Adapting icons in requirements engineering can support the multifaceted needs of stakeholders. Conventional approaches to RE are mainly highlighted in diagrams. This paper introduces icon-based information as a way to represent ideas and concepts in the requirements engineering domain. We report on icon artifacts that support requirements engineering work such as priority types, status states and stakeholder kinds. We evaluate how users interpret meanings of icons and the efficacy of icon prototypes shaped to represent those requirements attributes. Our hypothesis is whether practitioners can recognize the icons’ meaning in terms of their functional representation. According to the empirical data from 45 participants, the findings demonstrate the probability of providing users with icons and their intended functions that correspond to RE artifacts in a novel yet effective manner. Based on these findings, we suggest that icons could enrich stakeholders’ perception of the RE process as a whole; however, meaningful interpretation of an icon is subject to the user’s prior knowledge and experience.
KeywordsRequirements EngineeringIconCultureStakeholderVisual Language
O. W. Galitz, “The Essential Guide to User Interface Design an Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques,” 3rd Edition, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2007.
A. Marcus, “Icons, Symbols, and Signs: Visible Languages to Facilitate Communication,” Interactions, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2003, pp. 37-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/769759.769774
Heimbürger, et al., “Intelligent Icons for Cross-Cultural Knowledge Searching,” Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XXIII, Amsterdam, 2012, pp. 77-89.
A. Heimbürger and Y. Kiyoki, “Pictorial Symbols in Context: A Means for Visual Communication in CrossCultural Environments,” Proceedings of the IADIS International Conferences, Germany, 27-29 July 2010, pp. 463-467.
S. Khanom, A. Heimbürger and T. Karkkainen, “Icon-Based Language in Requirements Development,” 22nd EJC, 2012, pp. 20-25.
S. Khanom, A. Heimbürger and T. Karkkainen, “Icon-Based Language in the Context of Requirements Elicitation Process,” Information Modelling and Knowledge Base XXIV, IOS Press, Amsterdam, in press.
S. Khanom, “Icon-Based Language in the Context of Requirements Engineering,” REFSQ Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Germany, 8-11 April 2013, pp. 215-222.
P. G. Barker and M. Yazdani, “Iconic Communication,” Intellect Ltd., 2000.
S. Hansen and K. Lyytinen, “Challenges in Contemporary Requirements Practice,” 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Honolulu, 5-8 January 2010, pp. 1-11.
L. Mathiassen, T. Tuunanen, T. Saarinen and M. Rossi, “A Contigency Model for Requirements Development,” JAIS, Vol. 8, No. 11, 2007, pp. 569-597.
H. Kaiya, D. Shinbara, J. Kawano and M. Saeki, “Improving the Detection of Requirements Discordances among Stakeholders,” Requirements Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2005, pp. 289-303.
N. Cerpa and J. M. Verner, “Why Did Your Project Fail?” Communication of the ACM, Vol. 52, No. 12, 2009, pp. 130-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1610252.1610286
K. El Emam and A. G. Koru, “A Replicated Survey of IT Software Project Failures,” IEEE Software, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2008, pp. 84-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MS.2008.107
D. L. Moody, “The ‘Physics’ of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2009, pp. 756-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.67
N. Aykin, “Usability and Internationalization of Information Technology,” Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc., London, 2005.
R. Bendraou, J. Jezequel, M. Gervais and X. Blanc, “A Comparison of Six UML-Based Languages for Software Process Modeling,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2010, pp. 662-675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.85
S. Morris and G. Spanoudakis, “UML: An Evaluation of the Visual Syntax of the Language,” Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, 3-6 January 2001, p. 10.
L. Duboc, E. Letier and D. S. Rosenblum, “Systematic Elaboration of Scalability Requirements through Goal-Obstacle Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2013, pp. 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.12
D. L. Moody, P. Heymans and R. Matulevicius, “Visual Syntax Does Matter: Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of the i* Visual Notation,” Requirements Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2010, pp. 141-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00766-010-0100-1
D. L. Moody and J. V. Hillegersberg, “Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family of Diagrams,” Software Language Engineering, Vol. 5452, 2009, pp. 16-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00434-6_3
S. J. P. McDougall, M. B. Curry and O. D. Bruijn, “The Effects of Visual Information on Users’ Mental Models: An Evaluation of Pathfinder Analysis as a Measure of Icon Usability,” Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2001, pp. 59-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0501_4
H. F. Wang, S. H. Hung and C. C. Liao, “A Survey of Icon Taxonomy Used in the Interface Design,” Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Invent! Explore! London, 28-31 August 2007, pp. 203-206.
A. W. Y. Ng and A. H. S. Chan, “Visual and Cognitive Features on Icon Effectiveness,” Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. 2, 2008, pp. 19-21.
S. J. P. McDougall, M. B. Curry and O. D. Bruijn, “Measuring Symbol and Icon Characteristics: Norms for Concreteness, Complexity, Meaningfulness, Familiarity, and Semantic Distance for 239 Symbols,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1999, pp. 487-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03200730
Y. Yu and J. D. He, “An Analysis of Users’ Cognitive Factors towards Icon in Interactive Interface,” Intelligent 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (IHMSC), Nanjing, 26-28 August 2010, pp. 26-28.
S. Fitrianie and L. J. M. Rothkrantz, “A Visual Communication Language for Crisis Management,” International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2007, pp. 208-216.
S. Fitrianie, D. Datcu and L. J. M. Rothkrantz, “Human Communication Based on Icons in Crisis Environments,” Usability and Internationalization, Vol. 4560, 2007, pp. 57-66. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-540-73289-1_7
D. L. McGuinness and F. V. Harmelen, “OWL Web Ontology Language Overview,” 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
G. Hofstede, “Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
K. Reinecke and A. Bernstein, “Improving Performance, Perceived Usability, and Aesthetics with Culturally Adaptive User Interfaces,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2011, pp. 8-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1970378.1970382
D. E. Leidner and T. Kayworth, “A Review of Culture in Information Systems: Toward a Theory of Information Technology Culture Conflict,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006, pp. 357-399.
A. Heimbürger, et al., “Communication across Cultures in the Context of Multicultural,” Software Development. Reports of the Department of MIT. Series C. Software and Computational Engineering, 2011.
S. K. Ackerman, “Mapping User Interface Design to Culture Dimensions,” Proceedings of IWIPS, Texas, 11-13 July 2002, pp. 89-100.
S. Shen, M. Woolley and S. Prior, “Towards Culture-Centred Design,” Interacting with Computers, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2006, pp. 820-852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.11.014
A. Marcus and E. W. Gould, “Crosscurrents: Cultural Dimensions and Global Web User-Interface Design,” Interactions, Vol.7, No. 2, 2002, pp. 32-46.
A. R. Hevner, S. T. March, J. Park and S. Ram, “Design Science in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2004, pp. 74-105.
K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M. A. Rothenberger and S. Chatterjee, “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2007, pp. 45-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
ISO/IEC 9126, “IT-Software Product Evaluation-Quality Characteristics,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneve, 1991.
S. J. P. McDougall and M. Burry, “More than Just a Picture: Icon Interpretation in Context,” Coping with Complexity Workshop, University of Bath, 2007, pp. 1-8.
S. Isherwood, “Graphics and Semantics: The Relationship between What Is Seen and What Is Meant in Icon Design,” Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, Vol. 5639, 2009, pp. 197-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02728-4_21
ETSI EG 202-048, “Human Factors (HF); Guideline on the Multimodality of Icons, Symbols, and Pictograms,” European Telecommunication Standard Institute, France, 2002.
ISO/IEC 11581, “Information Technology-User System Interfaces-Icon Symbols and Functions. Part 1: General Icons, Part 2: Object Icons, Part 6: Action Icons,” ISO Copyright, Switzerland, 2002.
ETSI EG 201-379, “Human Factors (HF); Framework for the Development, Evaluation and Selection of Graphical Symbols,” European Telecommunications Standards Institute, France, 1998.
G. Costagliola, V. Deufemia and G. Polese, “A Framework for Modeling and Implementing Visual Notations with Applications to Software Engineering,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2004, pp. 431-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1040291.1040293
S. Khanom, A. Heimbürger and T. Karkkainen, “Icon-Based Language: Auxiliary Communication for Requirements Engineering,” Ijest, Vol. 5, 2013, pp. 1076-1082.
Aroyo, et al., “Interoperability in Personalized Adaptive Learning,” Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2006, pp. 4-18.
K. Reinecke and A. Bernstein, “Knowing What a User Likes: A Design Science Approach to Interfaces That Automatically Adapt to Culture,” MIS Quarterly, Vol.37, No. 2, 2013, pp. 427-453.
K. E. Wiegers, “Software Requirements,” 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, 2003.