1 / 28

Usability Measurement of Eclipse IDE for Refactoring feature

Usability Measurement of Eclipse IDE for Refactoring feature. Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction Shahnewaz A. Jolly Instructor: Dr. Saul Greenberg 30th November, 2009. Presentation Outline. Introduction Background and Motivation Focus Planning the study Conducting the study

munin
Télécharger la présentation

Usability Measurement of Eclipse IDE for Refactoring feature

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Usability Measurement of Eclipse IDE for Refactoring feature Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction Shahnewaz A. Jolly Instructor: Dr. Saul Greenberg 30th November, 2009

  2. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Background and Motivation • Focus • Planning the study • Conducting the study • Analysis and Findings • Problems and Limitations • Conclusion and Future Work

  3. Introduction • Open source IDE • Java • C/C++, Python, Perl, PHP

  4. Refactoring • Changing program structure • Categories • Changing name and physical location of coding • Changing local organization of coding at class level • Changing coding within a class

  5. Background • High-impact refactoring based on architecture violations [Bourqun07] • Aligning development tools with the way programmers think about code changes [Boshernitsan07] • Breaking the barriers to successful refactoring: Observations and tools for extract method [Murphy-Hill08] • Gathering Refactoring Data: a Comparison of Four Methods [Murphy-Hill08] • How We Refactor, and How We Know [Murphy-Hill09]

  6. Motivation • Why RENAME is used most • Why programmers prefer doing refatoring manually

  7. Focus • Refactoring • Changing name and physical location of coding • Changing coding within a class • Documentation

  8. Planning the study • Designing Tasks • Renaming method • Moving class • Changing parameters • Deleting method • Including factory method • Extracting class • Having set and get method

  9. Planning the study (cont.) • Setting Procedure and Time • Contacting Users • Minimum 2 months experience • 90 minutes for the study

  10. Planning the study (cont.) • Planning Equipment Source: www.cclonline.com Source: ecx.images-amazon.com Source: av.watch.impress.co.jp Source: www.dailyefl.com

  11. Conducting the study • Informal Introduction • Focus, Procedure and Duration • Right of the Participants • Permission for Equipments • Consent form Source: jobsearchingblog.com

  12. Conducting the study (cont.) • Pre-test questions • Tasks • During-test questions • Break time • Post-test questions Source: lh5.ggpht.com

  13. Analysis – Interface Problems • Just right-click doesn’t work Figure: Available options after right click on the method name

  14. Analysis – Interface Problems (cont.) Figure: Available options after selecting the whole method name

  15. Analysis – Interface Problems (cont.) Figure: Available options from menu

  16. Analysis – Interface Problems (cont.) • Option names are not clear enough Figure: The option name doesn’t represent delete function

  17. Analysis – Documentation Problems • Example and Screenshots are not provided • Search option is not good

  18. Analysis – Documentation Problems (cont.) Figure: List of information after searching by ‘delete method’

  19. Interesting Findings • Performance of the participants Figure: Average task time of the participants in minutes

  20. Interesting Findings (cont.) • Getting proper answer Table: Performance on Task 1

  21. Interesting Findings (cont.) • Reluctance in using documentation • Reluctance in giving up tasks Source: www.fred.org

  22. Problems and Limitations • Getting users • Denial of users • Task design • Thinking aloud Source: www.chesskids.com

  23. Conclusion • Other option is available • Users don’t rely on refactoring • Documentation is not helpful

  24. Future Work • Working in a group • Modifying tasks Source: xianrenaud.typepad.com

  25. References [1] F. Bourqun and R. K. Keller. High-impact refactoring based on architecture violations. In CSMR ’07: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Software Maintenance and ReEngineering, pages 149–158, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society [2] M. Boshernitsan, S. L. Graham, and M. A. Hearst. Aligning development tools with the way programmers think about code changes. In CHI ’07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 567–576, New York, 2007. ACM [3] E. Murphy-Hill and A.P. Black. Breaking the barriers to successful refactoring: Observations and tools for extract method. In ICSE ’08: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 421–430, 2008 [4] E. Murphy-Hill, A. P. Black , D.Dig, C. Parnin Gathering Refactoring Data: a Comparison of Four Methods, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Refactoring Tools, New York, NY, USA, 2008, ACM [5] E. Murphy-Hill, C. Parnin and A. P. Black How We Refactor, and How We Know It – 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 287-297, Washington, DC, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society

  26. References (cont.) [6] http://en.wikipedia.org, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [7] http://www.eclipse.org, Eclipse.org home [8] http://www.ibm.com, IBM – United States

More Related