Visualisation of Software Engineering Diagrams Part – 2
description
Transcript of Visualisation of Software Engineering Diagrams Part – 2
Visualisation of Software Engineering Diagrams
Part – 2
Rajat Anantharam Department of Gaming and Media Technology
2
Topics Discussed
1. Terminologies
2. Existing protoypes
3. Functionalities
4. Evolution of SV
3
Terminologies
• Program Visualization:
The use of various techniques to enhance the human understanding of computer programs
• Visual Programming:
The use of “visual” techniques to specify the program in the first place
• Algorithm Visualization:
Visualization of a high level description of a piece of software
• Code\Data Visualization:
Visualization of the actual implemented code
• Software Visualization:
All of the above (together) !!!
4
The Twelve Systems
Sorting out Sorting
BALSA
Zeus
Tango
ANIM
Pascal Genie
UWPI
SEE
TPM
PAVANE
LOGO-Media
Centerline ObjectCenter – formerly Saber C++)
5
Agenda
• Taxonomy Detail
• Discussing the existing problems with software visualization
• Using graph drawing as a possible solution to the problems
• Future of Software Visualization
6
Taxonomy Detail
• The derivations of SV taxonomy yielded six distinct categories.
• They are represented in the form of a tree
• Though described in a single tree, each taxonomy can have sub-
levels leading to n-ary tree
• Taxonomies building a Software Visualization System
• Scope, Content , Form, Method, Intersection,
Effectiveness
7
Taxonomy Representation
8
In a Jiffy !!
1. Scope:
What is the range of programs that the SV may take as an input for
visualization?
2. Scalability:
To what degree does the system scale up to handle large examples?
3. Form:
What are the characteristics of the output of the system?
4. Method:
How is visualization specified?
5. Interaction:
How does the user of the SV system interact and control with it?
6. Effectiveness:
How well does the system communicate information to the user?
9
Existing Problems with Software Visualization
Very rarely the Visualization Diagrams are hand-crafted.
Multiple crossings across inheritence \ class diagrams
Affecting Readability
Conflicts graph drawing aesthetics
10
An Approach to Solving
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
11
The Idea of Confluent Drawings
We merge edges into “tracks” so as to turn edge crossings into overlapping paths
12
Informally
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.
13
Formally
There is a one-to-one mapping between the vertices in G and A, so that, for each vertex v 2 V (G), there is a corresponding vertex v′ 2 A, which has a unique point placement in the plane.
There is an edge (vi, vj ) in E(G) if and only if there is a locally-monotone curve e′ connecting v′, i and v′, j in A.
A is planar. That is, while locally-monotone curves in A can share overlapping portions, no two can cross.
Assumptions:
Does not allow confluent graphs to contain self loops or parallel edges.
Does not allow the drawing to make sharp turns or doube-back.
14
Drawing a Confluent Graph
15
Heuristics
Existing Methods: Brute-Force method of merging individual edges to come up with a confluent drawing.
Heuristic:
Input – An undirected sparse graph G
Output – Confluent drawing of G if succeed – fail otherwise
1.If G is planar 1. Draw G
2.Else if G contains a large number of clique\bi-clique subgraph C1. Create a new vertex v 2. Obtain a new graph G’ by removing edges of v and
connecting each vertex of C to v 3.HEURISTICDRAWUNDIRECTED(G’)
1. Replace v by a small “traffic signal” to get a confluent drawing of G
4.Else fail.
16
Application of the Heuristics
Confluent drawings of k3 and k5,5
17
Scope for Research?
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.
18
Future of Software Visualization
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.
19
Future of Software Visualization
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).
20
Future of Software Visualization
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.
21
References
A Principled Taxonomy of Software Visualizationby Blaine A. Price, Ronald M. Baecker, and Ian S. Small
Confluent Drawings: Visualizing Nonplanar Diagrams in a Planar WayMatthew Dickerson, David Eppstein, Michael T. Goodrich, Jeremy Meng’
2004 Visualization ChallengeSuplee, Curt, Bradford, Monica, Science, 00368075, 9/24/2004, Vol. 305, Issue 5692
Visualizing Flow Diagrams in WebSphere Studio Using SHriMP ViewsDerek Rayside and Marin Litoiu, Margaret-Anne Storey, Casey Bestand Robert Lintern
Software visualization in the largeT. Ball and S. G. Eick - IEEE Computer, 29(4):33–43, 1996.
22
Thank You