Tree-Based versus Hybrid Graphical-Textual Model Editors: An Empirical Study of Testing Specifications

TL;DR

It was found that the tree editor provided superior performance for analysing ordered lists of model elements, whereas activities requiring the comprehension or modelling of complex conditions were carried out faster through the hybrid editor.

Abstract

Tree-based model editors and hybrid graphical-textual model editors have advantages and limitations when editing domain models. Data is displayed hierarchically in tree-based model editors, whereas hybrid graphical-textual model editors capture high-level domain concepts graphically and low-level domain details textually. We conducted an empirical user study with 22 participants to evaluate the implicit assumption of system modellers that hybrid notations are superior, and to investigate the tradeoffs between the default EMF-based tree model editor and a Sirius/Xtext-based hybrid model editor. The results of the user study indicate that users largely prefer the hybrid editor and are more confident with hybrid notations for understanding the meaning of conditions. Furthermore, we found that the tree editor provided superior performance for analysing ordered lists of model elements, whereas activities requiring the comprehension or modelling of complex conditions were carried out faster through the hybrid editor.

Figures (9)

• Figure 1: Case study screenshot from MRS simulation
• Figure 2: Fuzzing-based testing DSL metamodel (excerpt)
• Figure 3: Meta-classes of condition-based fuzzing (excerpt)
• Figure 4: Tree Editor --- Testing Space
• Figure 5: Tree Editor --- Activation Condition