Abstract
This chapter discusses methodological choices facing researchers wishing to evaluate end user development technologies. While laboratory evaluations or short term evaluations are often conducted as a way to validate an end user development technology, these do not provide sufficient guarantees regarding the adoption of end user development practices and how systems should be improved to encourage such practices. The challenges pertaining to field deployments are discussed first at an operational level and second at a teleological level where we debate what should be success criteria for such studies. Discussing previous studies and our experiences from a deployment case in the healthcare sector, we propose guidelines for the evaluation of EUD technologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The discussion here steers clear from programming environments that address novice programmers with general purpose programming languages and development environments for which success criteria are very different and more similar to information systems in general.
References
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Urdan, T., & Pajares, F. Eds. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. IAP, 2006.
Blackwell, A., & Burnett, M. (2002). Applying attention investment to end-user programming. In Proc. HCC 2002 (pp. 28–30). IEEE.
Blackwell, A.F. (2002). First steps in programming: a rationale for attention investment models. In Proc. HCC 2002 (pp. 2–10). IEEE.
Bolchini, D., Garzotto, F., Paolini, P. (2008). Investigating success factors for hypermedia development tools. In Proc. HT 2008 (pp. 187–192). New York: ACM.
Carmien, S. P., & Fischer, G. (2008). Design, adoption, and assessment of a socio-technical environment supporting independence for persons with cognitive disabilities. In Proc. CHI 2008 (pp. 597–606). New York: ACM.
Costabile, M.F., Mussio, P., Parasiliti Provenza, L., Piccinno, A. (2008). End users as unwitting software developers. In Proc. 4th int. workshop end-user softw. eng (pp. 6–10). ACM.
De Silva, B., & Ginige, A. (2009). Study of using the meta-model based meta-design paradigm for developing and maintaining web applications. In Int. united inf. syst. conf (pp. 304–314). Springer.
Dittrich, Y., Burnett, M., Morch, A., Redmiles, D. (2013). End-user development: 4th international symposium, IS-EUD 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 10–13, 2013, Proceedings. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Fischer, G. (2007). Meta-design: expanding boundaries and redistributing control in design. In C. Baranauskas, P. Palanque, J. Abascal, S. D. J. Barbosa (Eds.). Hum.-comput. interact. – INTERACT 2007 (pp. 193–206). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions, 18, 42–53.
Fischer, G., & Scharff, E. (2000). Meta-design: design for designers. In Proc. DIS 2000 (pp. 396–405). New York: ACM.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2014). The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Hochstenbach-Waelen, A., Timmermans, A., Seelen, H., Tetteroo, D., Markopoulos P. (2012). Tag-exercise creator: towards end-user development for tangible interaction in rehabilitation training. In Proc. EICS 2012 (pp. 293–298). ACM.
Kierkegaard, P., & Markopoulos, P. (2011). From top to bottom: end user development, motivation, creativity and organisational support. In Int. symp. end user dev (pp. 307–312). Springer.
Kjeldskov, J., & Graham, C. (2003). A review of mobile HCI research methods. In L. Chittaro (ed). Hum.-comput. interact. mob. devices serv. (pp. 317–335). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Lanfermann, G., Te Vrugt, J., Timmermans, A., Bongers, E., Lamber, N., Van Acht, V. (2007). Philips stroke rehabilitation exerciser. In Tech. aids rehabil.-TAR 2007 January 25–26 2007.
Li, Y., Fontijn, W., Markopoulos, P. (2008). A tangible tabletop game supporting therapy of children with cerebral palsy. In P. Markopoulos, B. Ruyter, W. de IJsselsteijn, D. Rowland (Eds.). Fun games (pp. 182–193). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Mehandjiev, N., Sutcliffe, A., Lee, D. (2006). Organizational view of end-user development. In H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, V. Wulf (Eds.). End user dev (pp. 371–399). Netherlands: Springer.
Namoun, A., Wajid, U., Mehandjiev, N., Owrak, A. (2012). User-centered design of a visual data mapping tool. In Proc. AVI 2012 (pp. 473–480). New York: ACM.
Pipek, V., Rosson, M.-B., Wulf, V. (2009). End-user development: 2nd international symposium, IS-EUD 2009, Siegen, Germany, March 2–4, 2009, Proceedings. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
Rogers, E.M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations, 4th Edition. Simon and Schuster.
Ruthruff, J. R., Prabhakararao, S., Reichwein, J., Cook, C., Creswick, E., Burnett, M. (2005). Interactive, visual fault localization support for enduser programmers. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 16, 3–40. doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2004.07.001.
Segal, J. (2009). Software development cultures and cooperation problems: a field study of the early stages of development of software for a scientific community. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 18, 581 doi:10.1007/s10606-009-9096-9.
Spahn, M., & Wulf, V. (2009). End-user development of enterprise widgets. In V. Pipek, M. B. Rosson, B. Ruyter, V. de, Wulf (Eds.). End-user dev (pp. 106–125). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Tetteroo, D., & Markopoulos, P. (2015). A review of research methods in end user development. In Díaz P., Pipek V., Ardito C., Jensen C., Aedo I., Boden A. (Eds.), End-user dev (pp. 58–75). Springer International Publishing.
Tetteroo, D., Timmermans, A. A., Seelen, H. A., Markopoulos, P. (2014). TagTrainer: supporting exercise variability and tailoring in technology supported upper limb training. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 11, 140 doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-140.
Tetteroo, D., Vreugdenhil, P., Grisel, I., Michielsen, M., Kuppens, E., Vanmulken, D., et al. (2015). Lessons learnt from deploying an end-user development platform for physical rehabilitation. In Proc. CHI 2015 (pp. 4133–4142). New York: ACM.
Tsandilas, T., Letondal, C., Mackay, W. E. (2009). Musink: composing music through augmented drawing. In Proc. CHI 2009 (pp. 819–828). New York: ACM.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q, 27, 425–478.
Wong, J., & Hong, J. I. (2007). Making mashups with marmite: towards end-user programming for the web. In Proc. CHI 2007 (pp. 1435–1444). New York: ACM.
Wulf, V. (1999). “Let’s see your search-tool!”—Collaborative use of tailored artifacts in groupware. In Proc. GROUP 1999 (pp. 50–59). New York: ACM.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tetteroo, D., Markopoulos, P. (2017). EUD Survival “in the Wild”: Evaluation Challenges for Field Deployments and How to Address Them. In: Paternò, F., Wulf, V. (eds) New Perspectives in End-User Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60291-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60291-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60290-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60291-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)