Researchers have done rich historical investigations of individual notations (e.g., [3, 70, 74, 76, 115]), but the more general mechanisms and patterns through which new notations are created and formalized are less understood.

We began with a diverse set of notations across five disciplines—music, dance, chemistry, physics, and computer programming—that had prior historical literature to draw upon in our initial analysis.

Since histories of specific notations tends to miss detailed, direct observations around the initial creation process, we complement this "macro" analysis with occasional references to experiment-based literature from experimental semiotics, communication theory, and cognitive science into how people use notations to ground communication, largely in lab studies.

we conducted a comparative historical analysis of the development of different notations which individually have been documented in prior literature. Specifically, we conduct a parallel comparative history which "seek[s] above all to demonstrate that a theory similarly holds good from case to case... [and where] differences among the cases are primarily contextual particularities against which to highlight the generality of the [theorized] processes"

Studying software teams, Cherubini et al. [34] found a "tendency to adopt informal, ad-hoc notations" and a "limited adherence to standards of any sort."

Studies are also conducted on various existing notating practices, usually in specific domains (e.g., how programmers draw diagrams to communicate ideas [34, 62, 63]).

Studies are also conducted on various existing notating prac-tices, usually in specific domains (e.g., how programmers drawdiagrams to communicate ideas [34 , 62 , 63 ]).