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

Bruce C. Hungerford

dblp:09/243 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2004
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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
Empirical software engineering · 77% Requirements engineering and software design · 23%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › software evaluation
software review
0.012004
Reviewing Software Diagrams: A Cognitive Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2004
Requirements engineering and software design › software design notation
software design diagrams
0.012004
Reviewing Software Diagrams: A Cognitive Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2004

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

verbal protocol analysis · 0.0cognitive study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2004 Reviewing Software Diagrams: A Cognitive Study
abstract
Reviews and inspections of software artifacts throughout the development life cycle are effective techniques for identifying defects and improving software quality. While review methods for text-based artifacts (e.g., code) are well understood, very little guidance is available for performing reviews of software diagrams, which are rapidly becoming the dominant form of software specification and design. Drawing upon human cognitive theory, we study how 12 experienced software developers perform individual reviews on a software design containing two types of diagrams: entity-relationship diagrams and data flow diagrams. Verbal protocol methods are employed to describe and analyze defect search patterns among the software artifacts, both text and diagrams, within the design. Results indicate that search patterns that rapidly switch between the two design diagrams are the most effective. These findings support the cognitive theory thesis that how an individual processes information impacts processing success. We conclude with specific recommendations for improving the practice of reviewing software diagrams.
Bruce C. Hungerford, Alan R. Hevner, Rosann Webb Collins
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1