Miguel Goulão

The i* community has published guidelines, including model layout guidelines, for the construction of models. Our goal is to evaluate the effect of the layout guidelines on the i* novice stakeholders’ ability to understand and review i* models. We conducted a quasi-experiment where participants were given two understanding and two reviewing tasks. Both tasks involved a model with a bad layout and another model following the i* layout guidelines. We evaluated the impact of layouts by combining the success level in those tasks and the required effort to accomplish them. Effort was assessed using time, perceived complexity (with NASA TLX), and eye-tracking data. Participants were more successful in understanding than in reviewing tasks. However, we found no statistically significant difference in the success, time taken, or perceived complexity, between tasks conducted with models with a bad layout and models with a good layout. Most participants had little to no prior knowledge in i*, making them more representative of stakeholders with no requirements engineering expertise. They were able to understand the models fairly well after a short tutorial, but struggled when reviewing models. Adherence to the existing i* layout guidelines did not significantly impact i* model understanding and reviewing performance.

A rapidly changing market leads to software systems with highly volatile requirements. In many cases, new demands in software can often be met by extending the functionality of systems already in operation. By modularizing volatile requirements that can be altered at the client’s initiative or according to market demands, we can build a stepping-stone for management of requirements change. The volatility must be managed in a way that reduces the time and costs associated with updating a system to meet the new requirements. In this chapter, we present an approach for handling volatile concerns during early life cycle software modeling. The key insight is that techniques for aspect-oriented software development can be applied to modularize volatility and to weave volatile concerns into the base software artifacts.

Domain Specic Languages (DSLs) can contribute to increment productivity, while reducing the required maintenance and programming expertise. We hypothesize that Software Languages Engineering (SLE) developers consistently skip, or relax, Language Evaluation. Based on the experience of engineering other types of software products, we assume that this may potentially lead to the deployment of inadequate languages. The fact that the languages already deal with concepts from the problem domain, and not the solution domain, is not enough to validate several issues at stake, such as its expressiveness, usability,
effectiveness, maintainability, or even the domain expert's productivity while using them. We present a systematic review on articles published in top ranked venues, from 2001 to 2008, which report DSLs' construction, to characterize the common practice. This work conrms our initial hypothesis and lays the ground for the discussion on how to include a systematic approach to DSL evaluation in the SLE process.