1. Beyond EUP to EUSE Mary Shaw Carnegie Mellon University

2. EUSE has wider scope than EUP  Concern for system properties – usability, dependability, security, privacy These depend on the integrated system, not the individual parts  Sufficiently dependable for the current need In the context of each EU’s expectations Using low-ceremony as well as high-ceremony knowledge  EU composition of resources from diverse sources to solve that EU’s own problem Components, data feeds, …  … and more, but let’s discuss these points …

3. EUs are not SEs  EUs do not have rich and robust mental models of their computing systems they fail to do backups, misunderstand storage models, execute malware, and innocently engage in other risky behavior  EUSE is not “fixing the users”  EUSE must be about developing ways for EUs themselves to address traditional SE concerns system-level properties sufficient quality for current task (cost-effectiveness) integration of resources from multiple sources

4. Everyday Dependability

5. High Ceremony Evidence  Widely accepted among computer scientists  Potentially high levels of assurance  Need precise specifications, substantial effort  The Academic Big Four – the “gold standard” Formal verification Results from trusted automatic generator Systematic testing Empirical studies in operation  And also Inspections Assurance cases, other sound certification (others from comparative analysis)

6. Low Ceremony Evidence  Widely available information, used informally  Largely ignored by professionals  Not suitable for high assurance, but inexpensive  Examples “best X” reports (linear functions of subjective marks) editorial reviews recommending certain components for certain contexts (cf Consumer Reports) advertising claims by vendors, branding, seller reputation 3rd party reviews of vendors and products by users recommendations by co-workers auction and betting mechanisms, “wisdom of crowds”, http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200410080821.asp subjective certification checklists popularity

7. Open Resource Coalitions Objective: compose autonomous distributed resources “Coalitions” because the resources will not have a shared objective “Open” in contrast to control assumed for closed-shop development cf “mash-up”s This changes everything!

8. Example: Yahoo pipes  Promising, but limited not quite unix pipe/filters  Domain: RSS feeds (and similar) sequence of items (title, link, attributes) plus strings, numbers, URLs, … as parameters  Operations: sequence operations fetch, merge, filter, sort, … compute/collect parameters  Composition by drag-and-drop  Warning: “save” button doesn’t show up in IE  Example: http://pipes.yahoo.com/http://pipes.yahoo.com/