ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Supporting end-user debugging: what do users want to know?
Full text PdfPdf (515 KB)
Source AVI archive
Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces table of contents
Venezia, Italy
SESSION: Designing for the end user: research papers table of contents
Pages: 135 - 142  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-353-0
Authors
Cory Kissinger  Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Margaret Burnett  Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Simone Stumpf  Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Neeraja Subrahmaniyan  Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Laura Beckwith  Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Sherry Yang  Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, Oregon
Mary Beth Rosson  Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 74,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1133265.1133293
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Although researchers have begun to explicitly support end-user programmers' debugging by providing information to help them find bugs, there is little research addressing the right content to communicate to these users. The specific semantic content of these debugging communications matters because, if the users are not actually seeking the information the system is providing, they are not likely to attend to it. This paper reports a formative empirical study that sheds light on what end users actually want to know in the course of debugging a spreadsheet, given the availability of a set of interactive visual testing and debugging features. Our results provide in sights into end-user debuggers' information gaps, and further suggest opportunities to improve end-user debugging systems' support for the things end-user debuggers actually want to know.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
Anthony, L., Corbett, A. Wagner, A., Stevens, S., Koedinger, K. Student question-asking patterns in an intelligent algebra tutor, Conf. Intelligent Tutoring Sys., 2004, 455--467.
 
3
Bandura, A. Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977, 191--215.
 
4
5
 
6
7
 
8
9
 
10
Farkas, D. Layering as a safety net for minimalist documentation, In Carroll, J. M., (Eds.), Minimalism Beyond the Nurnberg Funnel, MIT Press, 1998, 247--274.
 
11
Forrest-Pressly, D., MacKinnon, G., Waller, T. Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance, Academic Press, 1985.
 
12
Gee, J. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Routledge, London, 1999.
 
13
Gordon, S., Gill, R. Knowledge acquisition with question probes and conceptual graph structures, In T. Lauer, E. Peacock, A. Graesser (Eds.), Questions and Information Sys., Lawrence Erlbaum Assc., 1992, 29--46.
14
 
15
 
16
Lowenstein, G. The psychology of curiosity, Psychological Bulletin 116, 1, 1994, 75--98.
17
 
18
 
19
Norman, D. The Design of Everyday Things, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1988.
 
20
Person, N., Graesser, A. Fourteen facts about human tutoring: Food for thought for ITS developers, AIED Workshop on Tutorial Dialogue, 2003, 335--344.
 
21
Robertson, T., Lawrance, J., Burnett, M. Impact of high-intensity negotiated-style interruptions on end-user debugging, J. Visual Langs. Comp., to appear 2006.
 
22
Ruthruff, J., Phalgune, A., Beckwith, L., Burnett, M., Cook, C. Rewarding 'good' behavior: End-user debugging and rewards. IEEE Symp. Visual Langs. Human-Centric Comp., 2004, 107--114.
23
 
24
Weinert, F., Kluwe, R. (Eds.) Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1987.
25


Collaborative Colleagues:
Cory Kissinger: colleagues
Margaret Burnett: colleagues
Simone Stumpf: colleagues
Neeraja Subrahmaniyan: colleagues
Laura Beckwith: colleagues
Sherry Yang: colleagues
Mary Beth Rosson: colleagues