Jungpil Hahn
Abstract
Various diagrams have been used heavily in systems analysis and design without proper verification of their usability. However, different diagrammatic representations of the same information may vary in the computational efficiency of working with these diagrams. The objective of this research was to explore the effects of diagrammatic representations on the task of integrating multiple diagrams. The domain of systems analysis and design was used to generate examples and test the theory. A cognitive model of diagram integration was proposed, and an experimental study was conducted, both to explore the effects of representa-tional features of diagrams on the cognitive process of diagram integration. Results of the experiment show that the representational features of the diagrams acted as the criteria for selecting among various methods for analyzing and designing the integrated diagram. In addition, the difference in the selected methods resulted in different task performances in terms of analysis and design errors. This article concludes with the implications of the results for the development of cognitively compelling diagrams.
- BADDELEY, A. D. 1986. Working Memory. Clarendon Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- BEEDLE, M. A. 1995. Object-based reengineering. Object Mag. 5, 1 (Mar.-Apr.), 53-58.Google Scholar
- CARD,S.K.,MORAN,T.P.,AND NEWELL, A. 1983. The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Inc., Hillsdale, NJ. Google Scholar
- CURTIS, B., KELLNER,M.I.,AND OVER, J. 1992. Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35, 9 (Sept. 1992), 75-90. Google Scholar
- DAVENPORT, T. H. 1993. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
- ENGELHARDT, Y., DE BRUIN, J., JANSSEN, T., AND SCHA, R. 1996. The visual grammar of information graphics, artificial intelligence in design. In Workshop on Visual Representation, Reasoning and Interaction in Design (AID '96, Stanford, CA, June). 24-27.Google Scholar
- ERICCSSON,K.A.AND SIMON, H. A. 1993. Protocol Anlaysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- GILMORE,D J.AND GREEN, T R. 1984. Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 21, 1 (July 1984), 31-48. Google Scholar
- GREEN, T. R. G. 1989. Cognitive dimensions of notations. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the British Computer Society, Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group Computer Society Workshop Series. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 443-460. Google Scholar
- GREN,T.R.G.AND PETRE, M. 1996. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A "cognitive dimensions" framework. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 7, 2, 131-174.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. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers (ESP '91), J. Koenemann-Belliveau, T. G. Moher, and S. P. Robertson, Eds. Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 121-146.Google Scholar
- GOOD, J. 1996. The "right" tool for the task: An investigation of external representations, program abstractions and task requirements. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers (ESP '96), W. D. Gray and D. A. Boehm-Davis, Eds. Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 77-98.Google Scholar
- HAMMER,M.AND CHAMPY, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation. Harper Business, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- JACOBSON, I., ERICSSON, M., AND JACOBSON, A. 1994. The Object Advantage: Business Process Reengineering with Object Technology. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., New York, NY. Google Scholar
- KALYUGA, S., CHANDLER, P., AND SWELLER, J. 1997. Levels of expertise and user-adapted formats of instructional presentations: A cognitive load approach. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on User Modeling (UM '97), A. Jameson, C. Paris, and C. Tasso, Eds. Springer-Verlag, Vienna, Austria, 261-272.Google Scholar
- KIRK, R. E. 1995. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA.Google Scholar
- KULPA, Z. 1994. Diagrammatic representation and reasoning. Mach. Graph. Vision 3, 1/2, 77-103.Google Scholar
- LARKIN,J.AND SIMON, H. A. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11, 1, 65-99.Google Scholar
- MACKINLAY,J.AND GENESERETH, M. R. 1985. Expressiveness and language choice. Data Knowl. Eng. 1, 1 (June 1985), 17-29. Google Scholar
- MOHER,T.G.,MAK,D.C.,BLUMENTHAL, B., AND LEVANTHAL, L. M. 1993. Comparing the comprehensibility of textual and graphical programs. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers, C. R. Cook, J. C. Scholtz, and J. C. Spohrer, Eds. Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 137-161.Google Scholar
- NARAYANAN,N.H.,SUWA, M., AND MOTODA, H. 1995. Hypothesizing behaviors from device diagrams. In Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives,J. Glasgow, N. H. Narayanan, and B. Chandrasekaran, Eds. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 501-534.Google Scholar
- NEWELL,A.AND SIMON, H. A. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Google Scholar
- PRESSMAN, R. S. 1992. Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. Google Scholar
- RATIONAL SOFTWARE. 1997. The Unified Modeling Language, version 1.0. (Software). Rational Software Corp., Cuptertino, CA.Google Scholar
- RIST, R. 1989. Schema creation in programming. Cogn. Sci. 13, 3, 389-414.Google Scholar
- SIMON, H. A. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
- SMITH, E. E. 1995. Concetps and categorization. In Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, D. N. Osherson and E. E. Smith, Eds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- TABACHNECK-SCHIJF,H.J.M.,LEONARDO,A.M.,AND SIMON, H. A. 1998. CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple representations. Cogn. Sci. 21, 3, 305-350.Google Scholar
- TAYLOR, D. A. 1995. Business Engineering with Object Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Google Scholar
- TVERSKY, B. 1997. Cognitive principles of graphic displays. In Proceedings of the 1997 AAAI Fall Symposium on Reasoning with Diagrammatic Representations (Cambridge, MA) AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 8-10.Google Scholar
- VAN SOMEREN,M.W.,BARNARD,Y.F.,AND SANDBERG, J. A. C. 1994. The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modeling Cognitive Processes. Academic Press Prof., Inc., San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- WINOGRAD, T. 1995. From programming environments to environments for designing. Commun. ACM 38, 6 (June), 65-74. Google Scholar
- WOODS,D.D.AND WATT, J. C. 1997. How not to have to naviage through too many displays. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. G. Helander, T. K. Landauer, and V. Prabhu, Eds. Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd., Essex, UK, 617-650.Google Scholar
- ZHANG, J. 1997. The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cogn. Sci. 21,2, 179-217.Google Scholar
- ZHANG,J.AND NORMAN, D. A. 1994. Representations in disbributed cognitive tasks. Cogn. Sci. 18, 87-122.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Why are some diagrams easier to work with? Effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive intergration process of systems analysis and design
Recommendations
How are UML class diagrams built in practice? A usability study of two UML tools: Magicdraw and Papyrus
Highlights- This paper analyzes how UML class diagrams are built by analyzing 12 h of video recordings of students using MagicDraw and Papyrus to draw example class ...
AbstractSoftware modeling is a key activity in software development, especially when following any kind of Model Driven Software Engineering (MDSE) process. In this context, standard modeling languages, like the Unified Modeling Language (UML),...
Theories of Diagrammatic Reasoning: Distinguishing Component Problems
Theories of diagrams and diagrammatic reasoning typically seek to account for either the formal semantics of diagrams, or for the advantages which diagrammatic representations hold for the reasoner over other forms of representation. Regrettably, almost ...
On the Diagrammatic Representation of Existential Statements with Venn Diagrams
It is of common use in modern Venn diagrams to mark a compartment with a cross to express its non-emptiness. Modern scholars seem to derive this convention from Charles S. Peirce, with the assumption that it was unknown to John Venn. This paper ...
Comments