I finally got round to listening to "The Edges of Representation" podcast ep. @stevekrouse, you were asking about papers on notations and 'Cognitive Dimensions' came up. A paper in a similar vein that I've found useful is Daniel Moody's 'The “Physics” of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/arm/literature/Moody2009-DesignScience.pdf Quoting PoN as to where it fits in the literature: "The Physics of Notations incorporates both a Type IV theory (Section 3) and a Type V theory (Section 4), which are higher evolutionary forms than the CDs framework (Type I). However it should not be seen as a direct competitor for the CDs frame-work as its scope is much more modest (visual notations rather than cognitive artifacts). Instead, it should be seen as complementary: it provides exactly the type of detailed, domain-specific analysis that the authors of the CDs framework argued was necessary to supplement the “broad brush” analysis provided by CDs" Type 1: Theory for analyzing Type 4: Theory for predicting and explaining Type 5: Theory for design and action _(Aside: while trying to find the PDF for this again, I came across a paper looking at using it directly for visual programming language analysis: Towards an Operationalization of the “Physics of Notations” for the Analysis of Visual Languages (Storrle & Fish) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d4bc/b466b1390295354d0cc897ab02058f2f8cad.pdf)_ I used PoN when writing my undergrad dissertation on improving the notation for a human factors tool/diagramming thing (somewhat similar to UML) representing human tasks. Some crossover, although not exactly the same as your likely use. IIRC it illustrates putting PoN to use. I can probably dig it up if you're interested?

I don't really understand this area, but is http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/5563 related?