access icon free Checklist-based techniques with gamification and traditional approaches for inspection of interaction models

Interaction models specify the structure and content of the user interface, the allowed user actions, and the corresponding system responses. There is a need to inspect interaction models, as it avoids the propagation of defects to other artefacts. We created two inspection techniques for interaction models, called MoLVERIC Cards (MCards) and MoLVERIC Check (MCheck). MCards employs a gamification mechanism to motivate practitioners during the inspection. MCheck is a simple technique to be used by practitioners in a traditional way. Both techniques have questions, whose answers assist in identifying defects. We performed three studies to verify whether these techniques support the inspection of interaction models. In the first and second studies, we evaluated MCards and MCheck in comparison with an ad-hoc technique supported by the conventional inspection approach based on defect types. The results of these studies showed that both techniques support the inspection of interaction models. In the third study, we evaluated MCard in comparison with MCheck to understand the participants'; perceptions of both techniques. The study results showed that MCards was considered more suitable for practitioners interested in using dynamic activities, while MCheck was considered more suitable for practitioners who want to use a more traditional technique.

Inspec keywords: user interfaces; production engineering computing; inspection; service industries

Other keywords: MCheck; MoLVERIC Check; gamification mechanism; MoLVERIC Cards; MCard; interaction models; checklist-based techniques; inspection techniques

Subjects: Industrial applications of IT; User interfaces; Inspection and quality control; Production engineering computing

References

    1. 1)
      • 6. Taba, N.H., Siew, H.O.: ‘A scenario based model to improve the quality of software inspection process’. Computational Intelligence, Modeling, and Simulation (CIMSiM 2012), Kuantan, Malaysia, 2012, pp. 194198.
    2. 2)
      • 28. Muñoz, M., Negrón, A.P.P., Mejia, J., et al: ‘Applying gamification elements to build teams for software development’, IET Softw., 2018, 13, (2), pp. 99105.
    3. 3)
      • 5. Lopes, A., Marques, A.B., Barbosa, S.D. J., et al: ‘Evaluating HCI design with interaction modeling and mockups: a case study’. Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Enterprise Information, Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 2015, pp. 7987.
    4. 4)
      • 29. McCrum-Gardner, E.: ‘Which is the correct statistical test to use?’, Br. J. Oral Maxillofacial Surg., 2008, 46, (1), pp. 3841.
    5. 5)
      • 4. De Mello, R.M., Teixeira, E.N., Schots, M., et al: ‘Verification of software product line artefacts: a checklist to support feature model inspections’, J. Univers. Comput. Sci., 2014, 20, (5), pp. 720745.
    6. 6)
      • 20. Sauer, C., Jeffery, R., Land, L., et al: ‘The effectiveness of software development technical review: a behaviorally motivated program of research’, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 2000, 26, (1), pp. 114.
    7. 7)
      • 16. Kim, H., Yoon, W.: ‘Supporting the cognitive process of user interface design with reusable design cases’. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud., 2005, 62, (4), pp. 457486.
    8. 8)
      • 2. Barbosa, S.D.J., Paula, M.G.: ‘Designing and evaluating interaction as conversation: a modeling language based on semiotic engineering’. Proc. 10th Interactive Systems, Design, Specification, and Verification Workshop (DSV-IS), Berlin, Germany, 2003, pp. 1633.
    9. 9)
      • 22. Conte, T., Massolar, J., Mendes, E., et al: ‘Web usability inspection technique based on design perspectives’, IET Softw. J., 2009, 3, (2), pp. 106123.
    10. 10)
      • 18. Sangiorgi, U.B., Barbosa, S.D.J.: ‘Extending the MoLIC language to the joint project of interaction and interface’ (in Portuguese)’. Proc. IX Symp. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC'2010), Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2010, pp. 6170.
    11. 11)
      • 8. Herranz, E., Palacios, R.C., de Amescua Seco, A., et al: ‘Gamification as a disruptive factor in software process improvement initiatives’, J. Univers. Comput. Sci., 2014, 20, (6), pp. 885906.
    12. 12)
      • 9. Fernandes, J., Duarte, D., Ribeiro, C., et al: ‘Ithink: a game-based approach toward improving collaboration and participation in requirement elicitation’. Procedia Comput. Sci., 2012, 15, pp. 6677.
    13. 13)
      • 24. Valentim, N.M. C., Rabelo, J., Oran, A.C., et al: ‘A controlled experiment with usability inspection techniques applied to use case specifications: comparing the MIT 1 and the UCE techniques’. ACM/IEEE 18th Int. Conf. on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2015, pp. 206215.
    14. 14)
      • 21. Granda, M.F., Condori-Fernández, N., Vos, T.E.J., et al: ‘What do we know about the defect types detected in conceptual models?’. Proc. IEEE 9th Int. Conf. on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2015), Athens, Greece, 2015, pp. 96107.
    15. 15)
      • 10. Shull, F., Carver, J., Travassos, G.: ‘An empirical methodology for introducing software processes’, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2001, 26, (5), pp. 288296.
    16. 16)
      • 14. Paula, M.G., Barbosa, S.D.J., Lucena, C.J.P.: ‘Conveying human–computer interaction concerns to software engineers through an interaction model’. Proc. 2005 Latin American Conf. on Human–Computer Interaction (CLIHC'05), Cuernavaca, Mexico, 2005, pp. 109119.
    17. 17)
      • 17. Souza, L.G., Barbosa, S.D.J.: ‘Extending MoLIC for collaborative systems design’. Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Human–Computer Interaction, Los Angeles - California, USA, 2015, pp. 271282.
    18. 18)
      • 30. Hedges, L.V., Olkin, I.: ‘Statistical methods for meta-analysis’ (Academic Press, New York, 1985).
    19. 19)
      • 26. Lopes, A., Marques, A.B., Barbosa, S.D.J., et al: ‘MoLVERIC cards feasibility study: a technique for inspection of moLIC diagrams (in Portuguese)’. Proc. 14th Brazilian Symp. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC'2015), Salvador, Brazil, 2015, pp. 203212.
    20. 20)
      • 11. Fernandez, A., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E., et al: ‘Further analysis on the validation of a usability inspection method for model-driven web development’. Proc. ACM-IEEE Int. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM'12), Lund, Sweden, 2012, pp. 153156.
    21. 21)
      • 12. Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: ‘Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory’ (SAGE Publications, Canada, 2008, 3rd edn.).
    22. 22)
      • 13. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., et al: ‘Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction’ (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 2000, 1st edn.).
    23. 23)
      • 19. Fagan, M.E.: ‘Design and code inspection to reduce errors in program development’. IBM Syst. J., 1976, 15, (3), pp. 182211.
    24. 24)
      • 1. Beaudouin-Lafon, M.: ‘Designing interaction, not interfaces’. Proc. Working Conf. on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI'04), Gallipoli, Italy, 2004, pp. 1522.
    25. 25)
      • 3. Lopes, A., Valentim, N., Ferreira, B., et al: ‘Applying user-centered techniques to analyze and design a mobile application’, J. Softw. Eng. Res. Develop., 2018, 6, (5), 23p..
    26. 26)
      • 15. López-Jaquero, V., Montero, F.: ‘Comprehensive task and dialog modelling’. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Human–Computer Interaction: Interaction Design and Usability (HCI'07), Berlin, Germany, 2007, pp. 11491158.
    27. 27)
      • 7. Qazi, A.M., Shahzadi, S., Humayun, M.A.: ‘Comparative study of software inspection techniques for quality perspective’. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci., 2016, 10, (1), pp. 916.
    28. 28)
      • 27. Pedreira, O., García, F., Brisaboa, N., et al: ‘Gamification in software engineering – a systematic mapping’, Inf. Softw. Technol., 2015, 57, pp. 157168.
    29. 29)
      • 23. Travassos, G., Shull, F., Fredericks, M., et al: ‘Detecting defects in object-oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality’. Proc. XIV ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, Denver - CO, USA, 1999, pp. 4756.
    30. 30)
      • 25. Damian, A.L., Marques, A., Silva, W., et al: ‘Techniques for inspection of interaction models’. USES. Available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8248700.v2.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0171
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0171
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading