Graphics, icons

[JimF]

I'm a bit new to UML but I understand that it's ok to make diagrams easier to understand with the use of icons a graphics in place of built-in symbols. I'd like to use computer and printer icons for nodes, for example. And I need to create an Internet cloud! Is there some handy free clip art sitting around for this kind of thing? I believe EA will let me substitute external images, right? And should EA provide a little grab-bag of the obvious ones (like a cloud)?

[Bruno.Cossi]

Hi Jim,

Sparx has posted an image library available for download here: http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/Image_Library.htm
I do not believe you will find a cloud there though... be cautious as not to try to turn EA into a "Visio-like" drawing tool. In UML, every element has a meaning and trying to use EA in a Visio-like way is likely to create some confusion.
Having said that, I DO like Visio :-)

Bruno

[JimF]

Ah thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.

I do think that creating an Internet cloud should not be a sin, it really does correspond to something - a collection of routers sitting on the wire between two nodes, right?

[Bruno.Cossi]

Not a problem! There is a lot of good stuff hidded throughout Sparx' website :-)

And no, do not take me wrong, creating new icons, be it a cloud or anything else, is not a sin. It really all boils down to your audience - as long as they perceive your diagrams the way you have intended, you are fine. And if you are trying to capture network related diagrams, it probably does make sense (mind you, I know precious little about networks myself).
Clouds can sometimes create a bit of confusion as one of the predecessors of UML (just lookup Booch on the internet) has been using cloud shapes heavily, but if your audience was not influences by that, you should be fine.

Hope this helps!
Bruno

[JimF]

Thanks for the help, Bruno!

[Bruno.Cossi]

You're welcome!

Bruno

[sargasso]

JimF,

Just a few tips.

As opposed to Bruno, I am violently    against iconic modelling.  A good many people have spent a lot of time developing UML to be a precise and unambiguous visual modelling language.  While it does take some getting used to,  most of the diagamatic elements of UML can be understood by the intended audiences without having to resort to non-standard elements.

For example, end users need only concern themselves with stick figures and footballs - they need not understand sequence diagrams etc in order to contribute to the project.  More sophisticated sites will encourage users to be involved in some type of business process modelling - my preference - Eriksen-Penker.

I suffered last year on a project where the solution designer did everything using iconic models - it got to the point where we spent tiem in every design meeting deciding what he meant by a man in a blue hat this time and why it was different to the man in a red hat.  Not to mentino what trucks and factories had to do with a brokering commissions system.  

Finally, I reckon the cloud is a valid diagram element -  although with a sightly different meaning to your intent.  Its the universally accepted symbol for "miracle occurs here".

regards
bruce

[JimF]

I can see how using them could be a problem. If I were going to present a deployment diagram to someone, out of context of a complete model, and all it had was nodes which represented computers and printers, it would be nice to use. But blue men......naaahh....