1. Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction Shahnewaz A. Jolly Instructor: Dr. Saul Greenberg 30th November, 2009 1

2.  Introduction  Background and Motivation  Focus  Planning the study  Conducting the study  Analysis and Findings  Problems and Limitations  Conclusion and Future Work 2

3.  Open source IDE  Java  C/C++, Python, Perl, PHP 3

4.  Changing program structure  Categories ◦ Changing name and physical location of coding ◦ Changing local organization of coding at class level ◦ Changing coding within a class 4

5. 5  High-impact refactoring based on architecture violations [Bourqun07]  Aligning development tools with the way programmers think about code changes [Boshernitsan07]  Breaking the barriers to successful refactoring: Observations and tools for extract method [Murphy-Hill08]  Gathering Refactoring Data: a Comparison of Four Methods [Murphy-Hill08]  How We Refactor, and How We Know [Murphy- Hill09]

6.  Why RENAME is used most  Why programmers prefer doing refatoring manually 6

7.  Refactoring ◦ Changing name and physical location of coding ◦ Changing coding within a class  Documentation 7

8.  Designing Tasks ◦ Renaming method ◦ Moving class ◦ Changing parameters ◦ Deleting method ◦ Including factory method ◦ Extracting class ◦ Having set and get method 8

9.  Setting Procedure and Time  Contacting Users ◦ Minimum 2 months experience ◦ 90 minutes for the study 9

10.  Planning Equipment 10 Source: www.dailyefl.comSource: www.cclonline.comSource: av.watch.impress.co.jpSource: ecx.images-amazon.com

11.  Informal Introduction  Focus, Procedure and Duration  Right of the Participants  Permission for Equipments  Consent form 11 Source: jobsearchingblog.com

12.  Pre-test questions  Tasks  During-test questions  Break time  Post-test questions 12 Source: lh5.ggpht.com

13.  Just right-click doesn’t work 13 Figure: Available options after right click on the method name

14. 14 Figure: Available options after selecting the whole method name

15. 15 Figure: Available options from menu

16.  Option names are not clear enough 16 Figure: The option name doesn’t represent delete function

17.  Example and Screenshots are not provided  Search option is not good 17

18. 18 Figure: List of information after searching by ‘delete method’

19.  Performance of the participants 19 Figure: Average task time of the participants in minutes

20.  Getting proper answer 20 P1P2P3P4 Taken Time (Minute) 6:1110:5011:256:17 Number of Errors2544 OpinionEasy Doable with effort Table: Performance on Task 1

21.  Reluctance in using documentation  Reluctance in giving up tasks 21 Source: www.fred.org

22.  Getting users  Denial of users  Task design  Thinking aloud 22 Source: www.chesskids.com

23.  Other option is available  Users don’t rely on refactoring  Documentation is not helpful 23

24.  Working in a group  Modifying tasks 24 Source: xianrenaud.typepad.com

25. [1] F. Bourqun and R. K. Keller. High-impact refactoring based on architecture violations. In CSMR ’07: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Software Maintenance and ReEngineering, pages 149–158, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society [2] M. Boshernitsan, S. L. Graham, and M. A. Hearst. Aligning development tools with the way programmers think about code changes. In CHI ’07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 567–576, New York, 2007. ACM [3] E. Murphy-Hill and A.P. Black. Breaking the barriers to successful refactoring: Observations and tools for extract method. In ICSE ’08: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 421–430, 2008 [4] E. Murphy-Hill, A. P. Black, D.Dig, C. Parnin Gathering Refactoring Data: a Comparison of Four Methods, Proceedings of the 2 nd Workshop on Refactoring Tools, New York, NY, USA, 2008, ACM [5] E. Murphy-Hill, C. Parnin and A. P. Black How We Refactor, and How We Know It – 31 st International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 287- 297, Washington, DC, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society 25

26. [6] http://en.wikipedia.org, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [7] http://www.eclipse.org, Eclipse.org home [8] http://www.ibm.com, IBM – United States 26

27. 27

28. 28