Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3510458.3513014acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How are diverse end-user human-centric issues discussed on GitHub?

Published: 17 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Many software systems fail to meet the needs of the diverse end-users in society and are prone to pose problems, such as accessibility and usability issues. Some of these problems (partially) stem from the failure to consider the characteristics, limitations, and abilities of diverse end-users during software development. We refer to this class of problems as human-centric issues. Despite their importance, there is a limited understanding of the types of human-centric issues encountered by developers. In-depth knowledge of these human-centric issues is needed to design software systems that better meet their diverse end-users' needs. This paper aims to provide insights for the software development and research communities on which human-centric issues are a topic of discussion for developers on GitHub. We conducted an empirical study by extracting and manually analysing 1,691 issue comments from 12 diverse projects, ranging from small to large-scale projects, including projects designed for challenged end-users, e.g., visually impaired and dyslexic users. Our analysis shows that eight categories of human-centric issues are discussed by developers. These include Inclusiveness, Privacy & Security, Compatibility, Location & Language, Preference, Satisfaction, Emotional Aspects, and Accessibility. Guided by our findings, we highlight some implications and possible future paths to further understand and incorporate human-centric issues in software development to be able to design software that meets the needs of diverse end users in society.
Many software systems fail to take into account diverse end user differences, such as age, gender, culture, language, physical and mental challenges, emotions, personality, and so on. This means for many users the software is difficult if not impossible to use, unengaging, disrespectful, increases the digital divide, excludes many - often vulnerable - members of society, and may even be unsafe or dangerous. GitHub is a very popular software platform used by software developers. We looked at several diverse online software projects and the discussions developers have about what we call these "human-centric issues" in software. We learned that some issues are quite often discussed, however, many diverse end user characteristics are not well understood and many not often discussed by developers, suggesting they are not sufficiently well thought about during software development. We make some recommendations for software engineers to help them better consider and take account of many of their software user differences during development. This includes taking into account these important issues; for some projects some end user differences are more important than others depending on the target users; users need better ways of reporting human-centric defects and developers need better ways of addressing human-centric issues for software; and developer training to consider a variety of human-centric issues needs improving.

References

[1]
Abdulaziz Alshayban, Iftekhar Ahmed, and Sam Malek. 2020. Accessibility Issues in Android Apps: State of Affairs, Sentiments, and Ways Forward. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (Seoul, South Korea) (ICSE '20). 1323--1334.
[2]
Morten Sieker Andreasen, Henrik Villemann Nielsen, Simon Ormholt Schrøder, and Jan Stage. 2006. Usability in open source software development: opinions and practice. Information technology and control 35, 3 (2006).
[3]
Flore Barcellini, Françoise Détienne, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, and Warren Sack. 2008. A socio-cognitive analysis of online design discussions in an Open Source Software community. Interacting with computers 20, 1 (2008), 141--165.
[4]
Frederick P. Brooks. 1987. No Silver Bullet Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Computer 20, 4 (April 1987), 10--19.
[5]
João Brunet, Gail C Murphy, Ricardo Terra, Jorge Figueiredo, and Dalton Serey. 2014. Do developers discuss design?. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 340--343.
[6]
Luis Adrián Cabrera-Diego, Nik Bessis, and Ioannis Korkontzelos. 2020. Classifying emotions in Stack Overflow and JIRA using a multi-label approach. Knowledge-Based Systems 195 (2020), 105633.
[7]
Hyunghoon Cho, Daphne Ippolito, and Yun William Yu. 2020. Contact tracing mobile apps for COVID-19: Privacy considerations and related trade-offs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.11511 (2020).
[8]
Maheswaree Kissoon Curumsing, Niroshinie Fernando, Mohamed Abdelrazek, Rajesh Vasa, Kon Mouzakis, and John Grundy. 2019. Emotion-oriented requirements engineering: A case study in developing a smart home system for the elderly. Journal of systems and software 147 (2019), 215--229.
[9]
Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social Coding in GitHub: Transparency and Collaboration in an Open Software Repository. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Seattle, Washington, USA) (CSCW '12). 1277--1286.
[10]
H. K. Dam, B. T. R. Savarimuthu, D. Avery, and A. Ghose. 2015. Mining Software Repositories for Social Norms. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. 627--630.
[11]
B. Fredrickson. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. The American psychologist 56, 3 (2001), 218--26.
[12]
Barney G Glaser, Anselm L Strauss, and Elizabeth Strutzel. 1968. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research 17, 4 (1968), 364.
[13]
John Grundy, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, and Jennifer Mcintosh. 2020. Towards Human-centric Model-driven Software Engineering. In ENASE. 229--238.
[14]
John Grundy, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, Jennifer McIntosh, Tanjila Kanij, and Ingo Mueller. 2020. Humanise: Approaches to achieve more human-centric software engineering. In International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. Springer, 444--468.
[15]
Kathleen Hartzel. 2003. How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use. Commun. ACM 46, 9 (2003), 167--171.
[16]
Nargiz Humbatova, Gunel Jahangirova, Gabriele Bavota, Vincenzo Riccio, Andrea Stocco, and Paolo Tonella. 2020. Taxonomy of real faults in deep learning systems. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 1110--1121.
[17]
Azham Hussain, Mohd Nur Faiz Abd Razak, Emmanuel OC Mkpojiogu, and Mohd Maizan Fishol Hamdi. 2017. UX evaluation of video streaming application with teenage users. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC) 9, 2--11 (2017), 129--131.
[18]
Prashant Kadam and Supriya Bhalerao. 2010. Sample size calculation. International journal of Ayurveda research 1, 1 (2010), 55.
[19]
Eirini Kalliamvakou, Georgios Gousios, Kelly Blincoe, Leif Singer, Daniel M German, and Daniela Damian. 2014. The promises and perils of mining GitHub. In Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories. 92--101.
[20]
Hourieh Khalajzadeh, Mojtaba Shahin, Humphrey Obie, and John Grundy. 2021. How are Diverse End-user Human-centric Issues Discussed on GitHub?
[21]
Foutse Khomh, Tejinder Dhaliwal, Ying Zou, and Bram Adams. 2012. Do faster releases improve software quality? an empirical case study of mozilla firefox. In 2012 9th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 179--188.
[22]
Andrew J Ko and Parmit K Chilana. 2011. Design, discussion, and dissent in open bug reports. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference. 106--113.
[23]
Olga Kulyk, Robert Kosara, Jaime Urquiza, and Ingo Wassink. 2007. Human-centered aspects. In Human-centered visualization environments. Springer, 13--75.
[24]
Thomas Lorchan Lewis and Jeremy C Wyatt. 2014. mHealth and mobile medical apps: a framework to assess risk and promote safer use. Journal of medical Internet research 16, 9 (2014), e210.
[25]
Jingxian Liao, Guowei Yang, David Kavaler, Vladimir Filkov, and Prem Devanbu. 2019. Status, identity, and language: A study of issue discussions in GitHub. PloS one 14, 6 (2019), e0215059.
[26]
Martin Maguire. 2013. Using human factors standards to support user experience and agile design. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 185--194.
[27]
Tim Miller, Sonja Pedell, Antonio A Lopez-Lorca, Antonette Mendoza, Leon Sterling, and Alen Keirnan. 2015. Emotion-led modelling for people-oriented requirements engineering: the case study of emergency systems. Journal of Systems and Software 105 (2015), 54--71.
[28]
Wenkai Mo, Beijun Shen, Yuting Chen, and Jiangang Zhu. 2015. Tbil: A tagging-based approach to identity linkage across software communities. In 2015 Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE, 56--63.
[29]
Alessandro Murgia, Parastou Tourani, Bram Adams, and Marco Ortu. 2014. Do Developers Feel Emotions? An Exploratory Analysis of Emotions in Software Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (Hyderabad, India) (MSR 2014). 262--271.
[30]
Humphrey O. Obie, Waqar Hussain, Xin Xia, John Grundy, Li Li, Burak Turhan, Jon Whittle, and Mojtaba Shahin. 2021. A First Look at Human Values-Violation in App Reviews. In ICSE-SEIS.
[31]
Marco Ortu, Giuseppe Destefanis, Bram Adams, Alessandro Murgia, Michele Marchesi, and Roberto Tonelli. 2015. The JIRA Repository Dataset: Understanding Social Aspects of Software Development. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering (Beijing, China) (PROMISE '15). Article 1, 4 pages.
[32]
Marco Ortu, Alessandro Murgia, Giuseppe Destefanis, Parastou Tourani, Roberto Tonelli, Michele Marchesi, and Bram Adams. 2016. The Emotional Side of Software Developers in JIRA. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (Austin, Texas) (MSR '16). 480--483.
[33]
Tina Øvad, Nis Bornoe, Lars Bo Larsen, and Jan Stage. 2015. Teaching software developers to perform UX tasks. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction. 397--406.
[34]
Michael J Parker, Christophe Fraser, Lucie Abeler-Dörner, and David Bonsall. 2020. Ethics of instantaneous contact tracing using mobile phone apps in the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Medical Ethics 46, 7 (2020), 427--431.
[35]
Caroline Criado Perez. 2019. Invisible women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. Random House.
[36]
Daniel Pletea, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2014. Security and emotion: sentiment analysis of security discussions on github. In Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories. 348--351.
[37]
Rafael Prikladnicki, Yvonne Dittrich, Helen Sharp, Cleidson De Souza, Marcelo Cataldo, and Rashina Hoda. 2013. Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering: CHASE 2013. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 38, 5 (Aug. 2013), 34--37.
[38]
Irum Rauf, Dirk van der Linden, Mark Levine, John Towse, Bashar Nuseibeh, and Awais Rashid. 2020. Security but Not for Security's Sake: The Impact of Social Considerations on App Developers' Choices. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops (ICSEW'20). 141--144.
[39]
M. Roccetti, C. Prandi, S. Mirri, and P. Salomoni. 2020. Designing human-centric software artifacts with future users: a case study. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences 10 (2020), 1--17.
[40]
Steven E Stock, Daniel K Davies, Michael L Wehmeyer, and Susan B Palmer. 2008. Evaluation of cognitively accessible software to increase independent access to cellphone technology for people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52, 12 (2008), 1155--1164.
[41]
Yolande Strengers and Jenny Kennedy. 2020. The Smart Wife: Why Siri, Alexa, and Other Smart Home Devices Need a Feminist Reboot. MIT Press.
[42]
Jason Tsay, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. 2014. Let's talk about it: evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering. 144--154.
[43]
Michael B Twidale and David M Nichols. 2005. Exploring usability discussions in open source development. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 198c--198c.
[44]
Simone Wirtz, Eva-Maria Jakobs, and Martina Ziefle. 2009. Age-specific usability issues of software interfaces. In Proceedings of the IEA, Vol. 17.
[45]
Nor Shahida Mohamad Yusop, John Grundy, and Rajesh Vasa. 2016. Reporting usability defects: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 43, 9 (2016), 848--867.
[46]
Shahed Zaman, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2011. Security versus performance bugs: a case study on firefox. In Proceedings of the 8th working conference on mining software repositories. 93--102.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Exploring user privacy awareness on GitHub: an empirical studyEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10544-729:6Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
  • (2024)ED&I and SE: Challenges, Progress, and LessonsEquity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering10.1007/978-1-4842-9651-6_2(17-35)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Beyond Diversity: Computing for Inclusive SoftwareEquity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering10.1007/978-1-4842-9651-6_10(151-165)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICSE-SEIS '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society
May 2022
195 pages
ISBN:9781450392273
DOI:10.1145/3510458
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

  • IEEE CS

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 October 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. GitHub repositories
  2. diverse end-users
  3. human aspects
  4. human-centric issues
  5. software development

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ICSE '22
Sponsor:

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)42
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Exploring user privacy awareness on GitHub: an empirical studyEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10544-729:6Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
  • (2024)ED&I and SE: Challenges, Progress, and LessonsEquity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering10.1007/978-1-4842-9651-6_2(17-35)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Beyond Diversity: Computing for Inclusive SoftwareEquity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering10.1007/978-1-4842-9651-6_10(151-165)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
  • (2023)Supporting Developers in Addressing Human-Centric Issues in Mobile AppsIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2022.321232949:4(2149-2168)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Pull Request Decisions Explained: An Empirical OverviewIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2022.316505649:2(849-871)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2023

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media