Let's go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings

ABSTRACT

Software developers are rooted in the written form of their code, yet they often draw diagrams representing their code. Unfortunately, we still know little about how and why they create these diagrams, and so there is little research to inform the design of visual tools to support developers' work. This paper presents findings from semi-structured interviews that have been validated with a structured survey. Results show that most of the diagrams had a transient nature because of the high cost of changing whiteboard sketches to electronic renderings. Diagrams that documented design decisions were often externalized in these temporary drawings and then subsequently lost. Current visualization tools and the software development practices that we observed do not solve these issues, but these results suggest several directions for future research.

REFERENCES

• 1: M. W. Alibali, M. Bassok, K. O. Solomon, S. E. Syc, and S. Goldin-Meadow. Illuminating mental representation through speech and gesture. Psychological Science, 10:327--333, 1999.
• 2: Victoria Bellotti , Sara Bly, Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team, Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.209-218, November 16-20, 1996, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/240080.240256]
• 3: M. Cherubini and J. van der Pol. Grounding is not shared understanding: Distinguishing grounding at an utterance and knowledge level. In CONTEXT 2005.
• 4: H. H. Clark and E. F. Shaeffer. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13:259--294, 1989.
• 5: Uri Dekel, Supporting distributed software design meetings: what can we learn from co-located meetings?, Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on Human and social factors of software engineering, p.1-7, May 16-16, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri
• 6: P. Dillenbourg, D. Traum, and D. Schneider. Grounding in multi-modal task-oriented collaboration. In Proc. EUROAIED 1996, pp. 415--425.
• 7: E. Do and M. D. Gross. Reasoning about cases with diagrams. In J. Vanegas and P. Chinowsky, editors, ASCE, pp. 314--320, 1996.
• 8: S. Goldin-Meadow. Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003.
• 9: J. Heiser, B. Tversky, and M. Silverman. Visual and spatial reasoning in design III, chapter Sketches for and from collaboration, pp. 69--78. 2004.
• 10: Kathryn Henderson, On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998
• 11: James D. Herbsleb, Metaphorical representation in collaborative software engineering, Proceedings of the international joint conference on Work activities coordination and collaboration, p.117-126, February 22-25, 1999, San Francisco, California, United States
• 12: Morten Hertzum , Annelise Mark Pejtersen, The information-seeking practices of engineers: searching for documents as well as for people, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.36 n.5, p.761-778, Sept. 2000 [doi>10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00011-X]
• 13: E. Hutchins. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
• 14: Andrew J. Ko , Htet Aung , Brad A. Myers, Eliciting design requirements for maintenance-oriented IDEs: a detailed study of corrective and perfective maintenance tasks, Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering, May 15-21, 2005, St. Louis, MO, USA [doi>10.1145/1062455.1062492]
• 15: J. H. Larkin and H. Simon. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, pages 65--99, 1987.
• 16: Thomas D. LaToza , Gina Venolia , Robert DeLine, Maintaining mental models: a study of developer work habits, Proceeding of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, May 20-28, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1134285.1134355]
• 17: David W. McDonald , Mark S. Ackerman, Just talk to me: a field study of expertise location, Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.315-324, November 14-18, 1998, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/289444.289506]
• 18: Dewayne E. Perry , Nancy Staudenmayer , Lawrence G. Votta, People, Organizations, and Process Improvement, IEEE Software, v.11 n.4, p.36-45, July 1994 [doi>10.1109/52.300082]
• 19: B. A. Price, R. M. Baecker, and I.S. Small. A Principled Taxonomy of Software Visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 4(3):211--266, 1999.
• 20: M. Suwa, J. Gero, and T. Purcell. Unexpected discoveries and s-invention of design requirements: Improving vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 18(4):539--567, 2000.
• 21: B. Tversky, M. Suwa, M. Agrawala, H. J, C. Stolte, P. Hanrahan, D. Phan, J. Klingner, M. Daniel, P. Lee, and J. Haymaker. Human behavior in design: Individuals, teams, tools. In Sketches for Design and Design of Sketches, pp. 79--86. Springer, 2003.
• 22: B. Tversky. Spatial schemas and abstract thought. In Spatial Schemas in Depictions, pp. 79--111. MIT, 2001.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Computer-supported cooperative work

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.10 Design**

General Terms:
Design

Keywords:
diagrams, exploratory/field study, software visualization