Department of Computation

A Comparative Framework for End User Development

Alistair Sutcliffe(Nikolay Mehandjiev, Darren Lee)

Department Of Computation

UMIST

Manchester, UK

2

Department of Computation

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;

3

Department of Computation Approach

• A literature survey across the spectrum of disciplines associated with End-User Development.

Software Engineering

UserCommunities

e.g. Bioinformatics

Artificial Intelligence

RequirementsEngineering

InformationSystemsPsychology

of programming

HCI &Cognitive Science

• Critically evaluate research and industrial state of the art, create a review paper

CSCW

4

Department of Computation

Framework Dimensions

Scope

Representation

Task or DomainSpecific

General Purpose

Abstract

Passive

Active

Concrete

RepresentationThe nature of the representations used in the programming task between computer and end-user.

3 Dimensions

5

Department of Computation

Framework

Scope

Representation

Task or DomainSpecific

General Purpose

Abstract

Passive

Active

Concrete

RepresentationThe nature of the representations used in the programming task between computer and end-user.

ScopeThe breadth of EUD problems anenvironment can support.

3 Dimensions

6

Department of Computation

Framework

Scope

Representation

Task or DomainSpecific

General Purpose

Abstract

Passive

Active

Concrete

RepresentationThe nature of the representations used in the programming task between computer and end-user.

ScopeThe breadth of EUD problems anenvironment can support.

System InitiativeThe degree to which the user is required to directly specify software.

3 Dimensions

7

Department of Computation

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)

8

Department of Computation

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)

9

Department of Computation

End user

Software

system

Modelled

worldControlled

world

Real

world

Scope and domains

Sensors

& devices

Information

systems

10

Department of Computation

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)

11

Department of Computation

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

12

Department of Computation

Psychological issues

• Expressability and complexity

• Learning or display based cognition

• Intuitiveness, affordances, and transparency

• User cost, effort and errors

13

Department of Computation

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

14

Department of Computation

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.

15

Department of Computation

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.

16

Department of Computation

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.

17

Department of Computation

Using The Framework

• DODEs “Domain-Orientated Design Environments”. Fischer 1994 - Univ of Colorado.

• AgentSheets. Repenning 1993 - Univ of Colorado.

• TAMBIS “Transparent Access to Multiple Bioinformatics Information”. Goble et al 1999 - Univ Of Manchester

18

Department of Computation

Position In Framework

19

Department of Computation

Position In Framework

DODEs1. Domain Specific2. Passive3. Concrete

20

Department of Computation

Position In Framework

AgentSheets1. General2. Passive3. Concrete/abstract

21

Department of Computation

Position In Framework

TAMBIS1. Task and Domain Specific2. Semi-Active3. Concrete

22

Department of Computation

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.

23

Department of Computation

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 ?

24

Department of Computation 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 intelligentacquisition envs

• Evolutionary computing and EUD- users set parameters for generated solutions

• Socio-technical solutions- design for user motivation and reward

25

Department of Computation

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.

26

Department of Computation

Position In Framework

Java1. General Purpose2. Passive3. Abstract