Presentation on theme: "Department of Computation A Comparative Framework for End User Development Alistair Sutcliffe (Nikolay Mehandjiev, Darren Lee) Department Of Computation."— Presentation transcript:
Department of Computation A Comparative Framework for End User Development Alistair Sutcliffe (Nikolay Mehandjiev, Darren Lee) Department Of Computation UMIST Manchester, UK
Department of Computation 2 Objectives to identify the contribution from different strands of EUD research; to expose research issues and indicate a future research agenda; to act as a critical evaluation tool for EUD environments and systems;
Department of Computation 3 Approach A literature survey across the spectrum of disciplines associated with End-User Development. Software Engineering User Communities e.g. Bioinformatics Artificial Intelligence Requirements Engineering Information Systems Psychology of programming HCI & Cognitive Science Critically evaluate research and industrial state of the art, create a review paper CSCW
Department of Computation 4 Framework Dimensions Representation The nature of the representations used in the programming task between computer and end-user. 3 Dimensions
Department of Computation 5 Framework Representation The nature of the representations used in the programming task between computer and end-user. Scope The breadth of EUD problems an environment can support. 3 Dimensions
Department of Computation 6 Framework Representation The nature of the representations used in the programming task between computer and end-user. Scope The breadth of EUD problems an environment can support. System Initiative The degree to which the user is required to directly specify software. 3 Dimensions
Department of Computation 7 Representation Medium for exchange of information between user and machine. Natural or designed language- text, icons, graphics Non-linguistic representations- graphics, interactive microwolrds, TUIs, physical artefacts, augmented reality Linguistic representations= abstract syntax + lexicon, text, symbolic, iconic, natural language Modality of communication, audio, speech, visual, haptic Domain and representation interact. e.g. Mathematics Research. (Abstract Vs Concrete)
Department of Computation 8 Scope Problem coverage of an EUD tool. General purpose Turing-complete, any task in any domain. Architecture in the sense of Fischer’s DODEs. Modular environment with programmability. Specific Task - Domain Horizontal domains- e.g. finance, training, CAL systems Vertical domains- e.g. ecommerce, bioinformatics, medicine Information systems tasks, support for tasks in the real world Dimension interaction inevitably occurs. Notably General Purpose and Abstract. (Task or Domain Specific Vs General Purpose)
Department of Computation 9 End user Software system Modelled world Controlled world Real world Scope and domains Sensors & devices Information systems
Department of Computation 10 System Initiative degree of user responsibility for specifying the solution Passive User driven- language or composable artefacts Possibly supported by a critiquing system Active The machine tracks user behaviour and infers a software solution- assumes an existing artefact System intervenes to help design –partial initiative Machine generates solution from natural language instructions or observes RW and learns- frontiers of AI (Active Vs Passive)
Department of Computation 11 Other issues 1.Social Context of EUD -Collaborative EUD and EUD of CSCW systems -Autocratic Vs Democratic and Individual Vs Group EUD. - Communities of EUD developers, markets for components, scripts, etc 2. Communication Model - Sensory channel (Modality)- audio, visual, haptic - Modality + Representation = EUD Paradigm - Usability, User Cognition and Cognitive Dimensions 3.Machine Model - Transparency and Execution Vs Interpretation. - Integration with Software Engineering Paradigms- OO, Agents, etc - Software reuse.legacy integration
Department of Computation 12 Psychological issues Expressability and complexity Learning or display based cognition Intuitiveness, affordances, and transparency User cost, effort and errors
Department of Computation 13 Develop or Adapt ? Tailoring, customisation, personalisation- low effort, limited scope Configuration, design by composition- more effort, improved scope but limited by components Instruction led design- high effort, good scope Communicate requirements + machine designs- low effort, good scope Increased Learning and effort
Department of Computation 14 DODEs An architecture for reducing the conceptual distance between the problem-domain and solution artefact. Progamming as construction and design. Views programming as argumentative process between system and user. Critiquing systems support this activity. Model world, editors, interpreter, solution templates, tutors, critics DODEs can evolve as the end-user becomes more skilled or the domain or task changes.
Department of Computation 15 AgentSheets Extends the DODEs concept by as a general purpose environment + language. Introduces true programmability through graphical if-then- else rules and simple message passing. Architecture and domain independent tool for simulation and building executable programmes. Build interactive graphical micro world Once a set of agents are implemented it becomes a domain specific tool.
Department of Computation 16 TAMBIS Bioscience databases use multiple query languages from SQL to natural language. Ontology, thesaurus, domain specific lexicon. TAMBIS provides a visual ontology in which queries are built up through navigation of a 2D space representing the biochemistry domain. TAMBIS infers this navigation into the query language program for each of the databases.
Department of Computation 17 Using The Framework DODEs “Domain-Orientated Design Environments”. Fischer Univ of Colorado. AgentSheets. Repenning Univ of Colorado. TAMBIS “Transparent Access to Multiple Bioinformatics Information”. Goble et al Univ Of Manchester
Department of Computation 18 Position In Framework
Department of Computation 19 Position In Framework DODEs 1.Domain Specific 2.Passive 3.Concrete
Department of Computation 20 Position In Framework AgentSheets 1.General 2.Passive 3.Concrete/abstract
Department of Computation 21 Position In Framework TAMBIS 1.Task and Domain Specific 2.Semi-Active 3.Concrete
Department of Computation 22 Conclusion Framework based on common themes across research areas. Permits the comparison of tools and theories. It will help to identify trends and areas for future work.
Department of Computation 23 Challenges Merging paradigms- NL with interactive worlds, inference to help development User freedom, expression and assistance-where is the trade off ? Device sensor integration, solution power and learnability trade offs Sharable composable development worlds EUD or design support environments ?
Department of Computation 24 Challenges II End user requirements languages- integration of symbolic programming and clarification dialogues (NL research with SE/HCI) Abstraction trade offs- general or domain specific EUD environments Escaping from the expert knowledge bottleneck- learning or intelligent acquisition envs Evolutionary computing and EUD- users set parameters for generated solutions Socio-technical solutions- design for user motivation and reward
Department of Computation 25 Future work Review framework and research issues Use the framework in a critical review of existing EUD tools and theories. Conduct an industrial survey to identify successful commercial applications of EUD tools and techniques.
Department of Computation 26 Position In Framework Java 1.General Purpose 2. Passive 3. Abstract