Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ari Jaaksi

dblp:91/3575 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software architecture › architecture documentation
architecture views
0.012003
Assessing software projects: tools for business owners · ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE 2003
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture
0.012003
Assessing software projects: tools for business owners · ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE 2003

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

use cases · 0.0testing statistics · 0.0frequent builds · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Assessing software projects: tools for business owners
abstract
Executives need to assess ongoing software projects. They need truthful information to decide if projects should be redirected, cancelled, or strengthened. They need to verify that customer requirements are satisfied and business goals are met.We present a set of tools for executives to monitor the status of ongoing software projects. These tools allow executives that are not experts of software engineering to assess requirements, software architectures, development projects, and development organizations. Our tools, used commonly at Nokia and elsewhere, utilize use cases, views to architecture, frequent builds, and testing statistics. The fact that many projects already utilize these tools for software creation makes it easy to extend their use to serve executives and business management. We explain how managers can use these tools to get information, how to interpret this information, and how to integrate the tools into the interaction between the managers and their project teams.
Ari Jaaksi
ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE1
1995 Implementing Interactive Applications in C++
abstract
Abstract This paper presents an object‐oriented approach for the implementation of interactive systems. This approach applies the model‐view‐controller (MVC) paradigm, which is modified for the C++ environment. The modified paradigm is called MVC++. In this approach the design of interactive applications starts by constructing an object model that represents the key concepts of the problem domain. This object model does not contain any user interface elements. According to the MVC++ approach, the object model is called the model part of the application. Only after the model part has been created, is the user interface designed. A collection of user interface classes is called the view. The classes that connect the model and the view form the controller, which is designed to communicate with both the model and the view. The approach presented in this paper provides a number of benefits. Advantages of the original MVC approach are obtained in a standard C++ environment, the structure of applications becomes clear and stable, and reusability as well as readability of the classes increases. Reusability is achieved by employing a mechanism called ‘abstract partners’. The approach presented in this paper is being applied in the development of a large network management system with over one million lines of C++ code running in the XII environment.
Ari Jaaksi
Softw. Pract. Exp.1
1995 Object-oriented Specification of User Interfaces
abstract
Abstract This paper presents an object‐oriented approach for the specification of graphical user interfaces. Specification starts with the analysis of the end user's operations. The user interface is then designed on the basis of this analysis. Operation analysis is followed by structure and component specification which presents the dialogue structure of the application and the contents of each dialogue. Visualization produces the final screen layouts, and task specification documents the usage of the user interface for the purpose of creating user's guides. The method presented in this paper makes it easier for a designer to take the end user's needs into account. Still, it does not automatically guarantee good quality user interfaces. The top‐down nature of the method allows the designer to concentrate on the most important aspects of the user interface and split the design procedure into manageable pieces. Also, the visibility of the process allows the designer to communicate with other people while specifying the user interface. This paper connects the method with the object‐oriented specification of entire applications. It briefly explains the connections with object‐oriented analysis and design, and demonstrates how to implement the specified user interface in an object oriented fashion. The approach presented in this paper is being applied in the development of a large network management system with about two million lines of C++ code running in the XII environment. Still, the method does not require the specification being implemented with any specific windowing system. The only requirement is that the user interface is based on graphical elements, such as dialogues, push‐buttons and text fields.
Ari Jaaksi
Softw. Pract. Exp.1