The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering
Abstract
Visual notations form an integral part of the language of software engineering (SE). Yet historically, SE researchers and notation designers have ignored or undervalued issues of visual representation. In evaluating and comparing notations, details of visual syntax are rarely discussed. In designing notations, the majority of effort is spent on semantics, with graphical conventions largely an afterthought. Typically, no design rationale, scientific or otherwise, is provided for visual representation choices. While SE has developed mature methods for evaluating and designing semantics, it lacks equivalent methods for visual syntax. This paper defines a set of principles for designing cognitively effective visual notations: ones that are optimized for human communication and problem solving. Together these form a design theory, called the Physics of Notations as it focuses on the physical (perceptual) properties of notations rather than their logical (semantic) properties. The principles were synthesized from theory and empirical evidence from a wide range of fields and rest on an explicit theory of how visual notations communicate. They can be used to evaluate, compare, and improve existing visual notations as well as to construct new ones. The paper identifies serious design flaws in some of the leading SE notations, together with practical suggestions for improving them. It also showcases some examples of visual notation design excellence from SE and other fields.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.
Biederman, I. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.115 · Cited by 5,621
The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data
Chen, P. P.-S. (1976) · ACM Transactions on Database Systems · doi:10.1145/320434.320440 · Cited by 4,708
Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6 · Cited by 4,207
Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design
Sweller, J. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 · Cited by 3,801 · cited 2×
“Cognitive load theory shows that reducing the amount of information presented at a time to within the limitations of working memory improves speed and accuracy of understanding and facilitates deep understanding of information content [81], [128].”
BackgroundThe Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306 · cited 4×
“These form a prescriptive theory for visual notations or, in Gregor’s [45] terminology, a theory for design and action (Type V) (Fig.”
BackgroundInfluentialKalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4 · Cited by 1,927
Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature*
Vessey, I. (1991) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00344.x · Cited by 1,263
Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks
Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1801_3 · Cited by 1,203 · cited 1×
“This conventional wisdom is contradicted by research in diagrammatic reasoning, which shows that the form of representations has an equal, if not greater, influence on cognitive effectiveness as their content [68, 122, 151].”
Background
Cited by
Lukyanenko, R., Maass, W., & Storey, V. C. (2022) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00605-4 · Cited by 171
Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review
Budgen, D., Burn, A. J., Brereton, O. P., Kitchenham, B. A., & Pretorius, R. (2011) · Software: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/spe.1009 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Moody, D.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 756-779
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110143060
- Cited by
- 1,204
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 187.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2009.67
- The paper
- Moody, D. (2009). The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2009.67
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.