[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3550356.3559098acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodelsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mining human factors general trends from +100k UML class diagrams

Published: 09 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Models are primary artifacts for Model-Based Software Engineering. An important share of the activity associated with this engineering is creating and editing models (usually referred to as modeling). Using (graphical) diagrams to manipulate these models is one of the most common practices. A lot of scientific work has been performed on human factors related issues associated to these diagrams and their associated tools in order to support better the modeling activity through diagrams (referred to as diagramming [9]). However, our knowledge of the real practices concerning this modeling activity remains limited, especially when it comes to going into the detailed activity performed on a given type of diagram. In this article, we propose a first quantitative and detailed study of diagramming practices, focusing on UML class diagrams. Based on the observation of syntactic data of more than 100,000 UML class diagrams, we provide a list of general trends extracted from recurrent practices related to this type of diagram. These trends include the type of elements used, their frequency, the formatting of their names, their placement, and a possible coloring. These trends provide a sketch of typical construction and manipulation of a class diagram and provide input for editors to adapt their tools and for researchers to map practices and determine which aspects need to be studied further.

References

[1]
Silvia Abrahão, Francis Bordeleau, Betty H. C. Cheng, Sahar Kokaly, Richard F. Paige, Harald Störrle, and Jon Whittle. 2017. User Experience for Model-Driven Engineering: Challenges and Future Directions. In 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2017, Austin, TX, USA, September 17-22, 2017. IEEE Computer Society, 229--236.
[2]
Yosser El Ahmar. 2018. Enhancing the Cognitive Effectiveness of UML Diagrams: Application of the Semiology of Graphics. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Lille.
[3]
Omar Badreddin, Rahad Khandoker, Andrew Forward, and Timothy Lethbridge. 2021. The Evolution of Software Design Practices Over a Decade: A Long Term Study of Practitioners. J. Object Technol. 20, 2 (2021), 1:1--19.
[4]
Jacques Bertin. 1983. Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps. (1983).
[5]
Peter Pin-Shan Chen. 1976. The Entity-Relationship Model---toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1, 1 (mar 1976), 9--36.
[6]
Martin Grossman, Jay E Aronson, and Richard V McCarthy. 2005. Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community. Information and Software Technology 47, 6 (2005), 383--397.
[7]
Regina Hebig, Truong Ho Quang, Michel R. V. Chaudron, Gregorio Robles, and Miguel Angel Fernandez. 2016. The Quest for Open Source Projects That Use UML: Mining GitHub. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
[8]
International Ergonomics Association. 2022. What Is Ergonomics? https://iea.cc/what-is-ergonomics/
[9]
Pourang Irani and Colin Ware. 2003. Diagramming Information Structures Using 3D Perceptual Primitives. 10, 1 (2003).
[10]
John Krogstie. 2012. Quality of models. In Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems. Springer, 205--247.
[11]
Naouel Moha, Yann gaël Guéhéneuc, Laurence Duchien, and Anne françoise Le Meur. 2010. DECOR: A method for the specification and detection of code and design smells. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 36, 1 (2010).
[12]
Daniel L Moody. 2002. Complexity effects on end user understanding of data models: An experimental comparison of large data model representation methods. ECIS 2002 Proceedings (2002), 10.
[13]
Daniel L. Moody. 2009. The Physics of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35, 6 (2009), 756--779.
[14]
Object Management Group. 2010. Business Process Model And Notation 2.0 Specifications. https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
[15]
Object Management Group. 2017. Annex A (Diagrams) of UML 2.5.1 Specifications. https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/About-UML/
[16]
Object Management Group. 2017. UML 2.5.1 Specifications. https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/About-UML/
[17]
Open Group. 2019. Archimate 3.1 Specifications. https://publications.opengroup.org/archimate-library/archimate-standards/c197
[18]
Marian Petre. 2013. UML in practice. In 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '13, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-26, 2013, David Notkin, Betty H. C. Cheng, and Klaus Pohl (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 722--731.
[19]
Marcello La Rosa, Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede, Petia Wohed, Hajo A. Reijers, Jan Mendling, and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2011. Managing Process Model Complexity via Concrete Syntax Modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 7, 2 (2011), 255--265.
[20]
Maxime Savary-Leblanc. 2019. Improving MBSE Tools UX with AI-Empowered Software Assistants. In 22nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion, MODELS Companion 2019, Munich, Germany, September 15-20, 2019. IEEE, 648--652.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
MODELS '22: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings
October 2022
1003 pages
ISBN:9781450394673
DOI:10.1145/3550356
  • Conference Chairs:
  • Thomas Kühn,
  • Vasco Sousa
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]

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

  • Univ. of Montreal: University of Montreal
  • IEEE CS

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 November 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. UML
  2. human factors
  3. mining repository
  4. software modeling

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

MODELS '22
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 144 of 506 submissions, 28%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 81
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media