Adapted UML Activity Diagrams for Mobile Work Processes: Experimental Comparison of Colour and Pattern Fills

  • Sundar Gopalakrishnan
  • John Krogstie
  • Guttorm Sindre
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 81)


For multi-channel information systems it is often relevant to model where something is supposed to take place, but business process modelling notations seldom capture geographical location. In previous papers, we suggested and compared alternatives for small modifications to UML Activity Diagrams to address this, and a controlled experiment indicated that an alternative using colour performed better than one using annotations. However, colour also has some challenges, especially concerning users with colour vision problems. Hence, this paper reports on a new experiment comparing colour with black/white pattern fills. The experiment investigated both the participants’ opinions about the notations and their performance on some tasks. While opinion was significantly in favour of the colour notation, task performance was only slightly in favour of this notation, and not significantly so.


Requirements specifications mobile information systems model-based development UML activity diagram process modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dourish, P.: Re-Space-ing Place: “Place” and “Space” Ten Years On. In: Proc. ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2006, Banff, Canada, pp. 299–308. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Unified Modelling Language, (accessed 4.6.2010)
  3. 3.
    Business Process Modelling Notation, (accessed 4.6.2010)
  4. 4.
    Korherr, B., List, B.: Extending the UML 2 activity diagram with business process goals and performance measures and the mapping to BPEL. In: Roddick, J., Benjamins, V.R., Si-said Cherfi, S., Chiang, R., Claramunt, C., Elmasri, R.A., Grandi, F., Han, H., Hepp, M., Lytras, M.D., Mišić, V.B., Poels, G., Song, I.-Y., Trujillo, J., Vangenot, C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4231, pp. 7–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walderhaug, S., Stav, E., Marius Mikalsen, M.: Experiences from Model-Driven Development of Homecare Services: UML Profiles and Domain Models. LNCS (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Sindre, G.: Alternative Process Notations for Mobile Information Systems. In: Proc. I-ESA 2010, Coventry, UK (April 2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Adapting UML activity diagrams for mobile work process modelling: Experimental comparison of two notation alternatives. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 68, pp. 145–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andresen, S., Krogstie, J., Jelle, T.: Lab and Research Activities in Wireless Trondheim. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems, pp. 385–389. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modelling Language: User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Modelling of Enterprises. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veijalainen, J.: Developing Mobile Ontologies; who, why, where, and how? In: International Conference on Mobile Data Management, Manheim, Germany, pp. 398–401. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larsson, A.V.: Designing for use in a future Context – Five Case Studies in Retrospect, PhD thesis No: 1034, Institute of Tech., Linkoping Univ., Sweden (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps, University of Wisconsin Press (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transanctions on Software Eng. 35(6), 776–779 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Field, A., Hole, G.: How to Design and Report Experiments. Sage Publications, London (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 276–291 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hopkins, W.G.: A New View of Statistics. University of Queensland, Australia (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: Experimental comparison of attack trees and misuse cases for security threat identification. Information and Software Technology 51(5), 916–932 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siau, K.: Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods. Journal of Database Management 15(1), 73–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sundar Gopalakrishnan
    • 1
  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  • Guttorm Sindre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations