%0 Conference Proceedings %1 dulac02 %A Dulac, N. %A Viguier, T. %A Leveson, N. %A Storey, M. A. %D 2002 %J Requirements Engineering, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE Joint International Conference on %K requirements visualization %P 71--80 %T On the use of visualization in formal requirements specification %U http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1048507 %X A limiting factor in the industrial acceptance of formal specifications is their readability, particularly for large, complex engineering systems. We hypothesize that multiple visualizations generated from a common model will improve the, requirements creation, reviewing and understanding, process. Visual representations, when effective, provide cognitive support by highlighting the most relevant interactions and aspects of a specification for a particular use. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy and some preliminary principles for designing visual representations of formal specifications. The taxonomy and principles are illustrated by sample visualizations we created while trying to understand a formal specification of the MD-11 flight management system.

@proceedings{dulac02, abstract = {A limiting factor in the industrial acceptance of formal specifications is their readability, particularly for large, complex engineering systems. We hypothesize that multiple visualizations generated from a common model will improve the, requirements creation, reviewing and understanding, process. Visual representations, when effective, provide cognitive support by highlighting the most relevant interactions and aspects of a specification for a particular use. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy and some preliminary principles for designing visual representations of formal specifications. The taxonomy and principles are illustrated by sample visualizations we created while trying to understand a formal specification of the MD-11 flight management system.}, added-at = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, author = {Dulac, N. and Viguier, T. and Leveson, N. and Storey, M. A.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21246088ad8d0b1a2d1912b521e95c956/neilernst}, citeulike-article-id = {368122}, comment = {- basically a 'what-if' paper, with no empirical assessment or any work on the hard problems - some useful principles presented, and good review of the literature on visualization of software - see Larkin87 - also related to cognitive dimensions framework - "describing 'what' differs significantly from describing 'how'" - present 6 axes to characterize visualizations, which may or may not be useful (by which I mean, yes, these seem like differences, but how important are they) - they present a state machine model because that is what the users are familiar with. Note this might imply different visualizations (radically so) depending on who is the user - it isn't allowed to show spaghetti and then say it gives a gestalt view - so does an ant's view of a yard, but it doesn't help the ant any - concept of semantic distance is an important one}, description = {sdasda}, interhash = {831f1b8876014806ef9bbcd9b33daf73}, intrahash = {1246088ad8d0b1a2d1912b521e95c956}, journal = {Requirements Engineering, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE Joint International Conference on}, keywords = {requirements visualization}, pages = {71--80}, priority = {0}, timestamp = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, title = {On the use of visualization in formal requirements specification}, url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1048507}, year = 2002 }