How do modelers read UML diagrams?: preliminary results from an eye-tracking study

H. Störrle, Nick Baltsen, Henrik Christoffersen, A. Maier
{"title":"How do modelers read UML diagrams?: preliminary results from an eye-tracking study","authors":"H. Störrle, Nick Baltsen, Henrik Christoffersen, A. Maier","doi":"10.1145/3183440.3195025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Conceptual diagrams are widely used. Previous research suggested layout quality, diagram size, and expertise level are relevant impact factors on understanding, while diagram type is not. Surprisingly little is known about how diagrams are read. Objective: Eventually, we want to understand the cognitive processes of diagram and model understanding. In this paper, we study the behavior of modelers while reading UML diagrams in terms of reading strategies and how they affect diagram understanding. Method: We conduct an eye tracking study with 28 participants, reusing diagrams and items from previous experiments. We record several objective and subjective performance indicators as well as eye movement and pupil dilation. Results: We discover behavioral regularities and aggregate them into reading strategies which vary with expertise level and diagram type, but not with layout quality. Conclusions: Modelers exhibit specific strategies of diagram understanding. Experts employ different strategies than novices, which explains performance differences irrespective of layout quality.","PeriodicalId":121436,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceeedings","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceeedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3183440.3195025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Conceptual diagrams are widely used. Previous research suggested layout quality, diagram size, and expertise level are relevant impact factors on understanding, while diagram type is not. Surprisingly little is known about how diagrams are read. Objective: Eventually, we want to understand the cognitive processes of diagram and model understanding. In this paper, we study the behavior of modelers while reading UML diagrams in terms of reading strategies and how they affect diagram understanding. Method: We conduct an eye tracking study with 28 participants, reusing diagrams and items from previous experiments. We record several objective and subjective performance indicators as well as eye movement and pupil dilation. Results: We discover behavioral regularities and aggregate them into reading strategies which vary with expertise level and diagram type, but not with layout quality. Conclusions: Modelers exhibit specific strategies of diagram understanding. Experts employ different strategies than novices, which explains performance differences irrespective of layout quality.
建模师如何阅读UML图?眼动追踪研究的初步结果
背景:概念图被广泛使用。先前的研究表明,布局质量、图表大小和专业水平是影响理解的相关因素,而图表类型不是。令人惊讶的是,人们对图表的阅读方式知之甚少。目的:最终,我们想要了解图和模型理解的认知过程。在本文中,我们根据阅读策略研究建模者在阅读UML图时的行为,以及它们如何影响图的理解。方法:我们对28名参与者进行眼动追踪研究,重复使用先前实验中的图表和项目。我们记录了几个客观和主观的表现指标,以及眼球运动和瞳孔扩张。结果:我们发现了行为规律,并将其聚合为阅读策略,这些策略随专业水平和图表类型的不同而不同,但与版面质量无关。结论:建模者表现出特定的图表理解策略。专家与新手采用不同的策略,这解释了与布局质量无关的性能差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信