Software products are costly as compare to hardware. And developing software products at nominal cost are always a big issue for project managers. Therefore they desperately look for way-outs to cut development cost. While developing Software, its quality has become essential from the client point of view. So, Software understandability is vital and one of the most significant components of the software quality. The lack of understandability aspect often leads to false interpretation that may in turn lead to ambiguities, misunderstanding and hence to faulty development results. It plays an important role as far as the issue of delivering quality software is concerned. Therefore, Understandability is obviously relevant and significant in software maintenance. Software metrics can be derived using Class Inheritance Directed Acyclic Graph(CIDAG) approach to measure the understandability. In our approach as DIT is combined with predecessor and successor of class, the values of understandability metrics are higher in comparisons to existing approach. Our approach proposes a metrics for understandability measurement based on class inheritance, in an efficient way.

1. K. K Aggarwal, Y. Singh and J. K Chhabra, 2003. A Fuzzy Model for measurement of software Understandability ", International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer & Telecommunication Systems, Montreal, Canada.
2. T. DeMarco, 1982. Controlling Software Projects, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Yourdon Press.
3. Tahvildari L, 2000. Singh A. Categorization of Object-Oriented Software Metrics. IEEE Computer Society.
4. Tegraden DP, Sheetz SD Monarchi DE. 1995. A software complexity model of object-oriented systems. Decision Support Systems.
5. McCabe TJ, Dreyer LA, Dunn AJ, Watson AH. 1994. Testing an Object-Oriented Application. Quality Insurance Institute.
6. Abreu F . 1995. The MOOD metrics set. Procedings of the 9th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Workshop on Metrics. Springer: Berlin.
7. Briand LC, Morasoa S. 1999. Defining and validating measures for object-based high design. IEEE Transation on Software Engineering.
8. Chidamber SR, Kemerer CF. 1991. Towards a metric suite for object-oriented design. Proceeding of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming systems, Languages, and Applications. ACM Press: New York NY.
9. Chidamber SR, Kemerer CF. 1994. A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Transe. On Software Engineering.
10. Weyuker EJ. 1988. Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Trans. On software Engineering
11. Tang MH, Kao MH, Chen MH. 1999. An empirical study on object oriented metrics. Proceedings 23rd Annual International Computer Software and Application Conference. IEEE Computer Society; 242-249.
12. Li W. Another metric suite for object-oriented programming. The Journal of Systems and Software 1998.
13. Frederick T. Sheldon, Kshamta Jerath and Hong Chung. 2001. Metrics for maintainability of class inheritance hierarchies. Journal of software maintenance and evolution : Research and Practice.
14. Rajib Mall. 2009. Fundamentals of Software Engineering. Prentice Hall, 3rd edition.
15. Wang CC, Shih TK, Pai WC. 1997. An automatic approach to object-oriented software testing and metrics for C++ inheritance hierarchies. Proceedings International Conference on Automated Software (ASE'97). IEEE Computer Society Press
16. Kitchenham B, Pfleeger SL, Fenton NE. 1995. Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Trans. On Software Engineering.
17. I. Sommerville, 1996. Software Engineering, 5th Edition, Addition Wesely.
18. B. Jacob, L. Niklas P. Waldermarsson, 2001. Relative Indicators for Sucess in Software development Department of Communication Systems, Lund University.
19. K K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, 2007. Software Engineering (3rd ed. ) New Age International Publishers.

Understandability Dit Noc Cidag