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

Ruth B. Schwartz

dblp:01/2907 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1988
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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 · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software design methodology
design methodology comparison
0.011988
User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical Results · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1988
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.011988
User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical Results · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1988
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements validation
0.011988
User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical Results · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1988

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

controlled experiment · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1988 User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical Results
abstract
While validation of user requirements has become an important goal for information system designers, little empirical research has been done in this area. Many methodologies have been presented as the best procedures for achieving user validation of design. An attempt is made to consider four of these methodologies in four different experimental settings. In the four experiments, the following treatments were examined: HIPO (hierarchy plus input, process, and output) vs. system flowcharts; DFD (data-flow diagram) narrative; DFD vs. Warnier-Orr diagrams; and DFD vs. HIPO. The main result of all four experiments was that choice of design methodology had no effect on the level of user understanding of system requirements.>
John T. Nosek, Ruth B. Schwartz
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2