Definition of the Criteria for Layout of the UML Use Case Diagrams

Open access


Nowadays, the topicality and applicability of model-driven development in the object-oriented development approach has increased, so it is important that created models and diagrams display not only the content, but also visually reflect information. Transparent diagram placement that influences work productivity is important for displaying information. Manual layout of diagrams is a time-consuming activity, which can also be ineffective, so in this paper the application of UML use case automatic layout is reviewed. The paper also examines the requirements of use case diagrams and placement criteria, which will serve as a basis for the creation of an automatic use case diagram layout algorithm.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] M. Guo C. Zhang and F. Wang “What is the Further Evidence about UML? - A Systematic Literature Review” in 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Workshops (APSECW) 2017 pp. 106–113.

  • [2] M. Seidl M. Scholz C. Huemer and G. Kappel Introduction. In: UML @ Classroom. Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science. Springer Cham 2015 pp. 206.

  • [3] A. Galapovs and O. Nikiforova “UML Diagram Layouting: the State of the Art” Computer Science. Applied Computer Systems vol. 44 no. 1 2012 pp. 101–108.

  • [4] S. Tilley and S. Huang “A qualitative assessment of the efficacy of UML diagrams as a form of graphical documentation in aiding program understanding” SIGDOC: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Documentation ACM Press 2003 pp. 184–191.

  • [5] A. Galapovs and O. Nikiforova “Several Issues on the Definition of Algorithm for the Layout of the UML Class Diagram” Proceedings of MDA&MDSD 2011 3rd International Workshop on Model Driven Architecture and Modeling Driven Software Development In conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. Lisbon: SciTePress pp. 68–78 2011.

  • [6] O. Nikiforova D. Ahilcenoka D. Ungurs K. Gusarovs and L. Kozacenko “Several Issues on the Layout of the UML Sequence and Class Diagram” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering AdvancesICSEA October 12–16 2014 pp. 40–47. Available from

  • [7] O. Nikiforova S. Putintsev and D. Ahilcenoka “Analysis of Sequence Diagram Layout in Advanced UML Modelling Tools” Applied Computer Systems vol. 19 no. 1 2016 pp. 37–43.

  • [8] O. Nikiforova and K. Gusarovs “Comparison of BrainTool to Other UML Modeling and Model Transformation Tools” AIP Conference Proceedings International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics ICNAAM 2016 vol. 1863 no. 1 2017.

  • [9] A. Cockburn Writing Effective Use Cases. Boston: Addison-Wesley 2001 pp. 304.

  • [10] I. Jacobson I. Spence and B. Kerr “Use-case 2.0” Communications of the ACM vol. 59 no. 5 2016 pp. 61–69.

  • [11] S. W. Ambler The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. New York: Cambridge University Press 2005 pp. 201.

  • [12] H. Störrle “Diagram Size vs. Layout Flaws: Understanding Quality Factors of UML Diagrams” in ESEM ‘16 Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement Article No. 31 2016 pp. 10.

  • [13] C. Batini L. Furlani and E. Nardelly “What is a Good Diagram? A Pragmatic Approach. In Entity-Relationship Approach: The Use of ER Concept in Knowledge Representation” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach USA IEEE Computer Society and North-Holland 1985 pp. 312–319.

  • [14] C. Kosak J. Marks and S. Shieber “Automating the Layout of Network Diagrams with Specified Visual Organization” IEEE Trans. Systems Man and Cybernetics vol. 24 no. 3 1994 pp. 440–454.

  • [15] K. Freivalds and P. Kikusts “Optimum Layout Adjustment Supporting Ordering Constraints in Graph-Like Diagram Drawing”. Proc. of the Latvian Academy of Sciences 2001 pp. 43–51.

  • [16] K. Freivalds U. Dogrusoz and P. Kikusts “Disconnected Graph Layout and the Polyomino Packing Approach” Proc. of Graph Drawing 2001 Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2265 2002 pp. 378–391.

  • [17] G. D. Battista P. Eades R. Tamassia and I. G. Tollis Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Pearson 1999.

  • [18] H. Eichelberger “Aesthetics of class diagrams” Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis VISSOFT 2002 pp. 23–31.

  • [19] M. Eiglsperger M. Kaufmann and M. Siebenhaller “A topology-shape-metrics approach for the automatic layout of UML class diagrams” Soft Vis’03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization 2003 pp. 189–198.

  • [20] D. Sun and K. Wong “On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension” 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC’05) 2005 pp. 1–10.

  • [21] G. Bist N. MacKinnon and S. Murphy “Sequence diagram presentation in technical documentation” SIGDOC’04: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Design of Communication New York NY USA 2004 pp. 128–133.

  • [22] T. Poranen E. Makinen and J. Nummenmaa “How to draw a sequence diagram” Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Programming Languages and Software Tools SPLST’03 University of Kuopio Department of Computer Science 2003 pp. 91–102.

  • [23] C. D. Schulze G. Hoops and R. von Hanxleden “Automatic Layout and Label Management for Compact UML Sequence Diagrams” 2018 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) Lisbon 2018 pp. 187–191.

  • [24] A. Malesevic D. Brdjanin and S. Maric “Tool for automatic layout of business process model represented by UML activity diagram” Eurocon 2013 pp. 537–542.

  • [25] H. Störrle “On the Impact of Layout Quality to Understanding UML Diagrams: Size Matters” Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems MODELS 2014 pp. 518–534.

  • [26] H. Eichelberger “Automatic layout of UML use case diagrams” SoftVis ‘08 Proceedings of the 4th ACM symposium on Software visualization 2008 pp. 105–114.

  • [27] K. Sugiyama S. Tagawa and M. Toda “Methods for Visual Understanding of Hierarchical System Structures” IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics vol. 11 no. 2 1981 pp. 109–125.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 326 326 28
PDF Downloads 254 254 40