Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Empirical Software Engineering
Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering 4/2016

01.08.2016

The effects of visualization and interaction techniques on feature model configuration

verfasst von: Mohsen Asadi, Samaneh Soltani, Dragan Gašević, Marek Hatala

Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

A Software Product Line is a set of software systems of a domain, which share some common features but also have significant variability. A feature model is a variability modeling artifact which represents differences among software products with respect to variability relationships among their features. Having a feature model along with a reference model developed in the domain engineering lifecycle, a concrete product of the family is derived by selecting features in the feature model (referred to as the configuration process) and by instantiating the reference model. However, feature model configuration can be a cumbersome task because: 1) feature models may consist of a large number of features, which are hard to comprehend and maintain; and 2) many factors including technical limitations, implementation costs, stakeholders’ requirements and expectations must be considered in the configuration process. Recognizing these issues, a significant amount of research efforts has been dedicated to different aspects of feature model configuration such as automating the configuration process. Several approaches have been proposed to alleviate the feature model configuration challenges through applying visualization and interaction techniques. However, there have been limited empirical insights available into the impact of visualization and interaction techniques on the feature model configuration process. In this paper, we present a set of visualization and interaction interventions for representing and configuring feature models, which are then empirically validated to measure the impact of the proposed interventions. An empirical study was conducted by following the principles of control experiments in software engineering and by applying the well-known software quality standard ISO 9126 to operationalize the variables investigated in the experiment. The results of the empirical study revealed that the employed visualization and interaction interventions significantly improved completion time of comprehension and changing of the feature model configuration. Additionally, according to results, the proposed interventions are easy-to-use and easy-to-learn for the participants.
Vorheriger Artikel Quantifying structural attributes of system decompositions in 28 feature-oriented software product lines
Nächster Artikel Coevolution of variability models and related software artifacts

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
2
A statistical tool: http://​www.​jmp.​com/​
 
Literatur
Apel S, and, Beyer D (2011) Feature cohesion in software product lines: an exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 421–430
Apel S, Kästner C (2009) An overview of feature-oriented software development. J Object Technol (JOT) 8(5):49–84CrossRef
Asadi M, Bagheri E, Gašević D, Hatala M (2011) “Goal-driven software product line engineering,” In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, TaiChung, Taiwan, (in press)
Bagheri E, and, Gasevic D (2010) “Assessing the Maintainability of Software Product Line Feature Models using Structural Metrics,” Software Quality Journal (2010), Springer, To appear
Bagheri E, Asadi M, Gašević D, Soltani S (2010) “Stratified Analytic Hierarchy Process: Prioritization and Selection of Software Features,” In Proceedings of the 14th International Software Product Lines Conference, Jeju Island, South Korea, (Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 6287), pp. 300–315
Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J (2008) An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact 24(6):57–594CrossRef
Victor R, Basili (1992) Software Modeling and Measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm. Technical Report. University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, USA
Basili VR, Shull F, Lanubile F (1999) Building knowledge through families of experiments. Softw Eng IEEE Trans 25(4):456–473CrossRef
Batory D (2005) “Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas,” Software Product Lines, p. 7–20
Behkamal B, Kahani M, Akbari MK (2009) Customizing ISO 9126 quality model for evaluation of B2B applications. Inf Softw Technol 51(3):599–609CrossRef
Benavides D, Trinidad P, and Ruiz-Cortés A, “Automated reasoning on feature models,” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 2005, p. 491–503
Benavides D, Trinidad P, and Ruiz-Cortés A (2005) “Automated Reasoning on Feature Models,” in Proc. 17 th Int’l conf. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 491–503
Benavides D, Segura S, Trinidad P, and Ruiz-Cortés A (2007) “FAMA: Tooling a framework for the automated analysis of feature models,” in Proceeding of the First International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems
David B, Sergio S, Antonio R-C (2010) Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Inf Syst 35(6):615–636CrossRef
Bosch, J (2000) Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach. ACM Press / Addison-Wesley
Botterweck G, Thiel S, Nestor D, Abid S, and, Cawley C (2008) “Visual Tool Support for Configuring and Understanding Software Product Lines,” In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC ’08). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA
Botterweck G, Janota M, and SchneeweissD (2009) A Design of a Configurable Feature Model Configurator, Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VAMOS 09)
Bowman DA, Kruijff E, Laviola JJ Jr, Poupyrev I (2001) An introduction to 3D user interface design. Presence 10(1):96–108CrossRef
Brewer (1999) “Color use guidelines for data representation,” In Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Graphics
Briand LC, Wüst J, Ikonomovski SV, and Lounis H, “Investigating quality factors in object-oriented designs: an industrial case study,” in Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, New York, NY, USA, 1999, p. 345–354
Byelas H, Telea A (2009) Towards realism in drawing areas of interest on architecture diagrams. J Vis Lang Comput 20:110–128CrossRef
Card SK, Mackinlay JD, and Shneiderman B (1999) Readings in informa-tion visualization: using vision to think, chapter 1, pages 1–34. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, 25
Cawley C, Botterweck G, Healy P, Abid SB, Thiel S (2009) “A 3D Visualisation to Enhance Cognition in Software Product Line Engineering,”. In: Bebis G (ed) Advances in Visual Computing, 5876. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 857–868CrossRef
Chin DN (2001) Empirical evaluation of user models and user-adapted systems”. User Model User-Adap Inter 11(1–2):181–194CrossRefMATH
Chua BB and Dyson LE (2004) “Applying the ISO 9126 model to the evaluation of an elearning.”In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 184–190).
Chuah MC, Roth SF, Mattis J, and, Kolojejchick J “SDM: selective dynamic manipulation of visualizations,” in Proceedings of the 8th annual ACM symposium on User interface and software technology, New York, NY, USA, 1995, p. 61–70
Czarnecki K, and, Eisenecker U (2000) “Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications,” Addison-Wesley
Czarnecki K, and, Kim CHP (2005) “Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: A progress report,” in International Workshop on Software Factories
Daniel A.Keim, Florian Mansmann, Jörn Schneidewind, Jim Thomas, and Hartmut Ziegler (2008) Visual Analytics: Scope and Challenges. In Visual Data Mining, Simeon J. Simoff, Michael H. Böhlen, and Arturas Mazeika (Eds.). Lecture Notes In Computer Science, Vol. 4404. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg 76–90
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRef
De Lucia A, Gravino C, Oliveto R, Tortora G (2010) An experimental comparison of ER and UML class diagrams for data modelling. Empir Softw Eng 15:455–492CrossRef
Dhungana D, Grünbacher P, Rabiser R (2011) The DOPLER meta-tool for decision-oriented variability modeling: a multiple case study. Automated Software Engg 18(1):77–114CrossRef
Easterbrook S (2007) Empirical research methods for software engineering. In Proceedings of the twenty-second IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering (ASE '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 574–574
El Dammagh M, De Troyer O (2011) Feature modeling tools: evaluation and lessons learned. In: Olga De T, Claudia Bauzer M, Roland B, Pierre H, Alkis S (eds) In proceedings of the 30th international conference on advances in conceptual modeling: recent developments and new directions (ER’11). Springer, Berlin, pp 120–129CrossRef
Fernández R, Laguna MA, Requejo J, Serrano N “Development of a Feature Modeling Tool using Microsoft DSL Tools” GIRO Technical Report 2009–1.ver 1.0, Department of Computer Science, University of Valladolid
Genero M, Olivas J, Piattini M, and Romero F, “Using Metrics to Predict OO Information Systems Maintainability,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, London, UK, UK, 2001, p. 388–401
Guo J, White J, Wang G, Li J, Wang Y (2011) A genetic algorithm for optimized feature selection with resource constraints in software product lines. J Syst Softw 84(12):2208–2221CrossRef
Heidenreich F, Kopcsek J, and Wende C (2008) “FeatureMapper: mapping features to models,” in Companion of the 30th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 943–944
Heidenreich F, Savga I, and Wende C (2008) “On controlled visualisations in software product line engineering,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Visualisation in Software Product Line Engineering (ViSPLE 2008), collocated with the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008)
Herndon KP, van Dam A, Gleicher M (1994) The challenges of 3D interaction: a CHI’94 workshop. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 26:36–43CrossRef
ISO/IEC Standard No. 14598: Information technology – Software product evaluation; Parts 1–6. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Geneva, Switzerland, 1999–2001
ISO/IEC Standard No. 9126: Software engineering – Product quality; Parts 1–4. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Geneva, Switzerland, 2001–2004
Johnson B, and Shneiderman B (1991) “Tree-Maps: a space-filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures,” in Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Visualization ’91, pp. 284–291
Kitchenham BA et al (2002) “Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering,” IEEE Transactions on software engineering, p. 721–734
Korson T, McGregor JD (1990) Understanding object-oriented: a unifying paradigm. Commun ACM 33:40–60CrossRef
Lange CFJ and Chaudron MRV (2007) “Interactive Views to Improve the Comprehension of UML Models - An Experimental Validation,” in Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, pp. 221–230
Langelier G, Sahraoui H, and Poulin P, “Visualization-based analysis of quality for large-scale software systems,” in Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM international Conference on Automated software engineering - ASE’05, Long Beach, CA, USA, 2005, p. 214
Linden F, Schmid K, Rommes E (2007) Software product lines in action - the best industrial practice in product line engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
Lisboa LB, Garcia VC, Almeida ES, Meira SL, Lucrédio D, Fortes RP (2010) A systematic review on domain analysis tools. Inf Softw Technol 52:1–13CrossRef
Losavio F (2002) Quality models to design software architecture. J Object Technol 1(4):165CrossRef
Lozano LM, Garcıa-Cueto E, Muñiz J (2008) Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodol Eur J Res Methods Behav Social Sci 4(2):73–79. doi:10.​1027/​1614-2241.​4.​2.​73
Mendonca M, Wasowski A, Czarnecki K, and Cowan D, “Efficient compilation techniques for large scale feature models,” in Proceedings of the 7th international conference on GPCE, 2008, p. 13–22
Minke A (1997) “Conducting Repeated Measures Analyses: Experimental Design Considerations,” Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin
Moody D (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(6):756–779CrossRef
Nestor D, O’Malley L, Healy P, Quigley A, and Thiel S (2007) “Visualisation techniques to support derivation tasks in software product line development,” in Proceedings of the 2007 conference of the center for advanced studies on Collaborative research, pp. 315–325
Paas F, Renkel A, Sweller J (2004) Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instr Sci 32:1–8CrossRef
Plaisant C, Grosjean J, and Bederson B (2002) “SpaceTree: supporting exploration in large node link tree, design evolution and empirical evaluation,” in Information Visualization, 2002. INFOVIS 2002. IEEE Symposium on, pp. 57–64
Pleuss A, Rabiser R, and Botterweck G (2011) Visualization techniques for application in interactive product configuration. In Proceedings of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference, Volume 2 (SPLC ’11), Ina Schaefer, Isabel John, and Klaus Schmid (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA,, Article 22, 8 pages
Purchase HC (1997) Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding?. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD '97), Giuseppe Di Battista (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, UK, pp 248–261
Reddivari S (2013) “Visual analytics for software requirements engineering,” Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2013 21st IEEE International, vol., no., pp.389,392, 15-19
Robertson GG, Mackinlay JD, and Card SK (1991) “Cone Trees: animated 3D visualizations of hierarchical information,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, pp. 189–194
Schneiderman B (2009) Creativity support tools: A grand challenge for HCI researchers. In Engineering the User Interface (M. Redondo, Ed.), Springer
Sellier D and Mannion M (2007) “Visualising Product Line Requirement Selection Decision Inter-dependencies,” in Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization, pp. 7
Shneiderman B (1996) “The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations,” in Visual Languages, 1996. Proceedings., IEEE Symposium on, pp. 336–343
Shneiderman B (2007) Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation. Commun. ACM 50, 12 (December 2007), 20–32
Siegmund N, Rosenmüller M, Kuhlemann M, Kästner C, Apel S, and Saake G (2011) “SPL Conqueror: Toward optimization of non-functional properties in software product lines,” Software Quality Journal
Siegmund J, Kästner C, Apel S, Parnin C, Bethmann A, Leich T, Saake G, and, Brechmann A (2014) Understanding Source Code with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)
Soltani S, Asadi M, Gašević D, Hatala M, Bagheri E (2012) “Automated Planning for Feature Model Configuration based on Functional and Non-Functional Requirements,” In Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference, Salvador, Brazil
Stasko J and Zhang E (2000) “Focus + context display and navigation techniques for enhancing radial, space-filling hierarchy visualizations,” in Information Visualization, 2000. InfoVis 2000. IEEE Symposium on, pp. 57–65
Thüm T, Kästner C, Benduhn F, Meinicke J, Saake G, Leich T (2014) FeatureIDE: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development. Sci Comput Program 79:70–85CrossRef
Trinidad P, Ruiz-Cortes A, Benavides D, and Segura S (2008) “Three-dimensional feature diagrams visualization,” In ViSPLE, pages 295{302. Lero
Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 39(2):273–315CrossRef
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204CrossRef
Zhicheng L, Nancy N, John S (2008) Distributed cognition as a theoretical framework for information visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 14(6):1173–1180CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The effects of visualization and interaction techniques on feature model configuration
verfasst von
Mohsen Asadi
Samaneh Soltani
Dragan Gašević
Marek Hatala
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Empirical Software Engineering / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-014-9353-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

Empirical Software Engineering 4/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Coevolution of variability models and related software artifacts

Experience Report

A systematic test case selection methodology for product lines: results and insights from an industrial case study

OriginalPaper

Breathing ontological knowledge into feature model synthesis: an empirical study

OriginalPaper

Archetypal personalities of software engineers and their work preferences: a new perspective for empirical studies

OriginalPaper

Using text clustering to predict defect resolution time: a conceptual replication and an evaluation of prediction accuracy

OriginalPaper

Code clones and developer behavior: results of two surveys of the clone research community