Survey Results

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Dwayne Anius, May 17, 2010.

  1. Dwayne Anius

    Dwayne Anius Guest

    This is the results of the survey conducted by Dwayne Anius and Brian
    Dobing on the topic PROGRAMMERS' VIEWS OF THE USEFULNESS OF UML
    DIAGRAMS. Thank You to all who participated in the survey.

    Please feel free to take part in the survey as the research is ongoing
    and any additional data provided would be included in further
    analysis.

    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/uml - Survey Link

    Survey Monkey collected 94 responses from February 16 to May 6, 2010.
    This analysis is based on the 47 complete responses and another 5 that
    provided responses to at least seven of the UML diagram items. The
    experience profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1. Presumably
    those reporting 15 and 20 years UML programming experience were
    including object-oriented programming prior to release of the UML.
    About 21% reported 10 years experience or more. The two experience
    measures were correlated (0.64). About 58% reported using C++ and 50%
    have used Java, with 13% having used both. Respondents could list as
    many languages as they had used; the next most frequently mentioned
    was C# (13%).

    Table 1: Respondent Experience
    Mean Median Min Max N
    Programming Experience (yrs) 14.3 15 2.0 40 51
    Programming Experience with UML (yrs) 5.4 5 0.1 20 52

    Respondents were also asked if they played “a role in developing
    system requirements before or while programming the applications.”
    Almost half (25 of 52) selected “Major Role” while 11 chose “Moderate
    Role” and 14 “Some Role.” Greater overall programming experience, but
    not specifically UML experience, was weakly correlated with playing a
    greater role.

    Table 2 shows the percentage of respondents who have used each
    diagram, the average percentage of time they had access to them (when
    relevant), and the average ratings for usefulness and accuracy. The
    final column shows the number of responses to the first question
    (Used). When the percentage using the diagram is low, the N for the
    remaining questions is correspondingly low as well because those not
    using the diagram do not see those questions.

    Table 2: Respondent Views of UML Diagrams
    Used (%) Access Accuracy
    Usefulness N
    Activity 75 27 2.85 3.41 52
    Class 98 65 3.39 4.06 52
    Collaboration/Communication 50 28 2.82 3.39 52
    Component 54 32 2.54 2.75 52
    Deployment 35 27 2.61 2.50 52
    Object 50 30 2.69 3.08 52
    Package 46 23 2.67 2.92 52
    Sequence 82 43 3.33 3.76 50
    State Chart/Machine 69 35 3.59 3.94 49
    Timing 6 36 2.00 3.00 47
    Use Case Diagrams 87 47 3.12 3.00 47
    Use Case Narratives 47 51 3.59 3.41 47


    Table 2 shows that the Class Diagram has been almost universally used.
    However, it must be noted the definition was “ever used,” not
    typically used, so we cannot assume that Class Diagrams are used on
    98% of projects. Sequence (82%) and Activity (75%) Diagrams have been
    also used by a solid majority of the programmers in our sample. The
    Timing Diagram is rarely used, but it is not often needed and is newer
    than many of the others. The Component, Deployment and Package
    Diagrams are used more at the architectural level and thus might not
    be relevant to some of our respondents. Use Case Narratives also had a
    lower usage rate, which is consistent with claims that programmers
    find them less useful because they don’t understand the user domain
    and the terminology. But there may be other factors at work as well.

    The Access column also contains generally low numbers, with only the
    Class Diagram (65%) and Use Case Narratives (51%) over the 50% mark.
    Based on the question wording, which included the qualification “when
    they would be relevant,” the numbers should be much higher. The
    results suggest that many respondents may have missed that part. For
    example, two of the three respondents who have used the Timing Diagram
    reported that they are available when relevant only 2% and 5% of the
    time. This seems unlikely so we may be asking some respondents for
    clarification.

    Respondents reported low Accuracy ratings for many of the diagrams.
    The highest ratings are for State Chart/Machine Diagrams (3.59), which
    are not heavily used according earlier surveys, and Use Case
    Narratives (3.59). The Class (3.39), Sequence (3.33) and Activity
    (2.85) Diagrams were all heavily used by respondents but apparently
    not that well written. Use Case Diagrams (3.12) also received accuracy
    ratings above the midpoint of 3.0, but still rather low for something
    that provides a high level overview. The survey did not address the
    reasons for these ratings (although some respondents provided
    comments). Requirements can change, but that is not the fault of the
    diagram. Diagrams can also be syntactically incorrect, but this is
    less likely when appropriate modeling tools are used. So the main
    problem is likely to be specifications that don’t match the true
    requirements, perhaps incorrect or incomplete.

    The Usefulness item included the qualification “when reasonably
    accurate and complete,” so the ratings are presumably higher than they
    would be for the diagrams the respondents are actually given. Two of
    the diagrams, Class (4.07) and State Chart/Machine (3.94) received
    average scores around the “Very Good” level. These ratings tend to be
    higher than the accuracy ratings.

    CONCLUSIONS
    There has been considerable attention paid to how well the UML serves
    as a requirement specifications language, which is its primary
    intended purpose. However, at some point specifications need to be
    turned into code and the results of this survey suggest that the UML
    is not working as well as it could or should in this task.
    We are continuing to analyze the data and welcome your comments, ideas
    or questions. Please send them to Professor Brian Dobing at the
    University of Lethbridge at .
    And the survey remains open, so feel free to encourage colleagues and
    other IT professionals you know to participate and share their views.

    The survey can be found at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/uml
     
    Dwayne Anius, May 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dwayne Anius

    osmium Guest

    Dwayne Anius wrote:
    > This is the results of the survey conducted by Dwayne Anius and Brian
    > Dobing on the topic PROGRAMMERS' VIEWS OF THE USEFULNESS OF UML
    > DIAGRAMS.

    <snip>

    People trying to present results such as you, should compose their final
    draft and send it to themselves, privately. They can do this by using one
    of the Usenet groups with "test" in the name. If, and only if, the result
    after Usenet mangling, e.g. line length, meets the author's intent, post the
    results to the intended newsgroup.

    A second point having nothing to do with Usenet, everything you know can not
    be condensed into a few paragraphs. Don't try to do it. Pick one or two
    main items to focus on and go for it.

    I would be willing to look at 47, even self selected, responses WRT the
    usefulness of the various techniques. But I don't want to spend an hour
    teasing it out of what you posted.
     
    osmium, May 18, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dwayne Anius

    Phil Carmody Guest

    Dwayne Anius <> writes:
    > This is the results of the survey conducted by Dwayne Anius and Brian
    > Dobing on the topic PROGRAMMERS' VIEWS OF THE USEFULNESS OF UML
    > DIAGRAMS. Thank You to all who participated in the survey.
    >
    > Please feel free to take part in the survey as the research is ongoing
    > and any additional data provided would be included in further
    > analysis.
    >
    > http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/uml - Survey Link
    >
    > Survey Monkey collected 94 responses from February 16 to May 6, 2010.
    > This analysis is based on the 47 complete responses and another 5 that
    > provided responses to at least seven of the UML diagram items. The
    > experience profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1. Presumably
    > those reporting 15 and 20 years UML programming experience were
    > including object-oriented programming prior to release of the UML.


    Or didn't know what they were talking about, and bullshitting.
    Nothing like paying attention to bullshitters for enhancing the
    believability of your survey results. <snigger>

    > About 21% reported 10 years experience or more. The two experience
    > measures were correlated (0.64). About 58% reported using C++ and 50%
    > have used Java, with 13% having used both. Respondents could list as
    > many languages as they had used; the next most frequently mentioned
    > was C# (13%).
    >
    > Table 1: Respondent Experience
    > Mean Median Min Max N
    > Programming Experience (yrs) 14.3 15 2.0 40 51
    > Programming Experience with UML (yrs) 5.4 5 0.1 20 52
    >
    > Respondents were also asked if they played “a role in developing
    > system requirements before or while programming the applications.”
    > Almost half (25 of 52) selected “Major Role” while 11 chose “Moderate
    > Role” and 14 “Some Role.” Greater overall programming experience, but


    You need to do a survey into character set usage amongst intelligent
    IT professionals. Usenet is traditionally an ASCII medium, and ASCII
    contains no 8-bit characters such as those found in the above mess.

    > not specifically UML experience, was weakly correlated with playing a
    > greater role.
    >
    > Table 2 shows the percentage of respondents who have used each
    > diagram, the average percentage of time they had access to them (when
    > relevant), and the average ratings for usefulness and accuracy. The
    > final column shows the number of responses to the first question
    > (Used). When the percentage using the diagram is low, the N for the
    > remaining questions is correspondingly low as well because those not
    > using the diagram do not see those questions.
    >
    > Table 2: Respondent Views of UML Diagrams
    > Used (%) Access Accuracy
    > Usefulness N
    > Activity 75 27 2.85 3.41 52
    > Class 98 65 3.39 4.06 52
    > Collaboration/Communication 50 28 2.82 3.39 52



    You also need to do a survey into knowledge of character widths.
    Apparently you have a different opinion on character widths than
    I do, as the above looks shite.

    Phil
    --
    I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away
    -- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
     
    Phil Carmody, May 18, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Monique Y. Mudama
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    477
    Monique Y. Mudama
    Jun 28, 2005
  2. Tony Lavinio

    XQuery Adoption Survey Results

    Tony Lavinio, Mar 29, 2005, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    380
    Tony Lavinio
    Mar 29, 2005
  3. lovecreatesbeauty
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,735
    Old Wolf
    Sep 12, 2005
  4. Alex Fenton

    Ruby GUI Survey: Results

    Alex Fenton, Feb 10, 2009, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    220
    Hidetoshi NAGAI
    Feb 13, 2009
  5. Dave
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    132
Loading...

Share This Page