C. Alexander, Notes on the synthesis of form, 1964.

I. Biederman, Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding., Psychological Review, vol.94, issue.2, pp.115-147, 1987.
DOI : 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115

B. W. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics, 1981.

C. Britton and S. Jones, The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding in Untrained Users, Human???Computer Interaction, vol.14, issue.1-2, pp.191-244, 1999.
DOI : 10.1080/07370024.1999.9667269

P. Caire, N. Genon, P. Heymans, and D. L. Moody, Visual notation design 2.0: Towards user comprehensible requirements engineering notations, 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp.115-124, 2013.
DOI : 10.1109/RE.2013.6636711

D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, 1963.

W. S. Cleveland and R. Mcgill, Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol.22, issue.387, pp.531-554, 1984.
DOI : 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481031

A. Doan, R. Ramakrishnan, and A. Y. Halevy, Crowdsourcing systems on the World-Wide Web, Communications of the ACM, vol.54, issue.4, pp.86-96, 2011.
DOI : 10.1145/1924421.1924442

B. Dobing and J. Parsons, How UML is used, Communications of the ACM, vol.49, issue.5, 2006.
DOI : 10.1145/1125944.1125949

A. Kouhen, Spécification d'un métamodèle pour l'adaptation des outils UML, 2013.

A. Kouhen, Semantic transparency experiment artifacts, 2014.

A. Endres and D. Rombach, A Handbook of Soft. and Sys. Engineering: Empirical Observations, Laws and Theories, 2003.

N. Genon, P. Heymans, and D. Amyot, Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of??the??BPMN??2.0??Visual??Notation, Software Language Engineering, pp.377-396, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_25

N. Goodman, Languages of Art: an approach to a theory of symbols, 1976.

S. Group, The chaos report, 1994.

G. Guizzardi, L. Pires, and M. Van-sinderen, Ontology-Based Evaluation and Design of Domain-Specific Visual Modeling Languages, Advances in Information Systems Development, pp.217-228, 2006.
DOI : 10.1007/978-0-387-36402-5_19

C. H. William and A. H. , Population stereotypy in code design, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol.3, issue.3, pp.310-339, 1968.

C. Heath and D. Heath, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Take Hold and Others Come Unstuck, 2008.

S. Hitchman, The details of conceptual modelling notations are important, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol.9, issue.10, 2002.

I. Iec, 24744: Metamodel for development methodologies, 2007.

B. Jacques, Semiology of graphics : diagrams, networks, maps, 1983.

S. Jones, Stereotypy in pictograms of abstract concepts, Ergonomics, vol.21, issue.6, 1983.
DOI : 10.1080/00140138308963379

J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon, Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words, Cognitive Science, vol.1, issue.1, pp.65-100, 1987.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x

J. Lee, Design rationale systems: understanding the issues, IEEE Expert, vol.12, issue.3, p.97
DOI : 10.1109/64.592267

G. L. Lohse, A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception, Human???Computer Interaction, vol.8, issue.4, pp.353-388, 1993.
DOI : 10.1207/s15327051hci0804_3

J. Martin, Information Engineering, 1989.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00385182

K. Masri, D. Parker, and A. Gemino, Using Iconic Graphics in Entity-Relationship Diagrams, Journal of Database Management, vol.19, issue.3, 2008.
DOI : 10.4018/jdm.2008070102

D. Moody and J. Van-hillegersberg, Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family of Diagrams, Software Language Engineering, pp.16-34, 2009.
DOI : 10.1518/001872001775870359

D. L. Moody, P. Heymans, and R. Matulevicius, An evaluation of i* visual syntax, 17th IEEE Int. Conference on Requirements Engineering, 2009.

D. L. Moody, The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.35, issue.6, pp.756-779, 2009.
DOI : 10.1109/TSE.2009.67

S. Morris and G. Spanoudakis, UML: an evaluation of the visual syntax of the language, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2001.
DOI : 10.1109/HICSS.2001.926344

M. J. Muller and S. Kuhn, Participatory design, ACM Com, 1993.

J. C. Nordbotten and M. E. Crosby, The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation, Information Systems Journal, vol.9, issue.2, pp.139-155, 1999.
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-2575.1999.00052.x

L. R. Novick, The importance of both diagrammatic conventions and domainspecific knowledge for diagram literacy in science, Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, 2006.

S. Palmer and I. Rock, Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol.9, issue.1, pp.29-55
DOI : 10.3758/BF03200760

M. Petre, Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming, Communications of the ACM, vol.38, issue.6, 1995.
DOI : 10.1145/203241.203251

G. Reggio, M. Leotta, and F. Ricca, Who Knows/Uses What of the UML: A Personal Opinion Survey, Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp.149-165
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_10

K. Siau, Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods, Journal of Database Management, vol.15, issue.1, pp.73-86, 2004.
DOI : 10.4018/jdm.2004010103

W. Winn, An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol.18, issue.2, pp.162-185, 1993.
DOI : 10.1006/ceps.1993.1016