TY - GEN

T1 - How Do We Read Specifications? Experiences from an Eye Tracking Study

AU - Ahrens, Maike

AU - Schneider, Kurt

AU - Kiesling, Stephan

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016. Copyright: Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - [Context and motivation] Writing good specifications is difficult and takes time. There are several guidelines such as the Volere template to assist writing a good specification. They provide a table of contents which can be used like a checklist to consider all relevant aspects. Voluminous specifications take more time to write, and also more time to read. A larger specification is not always a better one. [Question/Problem] A requirements engineer should be aware of how readers make use of a specification and consider their interests in writing it. In addition, some people prefer reading on a screen while others hold a preference for paper printouts. Some parts or aspects may be read differently in both representations. [Principal ideas/results]: We have conducted an Eye Tracking study investigating how specifications are read. We compared paper-based with on-screen presentation, and different reading perspectives such as UI designers, tester, software architects etc. We derived study goals by using GQM down to the level of quantitative and statistical eye tracking analyses. [Contribution]: There is a two-fold contribution: (a) Observations and findings about the way specifications are read; e.g., we had expected paper-based reading to be faster. Instead, we found similar reading patterns on paper versus on screen. (b) Insights with respect to eye tracking as a research method for requirements engineering. We discuss strengths and shortcomings, and provide lessons learned.

AB - [Context and motivation] Writing good specifications is difficult and takes time. There are several guidelines such as the Volere template to assist writing a good specification. They provide a table of contents which can be used like a checklist to consider all relevant aspects. Voluminous specifications take more time to write, and also more time to read. A larger specification is not always a better one. [Question/Problem] A requirements engineer should be aware of how readers make use of a specification and consider their interests in writing it. In addition, some people prefer reading on a screen while others hold a preference for paper printouts. Some parts or aspects may be read differently in both representations. [Principal ideas/results]: We have conducted an Eye Tracking study investigating how specifications are read. We compared paper-based with on-screen presentation, and different reading perspectives such as UI designers, tester, software architects etc. We derived study goals by using GQM down to the level of quantitative and statistical eye tracking analyses. [Contribution]: There is a two-fold contribution: (a) Observations and findings about the way specifications are read; e.g., we had expected paper-based reading to be faster. Instead, we found similar reading patterns on paper versus on screen. (b) Insights with respect to eye tracking as a research method for requirements engineering. We discuss strengths and shortcomings, and provide lessons learned.

KW - Empirical studies

KW - Eye tracking

KW - Perspective-based specification

KW - Requirements specification

KW - Research agenda

KW - View-based requirements specification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960873353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_21

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_21

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 9783319302812

T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

SP - 301

EP - 317

BT - Requirements Engineering

A2 - Pastor, Oscar

A2 - Daneva, Maya

PB - Springer International Publishing AG

CY - Cham

ER -