Leonel Merino is defending his PhD thesis on the medium of visualization for software comprehension. The document reviews literature on software visualization and different visualization mediums like standard screens, wall displays, virtual reality, and augmented reality. It presents results from a survey of software visualization tools showing that the majority use standard screens and the medium has not been widely considered as a factor in effectiveness. The thesis argues that the medium is an important factor and different mediums may improve effectiveness, outlining experiments comparing 3D visualizations on standard screens versus augmented reality.

1. 1
Leonel Merino
PhD Defense
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Oscar Nierstrasz
29 June 2018
The Medium of Visualization
for Software Comprehension

2. 2
Price et. al. ‘92
“Software visualization is the use of graphics to enhance
program understanding”

3. “To increase the effectiveness of software visualization tools, we need to
consider the impact of the medium in user performance and experience.”
Thesis
3

4. 4
The medium has proved useful to increase the
effectiveness of visualizations in other domains

5. 5
The CAVE medium

6. 6
The CAVE medium to visualize neural networks

7. 6
The CAVE medium to visualize neural networks

8. 8
Education expenses visualized
using 3D Printed Models

9. 8
Education expenses visualized
using 3D Printed Models

10. 10
Visualization of voting data displayed
in an Immersive Virtual Reality

11. 10
Visualization of voting data displayed
in an Immersive Virtual Reality

12. 12
What is the medium of software visualizations?

13. State of the Art

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. e.g., maintenance
17

18. e.g., maintenance e.g., QA Engineer
18

19. e.g., maintenance e.g., QA Engineer
e.g., source code
19

20. e.g., maintenance
e.g., dense pixel
e.g., QA Engineer
e.g., source code
20

21. e.g., maintenance
e.g., wall display
e.g., dense pixel
e.g., QA Engineer
e.g., source code
21

22. e.g., lviz
e.g., maintenance
e.g., wall display
e.g., dense pixel
e.g., QA Engineer
e.g., source code
22

23. 23

24. 0 5 10 15 20 25
Running System
Source Code
Version Control System
Documenta:on
Changes
Spreadsheets
23

25. 0 5 10 15 20 25
Running System
Source Code
Version Control System
Documenta:on
Changes
Spreadsheets
23

26. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Java
C
C++
C#
Smalltalk
VB
Pascal
0 5 10 15 20 25
Running System
Source Code
Version Control System
Documenta:on
Changes
Spreadsheets
26

27. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Java
C
C++
C#
Smalltalk
VB
Pascal
0 5 10 15 20 25
Running System
Source Code
Version Control System
Documenta:on
Changes
Spreadsheets
27

28. 28

29. OpenGL
GLUT
Globsym
wxWidgets
Extractor
D3
OpenCloud
VR Juggler
G4P
Roassal
MT4j
FTGL
Viewer
JFreeChart
29

30. OpenGL
NetBeans Visual Library.
GLUT
Java 8
Globsym
wxWidgets
Extractor
OpenCloud
C++
VR Juggler
G4P
Roassal
Eclipse Visualization Toolkit (Zest)
Graphisto ToolkitOpenJDK 1.6.0 18 (64bit)
wxWindows
FTGL
FreeType
Viewer
abego TreeLayout
Qt
JFreeChart
30

31. NetBeans Visual Library.Java 8
Java
Control FX
Java3D
Java FX
C++
Graphisto ToolkitOpenJDK 1.6.0 18 (64bit)
TreeMap Java Library
GraphStream
Java 6
G
Fre
abego TreeLayout
yFiles library
Qt
CCJun
Swing
31

32. OpenGL
NetBeans Visual Library.
GLUT
Java 8
Stencil visualization environment
Prefuse toolkit
Java
Globsym
Control FX
wxWidgets
Extractor
Java3D
D3
OpenCloud
Java FX
C++
VR Juggler
G4P
dot
Roassal
Eclipse Visualization Toolkit (Zest)
Graphisto ToolkitOpenJDK 1.6.0 18 (64bit)
wxWindows
TreeMap Java Library
GraphStream
Java 6
MT4j
GraphViz
Palantir
FTGL
FreeType
Viewer
abego TreeLayout
Trevis
yFiles library
Qt
jMonkeyEngine
JFreeChart
CCJun
Swing
32

33. 33
solutions

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. 1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3D Glasses
Immersive 3D Environment
Multi-touch Table
Multi-Monitor
Tablet
38

39. 5%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Wall-display
3D Glasses
Immersive 3D Environment
Multi-touch Table
Multi-Monitor
Tablet
39

40. 36%
5%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Standard Screen
Wall-display
3D Glasses
Immersive 3D Environment
Multi-touch Table
Multi-Monitor
Tablet
40

41. 53%
36%
5%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Not Identified
Standard Screen
Wall-display
3D Glasses
Immersive 3D Environment
Multi-touch Table
Multi-Monitor
Tablet
41

42. 42
The medium has not been considered a relevant
factor in the effectiveness of software visualizations

43. The medium has not been considered a relevant
factor in the effectiveness of software visualizations
43
What is an effective software visualization?

44. The medium has not been considered a relevant
factor in the effectiveness of software visualizations
44
What is an effective software visualization?
How suitable is this definition of effectiveness to
evaluate software visualizations?

45. Effective Software
Visualization

46. 28
37
28
11
37
19
13
8
65
56
41
19
Design Study Technique System Evaluation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
VISSOFT SOFTVIS Total 46

47. 47
Theoretical, 1%
No Explicit Evaluation,
13%
Empirical,
86%

48. 48
3%Survey

49. 49
4%
3%
Anecdotal Evidence
Survey

50. 50
8%
4%
3%
Case Study
Anecdotal Evidence
Survey

51. 5134%
8%
4%
3%
Experiment
Case Study
Anecdotal Evidence
Survey

52. 52
53%
34%
8%
4%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Usage Scenario
Experiment
Case Study
Anecdotal Evidence
Survey

53. 53
8
12 12
10
5
1
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-100 >100
Number of participants

54. 54
8
12 12
10
5
1
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-100 >100
Number of participants

55. 55
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
Quality Focus

56. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
56
Quality Focus

57. 57
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
Quality Focus

58. 58
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
Quality Focus

59. 59
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
Quality Focus

60. 60
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
Quality Focus

61. 61
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
Quality Focus

62. 62
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
17
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Satisfaction
Learnability
Intuitiveness
Enjoyment
Confidence
Difficulty
Acceptability
Understandability
Engagement
Not Explicit
Usability
Visual Effort
Scalability
Efficiency
Recollection
Completion
Not Explicit
Time
Effectiveness
Correctness
UserExperienceUserPerformance
Quality Focus

63. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
63
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

64. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
64
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

65. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
65
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

66. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
66
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

67. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
67
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

68. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
68
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

69. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
69
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

70. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
70
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

71. A Framework for Reporting on Experiments in Software Visualization
71
“Analyze <3D visualizations> in the <Pharo environment> using the <City metaphor>
displayed on a <standard computer screen> for the purpose of <comparison to visualizations
displayed in immersive augmented reality> with respect to the <effectiveness> and the
<prevalence of usability issues> from the point of view of <maintainers> in the context of
<supporting comprehension tasks>.”
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

72. A Framework for
Reporting on Experiments
in Software Visualization
72
L. Merino, A. Bergel, O. Nierstrasz. “Overcoming Issues of 3D Software
Visualization through Immersive Augmented Reality”. In VISSOFT'18: Proceedings
of the 6th IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. In Press, 2018.

73. 73
Explicit goal of evaluations
Experiments’ tasks must be in-line with evaluations’ goal
Use (our) framework to report on experiments in software visualization
Take-Home Messages

74. 74
Explicit goal of evaluations
Experiments’ tasks must be in-line with evaluations’ goal
Use (our) framework to report on experiments in software visualization
Take-Home Messages

75. 75
Explicit goal of evaluations
Experiments’ tasks must be in-line with evaluations’ goal
Use (our) framework to report on experiments in software visualization
Take-Home Messages

76. 76
Explicit goal of evaluations
Experiments’ tasks must be in-line with evaluations’ goal
Use (our) framework to report on experiments in software
visualization
Take-Home Messages

77. 77
L.Merino, M.Ghafari, O.Nierstrasz, “Towards
Actionable Visualization in Software Development”, in
VISSOFT’16: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Working
Conference on Software Visualization. IEEE, 2016.
(Best paper award)
L. Merino, M. Ghafari, and O. Nierstrasz, “Towards
Actionable Visualization for Software Developers”. In
Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 30(2) p.
e1923—n/a, 2017.
L. Merino, M. Ghafari, C. Anslow, and O. Nierstrasz.
“A systematic literature review of software
visualization evaluation”. The Journal of Systems
and Software, 2018. To appear.

78. The medium has not been considered a relevant
factor in the effectiveness of software visualizations
78

79. The medium has not been considered a relevant
factor in the effectiveness of software visualizations
79
What is an effective software visualization?

80. The medium has not been considered a relevant
factor in the effectiveness of software visualizations
80
What is an effective software visualization?
How can the medium help to increase the
effectiveness of software visualizations?

81. 81
Formative User Study

82. 82
Immersive Virtual Reality

83. 83
Immersive Virtual Reality
Promotes engagement
Commonly available

84. 84
City metaphor

85. 85
Widely used
Transferable to other media
Publicly available
City metaphor

86. 86
Widely used
Transferable to other media
Publicly available
City metaphor

87. 87
Widely used
Transferable to other media
Publicly available
City metaphor
NOM
NOA NLOC

88. 88
Widely used
Transferable to other media
Publicly available
City metaphor

89. 89
City metaphor
3 mts.
3 mts.
2.5 mts.

91. 91
User Study
Navigation
Emotions
Time
Perception

92. 92
“nice to walk” • curious
• immersed
• in control
• challenged
Navigation
Emotions
Time
Perception
User Study

93. 93
Navigation
Emotions
Time
Perception
User Study
“time flown very fast”

94. The immersive virtual reality medium might be used to
promote engagement in software visualization
94

95. 95
How does using different media for software
visualization affects their effectiveness?
The immersive virtual reality medium might be used to
promote engagement in software visualization

96. 96
Controlled Experiment

97. 97

98. 98

99. 99

100. 100

101. 101

102. 102

103. 103
Visualization CodeCity in Moose 5
Apparatus
Apple MacBook Pro with a
resolution of 1440 x 900 pixels
Location Konstanz (4) + Bern (5)
Participants 1 PostDoc, 3 BA/MA, 5 PhD
Subject Freemind, Azureus
Deployment: SCS

104. 104
Deployment: I3D
Visualization Custom development in Unity 5.5
Apparatus
HTC Vive VR Headset with a
2160 x 1200 combined
resolution, 90 Hz refresh rate and
110° field of view
Location Konstanz (9)
Participants 1 PostDoc, 3 BA/MA, 5 PhD
Subject Freemind, Azureus

105. 105
Visualization
Model exported to the Stereo
Lithography (STL) format from
the I3D implementation (in Unity)
required by the printer using the
pb_Stl library
Apparatus
Form 2 3D printer by formlabs
based on stereolithography
(SLA) technology
Location Bern (9)
Participants 1 PostDoc, 3 BA/MA, 5 PhD
Subject Freemind, Azureus

106. 106

107. 107

108. 108

109. 109

110. 110
Visualization
Model exported to the Stereo
Lithography (STL) format from
the I3D implementation (in Unity)
required by the printer using the
pb_Stl library
Apparatus
Form 2 3D printer by formlabs
based on stereolithography
(SLA) technology
Location Bern (9)
Participants 1 PostDoc, 3 BA/MA, 5 PhD
Subject Freemind, Azureus

111. 111
Virtual Reality Computer Screen 3D Printed

112. 112
Data Collection
User
Performance
Time
Correctness
Recollection
User
Experience
Difficulty
Emotions

113. 113
Data Collection
User
Performance
Time
Correctness
Recollection
User
Experience
Difficulty
Emotions

114. 114
Data Collection
User
Performance
Time
Video recordings / questionnaires
Correctness
Recollection
User
Experience
Difficulty
Emotions

115. 115
Data Collection
User
Performance
Time
Video recordings / questionnaires
Correctness
Recollection
User
Experience
Difficulty
Emotions

116. 116
Data Collection
User
Performance
Time
Video recording / questionnaire
Correctness
Recollection Drawing
User
Experience
Difficulty Questionnaire (5-step Likert scale)
Emotions

117. 117
Data Collection
User
Performance
Time
Video recording / questionnaire
Correctness
Recollection Drawing
User
Experience
Difficulty Questionnaire (5-step Likert scale)
Emotions

118. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
118

119. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
119

120. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
120

121. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
121

122. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
122

123. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
123

124. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
124

125. Freemind (600 classes) Azureus (6600 classes)
User Performance
Recollection
Completion
Time
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
Accuracy
Finding Outliers
Location and
Quantification
Finding Patterns
User Experience
Difficulty
Finding Outliers
Finding Patterns
Location and
Quantification
Emotions
125

126. 126
L. Merino, J. Fuchs, M. Blumenschein, C. Anslow, M. Ghafari, O. Nierstrasz,
M. Behrisch, and D. Keim. On the Impact of the Medium in the Effectiveness
of 3D Software Visualization. In VISSOFT'17: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE
Working Conference on Software Visualization, p. 11—21, IEEE, 2017.
L. Merino, M. Ghafari, C. Anslow, and O. Nierstrasz. CityVR: Gameful
Software Visualization. In ICSME'17: Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE
International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (TD
Track), p. 633—637, IEEE, 2017.

127. 127
How do the insights from the reviews and
experiments can be encapsulated?

128. 128
How do the insights from the reviews and
experiments can be encapsulated?
How can developers find suitable visualizations
for particular tasks?

129. 129
2003
2017
Tools

130. 130
2003
2017
Medium
Technique
URL
Task
Audience
Questions
Data
Visualization
Tools

131. 131
2003
2017
Medium
Technique
URL
Task
Audience
Questions
Data
Case Study
Experiment
Usage Scenario
Participants
Systems
Apparatus
Test
Survey
Tools
Visualization Evaluation

132. 132
Software Visualization Ontology

133. 133
Software Visualization Ontology
Metrics #
Axiom 3290
Logic. axioms 2428
Decl. axioms 862
Class count 150
Object prop. 20
Individuals 692
DL expr. ALCH
SubClassOf 143
DisjointClasses 32
SubObjectPropert 1
Obj.Prp.Dom. 2
Obj.Prp.Ran. 3
ClassAssert. 696
Obj.Prp.Asse. 1547
NegativeObjectPr 4

134. 134
MetaVis
Tag
Tag
Tag
Tag
Tag
Tag
Example
Example
Tag
Example
e.g., Who is the expert for this code?

135. 135
MetaVis
Tag
Tag
Tag
Tag
Tag
Tag
Example
Example
Tag
Example
e.g., Who is the expert for
this code?

137. 137
MetaVis
Leonel Merino, Mohammad Ghafari, Oscar Nierstrasz, Alexandre
Bergel, and Juraj Kubelka, “MetaVis: Exploring Actionable
Visualization”. In VISSOFT'16: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Working
Conference on Software Visualization, IEEE, 2016.

138. Future work
Experimentation in software visualization
displayed in VR & AR
138

139. Future work
Experimentation in software visualization
displayed in VR & AR
139

140. Future work
Experimentation in software visualization
displayed in VR & AR
An ontology-based recommender system for
software visualization tools
140

141. 141
Summary

142. 142
Summary

143. 143
Summary

144. 144
Summary

145. 145
Summary

146. 146
Summary

147. 147
Summary

148. “To increase the effectiveness of software visualization tools, we need to
consider the impact of the medium in user performance and experience.”
Summary

149. … and …
149

150. Speculative lightweight visualizations based on
automatic scripts analysis
150

151. Speculative lightweight visualizations based on
the analysis of scripts
151

152. Speculative lightweight visualizations based on
the analysis of scripts
152