Uma Representação Visual para Gerenciamento de Emergências em Ambientes Fechados
Resumo
O ser humano passa muito tempo em ambientes fechados (indoor), tais como escolas, fábricas e empresas. O gerenciamento de emergências em tais ambientes é útil e desafiador. As tecnologias de localização e visualização nestes ambientes não estão tão avançadas quanto às existentes para ambientes abertos (ex: localização via GPS, visualização em mapas, etc). Atualmente, muito esforço é dedicado à localização de pessoas em ambientes indoor. Apesar da relevância dessa atividade, poucos estudos investigam aspectos referentes à visualização desta informação. Este trabalho apresenta uma visualização para ambientes indoor visando o suporte à emergência. A visualização proposta foi baseada na opinião de profissionais da área de emergência, desenvolvida em um protótipo e validada com usuários finais. Os resultados mostram que a visualização desenvolvida é efetiva na transmissão da informação a respeito de um possível cenário de emergência em ambientes fechados, podendo assim dar suporte aos profissionais da área em suas atividades de resgate.
Palavras-chave:
Representação visual, Ambiente fechado, Emergência
Referências
Ambler, S. and Lines, M. 2012. Disciplined Agile Delivery: A Practitioner's Guide to Agile Software Delivery in the Enterprise. IBM Press.
Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., and Sjoberg, D. 2007. Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise. Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) 33, 2, 65-86.
Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Begel, A. and Nagappan, N. 2007. Usage and Perceptions of Agile Software Development in an Industrial Context: An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 255-264.
Begel, A. and Nagappan, N. 2008. Pair Programming: What's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 120-128.
Bhat, T. and Nagappan, N. 2006. Evaluating the Efficacy of Test-Driven Development: Industrial Case Studies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), 356-363.
Cockburn, A. 2004. Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Pearson Education.
Cockburn, A. and Williams, L. 2000. The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming. Extreme Programming Examined, 223-247.
Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., and Costa, P. 2004. An Introduction to Agile Methods. Advances in Computers 62, 1-66.
Dyba, T., Arisholm, E., Sjoberg, D. I., Hannay, J. E., and Shull, F. 2007. Are Two Heads Better than One? On the Effectiveness of Pair Programming. Software 24, 6, 12-15.
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. 2001. The Agile Manifesto. Software Development 9, 8, 28-35.
Hannay, J., Dyba, T., Arisholm, E., and Sjoberg, D. 2009. The Effectiveness of Pair Programming: A Meta-Analysis. Information and Software Technology 51, 7, 1110-1122.
Janzen, D. and Saiedian, H. 2008. Does Test-Driven Development Really Improve Software Design Quality? Software 25, 2, 77-84.
Kavitha, R. and Ahmed, M. 2015. Knowledge Sharing through Pair Programming in Learning Environments: An Empirical Study. Education and Information Technologies 20, 2, 319-333.
McChesney, I. 2016. Three Years of Student Pair Programming: Action Research Insights and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), 84-89.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J. 2002. The Effects of Pair-Programming on Performance in an Introductory Programming Course. In Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Bulletin (SIGCSE Bulletin) 34, 38-42.
Nagappan, N., Maximilien, E., Bhat, T., and Williams, L. 2008. Realizing Quality Improvement through Test Driven Development: Results and Experiences of Four Industrial Teams. Empirical Software Engineering (ESE), 13, 3, 289- 302.
Paulk, M. 2001. Extreme Programming from a CMM Perspective. Software, 18, 6, 19-26.
Plonka, L., Sharp, H., Van der Linden, J., and Dittrich, Y. 2015. Knowledge Transfer in Pair Programming: An In- Depth Analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 73, 66-78.
Prechelt, L., Zieris, F., and Schmeisky, H. 2015. Difficulty Factors of Obtaining Access for Empirical Studies in Industry. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry (CESI), 19-25.
Schwaber, K. 1997. Scrum Development Process. Business Object Design and Implementation, 117-134.
Schwaber, K. 2004. Agile Project Management with Scrum. Microsoft Press.
Vanhanen, J. and Lassenius, C. 2007. Perceived Effects of Pair Programming in an Industrial Context. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (EUROMICRO), 211-218.
Williams, L., McDowell, C., Nagappan, N., Fernald, J., and Werner, L. 2003. Building Pair Programming Knowledge through a Family of Experiments. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), 143-152.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.
Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., and Sjoberg, D. 2007. Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise. Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) 33, 2, 65-86.
Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Begel, A. and Nagappan, N. 2007. Usage and Perceptions of Agile Software Development in an Industrial Context: An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 255-264.
Begel, A. and Nagappan, N. 2008. Pair Programming: What's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 120-128.
Bhat, T. and Nagappan, N. 2006. Evaluating the Efficacy of Test-Driven Development: Industrial Case Studies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), 356-363.
Cockburn, A. 2004. Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Pearson Education.
Cockburn, A. and Williams, L. 2000. The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming. Extreme Programming Examined, 223-247.
Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., and Costa, P. 2004. An Introduction to Agile Methods. Advances in Computers 62, 1-66.
Dyba, T., Arisholm, E., Sjoberg, D. I., Hannay, J. E., and Shull, F. 2007. Are Two Heads Better than One? On the Effectiveness of Pair Programming. Software 24, 6, 12-15.
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. 2001. The Agile Manifesto. Software Development 9, 8, 28-35.
Hannay, J., Dyba, T., Arisholm, E., and Sjoberg, D. 2009. The Effectiveness of Pair Programming: A Meta-Analysis. Information and Software Technology 51, 7, 1110-1122.
Janzen, D. and Saiedian, H. 2008. Does Test-Driven Development Really Improve Software Design Quality? Software 25, 2, 77-84.
Kavitha, R. and Ahmed, M. 2015. Knowledge Sharing through Pair Programming in Learning Environments: An Empirical Study. Education and Information Technologies 20, 2, 319-333.
McChesney, I. 2016. Three Years of Student Pair Programming: Action Research Insights and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), 84-89.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J. 2002. The Effects of Pair-Programming on Performance in an Introductory Programming Course. In Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Bulletin (SIGCSE Bulletin) 34, 38-42.
Nagappan, N., Maximilien, E., Bhat, T., and Williams, L. 2008. Realizing Quality Improvement through Test Driven Development: Results and Experiences of Four Industrial Teams. Empirical Software Engineering (ESE), 13, 3, 289- 302.
Paulk, M. 2001. Extreme Programming from a CMM Perspective. Software, 18, 6, 19-26.
Plonka, L., Sharp, H., Van der Linden, J., and Dittrich, Y. 2015. Knowledge Transfer in Pair Programming: An In- Depth Analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 73, 66-78.
Prechelt, L., Zieris, F., and Schmeisky, H. 2015. Difficulty Factors of Obtaining Access for Empirical Studies in Industry. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry (CESI), 19-25.
Schwaber, K. 1997. Scrum Development Process. Business Object Design and Implementation, 117-134.
Schwaber, K. 2004. Agile Project Management with Scrum. Microsoft Press.
Vanhanen, J. and Lassenius, C. 2007. Perceived Effects of Pair Programming in an Industrial Context. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (EUROMICRO), 211-218.
Williams, L., McDowell, C., Nagappan, N., Fernald, J., and Werner, L. 2003. Building Pair Programming Knowledge through a Family of Experiments. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), 143-152.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.
Publicado
17/05/2016
Como Citar
NUNES, Flavio; TELES, Fernando; NOVAIS, Renato; ANDRADE, Sandro; NETO, Manoel.
Uma Representação Visual para Gerenciamento de Emergências em Ambientes Fechados. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE SISTEMAS DE INFORMAÇÃO (SBSI), 12. , 2016, Florianópolis.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2016
.
p. 518-525.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbsi.2016.6002.
