Tree-Based versus Hybrid Graphical-Textual Model Editors: An Empirical Study of Testing Specifications

Abstraction

Tree-based model editors and hybrid graphical-textual model editors have advantages and limitations when editing domain models. Data is displayed hierarchically in tree-based model editors, whereas hybrid graphical-textual model editors capture high-level domain concepts graphically and low-level domain details textually. We conducted an empirical user study with 22 participants to evaluate the implicit assumption of system modellers that hybrid notations are superior, and to investigate the tradeoffs between the default EMF-based tree model editor and a Sirius/Xtext-based hybrid model editor. The results of the user study indicate that users largely prefer the hybrid editor and are more confident with hybrid notations for understanding the meaning of conditions. Furthermore, we found that the tree editor provided superior performance for analysing ordered lists of model elements, whereas activities requiring the comprehension or modelling of complex conditions were carried out faster through the hybrid editor.

本文是测试与讨论类型的论文，不是技术文章。

本文围绕一个工程场景做了树状模型和图文混模型工具的性能对比。工程场景是一个MRS多机器人系统，文章第三节介绍了元模型。文章第四节介绍两种模型所用工具，分别是EMF默认的树状编辑器和开发的Graphite图文混合编辑器，介绍了元模型和例子。第五节开始介绍测试过程，22个参与者是如何被培训和测评的，论文设计了三个目标，分别是Performance（与树编辑器相比，用混合编辑器执行某些任务时，用户如何执行？）、Confidence（用户对解决方案的正确性和完整性对​​给定任务有多信心？）、Preference（用户喜欢混合编辑器或树编辑器吗？），通过他们对5个问题的理解和5个任务操作的结果进行分析。第六节介绍结果评价，五六节占全文一半以上。结论是：“关于性能，使用编辑者执行任务的速度之间存在了权衡。混合编辑器更适合理解和建模复杂条件，而树编辑器更适合分析模型元素的有序列表。当建模条件时，混合编辑器会发现更多校正的误差。但是，犯下的错误很小。同样，与混合编辑器进行建模条件的更多击键和更少的点击量。当使用混合编辑器了解条件的含义时，用户对解决方案更有信心。最后，在研究之前，有50％的参与者更喜欢混合编辑。最后，百分比增加到73％，显示对混合动力编辑者的偏好增加。”