Conference PaperPDF Available

How Cognitively Effective is a Visual Notation? On the Inherent Difficulty of Operationalizing the Physics of Notations

Abstract and Figures

The Physics of Notations [9] (PoN) is a design theory presenting nine principles that can be used to evaluate and improve the cognitive effectiveness of a visual notation. The PoN has been used to analyze existing standard visual notations (such as BPMN, UML, etc.), and is commonly used for evaluating newly introduced visual notations and their extensions. However, due to the rather vague and abstract formulation of the PoN’s principles, they have received different interpretations in their operationalization. To address this problem, there have been attempts to formalize the principles, however only a very limited number of principles was covered. This research-in-progress paper aims to better understand the difficulties inherent in operationalizing the PoN, and better separate aspects of PoN, which can potentially be formulated in mathematical terms from those grounded in user-specific considerations.
Content may be subject to copyright.
How Cognitively Effective is a Visual Notation?
On the Inherent Difficulty of Operationalizing
the Physics of Notations
Dirk van der Linden, Anna Zamansky, and Irit Hadar
Department of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Israel
Abstract. The Physics of Notations [9] (PoN) is a design theory pre-
senting nine principles that can be used to evaluate and improve the
cognitive effectiveness of a visual notation. The PoN has been used to
analyze existing standard visual notations (such as BPMN, UML, etc.),
and is commonly used for evaluating newly introduced visual notations
and their extensions. However, due to the rather vague and abstract
formulation of the PoN’s principles, they have received different inter-
pretations in their operationalization. To address this problem, there
have been attempts to formalize the principles, however only a very lim-
ited number of principles was covered. This research-in-progress paper
aims to better understand the difficulties inherent in operationalizing
the PoN, and better separate aspects of PoN, which can potentially be
formulated in mathematical terms from those grounded in user-specific
Keywords: visual notations, cognitive effectiveness, physics of nota-
tions, operationalization
1 Introduction
Conceptual modeling is a widely used technique in software engineering and
information systems development to capture and reason about a particular do-
main of interest. Visual notations used in such modeling tasks have often been
designed without eliciting and considering empirical evidence for what fits best
the potential users and the task at hand. Some of the most widespread visual
notations used in practice, such as UML, are affected by this limitation (cf. [8]).
Some work has attempted to alleviate this by more explicitly tracing design to
its rationale (cf. [14,20]), but such work remains on the level of the domain, not
the notation itself.
The main issue with visual notations developed in this way is a lack of focused
attention on ensuring their cognitive effectiveness, namely the ease with which
people can read and understand diagrams written in the notation. Given that
visual languages are often used for their convenience over textual languages,
they should be designed and analyzed “from the perspective of languages that
are cognitively usable and useful.” [12]
Over the years, several frameworks have been proposed (e.g., Cognitive Di-
mensions [3], SEQUEL [7], GoM [15]) that, at least partially, paid attention to
this aspect and provided notation designers with guidelines on how to improve
the quality of visual notations. Recently, one such framework focusing exclu-
sively on the cognitive effectiveness of visual notations, the Physics of Notations
(PoN) [9], has become relatively widespread. Its adoption by researchers is evi-
dent by the ever growing number of analyses using it [18], including having been
applied to e.g., BPMN, UML, i*, WebML, as well as the increase in the number
of works citing it over other frameworks [2].
Moody positions the PoN’s nine principles as constituting a type V prescrip-
tive theory in terms of Gregor’s [4] taxonomy of theory in IS [9, p. 775]. He states
that these principles “can be used to evaluate, compare, and improve existing
visual notations as well as to construct new ones”. This effectively means that
instead of considering endless possibilities when coming up with a new visual
notation, one may opt for those possibilities which best comply with PoN. We
refer to the activity of checking the compliance of a visual notation with a PoN
principle as an operationalization of that principle.
Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge no concrete guidelines on practi-
cal operationalization of PoN principles have been proposed thus far. Moreover,
there has been criticism aimed towards their formulation as informal, though
well-described and thorough, guidelines. In particular, the feasibility of verifying
whether they can be verified in a replicable and systematic way has been criti-
cized (cf. [5,19,17,1,16]) The latter authors have further argued that the PoN’s
principles in their current state are “neither precise nor comprehensive enough
to be applied in an objective way to analyze practical visual software engineering
One natural direction toward operationalization of PoN principles, proposed
by [16], is their formalization (or formulation in mathematical terms). However,
they encountered a number of challenges while attempting to formalize the first
two (out of nine) principles of the PoN. Information needed to formalize the
principles was posited, while acknowledging that “[we] do not yet have empirical
evidence to support our assumption” [16, p. 116]. The authors similarly acknowl-
edged that the application or formalization of a number of principles requires a
base in other existing theories [16, p. 118].
In this paper we aim to better understand the inherent difficulties behind
operationalization, and in particular of formalization of PoN principles. Clearly,
we cannot expect to have an algorithm for computing compliance to PoN of
every newly introduced visual notation. It is not only due to the fact that visual
notations usually do not have fully formalized representations, but also that some
PoN principles rely on information that can only be obtained from cognitive
theories and/or empirical data from users of the particular new notation. This
leads to the question to what extent aspects of the PoN can be formalized. As a
starting point, we define the notion of visual notation in set-theoretical terms,
which provide a formal ground for our analysis. We then use these terms to
answer the following research questions:
RQ1. What elements are involved in operationalizing each PoN principle with
respect to a given visual notation?
RQ2. What effect do these elements have on the feasibility of operationalizing
each principle into a well-defined mathematical question?
RQ1 will be addressed by analyzing the different PoN principles, analyzing
them for the basic elements required for their employment. These findings will be
used for investigating RQ2, where we will discuss the way in which the identified
elements can be used to address the operationalization of the principles in a
structured mathematical way. Finally, we further reflect on what the identified
challenges mean in terms of needed research efforts.
By addressing the above questions, this paper takes a first step towards
grounding the PoN in more formal and operational foundations.
2 PoN Principles Overview
This section provides a brief overview of the principles of the PoN. Table 1
presents the nine principles of the PoN together with their high-level descrip-
Table 1: Overview of the PoN’s nine principles.
Principle Explanation
Semiotic clarity There should be a one-to-one correspondence between el-
ements of the language and graphical symbols
Perceptual discriminability Different symbols should be clearly distinguishable from
each other
Semantic transparency The use of the visual representations whose appearances
suggest their meaning.
Complexity management Notation includes explicit mechanisms for dealing with
Cognitive integration Notation include explicit mechanisms to support the inte-
gration of information from different diagrams
Visual expressiveness The use of the full range and capacities of visual variables
Dual coding Use of text to complement graphics
Graphic economy The number of different graphical symbols should be cog-
nitively manageable
Cognitive fit Use of different visual dialects for different tasks and au-
From the above descriptions it becomes clear that the principles involve dif-
ferent types of elements, which have a direct impact on their operationalization.
The first principle of semiotic clarity, e.g., mentions language elements and
graphical symbols. Given the language elements, graphical symbols and a map-
ping between them, it is an easy mathematical question to determine whether
the mapping is 1:1.
The second principle, perceptual discriminability, again speaks of graphical sym-
bols, but this time requires their distinguishability. Note, however, that given two
graphical symbols, establishing their distinguishability is not a mathematical
question. Symbols distinguishable for a typical human, may not be distinguish-
able for a color-blind one. And even after determining the target user, we need
to know the values of the parameters of the representation medium in which the
notation is used (such as number of pixels of the presented UI, texture, and color
difference, in computer aided environment) which may affect distinguishability.
But if, for instance, we know that a difference of more than 10 pixels is distin-
guishable, then given two shapes establishing their distinguishability becomes a
mathematical question.
The semantic transparency principle, however, seems not to fall even in the
latter category, as it speaks in terms of appearances (symbols) suggesting their
meaning. How do we know, given a symbol, that it suggests its meaning? Suggests
to whom? In what sense? How sensitive is it to, for example, cultural differences?
And can this be verified?
In what follows we propose some notions which provide a formal ground for
making the above distinctions in a more systematic way.
3 An Analysis of PoN Operationalization
3.1 A Set-Theoretical Framework for PoN
The basic element of our framework is a graphical symbol. Each graphical symbol
ghas an appearance, which can be represented using appearance variables (such
as size, shape, texture, etc) which may assume different values from associated
ranges. We shall identify appearance of a given graphical symbol Ap(g) with
some assignment of values to appearance variables.
Note that Ap(g) is an abstraction of the actual symbol g; thus, for example the
following three symbols have the same appearance in terms of variables shape,
color and size, although they can be distinguished by texture and line style:
Fig. 1: Symbols equivalent in terms of shape, color and size
In addition to appearance, each graphical symbol galso has an associated
meaning I(g) which takes the form of a semantic construct.
The above can be formalized as follows:
Definition 1. A visual notation is a triple V= (G(V),L(V),R(V)) where
G(V)is a set of graphical symbols, L(V)is a set of textual symbols (letters) and
R(V)is a set of rules for the composition of elements from G ∪ L into models
in V. The closure of G ∪ L under Rprovides the set of possible models that can
be constructed over V, denoted by Models(V).
The set of appearance variables of G, together with their associated ranges, is
denoted by ApVars(V) = {Ap(g)|g∈ G(V)}.
An interpretation for Vis a mapping I:Models(V)C, where Cis a set of
semantic constructs.
For example, consider the following excerpt from the BPMN 2.0 OMG stan-
dard [13] introducing the concept of web task. The graphical symbols discussed
here are a rectangle with rounded corners and a rectangle with rounded cor-
ners that has a marker in its left corner. These two symbols are mapped to the
semantic constructs Task and Web Task respectively:
158 Business Process Model and Notation, v2.0 Types of Tasks
There ar e different types of Task s identified within BPMN to separate the types of inherent behavior that Task s might
represent. The list of Ta sk types MAY be extended along with any corresponding indicators. A Tas k which is not further
specified is called Abstract Task (this was referred to as the None Task in BPMN 1.2). The notation of the Abstract
Tas k is shown in Figure 10.8.
Service Task
A Service Task is a Task that uses some sort of service, which could be a Web service or an automated application.
A Service Task object shares the same shape as the Task , which is a rectangle that has rounded corners. However, there
is a graphical marker in the upper left corner of the shape that indicates that the Ta sk is a Service Task (see Figure
A Service Task is a rounded corner rectangle that MUST be drawn with a s ingle thin line and includes a marker that
distinguishes the shape from other Ta sk types (as shown in Figure 10.11).
Figure 10.11 - A Service Task Object
The Service Task inherits the attributes and model associations of Activity (see Table 10.3). In addition the following
constraints are introduced when the Service Task references an Operation: The Service Task has exactly one
inputSet and at most one outputSet. It has a single Data Input with an ItemDefinition equivalent to the one
defined by the Message referenced by the inMessageRef attribute of the associated Operation. If the
Operation defines output Messages, the Service Task has a single Data Output that has an ItemDefinition
equivalent to the one defined by the Message referenced by the outMessageRef attribute of the associated
The actual Participant whose service is used can be identified by connecting the Service Task to a Participant using a
Message Flows within the definitional Collaboration of the Process – see Table 10.1.
Fig. 2: Excerpt from the BPMN 2.0 OMG standard [13, p. 158]
The above set-theoretical terms will be useful in the sequel to make the mean-
ing of PoN more precise and make a clearer distinction between the principles.
In particular, we will distinguish between the following levels of notation:
Level 1: principles considering only symbols from G(V).
Level 2: principles considering symbols from G(V) together with the mapping
Ito semantic constructs.
Level 3: principles considering elements from Models(V) as a whole (which
consist of symbols from G(V), as well as from L(V)).
3.2 Operationalization Analysis
In what follows we analyze each of the PoN principles in terms of their oper-
ationalization. In other words, given a visual notation, we ask what it takes
to check whether a certain principle applies to it. In addition to the levels of
notation specified above, we consider also an additional dimension: the extra in-
formation (e.g., particular thresholds, measures, definitions or evaluation) that
is needed for operationalization.
Semiotic clarity: requires a visual notation to have a 1:1 correspondence be-
tween semantic constructs and graphical symbols. This principle implies that
when there is a graphical symbol in the notation (e.g., a stickman), it is used for
representing solely one meaningful semantic construct or thing from the universe
of discourse (e.g., a person). The PoN provides a number of exact instructions to
ensure this, based on ontological literature. Concretely, the following situations
should be avoided: one construct represented by multiple graphical symbols,
multiple constructs represented by the same graphical symbol, graphical sym-
bols that do not correspond to any construct, and constructs that do not have
any graphical symbols. While ontological theory has been used to ground the
instructions given for this principle, the given simple rules require no acquain-
tance with other theoretical frameworks. An example of a notation that does
not satisfy the criteria is i*, which has 27 semantically distinct relationships,
but only five graphically distinct graphical symbols for relationships [10].
Set-theoretical formulation: Let Vbe a visual notation and Ian interpretation
for V. We say that Venjoys semiotic clarity if the restriction of Ito G(V) is
Classification: The operationalization of this principle requires both G(V) and
the semantic mapping I(level 2 of notation). Once the sets of graphical symbols,
semantic constructs and the mapping between them are established, checking
whether the mapping is 1:1 does not require any extra information. The main
challenge here remains the required explicit specification of all needed constructs.
Dual coding: requires a visual notation to use text to complement graphics.
For example, using commonly understood and agreed upon words to comple-
ment graphical symbols to further ensure they are interpreted unambiguously.
The PoN suggests using both annotations (i.e., including textual explanations
in analog to comments in source code) and hybrid symbols (i.e., textual rein-
forcement of visual symbol meaning). Further requirements placed upon such
text are not fully clarified. For example, it is not clear whether the use of free
form natural language is preferred over, e.g., a controlled or structured natural
language (e.g., SBVR1), or whether there should be limits to the length of text
(i.e., concrete string limits). Many modeling languages satisfy the core criteria
of dual coding by letting users place textual annotations. ORM 2.0 [6] could be
a good example of potential further operationalization, providing its textual an-
notation of ternary fact types being written in a way that follows the structure
and layout of the related visual elements.
Set-theoretical formulation: Let Vbe a visual notation. We say that Venjoys
dual coding if there are models in Models(V) which include elements from both
G(V) and L(V).
Classification: This principle involves Models(V) (level 3 of notation). Interpret-
ing the question of dual coding in the Boolean sense, it requires no extra in-
formation. However, it seems that the intended meaning here is more than just
Boolean (a yes/no question); additional external information could give more
valuable insights into further constraints placed on the text like e.g., cognitive
limits on the amount of text that is efficiently parsed. The vague formulation
of this principle leaves room for a variety of interpretations, and the extent to
which text should be combined with symbols should be clarified before opera-
tionalization can be made possible.
Graphic economy: requires the visual notation to make economical use of
graphical symbols. The size of the notation’s visual vocabulary should not ex-
ceed the cognitive limit of how many distinct visual symbols can be effectively
recognized. The PoN references existing and widely known work, re-iterating
that people can discriminate between around six different visual graphical sym-
bols, and therefore proposes to not exceed this number. Regardless of how this
is achieved, for which the PoN gives a number of different strategies and in-
structions, operationalizing this criteria and verifying whether it holds is simple,
requiring only the visual notation itself to check how many distinct graphical
symbols it has. An example of a visual notation that likely satisfies most op-
erationalizations would be petri nets and ER-diagrams, both consisting of very
few visually distinct elements. Petri net models indeed appear out of only three
elements (four, if one includes tokens): places, transitions and arcs. Of course,
the more specialized a visual notation becomes, the harder it typically is to keep
the total number of graphical symbols down; for example, the total number of
graphical symbols in BPMN has grown to be over 50 [11].
Set-theoretical formulation: Let Vbe a visual notation. We say that Vis graph-
ically economic with respect to a threshold nif |G(V)|< n.
Classification: This principle involves only G(V) (level 1 of notation), and given
the threshold nrequires no extra information for operationalization.
Complexity management: This is similar to graphic economy, except that
the formulation here is on a diagram (or model) level. Visual complexity of entire
diagrams often becomes high due to a large number of elements in a diagram.
The PoN grounds itself in literature showing that the number of diagram ele-
ments that a person can comprehend at a time is limited by working-memory
capacity, and should this limit be crossed, the degree of comprehension decreases
significantly. To be cognitively effective, a visual notation should thus avoid such
situations from occurring. While the PoN clearly states that complexity manage-
ment is about preventing a particular threshold of comprehension being crossed,
it does not offer values for such a threshold.
Set-theoretical formulation: Given such threshold nand a way to establish the
size of a model in V, this principle can be taken to mean that for every m
Models(V), |m|< n.
Classification: This principle involves Models(V) (level 3 of notation). If the
question of complexity management is understood in a Boolean way, no extra
information is required. However, it seems that checking a Boolean assertion
that this threshold is never crossed is not useful, and one needs to check that
the notation offers good enough mechanisms to ensure it can be dealt with, such
as having semantic constructs for subsystems, decomposable constructs, and
relevant syntactical diagrammatic conventions for decomposing diagrams. Thus
also in this case the abstract formulation of the principle leaves room for many
interpretations and should be further clarified. Therefore, the extra information
required here is what is what exactly is understood by “complexity management
Cognitive integration: requires a visual notation to incorporate explicit
mechanisms to support the integration of information from different diagrams.
For example, in ArchiMate where an enterprise is described by the three layers
of business, application, and technology, models can exist for each separate layer,
but the information therein has to be able to be directly related to each other.
Short of its extensive description of potential implementations, the concrete fea-
tures that the PoN argues a visual notation needs to have are: “Mechanisms to
help the reader assemble information from separate diagrams into a coherent
mental representation of the system”, and “Perceptual cues to simplify navi-
gation and transitions between diagrams.” However, the problem is that while
ostensibly only the visual notation is needed in order to check whether such
mechanisms exist, the PoN describes what can be done to implement these re-
quirements in a visual notation only as suggestions, not as hard requirements.
For example, to implement contextualization, the PoN reasons that one can “in-
clude all directly related elements from other diagrams (its “immediate neigh-
borhood”) as foreign elements.”
Set-theoretical formulation: this principle can be taken to mean that Rhas in-
tegration mechanisms.
Classification: This principle is formulated in terms of Models(V) (level 3 of
notation). As in the previous principle, although a Boolean condition could be
formulated here, it seems to be not useful enough, and the vague formulation
of the principle should be further elaborated, providing as extra information a
working definition of “integration mechanisms”.
Perceptual discriminability: requires a visual notation to have clearly dis-
tinguishable symbols. This means that the main visual elements used are not
strongly similar, or difficult of being discriminated. The PoN operationalizes this
as having to investigate the visual distance between symbols, basing it on ex-
isting discriminability thresholds. The primary suggestions given are to use the
shape of symbols as their primary discriminant, to introduce redundant coding in
the sense of employing multiple visual variables to distinguish between graphical
symbols (e.g., shape and color), ensuring a perceptual pop out by having each
visual element have at least one unique visual variable (e.g., a particular concept
is always, and uniquely visualized as a square), as well as using textual differen-
tiation. In order to verify this principle, the visual notation and its specification
are needed, complemented with suitable additional information grounding the
choice for discriminability thresholds.
Set-theoretical reformulation: Let Disc be a discriminability relation on G(V).
We say that a visual notation Venjoys perceptual discriminability if for every
g1, g2∈ G,Disc(g1, g2) holds.
Classification: This principle uses only G(V) (level 1 of notation). The extra in-
formation required here is the measure Disc. As discriminability thresholds are
published and referenced explicitly by the PoN, defining such measures in a nat-
ural way seems feasible. Complications here might stem from a need to validate
that the used additional information accounts for potentially expected compli-
cations in discriminability thresholds, such as for instance colorblind users of a
modeling language who cannot distinguish between some used colors, thereby
potentially reducing the overall discriminability (e.g., if red and green are used
to distinguish elements, for a colorblind user the discriminability would not be
Visual expressiveness: concerns the number of visual variables used in the
notation, such as color, shape and texture. The PoN recommends that notation
designers: use color (though only for redundant coding); ensure that form follows
content, meaning that the choice of visual variables should not be arbitrary but
rather match the properties of the visual variables to the properties of the infor-
mation to be represented. This is operationalized in more detail by explaining
that (1) the power of the visual variable (nominal, ordinal, interval) should be
greater than or equal to the measurement level of the information; and, (2) the
capacity defined as the number of perceptible steps ranging from two to infinity
should be greater than or equal to the number of values required.
Set-theoretical reformulation: Let W ellU sed be an expressiveness predicate de-
fined on the set ApVar(V). We say that a visual notation Venjoys visual ex-
pressiveness if for every vApVar(V), W ellU sed(v) holds.
Classification: This principle uses only G(V) and their visual variables (level 1 of
notation). The extra information required for operationalization of this principle
is the availability of the expressiveness W ellU sed predicate. This is not trivial,
as the PoN provides many examples for the range of visual expressiveness, in-
cluding what elements contribute and detract (e.g., use of color, positioning, size,
brightness), but does not detail hard values for minimum or maximum thresh-
olds. The PoN provides data on the total capacity of different visual variables in
terms of how distinctive they are for human observers (e.g., orientation yielding
four distinct variables), but does not explicitly say to what degree to use it. Thus,
determining the parametric values for the expressiveness predicate, which itself
is to be built on measuring the different visual variables requires interpretation
of relevant literature to determine suitable values.
Semantic transparency: deals with ensuring that visual representations sug-
gest their meaning via their appearance. The PoN describes it as a continuum
of meaning, arguing that it “formalizes informal notions of “naturalness” or “in-
tuitiveness” that are often used when discussing visual notations” [9].
Set-theoretical reformulation: We say that a visual notation Venjoys semantic
transparency if for every g∈ G(V), I(g) is “suggested”.
Classification: This principle uses both G(V) and I(level 2 of notation). The
crucial extra information we need here is a more precise characterization of what
it means for a semantic meaning to be “suggested” by a graphical symbol. This
of course cannot be determined a priori and needs empirical evaluation. The
PoN describes a range of how suggestive visual symbols can be characterized,
from fully transparent (i.e., conveying its intended meaning) to perverse (i.e.,
conveying a different, incorrect meaning). Empirical work directly involving the
user is needed to determine how well a particular symbol suggests its intended
However, instead of providing a formal notion, the PoN suggests avoiding
situations where novice readers would likely infer a different meaning from ap-
pearance, and further advocates the use of icons as symbols that perceptually
resemble the concepts they represent. This principle seemingly can only be per-
formed by directly involving users. Furthermore, cultural and temporal (“zeit-
geist”) dependency of such suggested meaning would make it more challenging to
generalize findings from users. While some icons and symbols might have mean-
ing for a group of people, few of them are universal. Furthermore, the meaning
of icons or symbolism changes over time, making operationalizations also tem-
porally bound. A practical example of how suggested meaning is clearly culture
bound can be found in an application of the PoN to i* [10], a goal modeling
notation. In this notation, it is proposed to distinguish different kinds of acting
entities, where agents are proposed to be depicted with “black sunglasses and a
pistol”, arguing that users would make “an association of the 007 kind.” This
presupposes a shared cultural knowledge between the designer and user of the
notation that needs empirical grounding.
Cognitive fit: concerns personalizing the visual notation to the target audience
and ensuring that it “fits” with the cognitive background and skills of different
users and tasks it is used for. For example, when people with different back-
grounds and skill sets use the notation, it is important they can all use it at a
minimum level of proficiency. The PoN recommends focusing on taking into ac-
count at least (1) expert-novice differences, and (2) the representational medium.
While particular instructions are given for how to optimize a notation for either
expert or novice, the principle itself centers on ensuring that the visual notation
does not exhibit visual monolinguism. In a way, only the visual notation is needed
to verify whether this principle holds: one can check whether different dialects
for particular users or tasks exist. However, the core difficulty of the principle is
that for a given notation these differences need to be identified first. Thus, users
have to be directly involved, leading to the same challenges described for other
principles, such as semantic transparency, requiring direct user involvement. For
example, say that the visual notation of some process modeling language uses
realistic pictograms in order to clearly visualize what things are needed for a
particular task. Specifically, a realistic pictogram of a wrench is used for a task
of ‘screwing down bolts’. If this notation has the requirement that it can be
drawn on paper, how do we actually verify whether needing to draw a wrench is
difficult or not? Without knowing the users, one cannot postulate their artistic
skill, or their inclination to spend time drawing realistic depictions. Regardless
of whether it was intended, BPMN is an example of a language, which, in prac-
tical use seems to satisfy what cognitive fit aims to achieve. It has been viewed
as consisting of a number of ‘sets’ of functionality, a common core, extended
core, specialist set, overhead in use by people of varying levels of expertise and
focus. [11]
Set-theoretical reformulation: this principle seems to us to be the most vague of
all, and no set-theoretical reformulation in the terms defined in this paper can
be suggested.
Classification: this principle uses Models(V) (level 3 of notation). The starting
point for extra information required here is providing more concise characteri-
zation of the elements involved in the formulation of this principle.
4 Summary & Identified Concerns
The above discussion provides a number of new insights into the inherent diffi-
culty of operationalizing PoN principles. First of all, two dimensions emerge from
our analysis, which may provide indications on the feasibility of operationaliza-
tion of the principles. The first is the distinction between the different layers of
visual notation addressed by each principle. Some principles are targeted at the
level of an individual symbol and its structure, others at the interplay of the
symbols with their semantic constructs, and some target the interplay of many
symbols (i.e., a model). These different levels as referenced in Section 3.1 in-
crease the challenge of clearly operationalizing, as the increase in elements that
have to be considered make clear and precise verification more challenging.
The second is the distinction between the different types of extra information
needed for operationalization of the principle. Sometimes additional information
is needed that is both simple to gather and interpret, such as widely published
accounts of how many distinct graphical symbols the human mind can perceive
at a time. However, when more information has to be distilled from more compli-
cated literature (e.g., scientific theory), an additional challenge arises of ensuring
the correct selection and interpretation of that information. Finally, when infor-
mation specific to users is needed (e.g., to determine what meaning is ‘suggested’
by a symbol), a whole new challenge appears with the need to design empirical
work, argue for the validity of elicited information, and reason how it either
generalizes or applies to the intended users of the visual notation.
Table 2 provides an overview of our findings. For each principle it presents
the notation level, a set-theoretical formulation of the principle, and the extra
information that is needed to achieve operationalization.
Table 2: Summary of PoN Operationalization Analysis
Principle Set-theoretical Desc. Elements used Extra info required
SemCl I|G is 1-1 G(V) + I(level 2) -
PerDisc g1, g2∈ G(V) : Disc(g1, g2)G(V) (level 1) measure Disc on G(V)
SemTr g∈ G(V): g“suggests” M(g)G(V) + I(level 2) evaluation of “suggestiveness”
CmpMng Rhas “compl. management” Models(V)(level 3) defn. of “compl. management”
CogInt Rallows “integration” Models(V)(level 3) defn. of “integration”
VisExp vApVar(V), WellUsed(v)G(V) (level 1) measure WellUsed on ApVar(V)
DualC Some mModels(V) combine symbols & text Models(V)(level 3) -
GrE G(V)< n G(V)threshold n
CogFit ? Models(V)(level 3) evaluation of “cog. fit”
To the extent of our knowledge, dedicated operationalization efforts so far
address only two principles out of nine, focusing on semiotic clarity and per-
ceptual discriminability [16]. These two principles are arguably among the best
candidates for operationalization as they provide clear, quantitative judgement
criteria, and involve the lowest degree of subjective interpretation2. Indeed, our
classification of the principles supports this view. Another good candidate for
formalization, according to our classification, seems to be visual expressiveness.
The most challenging principle, according to Table 2, seems to be cognitive fit.
The most vague principles, requiring a reformulation in precise terms, are com-
plexity management and cognitive integration.
Below we summarize a number of further concerns that should be addressed
in the context of PoN operationalization:
Vague satisfaction criteria. A significant problem in operationalization
of the PoN is the vague satisfaction criteria of many principles. While it is
clearly stated what a principle should do, or achieve, the exact details on how
to achieve that are left up to the theory’s wielder. For example, for cognitive
integration we can check a Boolean assertion that structures exist to support e.g.,
modularization or clustering. However, this says little about how successfully
such structures will be used, as their design in itself is also subject to cognitive
factors. Thus a degree-based approach is more appropriate here.
Relative impact of satisfying a principle is unclear. Given that some
principles are defined in such a way that their satisfaction is almost trivial (e.g.,
dual coding not saying anything about the kind or structure of complementary
text), how much each individual principle contributes to the overall cognitive
effectiveness of a visual notation is unclear. This also makes it harder to know
what principles to focus, or spend most time on should they prove challenging
for a particular notation.
2Nonetheless, existing work [16] seems to take debatable choices, such as seemingly
arbitrary weights for distinguishing visual distance variables, whose objective nature
can also be discussed.
Operationalization interrelations. An additional complication arises from
the relationships that exist between the different principles. Given that multi-
ple principles have been documented to have positive or negative influence on
each other (for example, increasing graphic economy can decrease semiotic clar-
ity), operationalization of one principle may involve having to operationalize
multiple principles concurrently. For example, when considering semiotic clar-
ity, one should also take into account graphic economy, which requires taking
visual expressiveness into account, which in its turn requires additional external
information. Gaining a better understanding of the interrelations between the
principles is thus crucial for their operationalization.
5 Concluding Outlook
This paper presented a preliminary analysis of PoN principles with respect to
difficulties of their operationalization. The main contribution of this work is
establishing a formal ground for distinction of different aspects that pose diffi-
culties for operationalization of PoN principles. Using this distinction, different
types of efforts can be directed at different principles, e.g., reducing vagueness
of formulations, providing concrete mathematical metrics and/or methods for
empirical evaluation.
Our most immediate direction for future research is using empirical methods
to establish the relative importance of each principle for users of particular mod-
eling domains (e.g., software architecture, business processes). Such empirically
grounded data can be used to more clearly operationalize domain-specific ‘in-
stantiations’ of the PoN, and also show where principles that are mathematical
in their nature, but afford for more complex evaluation given the involvement of
additional elements, can and should be raised to a higher level of evaluation.
1. Giraldo, F.D., Espa˜na, S., Pineda, M.A., Giraldo, W.J., Pastor, O.: Conciliating
model-driven engineering with technical debt using a quality framework. In: In-
formation Systems Engineering in Complex Environments, pp. 199–214. Springer
2. Granada, D., Vara, J.M., Brambilla, M., Bollati, V., Marcos, E.: Analysing the
cognitive effectiveness of the webml visual notation. Software & Systems Modeling
pp. 1–33 (2013)
3. Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments:
a cognitive dimensions framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 7(2),
131–174 (1996)
4. Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS quarterly pp. 611–642
5. Gulden, J., Reijers, H.A.: Toward advanced visualization techniques for conceptual
modeling. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE Forum 2015 Stockholm, Sweden, June 8-12
6. Halpin, T.: Orm 2. In: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM
2005 Workshops. pp. 676–687. Springer (2005)
7. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge
for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems
15(1), 91–102 (2006)
8. Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of uml: An analysis
of the cognitive effectiveness of the uml family of diagrams. In: Software Language
Engineering, pp. 16–34. Springer (2008)
9. Moody, D.L.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing
visual notations in software engineering. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions
on 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
10. Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matuleviˇcius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improv-
ing the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. Requirements Engineering
15(2), 141–175 (2010)
11. zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much bpmn do you need. Posted at http://www.
bpm-research. com/2008/03/03/how-much-bpmn-do-you-need (2008)
12. Narayanan, N.H., H¨ubscher, R.: Visual language theory: Towards a human-
computer interaction perspective. In: Visual language theory, pp. 87–128. Springer
13. (OMG), O.M.G.: Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0. Tech.
rep. (jan 2011),{BPMN}20
14. Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Ea anamnesis: An approach for
decision making analysis in enterprise architecture. International Journal of In-
formation System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 5(3), 75–95 (July 2014), http:
15. Schuette, R., Rotthowe, T.: The guidelines of modeling–an approach to enhance
the quality in information models. In: Conceptual Modeling–ER98, pp. 240–254.
Springer (1998)
16. St¨orrle, H., Fish, A.: Towards an operationalization of the physics of notations
for the analysis of visual languages. In: Model-Driven Engineering Languages and
Systems, pp. 104–120. Springer (2013)
17. van der Linden, D., Hadar, I.: Cognitive effectiveness of conceptual modeling lan-
guages: Examining professional modelers. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Interna-
tional Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE). IEEE (2015)
18. van der Linden, D., Hadar, I.: Evaluating the evaluators – an analysis of cognitive
effectiveness improvement efforts for visual notations. In: Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineer-
ing. INSTICC (2016)
19. van der Linden, D., Hadar, I.: User Involvement in Applications of the PoN. In:
Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Informa-
tion Systems Engineering. Springer (2016)
20. Van Zee, M., Plataniotis, G., van der Linden, D., Marosin, D.: Formalizing enter-
prise architecture decision models using integrity constraints. In: Business Infor-
matics (CBI), 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on. vol. 1, pp. 143–150. IEEE (2014)
... Although ST and the remaining PoN principles are acknowledged as important, PoN theory [113] does not propose recommendations on how the principles should be assessed in terms of notation validation, nor does it define the threshold values above which the principles are met [97,154]. Furthermore, the theory has been criticized for not being precise or comprehensive enough to be applied objectively [150], based on empirical evidence [138]. ...
... Additionally, some studies researching the ST principle are not always exact in defining it (e.g., [71]) or lack the definition at all (e.g., [18,151]). An attempt to define ST on a mathematical basis is presented in [97], where the authors stress the importance of user involvement in evaluations of ST. However, no theory is provided to support the definition, and no metrics or thresholds are proposed to determine when a sign reaches ST. ...
... In [97], the principle was mathematically defined with the following formula: Visual notation V enjoys semantic transparency if for every g ∈ G(V), I(g) is "suggested." In the formula, the g is a graphical sign, G(V) is a set of graphical signs and I is a mapping of G(V) to semantic constructs. ...
Full-text available
Numerous visual notations are present in technical and business domains. Notations have to be cognitively effective to ease the planning, documentation, and communication of the domains’ concepts. Semantic transparency (ST) is one of the elementary principles that influence notations’ cognitive effectiveness. However, the principle is criticized for not being well defined and challenges arise in the evaluations and applications of ST. Accordingly, this research’s objectives were to answer how the ST principle is defined, operationalized, and evaluated in present notations as well as applied in the design of new notations in ICT and related areas. To meet these objectives, a systematic literature review was conducted with 94 studies passing the selection process criteria. The results reject one of the three aspects, which define semantic transparency, namely “ST is achieved with the use of icons.” Besides, taxonomies of related concepts and research methods, evaluation metrics, and other findings from this study can help to conduct verifiable ST-related experiments and applications, consequently improving the visual vocabularies of notations and effectiveness of the resulting diagrams.
... On the basis of the existing research, a few pieces of scientific work deal with the question how to make the existing body of knowledge fruitfully applicable for the task of designing a new visual modeling language, extend a given language, or select a suitable language for a given purpose in a justified way [31,37]. While the existing body of research addresses a wide range of isolated design aspects, dealing with a set of individual principles does not provide sufficient support for guiding design decisions. ...
... [32] proposes a framework for verifying visual notation design as a complementary task to developing a language design method based on existing design principles. The difficulties that go along with the elaboration of such a method are discussed in [37], which reflect on the "inherent difficulty of operationalizing the Physics of Notations" [27]. ...
... As a consqequence, we focus on refinments of this top goal in the further examination. Some authors also talk about "cognitive effectiveness" [11,37], which in the context of this article is treated synonymously with comprehensibility, in order to use a more unified terminology that is clearer to understand. ...
... Principles are defined which a language should meet to ensure maximum effectiveness and ease of successful interpretation by a viewer. The PoN has been widely applied, although not always well [34]. Limitations are identified by [34], [35]. ...
... The PoN has been widely applied, although not always well [34]. Limitations are identified by [34], [35]. Some suggested enhancements are provided by [36] and [37]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Enterprise modelling and information systems work often relies heavily on graphical models expressed in visual languages to concisely capture, rigorously model and effectively convey meaning between stakeholders. Recent research has highlighted problems with the effectiveness of popular modelling notations. A physics of notations (PoN) was proposed to address these issues. Application of the PoN has not proven routinely successful. Models are often constructed by experts, but must be well received by non-experts to achieve their goals. This research contends that recent information from the fields of cognition, visualisation and graphic design can be exploited to enhance the return on modelling effort (ROME) and the value of models. Improved meta models, methods for visual language design and enhanced tools can support the definition and use of effective visual languages and the application of the PoN and derivatives.
... With respect to Models read and Models made, the highest median score (i.e., 100) can be found in the category of respondents, which have read or made more than 50 models during the last five years. For these variables, the lowest median (i.e., 40) origins in the range [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] for models read and [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] for models made. Table 12 provides a summary of related work that focuses on the design and/or evaluation of modeling language notations. ...
... Most of these works focus on visual expressiveness as this is an objective measure, whereas other dimensions such as semantic transparency are subject to personal-, context-, and culture-specific influences (cf., [27, p. 17]). The challenge of objectively evaluating semantic transparency (cf., [39]) might be one indicator why this principle is scarcely considered in research and also in current modeling standards like Business Process Model and Notation [19] and Decision Model and Notation [11]. In contrast to GPMLs, this challenge can be overcome for DSMLs as the intended users are well known during the language design. ...
Full-text available
The notation of a modeling language is of paramount importance for its efficient use and the correct comprehension of created models. A graphical notation, especially for domain-specific modeling languages, should therefore be aligned to the knowledge, beliefs, and expectations of the targeted model users. One quality attributed to notations is their semantic transparency, indicating the extent to which a notation intuitively suggests its meaning to untrained users. Method engineers should thus aim at semantic transparency for realizing intuitively understandable notations. However, notation design is often treated poorly—if at all—in method engineering methodologies. This paper proposes a technique that, based on iterative evaluation and improvement tasks, steers the notation toward semantic transparency. The approach can be efficiently applied to arbitrary modeling languages and allows easy integration into existing modeling language engineering methodologies. We show the feasibility of the technique by reporting on two cycles of Action Design Research including the evaluation and improvement of the semantic transparency of the Process-Goal Alignment modeling language notation. An empirical evaluation comparing the new notation against the initial one shows the effectiveness of the technique.
... Although PoN has been so far applied in the development of several VMLs, its application presents some difficulties, as discussed by several authors (e.g., [van der Linden et al. 2016] and [da Silva Teixeira et al. 2016]). In particular, in [da Silva Teixeira et al. 2016], the authors claim that when a VML designer is applying PoN, they need design guidance. ...
... Graphic symbols used in visual notations are not universal and the widespread universal understanding of graphic symbols by Cognition Theories is impossible [30]. GERAL's design choice focused on the simplicity of symbols rather than association with their concepts and constructs, expressing semantic "perversity" (when it shows a different meaning than intended [53]). ...
Conference Paper
Brazilian laws, such as the Law on Access to Information, mandate the transparency of public procedural information, in a clear, simple and understandable manner. However, the existent process-oriented citizen language and a BPMN translation method that would enable these requirements are still informal and unstructured. These problems have limited their use, culminating in a dependency on experts. This paper presents a framework with four components (notation, semantics, computer tool, and method) to merge, structure and complement the citizen process language, GERAL, and respective translation, in a guide dedicated to lay users in technical process modeling, called BPMN pra GERAL. The Design Science Research method conducted the formative research, around the engineering of an artifact with epistemological rigor and scientific assessment methods with both a qualitative and quantitative approach, involving four participants in a library at a public university. The results are positive, participants showed interest, perception and intention to use the guide in real cases; increased their awareness of the need for process transparency; and all participants used the solution effectively. This research contributes to transparency, information accessibility, business process modeling and understandability.
... Fonte: adaptado e traduzido de van der Linden et al. [151] Pela ...
Full-text available
Organizações públicas devem transparecer seus processos de negócio de forma clara, simples e entendível, como determina a Lei de Acesso à Informação. Foi desenvolvida uma linguagem cidadã para processos com o objetivo de auxiliar as partes interessadas na conformidade com esta determinação, com um método de tradução informal entre a notação técnica BPMN e ela. Observei que a linguagem e a tradução estavam limitadas, de forma que usuários apenas a utilizavam com nosso auxílio, não operando de forma autônoma A partir do rigor científico epistemológico requerido pela metodologia Design Science Research, nesta dissertação construo um framework com quatro componentes para amadurecer, estruturar e complementar esta linguagem cidadã de processos, batizada de GERAL, e sua tradução. O uso e avaliação do guia de operacionalização do framework, BPMN pra GERAL, ocorre na Biblioteca Central da UNIRIO, a partir de um Estudo de Caso, onde uma iniciativa de modelagem de processos já estava em andamento e as partes demonstraram bastante interesse em transparecer seus processos com a GERAL. As respostas e os resultados positivos expõem a percepção e intenção de utilidade do artefato, com contribuições para Ciberdemocracia, Transparência, Modelagem de Processos de Negócio e retroalimentação ao próprio framework e respectivo guia.
In 2009, Moody introduced nine principles for evaluating, improving and designing cognitively effective notations called the Physics of Notations [49] motivating many research works ever since, being cited more than 1250 times at the time of writing this paper. Many research works have adopted the nine principles of the Physics of Notations to improve existing notations or devise new notations. Modeling is a two-step process that has the goal of communicating a mental concept by a model constructor (step one) to a model reader (step two). A subset of the research works utilizing the Physics of Notations have empirically validated the cognitive effectiveness of the new notations by their readers. However, there lacks any empirical evidence that investigates the effect of using Physics of Notations-enabled notations in model construction. This is a serious matter to be investigated as naturally model construction preludes model comprehension. Poorly constructed models can at best be poorly comprehended by its readers having dire consequences in downstream development activities. This paper reports on three different experiments that use software engineering professionals as subjects. The experiments investigate the effect of using notations that adhere to the Physics if Notations principles on model construction efforts. The results do not indicate an outright advantage for model constructors who utilize Physics of Notations-enabled notations in comparison to using their original versions of these notations.
Use case modeling is a forefront technique to specify functional requirements of a system. Many research works related to use case modeling have been devoted to improving various aspects of use case modeling and its utilization in software development processes. One key aspect of use case models that has thus far been overlooked by the research community is the visual perception of use case diagrams by its readers. Any model is used transfer a mental idea by a modeler to a model reader. Even if a use case diagram is constructed flawlessly, if it is misread or misinterpreted by its reader then the intrinsic purpose of modeling has failed. This paper provides a two-fold contribution. Firstly, this paper presents an evaluation of the cognitive effectiveness of use case diagrams notation. The evaluation is based on theory principles and empirical evidence mainly from the cognitive science field. Secondly, it provides empirically validated improvements to the use case diagram notation that enhances its cognitive effectiveness. Empirical validation of the improvements is drawn by conducting an industrial survey using business analyst professionals. Empirical validation is also drawn by conducting an experiment using software engineering professionals as subjects.
Conference Paper
Nowadays, Information System (IS) security and Risk Management (RM) are required for every organization that wishes to survive in this networked and open world. Thus, more and more organizations tend to implement a security strategy based on an ISSRM (IS security RM) approach. However, the difficulty of dealing efficiently with ISSRM is currently growing, because of the complexity of current IS coming with the increasing number of risks organizations need to face. To use conceptual models to deal with RM issues, especially in the information security domain, is today an active research topic, and many modelling languages have been proposed in this way. However, a current challenge remains the cognitive effectiveness of the visual syntax of these languages, i.e. the effectiveness to convey information. Security risk managers are indeed not used to use modelling languages in their daily work, making this aspect of cognitive effectiveness a must-have for these modelling languages. Instead of starting defining a new cognitive effective modelling language, our objective is rather to assess and benchmark existing ones from the literature. The aim of this paper is thus to assess the cognitive effectiveness of CORAS, a modelling language focused on ISSRM.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In a previous paper [12] we argued for more user-centric analysis of modeling languages’ visual notation quality. Here we present initial findings from a systematic literature review on the use of the Physics of Notations (PoN) to further that argument. Concretely, we show that while the PoN is widely applied, these applications rarely actively involve intended users of a visual notation in setting the requirements for the notation, nor in evaluating its improvement or design according to the PoN’s criteria. We discuss the potential reasons for this lack of user involvement, and what can be gained from increasing user involvement.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Research on improving the cognitive effectiveness of conceptual modeling languages visual notations often lacks empirical consideration of the people and modeling tasks involved. Such consideration can generate insight into cognitive requirements set by different modeling tasks. In this position paper we propose an empirical research design for gaining a deeper understanding of the difference between the cognitive requirements of specific modeling tasks so that modeling notations can be improved, based on empirically grounded needs of professionals.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The main goal of this work is to evaluate the feasibility to calculate the technical debt (a traditional software quality approach) in a model-driven context through the same tools used by software developers at work. The SonarQube tool was used, so that the quality check was performed directly on projects created with Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) instead of traditionals source code projects. In this work, XML was used as the model specification language to verify in SonarQube due to the creation of EMF metamodels in XMI (XML Metadata Interchange) and that SonarQube offers a plugin to assess the XML language. After this, our work focused on the definition of model rules as an XSD schema (XML Schema Definition) and the integration between EMF-SonarQube in order that these metrics were directly validated by SonarQube; and subsequently, this tool determined the technical debt that the analyzed EMF models could contain.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Conceptual models and their visualizations play an important role in the in the Information Systems (IS) field. Their track record, however, is mixed. While their benefits are clearly perceived, practitioners also struggle with their use. This paper picks up on a potential factor that limits the effectiveness of conceptual models, namely the poor design rationale behind their visual appearance. We argue for the benefits of a holistic view on the visual side of a conceptual modeling technique, which should draw from both perceptual and cognitive theories to improve the representation of objects. We present concrete activities and outline their fundamentals in the form of a research agenda.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We attempt to validate the conceptual framework "Physics of Notation" (PoN) as a means for analysing visual languages by ap-plying it to UML Use Case Diagrams. We discover that the PoN, in its current form, is neither precise nor comprehensive enough to be applied in an objective way to analyse practical visual software engineering no-tations. We propose an operationalization of a part of the PoN, highlight conceptual shortcomings of the PoN, and explore ways to address them.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In creating an enterprise architecture (EA) several design decisions have to be made. The aim of this paper is to provide a logic-based formalism for capturing architectural design decisions in order to make the rationalization of these decisions explicit as well as traceable. Our working hypothesis is that capturing of design knowledge in terms of a logic-based framework will enable consistency checks of the underlying rationales and advanced impact/what-if analysis when confronted with changes (e.g. decisions are changed, issues are solved). We formalize a set of integrity constraints, which allow guidance of decision capturing during model creation and provide means to perform consistency checks. We apply our formal framework to a practical case study from the insurance sector.
Full-text available
Enterprise Architecture (EA) modeling languages can express the business-to-IT-stack for an organization, showing how changes in the IT landscape impact business aspects and vice versa. Yet EA languages provide only the final architectural design, not the rationale behind this design. In earlier work, we presented the EA Anamnesis approach for EA rationalization. We discussed how EA Anamnesis forms a complement to current EA modeling languages, showing for example design alternatives, EA artifact selection criteria and the decision making strategy that was used. In this paper, we extend EA Anamnesis with a capability for organizational learning. In particular, we present an integration of two viewpoints presented in earlier work: (1) an ex-ante decision making viewpoint for rationalizing EA during decision making, which for example captures a decision and its anticipated consequences, and (2) an ex-post decision making viewpoint, which for example captures the unanticipated decision consequences, and possible adjustments in criteria. We use a fictitious, yet realistic, case study to illustrate our approach.
WebML is a domain-specific language used to design complex data-intensive Web applications at a conceptual level. As WebML was devised to support design tasks, the need to define a visual notation for the language was identified from the very beginning. Each WebML element is consequently associated with a separate graphical symbol which was mainly defined with the idea of providing simple and expressive modelling artefacts rather than by adopting a rigorous scientific approach. As a result, the graphical models defined with WebML may sometimes prevent proper communication from taking place between the various stakeholders. In fact, this is a common issue for most of the existing model-based proposals that have emerged during the last few years under the umbrella of model-driven engineering. In order to illustrate this issue and foster in using a scientific basis to design, evaluate, improve and compare visual notations, this paper analyses WebML according to a set of solid principles, based on the theoretical and empirical evidence concerning the cognitive effectiveness of visual notations. As a result, we have identified a set of possible improvements, some of which have been verified by an empirical study. Furthermore, a number of findings, experiences and lessons learnt on the assessment of visual notations are presented.