Abstract

The quality and quantity of participation supplied by human beings during the different phases of the design and development of a software artifact are central to studies in human-centered computing. With this paper, we have investigated on what kind of experienced people should be engaged to design a new computational artifact, when a participatory approach is adopted. We compared two approaches: the former including only future users (i.e., novices) in the design process, and the latter enlarging the community to expert users. We experimented with the design of a large software artifact, in use at the University of Bologna, engaging almost 1500 users. Statistical methodologies were employed to validate our findings. Our analysis has provided mounting evidence that expert users have contributed to the design of the artifact only by a small amount. Instead, most of the innovative initiatives have come from future users, thus surpassing some traditional limitations that tend to exclude future users from this kind of processes. We here challenge the traditional opinion that expert users provide typically a more reliable contribution in a participatory software design process, demonstrating instead that future users would be often better suited. Along this line of sense, this is the first paper, in the field of human-centric computing, that discusses the relevant question to offer to future users a larger design space, intended as a higher level of freedom given in a software design situation, demarcated by precise design constraints. In this sense, the outcome has been positive.

Highlights

  • Should we study the old to inform the new, or does that just make designers repeat history? What is it that we should learn from experienced users and bring with us into the new practice that we want to design and what should we, as designers, disregard, in order not to repeat history? This is the starting point of our research.But, let us go by steps, and take in consideration, first, that the intuition of keeping into account users’ needs, while designing a new software artifact, is not new at all to human-centered computing research and practice, as witnessed by a wealth of literature investigating this issue [1,2,3].Roccetti et al Hum

  • This intuition behind our research has been confirmed by facts, since all the 28 functions suggested by future users were recognized as useful by experts, and worth to be included in the final software application

  • Consider the set of functions (F) proposed by the future users, the set (E) of those proposed by expert users, the set (C) of those proposed by the committee, and, call X the union of F, E, and C

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Should we study the old to inform the new, or does that just make designers repeat history? What is it that we should learn from experienced users and bring with us into the new practice that we want to design and what should we, as designers, disregard, in order not to repeat history? This is the starting point of our research. Even though in some of them resurfaces as relevant the concept that, when a software artifact is codesigned for a public institution (for example, a school or a University) users should be engaged who cover different roles (for example, from student-to-be, to undergraduates, graduates, alumni and teachers), all these researches fail in providing a precise assessment of the different contributions that each category can supply This is especially evident in research initiatives like those described in [43, 44] where, in both cases, novices (i.e., future users) are engaged just to assess a software artifact, but without an active participation in the design process activities. Orientation events (a means for students to discuss with teachers and staff in order to recognize the curriculum that better fits to them)

Online information on orientation events
Online information on ethics for specific professions
Online availability of tests for aptitude self-assessment
Online availability of foreign language courses
Testing the student’s aptitude
Results and discussion
Software for searching and recommending courses
Conclusions and future work
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call