2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.05.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A scientific evaluation of the misuse case diagrams visual syntax

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the literature we found three main streams of works that compares textual and visual notations: a) studies that proposed cognitive theories to explain the differences between the notations or to explain their relative strengths (Vessey 1991), b) studies that compared different notations from a conceptual point of view (Kaczmarek et al 2015;Saleh and El-Attar 2015), and c) studies that empirically compare graphical and textual representations, e.g., for safety and system requirements (Sharafi et al 2013;Stålhane and Sindre 2008;Stålhane et al 2010;Stålhane and Sindre 2014;de la Vara et al 2016), software architectures (Heijstek et al 2011), and business processes (Ottensooser et al 2012). To the best of our knowledge, there are few similar studies that empirically investigated modeling notations for security risk (Hogganvik and Stølen 2005;Grøndahl et al 2011) or compared graphical and tabular security methods in full scale application experiments (Massacci and Paci 2012;Labunets et al 2013Labunets et al , 2014.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the literature we found three main streams of works that compares textual and visual notations: a) studies that proposed cognitive theories to explain the differences between the notations or to explain their relative strengths (Vessey 1991), b) studies that compared different notations from a conceptual point of view (Kaczmarek et al 2015;Saleh and El-Attar 2015), and c) studies that empirically compare graphical and textual representations, e.g., for safety and system requirements (Sharafi et al 2013;Stålhane and Sindre 2008;Stålhane et al 2010;Stålhane and Sindre 2014;de la Vara et al 2016), software architectures (Heijstek et al 2011), and business processes (Ottensooser et al 2012). To the best of our knowledge, there are few similar studies that empirically investigated modeling notations for security risk (Hogganvik and Stølen 2005;Grøndahl et al 2011) or compared graphical and tabular security methods in full scale application experiments (Massacci and Paci 2012;Labunets et al 2013Labunets et al , 2014.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have compared textual and visual notations: some studies have proposed cognitive theories to explain the differences between the two notations or to explain their relative strengths (Vessey 1991;Moody 2009); other studies have compared different notations from a conceptual point of view (Kaczmarek et al 2015;Saleh and El-Attar 2015). Several empirical studies have compared graphical and textual representations for requirements (Sharafi et al 2013;Stålhane and Sindre 2008;Stålhane et al 2010;Stålhane and Sindre 2014), software architectures (Heijstek et al 2011), and business processes (Ottensooser et al 2012).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dr. Andreas Opdahl correctly answered all questions in the first section of the questionnaire and has preferred the entire set of the new notation symbols." [51] Such arguments should be avoided at all costs, because they draw attention away from the design rationale itself, potentially biasing the reader to bypass direct examination of the presented evidence, trusting instead in the supposed expertise of an authority [52].…”
Section: Is It the Pon Its Followers Or Both?mentioning
confidence: 99%