Analysing Gender Differences in Building Social Goal Models: A Quasi-Experiment

Gralha, Catarina; Goulão, Miguel; Araújo, João

doi:10.1109/re.2019.00027

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The method and its derivatives have been used in a variety of domains, such educational software, digital libraries, search engines, and software tools [11,13,18,24,35,57,65]. Particularly pertinent to this paper, in a study of OSS professionals, over 80% of the barriers they found in OSS projects were gender inclusivity bugs, which were later confirmed by OSS newcomers [43].…”

Section: Diversity and The Gendermag Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to Debug Inclusivity Bugs? A Debugging Process with Information Architecture

Guizani,

Steinmacher,

Emard

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although some previous research has found ways to find inclusivity bugs (biases in software that introduce inequities), little attention has been paid to how to go about fixing such bugs. Without a process to move from finding to fixing, acting upon such findings is an ad-hoc activity, at the mercy of the skills of each individual developer. To address this gap, we created Why/Where/Fix, a systematic inclusivity debugging process whose inclusivity fault localization harnesses Information Architecture(IA)-the way user-facing information is organized, structured and labeled. We then conducted a multi-stage qualitative empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of Why/Where/Fix, using an Open Source Software (OSS) project's infrastructure as our setting. In our study, the OSS project team used the Why/Where/Fix process to find inclusivity bugs, localize the IA faults behind them, and then fix the IA to remove the inclusivity bugs they had found. Our results showed that using Why/Where/Fix reduced the number of inclusivity bugs that OSS newcomer participants experienced by 90%.

show abstract

Section: Diversity and The Gendermag Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a few other researchers have also done [18,24,65], we used the cognitive facet questionnaire (Section 3.3) to collect the participants' facet values. However, we also collected facet values from a second source: participants' verbalization during their tasks.…”

Section: The Facet Questionnaire's Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Debug Inclusivity Bugs? A Debugging Process with Information Architecture

Guizani,

Steinmacher,

Emard

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, InclusiveMag was used to generate GenderMag, a systematic analytical method for the diversity dimension of gender [10,45]. HCI practitioners have used the GenderMag method to find and fix inclusivity issues in a variety of domains, such as education software [10,19,33,58], machine learning aids [11], office productivity software [34], Open Source project sites [13,28,50], robotics [59], software tools [30], and search interfaces [64]. Other offspring of InclusiveMag include SESMag to support users in diverse socioeconomic situations [35], AgeMag to evaluate age bias in e-commerce applications [44], and a collection of eight pilot InclusiveMag-generated methods to support eight diversity dimensions (e.g., eyesight, attention span, position along the autism spectrum) [45].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersectionality Goes Analytical: Taming Combinatorial Explosion Through Type Abstraction

Burnett¹,

Erwig²,

Fallatah³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HCI researchers' and practitioners' awareness of intersectionality has been expanding, producing knowledge, recommendations, and prototypes for supporting intersectional populations. However, doing intersectional HCI work is uniquely expensive: it leads to a combinatorial explosion of empirical work (expense 1), and little of the work on one intersectional population can be leveraged to serve another (expense 2). In this paper, we explain how representations employed by certain analytical design methods correspond to type abstractions, and use that correspondence to identify a (de)compositional model in which a population's diverse identity properties can be joined and split. We formally prove the model's correctness, and show how it enables HCI designers to harness existing analytical HCI methods for use on new intersectional populations of interest. We illustrate through four design use-cases, how the model can reduce the amount of expense 1 and enable designers to leverage prior work to new intersectional populations, addressing expense 2.CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI); HCI design and evaluation methods.

show abstract

“…For it provides insights on the natural interaction of a user with a system through observing the eyes' behavior (Buscher et al, 2012). For example, Gralha et al (2019) used eye-tracking to analyze the impact of differences when stakeholders perform creation and modification tasks on iStar 2.0 models (Dalpiaz et al, 2016), an evolution of i* (Yu, 1996), a goal-driven modeling language used to model software requirements. Sharif and Maletic (2010); Sharif (2010) used eye-tracking to study the effect of different layouts for design pattern roles identification also in conceptual models (with Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams (OMG, 2015)).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic literature review on the usage of eye-tracking in understanding process models

Duarte

Silveira

Brito

et al. 2020

BPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeBusiness process modeling can involve multiple stakeholders, so it is natural that problems may occur during the designing and understanding processes. One way to perceive these problems is to evaluate the comprehension of business process models through the collection of data related to the readers' eye movement via an eye-tracking device. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of eye-trackers in understanding process models and to offer a research roadmap to challenge the community to address the identified limitations and open issues that require further investigation.Design/methodology/approachTo achieve this goal, Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was performed following good practices from the Evidence-Based Software Engineering's (EBSE) field.FindingsThis study resulted in 10 primary studies selected for analysis and data extraction, from the 1,482 initially retrieved. The major findings indicate that the business process community still benefits little from the use of eye-tracking, e.g. not offering sufficient support for inexperienced designers and not having an explicit standardization in its use. These and other findings are synthesized in a research roadmap which results would benefit researchers and practitioners.Originality/valueIn the studies found, the methods used to explore eyes' movement in process models' comprehension analysis were presented as an advantage of the current study. Additionally, another aspect presented in this SRL as an originality is presenting a set of open questions, suggesting valuable topics for future research through a research script (research roadmap).

show abstract

Analysing Gender Differences in Building Social Goal Models: A Quasi-Experiment

Cited by 15 publications

References 43 publications

How to Debug Inclusivity Bugs? A Debugging Process with Information Architecture

How to Debug Inclusivity Bugs? A Debugging Process with Information Architecture

Intersectionality Goes Analytical: Taming Combinatorial Explosion Through Type Abstraction

A systematic literature review on the usage of eye-tracking in understanding process models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About