图的大小与布局缺陷:理解UML图的质量因素

H. Störrle
{"title":"图的大小与布局缺陷:理解UML图的质量因素","authors":"H. Störrle","doi":"10.1145/2961111.2962609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Previously, we have defined the notion of diagram size and studied its impact on the understanding of UML diagrams. Subsequently, questions have been raised regarding the reliability and generality of our findings. Also, new questions arose regarding how the quality of diagrams could be defined, and how it interacts with diagram size. Goal: We pursue three goals. First, we want to increase the validity of our research by analyzing a substantially larger data set than before. Second, we broaden the generalizability of our results by including two more diagram types. Our main contribution, though, is our third goal of extending our analysis aspects of diagram quality. Method: We improve our definition of diagram size and add a (provisional) definition of diagram quality as the number of topographic layout flaws. We apply these metrics on 60 diagrams of the five most commonly used types of UML diagram. We carefully analyze the structure of our diagram samples to ensure representativeness. We correlate diagram size and layout quality with modeler performance data obtained in previous experiments. The data set is the largest of its kind (n - 156). Results: We replicate earlier findings, and extend them to two new diagram types. We provide an improved definition of diagram size, and provide a definition of topographic layout quality, which is one more step towards a comprehensive definition of diagram quality as such. Both metrics are shown to be objectively applicable. We quantify the impact of diagram size and quality on diagram understanding. Conclusions: The overall results of previous studies are confirmed, while our previous recommendations for creating better diagrams are revised and refined.","PeriodicalId":208212,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagram Size vs. Layout Flaws: Understanding Quality Factors of UML Diagrams\",\"authors\":\"H. Störrle\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2961111.2962609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Previously, we have defined the notion of diagram size and studied its impact on the understanding of UML diagrams. Subsequently, questions have been raised regarding the reliability and generality of our findings. Also, new questions arose regarding how the quality of diagrams could be defined, and how it interacts with diagram size. Goal: We pursue three goals. First, we want to increase the validity of our research by analyzing a substantially larger data set than before. Second, we broaden the generalizability of our results by including two more diagram types. Our main contribution, though, is our third goal of extending our analysis aspects of diagram quality. Method: We improve our definition of diagram size and add a (provisional) definition of diagram quality as the number of topographic layout flaws. We apply these metrics on 60 diagrams of the five most commonly used types of UML diagram. We carefully analyze the structure of our diagram samples to ensure representativeness. We correlate diagram size and layout quality with modeler performance data obtained in previous experiments. The data set is the largest of its kind (n - 156). Results: We replicate earlier findings, and extend them to two new diagram types. We provide an improved definition of diagram size, and provide a definition of topographic layout quality, which is one more step towards a comprehensive definition of diagram quality as such. Both metrics are shown to be objectively applicable. We quantify the impact of diagram size and quality on diagram understanding. Conclusions: The overall results of previous studies are confirmed, while our previous recommendations for creating better diagrams are revised and refined.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962609\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

上下文:以前,我们已经定义了图大小的概念,并研究了它对UML图的理解的影响。随后,对我们研究结果的可靠性和普遍性提出了质疑。此外,关于如何定义图的质量,以及它如何与图的大小相互作用,也出现了新的问题。目标:我们追求三个目标。首先,我们希望通过分析比以前大得多的数据集来提高我们研究的有效性。其次,我们通过包含另外两种图类型来扩大结果的可泛化性。然而,我们的主要贡献是第三个目标,即扩展图质量的分析方面。方法:我们改进了图尺寸的定义,并增加了图质量的(临时)定义,作为地形布局缺陷的数量。我们将这些度量应用于五种最常用的UML图类型的60个图上。我们仔细分析了图表样本的结构,以确保代表性。我们将图的大小和布局质量与先前实验中获得的建模器性能数据相关联。该数据集是同类中最大的(n - 156)。结果:我们复制了先前的发现,并将它们扩展到两种新的图表类型。我们提供了图表大小的改进定义,并提供了地形布局质量的定义,这是向图表质量的全面定义又迈进了一步。这两个指标都是客观适用的。我们量化了图的大小和质量对图的理解的影响。结论:先前研究的总体结果得到了证实,同时我们对先前的建议进行了修改和完善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagram Size vs. Layout Flaws: Understanding Quality Factors of UML Diagrams
Context: Previously, we have defined the notion of diagram size and studied its impact on the understanding of UML diagrams. Subsequently, questions have been raised regarding the reliability and generality of our findings. Also, new questions arose regarding how the quality of diagrams could be defined, and how it interacts with diagram size. Goal: We pursue three goals. First, we want to increase the validity of our research by analyzing a substantially larger data set than before. Second, we broaden the generalizability of our results by including two more diagram types. Our main contribution, though, is our third goal of extending our analysis aspects of diagram quality. Method: We improve our definition of diagram size and add a (provisional) definition of diagram quality as the number of topographic layout flaws. We apply these metrics on 60 diagrams of the five most commonly used types of UML diagram. We carefully analyze the structure of our diagram samples to ensure representativeness. We correlate diagram size and layout quality with modeler performance data obtained in previous experiments. The data set is the largest of its kind (n - 156). Results: We replicate earlier findings, and extend them to two new diagram types. We provide an improved definition of diagram size, and provide a definition of topographic layout quality, which is one more step towards a comprehensive definition of diagram quality as such. Both metrics are shown to be objectively applicable. We quantify the impact of diagram size and quality on diagram understanding. Conclusions: The overall results of previous studies are confirmed, while our previous recommendations for creating better diagrams are revised and refined.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信