Visualisation of Software Engineering Diagrams Part – 2. Rajat Anantharam Department of Gaming and Media Technology. Topics Discussed. Terminologies Existing protoypes Functionalities Evolution of SV. Terminologies. Program Visualization:
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Part – 2
Department of Gaming and Media Technology
Evolution of SV
Sorting out Sorting
Centerline ObjectCenter – formerly Saber C++)
Very rarely the Visualization Diagrams are hand-crafted.
Multiple crossings across inheritence \ class diagrams
Conflicts graph drawing aesthetics
Input: Non planar graph – multiple crossings
Desired Output: A graph with minimal edge crossings.
Approach : Confluent Drawing Approach to Visualizing non-planar graphs in a planar way
Concern : NP- Hard
Work Around : A possible solution based upon heuristics
We merge edges into “tracks” so as to turn edge crossings into overlapping paths
A curve is called locally-monotone if it contains no sharp turns and no self intersections.
It contains no points with left and right tangent that form an angle less than or equal to 90 degrees.
Example: A single train track
Confluent drawings are a way of drawing non-planar graphs in a planar way by merging edges together into tracks which are the union of locally monotone curves.
Confluent drawings of k3 and k5,5
The largest impediment to the use of SV by professional programmers is the issue of scope.
Most are applicable to small scale prototypes – scaling is clearly a visible issue
Form of software visualization still remains a big question. There are no specific standards set for this form of communication.
Interaction \ Navigation \ Usability – all are more or less “subjective” concerns
Non make out of the research lab – Effectiveness is a major issue.
If we make progress with issues concerning taxonomies, there are obvious benefits for the fields of software engineering and computer science instruction. The potential goes beyond this to the entire domain of interactive systems, to the users as well as the programmers of interactive systems.
Increasingly, the learning and use of complex systems is being facilitated by augmenting conventional textual and still graphic presentations with animation (Baecker & Small, 1990; Baecker, Small, & Mander, 1991), video,
and speech and non-speech audio (Mountford & Gaver, 1990).
Software visualization can therefore be applied to the development of self-revealing technology that can aid in demystifying and explaining system behaviour to users across the novice to expert continuum.
A Principled Taxonomy of Software Visualization
by Blaine A. Price, Ronald M. Baecker, and Ian S. Small
Confluent Drawings: Visualizing Nonplanar Diagrams in a Planar Way
Matthew Dickerson, David Eppstein, Michael T. Goodrich, Jeremy Meng’
2004 Visualization Challenge
Suplee, Curt, Bradford, Monica, Science, 00368075, 9/24/2004, Vol. 305, Issue 5692
Visualizing Flow Diagrams in WebSphere Studio Using SHriMP Views
Derek Rayside and Marin Litoiu, Margaret-Anne Storey, Casey Best
and Robert Lintern
Software visualization in the large
T. Ball and S. G. Eick - IEEE Computer, 29(4):33–43, 1996.