evidence exists regarding the use of software documentation, and effective software design representation in particular. In an experimental setting, we used documentation from industry in which aspects of a software design were modeled in both a (UML) diagram and text. We recorded and analysed how participants used these media to answer various design-related questions and collected additional information in various questionnaires. By having participants think aloud, we set out to understand the underlying cognitive processes of developer design comprehension by applying the grounded theory method. We validated the results with concepts from the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Results show a positive correlation between developer certainty and correctness of answers, whereas the opposite was not found. Also, self-rated experience and self-rated skill coincide with higher levels of certainty. We found that participants rated information based on perceived importance and that their "common sense" plays a significant role. Surprisingly, more than 60 percent of the answers were based on the consultation of a single medium. These results clearly ask for further investigation. We propose corresponding future work.

References

  1. Agarwal, R., and Sinha, A. Object-oriented modeling with UML: a study of developers' perceptions. Communications of the ACM 46, 9 (2003), 248--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Baddeley, A. D. Is working memory still working? European Psychology 7, 2nd (June 2002), 85--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Baddeley, A. D. Working memory. Current Biology 20, 4 (February 2010), 136--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Baddeley, A. D., Kopelman, M. D., and Wilson, B. A., Eds. The Essential Handbook of Memory Disorders for Clinicians. John Wiley and Sons, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Curtis, B., Krasner, H., and Iscoe, N. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Comm. of the ACM 31, 11 (November 1988), 1268--1287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Donahue, G., Weinschenk, S., and Nowicki, J. Usability is good business. from http://www.yucentrik.ca/usability.pdf (02/06/2011) (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dumas, J. User-based evaluations. In The Human-computer Interaction Handbook (2002), J. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds., L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, pp. 1093--1117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data, 2nd ed. MIT Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Gibbs, G. R. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Sage Publications, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. Grounded Theory: The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: De Gruyter, 1967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes, J. H. Do you like piña coladas? How improved communication can improve software quality. IEEE Software 20, 1 (2003), 90--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Healy, A. F., Proctor, R. W., Weiner, I. B., Freedheim, D. K., and Schinka, J. A., Eds. Handbook of Psychology: Experimental psychology. John Wiley and Sons, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Heijstek, W., Kühne, T., and Chaudron, M. R. V. Experimental analysis of textual and graphical representations for software architecture design. ESEM (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Herbsleb, J. D. Global software engineering: The future of socio-technical coordination. In FOSE (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Herbsleb, J. D., and Moitra, D. Global software development. IEEE Software 18, 2 (March/April 2001), 16--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Holmes, J. Expressing doubt and certainty in english. RELC Journal 13, 9 (1982), 9--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kalyuga, S. Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction 19 (2009), 402--410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kotlarsky, J., van Fenema, P. C., and Willcocks, L. P. Developing a knowledge-based perspective on coordination: the case of global software projects. Information and Management 45 (2008), 96--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kraut, R. E., and Streeter, L. A. Coordination in software development. Comm. of the ACM 38, 3 (March 1995), 69--81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. The University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lange, C. F. J., and Chaudron, M. R. V. Managing model quality in UML-based software development. In Int. Workshop on S.Tech. and Eng. Practice (2005), pp. 15--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Larkin, J., and Simon, H. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science 11, 1 (1987), 65--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. LaToza, T. D., Venolia, G., and DeLine, R. Maintaining mental models: A study of developer work habits. In ICSE (2006), pp. 492--501. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Lee, G., DeLone, W., and Espinosa, J. Ambidextrous coping strategies in globally distributed software development projects. Comm. of the ACM 49, 10 (2006), 35--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Lyons, E., and Coyle, A., Eds. Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology. Sage Publications, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Mayer, R. E. Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Moody, D. The "physics" of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. (2009), 756--779. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Moody, D. L., and van Hillegersberg, J. Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: An analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. Software Language Engineering 5452 (2009), 16--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Müller, M., and Tichy, W. Case study: Extreme programming in a university environment. ICSE (2001), 537--544. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Nugroho, A. Level of detail in UML models and its impact on model comprehension: A controlled experiment. Information & Software Technology 51, 12 (2009), 1670--1685. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Olson, G. M., and Olson, J. S. Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15 (2000), 139--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Parnas, D. L. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Comm. of the ACM 15, 12 (December 1972), 1053--1058. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ågerfalk, P. J., and Fitzgerald, B. Flexible and distributed software processes: Old petunias in new bowls? Communications of the ACM 49, 10 (October 2006), 27--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. Judgements under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974), 1124--1131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. van Vliet, H. Software Engineering: Principles and Practice, 3rd ed. Wiley, June 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., and Wesslén, A. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A cognitive perspective on developer comprehension of software design documentation

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SIGDOC '11: Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on Design of communication
            October 2011
            308 pages
            ISBN:9781450309363
            DOI:10.1145/2038476

            Copyright © 2011 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 3 October 2011

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            SIGDOC '11 Paper Acceptance Rate36of75submissions,48%Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader