nach oben

Empirical Software Engineering

Erschienen in:

01.12.2022

Sources of software development task friction

verfasst von: Nick C. Bradley, Thomas Fritz, Reid Holmes

Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering | Ausgabe 7/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Given a task description, a developer’s job is to alter the software system in a way that accomplishes the task, usually by fixing a bug or adding a new feature. Completing these tasks typically requires developers to use multiple tools, spanning multiple applications, within their environment. In this paper, we investigate how existing desktop environments align with and facilitate developers’ needs as they tackle their tasks. We examine how developers use their tools to perform their tasks and the ways in which these tools inhibit development velocity. Through a controlled user study with 17 subjects and a field study with 10 industrial engineers, we found that developers frequently formulate specific objectives, or goals, on-demand as they encounter new information when progressing through their tasks. These goals are often not achievable directly in the environment, forcing developers to translate their task into goals and their goals into the low-level actions provided by the environment. When carrying out these low-level actions, developers routinely perform extra work such as locating and integrating resources and adapting their needs to align with the capabilities of the environment. This extra work acts as a form of friction, limiting how quickly and directly developers can complete their tasks. Much of this extra work exists due to mismatches between current tools and environments and how developers actually work in practice. This work identifies seven types of development friction and provides design recommendations that future tools and environments could use to more effectively help developers complete their tasks.

Vorheriger Artikel Developing research questions in conversation with the literature: operationalization & tool support

Nächster Artikel Extracting enhanced artificial intelligence model metadata from software repositories

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

https://github.com/kanboard/kanboard/issues/4213

We label the people evaluated in the controlled study participants (P1..P17) and those from the field study subjects (S1..S10) throughout the paper.

https://livecoders.dev

https://osf.io/68qxg/?view_only=435d824fe8ee493089e66a7cc7fc5b08

Including the IDE-integrated shell.

Adeli M, Nelson N, Chattopadhyay S, Coffey H, Henley A, Sarma A (2020) Supporting code comprehension via annotations: right information at the right time and place. In: Proceedings of the symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC). https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020.9127264https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020.9127264, pp 1–10

Alaboudi A, LaToza T D (2019) An exploratory study of live-streamed programming. In: Proceedings of the symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC). https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2019.8818832, pp 5–13

Amann S, Proksch S, Nadi S, Mezini M (2016) A study of visual studio usage in practice. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering (SANER), vol 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2016.39, pp 124–134

Bannon L, Cypher A, Greenspan S, Monty M L (1983) Evaluation and analysis of users’ activity organization. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/800045.801580, pp 54–57

Bao L, Xing Z, Xia X, Lo D, Hassan A E (2018) Inference of development activities from interaction with uninstrumented applications. Empir Softw Eng (ESE) 23(3):1313–1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9547-8https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9547-8CrossRef

Bardram J E, Jeuris S, Tell P, Houben S, Voida S (2019) Activity-centric computing systems. Commun ACM 62(8):72–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/3325901CrossRef

Begel A, Khoo Y P, Zimmermann T (2010) Codebook: discovering and exploiting relationships in software repositories. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE). https://doi.org/10.1145/1806799.1806821, pp 125–134

Beller M, Gousios G, Panichella A, Zaidman A (2015) When, how, and why developers (do not) test in their IDEs. In: Proceedings of the joint meeting on European software engineering conference and the symposium on the foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE). https://doi.org/10.1145/2786805.2786843, pp 179–190

Bernstein M S, Shrager J, Winograd T (2008) Taskposé: exploring fluid boundaries in an associative window visualization. In: Proceedings of the symposium on user interface software and technology (UIST). https://doi.org/10.1145/1449715.1449753, pp 231–234

Bragdon A, Zeleznik R, Reiss S P, Karumuri S, Cheung W, Kaplan J, Coleman C, Adeputra F, LaViola J J Jr (2010) Code bubbles: a working set-based interface for code understanding and maintenance. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753706, pp 2503–2512

Byström K, Hansen P (2005) Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 56(10):1050–1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20197CrossRef

Chapuis O, Roussel N (2007) Copy-and-paste between overlapping windows. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240657https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240657, pp 201–210

Chattopadhyay S, Nelson N, Gonzalez Y R, Leon A A, Pandita R, Sarma A (2019) Latent patterns in activities: a field study of how developers manage context. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00051, pp 373–383

Čubranić D, Murphy G C (2003) Hipikat: recommending pertinent software development artifacts. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 408–418

DeLine R, Rowan K (2010) Code canvas: zooming towards better development environments. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE), vol 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810295.1810331, pp 207–210

Dragunov A N, Dietterich T G, Johnsrude K, McLaughlin M, Li L, Herlocker J L (2005) Tasktracer: a desktop environment to support multi-tasking knowledge workers. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI). https://doi.org/10.1145/1040830.1040855, pp 75–82

Fritz T, Murphy G C (2010) Using information fragments to answer the questions developers ask. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE), ICSE ’10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806799.1806828, pp 175–184

Garrison D R, Cleveland-Innes M, Koole M, Kappelman J (2006) Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: negotiated coding and reliability. Internet High Educ 9(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001CrossRef

González V M, Mark G, Mark G (2004) Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: managing multiple working spheres. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985707, pp 113–120

Green T R (1989) Cognitive dimensions of notations. People and computers V, pp 443–460

Henley A Z, Fleming S D (2014) The patchworks code editor: toward faster navigation with less code arranging and fewer navigation mistakes. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557073, pp 2511–2520

Jeuris S, Houben S, Bardram J (2014) Laevo: a temporal desktop interface for integrated knowledge work. In: Proceedings of the symposium on user interface software and technology (UIST). https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647391, pp 679–688

Kaptelinin V (2003) UMEA: translating interaction histories into project contexts. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642673https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642673, pp 353–360

Kersten M, Murphy G C (2005) Mylar: a degree-of-Interest Model for IDEs. In: Proceedings of the international conference on aspect-oriented software development (AOSD). https://doi.org/10.1145/1052898.1052912https://doi.org/10.1145/1052898.1052912, pp 159–168

Ko A J, Myers B A, Coblenz M J, Aung H H (2006) An exploratory study of how developers seek, relate, and collect relevant information during software maintenance tasks. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 32(12):971–987. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2006.116CrossRef

Ko A J, DeLine R, Venolia G (2007) Information needs in collocated software development teams. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2007.45, pp 344–353

LaToza T D, Venolia G, DeLine R (2006) Maintaining mental models: a study of developer work habits. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 492–501

Lawrance J, Bellamy R, Burnett M (2007) Scents in programs: does information foraging theory apply to program maintenance?. In: Proceedings of the symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC). https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2007.25, pp 15–22

Lawrance J, Bogart C, Burnett M, Bellamy R, Rector K, Fleming S D (2013) How programmers debug, revisited: an information foraging theory perspective. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 39(2):197–215. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2010.111CrossRef

Lewis C, Wharton C (1997) Chapter 30—cognitive walkthroughs. In: Helander MG, Landauer TK, Prabhu PV (eds) Handbook of human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50096-0https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50096-0, pp 717–732

Maalej W (2009) Task-first or context-first? Tool integration revisited. In: Proceedings of the international conference on automated software engineering (ASE). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2009.36https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2009.36, pp 344–355

Minelli R, Mocci A, Lanza M (2015a) I know what you did last summer—an investigation of how developers spend their time. In: Proceedings of the international conference on program comprehension (ICPC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2015.12, pp 25–35

Minelli R, Mocci A, Lanza M (2015b) The plague doctor: a promising cure for the window plague. In: Proceedings of the international conference on program comprehension (ICPC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2015.28, pp 182–185

Murphy G C, Kersten M, Findlater L (2006) How are java software developers using the eclipse IDE? IEEE Softw 23(4):76–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2006.105CrossRef

Oliver N, Smith G, Thakkar C, Surendran A C (2006) SWISH: semantic analysis of window titles and switching history. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI). https://doi.org/10.1145/1111449.1111492, pp 194–201

Oliver N, Czerwinski M, Smith G, Roomp K (2008) Relalttab: assisting users in switching windows. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI). https://doi.org/10.1145/1378773.1378836, pp 385–388

Pilzer J, Rosenast R, Meyer A N, Huang E M, Fritz T (2020) Supporting software developers’ focused work on window-based desktops. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI), pp 1–13

Piorkowski D J, Fleming S D, Kwan I, Burnett M M, Scaffidi C, Bellamy R K, Jordahl J (2013) The whats and hows of programmers’ foraging diets. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466418, pp 3063–3072

Piorkowski D, Fleming S D, Scaffidi C, Burnett M, Kwan I, Henley A Z, Macbeth J, Hill C, Horvath A (2015) To fix or to learn? How production bias affects developers’ information foraging during debugging. In: 2015 IEEE International conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSM.2015.7332447, pp 11–20

Piorkowski D, Henley A Z, Nabi T, Fleming S D, Scaffidi C, Burnett M (2016) Foraging and navigations, fundamentally: developers’ predictions of value and cost. In: Proceedings of the joint meeting on European software engineering conference and the symposium on the foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE). https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2950302, pp 97–108

Pirolli P, Card S (1995) Information foraging in information access environments. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223911https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223911, pp 51–58

Ragavan S S, Codoban M, Piorkowski D, Dig D, Burnett M (2021) Version control systems: an information foraging perspective. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 47(8):1644–1655. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2931296https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2931296CrossRef

Rattenbury T, Canny J (2007) CAAD: an automatic task support system. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240731, pp 687–696

Robertson G, Horvitz E, Czerwinski M, Baudisch P, Hutchings D R, Meyers B, Robbins D, Smith G (2004) Scalable fabric: flexible task management. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces (AVI). https://doi.org/10.1145/989863.989874, pp 85–89

Robillard MP, Murphy GC (2007) Representing concerns in source code. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 16(1):3–es. https://doi.org/10.1145/1189748.1189751CrossRef

Robillard M, Coelho W, Murphy G (2004) How effective developers investigate source code: an exploratory study. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(12):889–903. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2004.101CrossRef

Roethlisberger D, Nierstrasz O, Ducasse S (2009) Autumn leaves: curing the window plague in IDEs. In: Proceedings of the working conference on reverse engineering (WCRE). https://doi.org/10.1109/WCRE.2009.18, pp 237–246

Sillito J, Murphy G C, Volder K D (2008) Asking and answering questions during a programming change task. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 34(4):434–451. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2008.26CrossRef

Singer J, Lethbridge T, Vinson N, Anquetil N (1997) An examination of software engineering work practices. In: Proceedings of the conference of the centre for advanced studies on collaborative research (CASCON), pp 21–36

Smith G, Baudisch P, Robertson G G, Czerwinski M, Meyers B R, Robbins D C, Andrews D B (2003) Groupbar: the TaskBar evolved. In: Proceedings of the Australian conference on human-computer interaction (OZCHI), vol 3, p 10

Soloway E (1986) Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Commun ACM 29(9):850–858. https://doi.org/10.1145/6592.6594CrossRef

Strauss A, Corbin J (1994) Grounded theory methodology. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, pp 273–285

Tashman C (2006) Windowscape: a task oriented window manager. In: Proceedings of the symposium on user interface software and technology (UIST). https://doi.org/10.1145/1166253.1166266, pp 77–80

Vallacher R R, Wegner D M (2012) Action identification theory. In: Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol 1. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n17. Sage Publications Ltd, pp 327–348

Venolia G (2005) Bridges between silos: a microsoft research project

Wang Y, Chiew V (2010) On the cognitive process of human problem solving. Cogn Syst Res 11(1):81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2008.08.003CrossRef

Zhao S, Chevalier F, Ooi W T, Lee C Y, Agarwal A (2012) AutoComPaste: auto-completing text as an alternative to copy-paste. In: Proceedings of the international working conference on advanced visual interfaces (AVI). https://doi.org/10.1145/2254556.2254626, pp 365–372

Titel: Sources of software development task friction
verfasst von: Nick C. Bradley
Thomas Fritz
Reid Holmes
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering / Ausgabe 7/2022
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10187-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2022

An empirical evaluation of a novel domain-specific language – modelling vehicle routing problems with Athos

FindICI: Using machine learning to detect linguistic inconsistencies between code and natural language descriptions in infrastructure-as-code

Deja Vu: semantics-aware recording and replay of high-speed eye tracking and interaction data to support cognitive studies of software engineering tasks—methodology and analyses

A machine and deep learning analysis among SonarQube rules, product, and process metrics for fault prediction

An empirical study of Android behavioural code smells detection

Comparing ϕ and the F-measure as performance metrics for software-related classifications

Premium Partner