On a Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Social-Agent Scenario Visualization

T. Alspaugh, E. Baumer, Bill Tomlinson
{"title":"On a Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Social-Agent Scenario Visualization","authors":"T. Alspaugh, E. Baumer, Bill Tomlinson","doi":"10.1109/CERE.2006.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scenarios are a well-explored technique for working with and understanding a system's requirements. However, comprehending a large group of scenarios for a system can be difficult, especially for non-experts. Our previous work proposed that visualizing scenarios using social animated characters could assist this process. However, assessing the efficacy of visualization techniques can be challenging. This paper proposes that a mixed-method study combining qualitative and quantitative analysis can be effective for evaluating a social visualization of a group of scenarios. Specifically, we found that the quantitative data addressed focused hypotheses, while the qualitative data gave us insight into the nature of scenarios in requirements, the goals of scenario visualization, and how the technology can support these goals more effectively. Both forms of analysis can be valuable and mutually reinforcing in developing and evaluating effective social visualizations of scenarios, and by extension for other work in RE as well.","PeriodicalId":148770,"journal":{"name":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CERE.2006.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Scenarios are a well-explored technique for working with and understanding a system's requirements. However, comprehending a large group of scenarios for a system can be difficult, especially for non-experts. Our previous work proposed that visualizing scenarios using social animated characters could assist this process. However, assessing the efficacy of visualization techniques can be challenging. This paper proposes that a mixed-method study combining qualitative and quantitative analysis can be effective for evaluating a social visualization of a group of scenarios. Specifically, we found that the quantitative data addressed focused hypotheses, while the qualitative data gave us insight into the nature of scenarios in requirements, the goals of scenario visualization, and how the technology can support these goals more effectively. Both forms of analysis can be valuable and mutually reinforcing in developing and evaluating effective social visualizations of scenarios, and by extension for other work in RE as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会-代理场景可视化的混合方法评价
场景是处理和理解系统需求的一种经过充分探索的技术。然而,理解一个系统的大量场景可能是困难的,特别是对于非专家。我们之前的工作提出,使用社交动画角色来可视化场景可以帮助这一过程。然而,评估可视化技术的效果可能具有挑战性。本文提出了一种结合定性和定量分析的混合方法研究可以有效地评估一组场景的社会可视化。具体地说,我们发现定量数据处理了集中的假设,而定性数据使我们深入了解了需求中的场景的本质、场景可视化的目标,以及技术如何更有效地支持这些目标。这两种形式的分析在开发和评估场景的有效社会可视化方面都是有价值的,并且相互加强,并且可以扩展到可再生能源的其他工作中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Criteria for Comparing Requirements Variability Modeling Notations for Product Lines Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD On a Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Social-Agent Scenario Visualization Using a Hybrid Method for Formalizing Informal Stakeholder Requirements Inputs Using Expertise as a Framework for Evaluating Requirements Technology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1