M. Storey (1998). A Cognitive Framework For Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....have proven to be useful for practical applications. CARE tools seem to have great potential to assist the reengineer, e.g. by performing laborious analysis steps, browsing information about legacy software artifacts, and guiding the DBRE process. However, such tools are rarely used in industry [Sto98, p. 3] Researchers and practitioners have identified the most significant reasons for this as their lack of customizability [MNB 94] and human awareness [JH98b, Sto98, JW99a] Furthermore, they do not allow for incremental and iterative DBRE processes [WSK97] 2.1 Lack of customizability ....

....information about legacy software artifacts, and guiding the DBRE process. However, such tools are rarely used in industry [Sto98, p. 3] Researchers and practitioners have identified the most significant reasons for this as their lack of customizability [MNB 94] and human awareness [JH98b, Sto98, JW99a] Furthermore, they do not allow for incremental and iterative DBRE processes [WSK97] 2.1 Lack of customizability Customizability is a crucial requirement on CARE tools, because LDBs are different with respect to many technical and non technical parameters. They are based on diverse ....

M. A. D. Storey. A Cognitive Framework for Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1998.

....classes and offer them as plugins. 8 5 Related Work There have been quite extensive research on the evaluation and comparison of reverse engineering and software visualization tools. Bassil and Keller [1] compare several SV tools at a functional and practical level. Storey s Ph.D. Thesis [32] is targeted more towards the cognitive aspects of software visualization. Bellay and Gall [3, 4] evaluate reverse engineering tools again at the level of offered functionalities and in terms of usability and extensibility. These and other excellent works are all targeted towards a qualitative ....

M.-A. D. Storey. A Cognitive Framework for Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University, dec 1998.

....3.2 Experimental Methodology As mentioned there seems to be no published experimental work on 3D UML usability to date. For that matter there is a general lack of such work on any software visualisation tools. Some notable exceptions, including her own work, are described by Storey[37]. We can suggest a number of reasons for the lack of usability testing with human subjects on the e ectiveness of UML and alternatives to UML (such as 3D representations) UML is quite new, only formally standardised as Version 1.0 in 1997. That is to say simply not enough time has passed for ....

....Uma performed much better in a certain situation we would not know which of the above factors was contributing to the result. In short the results of a comparative study may not be very conclusive when not comparing like with like, that is when there are too many unconstrained variables. Storey[37] also warns against drawing conclusions based on statistical results of subjects performing small tasks, since the results only speak for that speci c task and for that particular group of subjects when in fact a software engineering project involves a wide range of people performing tasks over a ....

Margaret-Anne Storey. A Cognitive Framework For Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada, 1998.

....extensibility, and applicability for analyzing embedded software systems. The tools used in the study vary significantly in terms of notations used. In fact, some of the tools did not have any graphical representation on the information extracted. Similar studies have been reported by Storey in [15]. In our case study, in turn, the models used are standard, namely, UML. We focused on the interpretations between the source code and the class diagram models, rather than tried to draw conclusions on the overall capabilities of the tools. The tools in our study are mostly used for software ....

M.-A. Storey. A cognitive framework for describing and evaluating software exploration tools. Technical report, Simon Fraser University, 1998. PhD Thesis.

.... feed back prevent errors does the interface help to prevent errors mental model does the tool s presentation of the model correspond well with your own mental model navigation does the tool allow you to freely explore the model without getting lost In a style similar to that used by Storey[Storey, 1998, page 104] the questions posed to the subjects required them to perform either Concrete tasks which could be completed correctly or incorrectly in a measurable amount of time, or Abstract tasks which required the subject to verbally appraise the tool. There were several stages in each ....

Storey, M.-A. (1998). A Cognitive Framework For Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

....for others . 261, pg. 124] This simple fact argues against using (simplistic forms of) comparison style experiments to understand or even evaluate tools. There are just too many interrelated factors for such an approach to yield informative results. As the work by Storey et al. demonstrates [618, 620], this fact is certainly borne out for comparing software visualization tools. Their work provided a demonstration that even though simple questions about the value of visualization tools can certainly be posed, the complexities of realistic software development can make simple questions seem like ....

....In fact, the scenario may well be considered a little farfetched because this sort of theory use seems entirely absent in SE. But the scenario is plausible, and it illustrates the possibilities and limitations of observation using cognitive models (e.g. Storey s work using the vMV model [618, 620], or Retkowsky s work [535] using those of Detienne) The suggested procedure is to start with a cognitive model that can code for mental actions, and then rely on other analytic resources to determine tool implications. The problems with this sort of work derive primarily from inadequacies of the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Storey, M.-A. D. A Cognitive Framework for Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, 1998.

....of the hierarchy can be generated and viewed in a separate window. Furthermore, a projection window can be generated to show the descendants of selected nodes. Rigi provides also another approach for presenting hierarchical graphs, namely SHriMP (Simple Hierarchical Multi Perspective) views [106, 107]. SHriMP views employ fisheye technique for nested graphs, showing the whole graph in a single view. Unlike Rigi views, a single SHriMP view is able to view the level arcs (i.e. arcs that are connecting two nodes on different hierarchical levels) In this research, the Rigi views have been used. ....

....case study (cf. Chapter 9) Second, the static dependency graph resulting when extracting the information from the target Java software, FUJABA, was quite large (cf. Figure 9. 1) A single SHriMP view might not be preferable over multiple Rigi views, if the software of that size is analyzed further [106]. Third, distinct parts of the FUJABA software were examined at one time in the case study. The information hiding facilities of Rigi were sufficient for constructing desirable static views in the example cases. Rigi is able to view information stored in Rigi Standard Format (RSF) The RSF file ....

Storey M.-A.D., A Cognitive Framework For Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools, PhD Dissertation, Technical Report, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, December 1998.

.... feedback prevent errors does the interface help to prevent errors mental model does the tool s presentation of the model correspond well with your own mental model navigation does the tool allow you to freely explore the model without getting lost In a style similar to that used by Storey[Storey, 1998, page 104] the questions posed to the subjects required them to perform either Concrete tasks which could be completed correctly or incorrectly in a measurable amount of time, or Abstract tasks which required the subject to verbally appraise the tool. There were several stages in each ....

Storey, M.-A. (1998). A Cognitive Framework For Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

No context found.

M. Storey (1998). A Cognitive Framework For Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

No context found.

M.-A. D. Storey. A Cognitive Framework for Describing and Evaluating Software Exploration Tools. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University, dec 1998.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC