skip to main content
10.1145/3014812.3014849acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesaus-cswConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Intuitive understanding of a modeling language

Authors Info & Claims
Published:31 January 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Human Cognitive Modeling Language (HCM-L) was developed for the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) domain with the goal, to be easily understandable by future users: doctors, caregivers and even end-users themselves, i.e. anybody who needs help for successfully performing an activity. HCM-L is a lean modeling language with only a few concepts. The graphical notation was created considering principles for designing cognitively effective visual notations. This paper presents studies which tested the intuitive understandability of models that are formulated using this language.

References

  1. ACTIVE AND ASSISTED LIVING PROGRAMME - ICT for ageing well. URL: http://www.aal-europe.eu; accessed March 12. (2016)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguirre-Urreta, M.I., Marakas, G.M.: Comparing conceptual modeling techniques. A Critical Review of the EER vs. OO Empirical Literature. SIGMIS Database 39, pp 9--32. (2008) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bannon, L.: Reimagining HCI: toward a more human-centered perspective. ACM Interactions 18, pp 50--57. (2011) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G.: Examining the structure of reading comprehension. Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? Read Writ 26, 349--379. (2013)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual database design. An entity-relationship approach. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, Calif. {u.a.} (1991) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bennett, C., Myers, D., Storey, M.-A., German, D.M., Ouellet, D., Salois, M., Charland, P.: A survey and evaluation of tool features for understanding reverse-engineered sequence diagrams. J. Softw. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract. 20, pp 291--315. (2008) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Burton-Jones, A., Weber, R., Wand, Y.: Guidelines for Empirical Evaluations of Conceptual Modeling Grammars. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10. (2009)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreyfus, T., Eisenberg, T.: Intuitive Functional Concepts. A Baseline Study on Intuitions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 13, 360--380 (1982)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Fill, H.-G., Karagiannis, D.: On the Conceptualisation of Modeling Methods Using the ADOxx Meta Modeling Platform. In: Enterprise Modeling and Information Systems Architectures, 8, pp 4--25. (2013)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischbein, E., Tirosh, D., Melamed, U.: Is it possible to measure the intuitive acceptance of a mathematical statement? Educational Studies in Mathematics 12, pp 491--512. (1981)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Förster, H. von: Analysis and Synthesis of Cognitive Processes and Systems. Final Report. Biological Computer Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana. (1969)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Förster, H. von: Understanding Understanding: An Epistemology of Second Order Concepts. In: Aprendizagem/Desenvolvimento 1 (3), pp. 83--85. (1981)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Eng 9, pp. 248--260. (2004) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Heiser, J., Tversky, B.: Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. COGNITIVE SCIENCE 30, pp 581--592. (2006)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Iivari, J., Iivari, N.: Varieties of User-Centeredness. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), p. 176a. (2006) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jošt, G., Huber, J., Heričko, M., Polančič, G.: An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams. Computer Standards & Interfaces 48, 90--111 (2016) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Karagiannis, D., Grossmann, W. and Höfferer, P.: Open Model Initiative: A Feasibility Study, URL: www.openmodels.at (2008)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H: Metamodeling Platforms. In: Bauknecht, K, Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) E-Commerce and Web Technologies, 2455, p. 182. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2002) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C. and Mylopoulos, J. (eds.): Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling - Concepts, Methods and Tools. Springer (2016) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Katz, S.: Assessing self-maintenance. Activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. American Geriatrics Society, New York NY (1983)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Kofod-Petersen, A., Mikalsen, M.: Context: Representation and Reasoning, Special issue of the Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle on "Applying Context-Management". (2005)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. Chapman & Hall, London. (1995)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65--100 (1987)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Leont'ev, A.N.: Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1978)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayr, H.C., Kop, C.: A User Centered Approach to Requirements Modeling. In: M. Glinz, G. Müller-Luschnat (Hrsg.): Modellierung 2002 - Modellierung in der Praxis - Modellierung für die Praxis, pp 75--86. (2002) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mayr, H.C., Michael, J.: Control pattern based analysis of HCM-L, a language for cognitive modeling. In: International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (IC-Ter 2012), pp 169--175. IEEE (2012)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Mayring, P.: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey, G., Mruck, K. (eds.) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, pp. 601--613. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (2010)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Business Process Management, 4714, pp. 48--63. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2007) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Mernik, M.: Formal and practical aspects of domain-specific languages. Recent developments. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA. (2013)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Michael, J.: Using cognitive models for behavioral assistance of humans. it - Information Technology 58. (2016)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Michael, J.: Kognitive Modellierung für Assistenzsysteme. Dissertation, Universität Klagenfurt. (2014)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Michael, J., Al Machot, F., Mayr, H.C.: ADOxx based Tool Support for a Behavior Centered Modeling Approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA) conference. ACM (2015) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Michael, J., Mayr, H.C.: Conceptual Modeling for Ambient Assistance. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling - ER 2013, pp. 403--413. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2013) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Michael, J.; Mayr, H.C.: Creating a Domain Specific Modelling Method for Ambient Assistance. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions ICTer2015, Colombo. (2015)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Moody, D.: The "Physics" of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35, pp. 756--779. (2009) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: Goos, G., Hartmanis, J., Leeuwen, J., Loucopoulos, P. (eds.) Entity-Relationship Approach - ER '94 Business Modeling and Re-Engineering, 881, pp. 94--111. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (1994) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Object Management Group OMG: Meta Object Facility™ (MOF™) Core. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/, accessed on August 9. (2016)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Peixoto, D., Batista, V.A., Atayde, A.P., Borges, E.P.: A comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 activity diagrams. Work 3, pp 1--14 (2007)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modeling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modeling languages without formal education. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Australasian conference on information systems. Toowoomba, Australia. (2007)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sadler-Smith, E.: 'What happens when you intuit? Understanding human resource practitioners subjective experience of intuition through a novel linguistic method. Human Relations 69, 1069--1093 (2016)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective. In: Hutchison, D., Kanade, T., Kittler, J., Kleinberg, J.M., Mattern, F., Mitchell, J.C., Naor, M., Nierstrasz, O., Pandu Rangan, C., Steffen, B. et al. (eds.) Business Process Management, 3649, pp. 434--439. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2005) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Strobl, T., Katzian, A.: Darstellungsvarianten für handlungs-unterstützende Apps: Ergebnisse einer Evaluationsstudie im Rahmen des Projekts HBMS: Wohnen-Pflege-Teilhabe. Tagungsbeiträge. VDE-Verlag, Berlin, Offenbach (2014)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Topi, H., Ramesh, V.: Human Factors Research on Data Modeling. Journal of Database Management 13, pp 3--19. (2002)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Intuitive understanding of a modeling language

            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 Other conferences
              ACSW '17: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference
              January 2017
              615 pages
              ISBN:9781450347686
              DOI:10.1145/3014812

              Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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: 31 January 2017

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              ACSW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate78of156submissions,50%Overall Acceptance Rate204of424submissions,48%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader