skip to main content
10.1145/800049.801767acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

An empirical evaluation of software documentation formats

Published:15 March 1982Publication History

ABSTRACT

The success of any software development project depends in part on the quality of the communication among the individuals involved: users, designers, coders and managers. On large systems, a variety of individuals perform various tasks at different points in time. The efficiency and correctness with which later tasks are performed depends critically on the documentation supplied during previous phases of the development cycle. This paper describes a series of three experiments designed to examine the effects of documentation format on the performance of programmers on different software-related tasks.

References

  1. 1.Blaiwes, A.S. Formats for presenting procedural instructions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 683-686.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. 2.Jones, C. A survey of programming design and specification techniques. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Specifications of Reliable Software. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.Kammann, R. The comprehensibility of printed instructions and the flowchart alternative. Human Factors, 1975, 17, 183-191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. 4.Kirk, R.E. Experimental design procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1968.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.Miller, L.A. Natural language programming: styles, strategies, and contrasts. IBM Systems Journal, 1981, 20, 184-215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.Ramsey, H.R., Atwood, M.E., & Van Doren, J.R. A comparative study of flowcharts and program design language for the detailed procedural specification of computer programs. (Tech. Rep. #SAI-78-078-DEN). Denver: Science Applications, Inc. 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.Shneiderman, B., Mayer, B.R., McKay, D., & Heller, P. Experimental investigations on the utility of detailed flowcharts in programming. Communications of the ACM, 1977, 20, 373-381. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.Winer, B.J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.Wright, P. & Reid, F. Written information: Some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 160-166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. An empirical evaluation of software documentation formats

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '82: Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        March 1982
        399 pages
        ISBN:9781450373890
        DOI:10.1145/800049

        Copyright © 1982 ACM

        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]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 15 March 1982

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '82 Paper Acceptance Rate75of165submissions,45%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader