1 / 46

User Priorities for EUD Review and Research Agenda

User Priorities for EUD Review and Research Agenda. Alan Blackwell Computer Laboratory Rainbow Group & Crucible Design Research Network University of Cambridge. Overview. Definitions of user perspectives for EUD Technologies aimed at end-users Typical application domains for research

asuggs
Télécharger la présentation

User Priorities for EUD Review and Research Agenda

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. User Priorities for EUDReview and Research Agenda Alan Blackwell Computer Laboratory Rainbow Group &Crucible Design Research Network University of Cambridge

  2. Overview • Definitions of user perspectives for EUD • Technologies aimed at end-users • Typical application domains for research • Evaluation and theoretical perspectives • Future priorities

  3. Defined end-user perspectives • End-Users • Occasional, casual or non-professional • (note that Brad Myers included “novice”) • in fact most user studies are of students or children • End-User Programming • When users invest attention in abstraction, as an alternative to direct manipulation • Blackwell (2002) “What is Programming” • End-User Software Engineering • Consider user problems in development beyond just coding (i.e. debugging, testing etc.) • Burnett et. al.

  4. Technologies aimed at end-users • A. Scripting and customisation • B. Visual languages • C. Graphical re-write systems • D. Programming by demonstration & example • E. Spreadsheets

  5. A. Scripting and Customisation • Application customisation • Application specific languages: filters, macros, triggers • Extension languages: LISP (AutoCAD, EMACS) • Cross-application customisation: TCL (vs. LISP), VBA • System level scripting • Text processing: shells, sed, awk, perl • Database & GUI functions: 4GLs, Hypercard • Addressing novice users: Python, SWYN • Multimedia • Web interaction: JavaScript • Animation: Lingo, Alice (for kids) • Robotics: Lego MindStorms (for kids)

  6. User perspectives (A) • Most scripting and customisation languages are aimed at experts: • Created by experts for people like themselves • Little understanding of end-user requirements • Debate characterised by bigotry and flame wars • LISP vs. TCL, Python advocacy • Market success for real end-user populations is often achieved despite serious design faults • MacroMedia Lingo, Lego MindStorms • Perl and other write-only languages

  7. B. Visual Languages • Diagrams often appeal to technical experts • Euler circles, flowcharts, CASE tools, UML • Executable diagrams seem very attractive • Many proposals published in IEEE Visual Languages, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing • Varying degrees of commercial success • LabVIEW, Prograph, JavaStudio • But much room for doubt • Brooks’ “No Silver Bullet”

  8. LabVIEW

  9. Prograph

  10. JavaStudio

  11. User perspectives (B) • Strong tradition of research by Thomas Green with many collaborators: • 1970s: Usability of flowcharts • 1980s: Problem solving with simple languages • 1990s: Usability criteria for programming languages: “Cognitive Dimensions of Notations” • Many common theories of user benefits for VL research are unjustified (Blackwell 1996) • Professional user surveys (Blackwell & Whitley 1999) • Still widespread “superlativism” • Belief that VLs must be better than text

  12. Challenging “superlativism” if high: if wide: if deep: weep not deep: if tall: weep not tall: cluck end tall end deep not wide: if long: if thick: gasp not thick: roar end thick not long: if thick: sigh not thick: gasp end thick end long end wide not high: if tall: burp not tall: hiccup end tall end high B: is faster for “backward” tasks A: is faster for “forward” tasks

  13. C. Graphical Rewrite Systems • BitPict, Agentsheets, KidSim/Cocoa/Stagecast

  14. User perspectives (C) • Great majority of end-user applications for rewrite systems are educational simulations: • AgentSheets applied in school and community design projects (Repenning et. al.) • StageCast used as evaluation platform for school and community projects (Carroll, Rosson et. al.) • (NB: BitPict is still mainly a theoretical project – Furnas does not claim specific end-user advantages)

  15. D. Prog. by Demonstration & Example • Programming by Demonstration • Show required operations directly on data • Pygmalion: first visual language? • Toontalk: programming as videogame • Programming by Example • Infer user’s intentions from demonstrated examples • Machine learning for robot programming (Andreae) • Text transformations (Nix, Mo & Witten, Blackwell) • Main user concern is inferring scripting tasks to extend a GUI (Halbert, Cypher, Lieberman)

  16. ToonTalk

  17. ToonTalk

  18. ToonTalk

  19. ToonTalk

  20. ToonTalk

  21. ToonTalk

  22. ToonTalk

  23. ToonTalk

  24. SWYN

  25. User perspectives (D) • Programming by Demonstration • Many PBD systems never evaluated • Small number of “Wizard of Oz” studies • Some educational applications of ToonTalk • Programming by Example • Most prototypes small scale, not integrated into systems suited to field evaluation • A few experimental demonstrations of usability (e.g. Lieberman) • Some empirical studies of the representation problem (e.g. Blackwell)

  26. E. Spreadsheets • Most successful end-user language (Nardi)

  27. User perspectives (E) • Ongoing research: • Some specialist meetings (e.g. spreadsheet risks) • Some research presented at FP venues • Some research presented at VL & HCC • Empirical studies of programs e.g. Panko • User context studies e.g. Nardi • User-driven design e.g. Burnett, Blackwell & collaborators: • Now developing commercial outcomes

  28. Domains for end-user perspectives • Education • Soloway, Papert, Mulholland, Pane, McIver … • Blended / Power User • Baroth & Hartsough, Whitley, Blackwell • Business scripting • Mackay (contextual studies of use) • Domestic programming • Young, Gray, Blackwell, Green

  29. Educational domain: HANDS

  30. Professional domain: LabVIEW

  31. Domestic domain

  32. MediaCubes Home Server Radio Tuner Media Server

  33. MediaCubes single button infrared transceivers induction coil communication

  34. MediaCubes

  35. MediaCubes

  36. MediaCubes

  37. MediaCubes

  38. MediaCubes

  39. Evaluation and theoretical perspectives • Research communities: • Psychology of Programming Interest Group • Empirical Studies of Programmers • Theoretical approaches: • Cognitive Dimensions of Notations • Attention Investment model of abstraction

  40. Cognitive Dimensions of Notations 1 + 2 • Cognitively relevant properties of system • When no “correct” sequence of user actions. • e.g. Hidden Dependencies: VPLs make relationships explicit, but with trade-offs: • they need more screen space • they can make changes more laborious x = 1 ... (possibly many pages of code here...) y = x + 3 BASIC LabVIEW

  41. Attention Investment variables • Quantifies the informal “gentle slope” and “annoyance” arguments in terms of actual psychological processes. • Investment cost • “attention units” to get the work done, either by direct manipulation or by programming. • Pay-off • reduced future manipulation cost • Risk • probability that no pay-off will result (specification failure), or that additional costs will be incurred (bugs).

  42. Attention investment can be simulated

  43. Future user priorities for EUD research • Research projects should start from theoretical motivations regarding user needs • Prototypes should be evaluated before attempting research publication • Prototype (and product) development should be based on awareness of user context • We must generalise research results in order to establish future design criteria for EUD

  44. Further information • Cognitive Dimensions • /CognitiveDimensions/ • Vital Signs project • /vital/overview.html • Psychology of ProgrammingInterest Group (PPIG)http://www.ppig.org • http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/…

  45. EUP at IEEE HCC 2003 • Major international symposium onend-user / domain specific programming. • Special emphasis on empirical results (or any scientific approach to testing theory). • One of the series of IEEE Symposia on Human-Centric Computing • Date: October 27-31 2003 • Location: Auckland, New Zealand • http://www.cs.dal.ca/HCC03/EUP/

  46. Further information • Cognitive Dimensions • /CognitiveDimensions/ • Vital Signs project • /vital/overview.html • Psychology of ProgrammingInterest Group (PPIG)http://www.ppig.org • http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/…

More Related