Search

What role can AI play in supporting and constraining creative coding by families? To investigate these questions, we built a Wizard of Oz platform to help families engage in creative coding in partnership with a researcher-operated AI Friend. We designed a 3 week series of programming activities with ten children, 7 to 12 years old, and nine parents. Using a creative self efficacy lens, we observe that families found it easier to generate game ideas when prompted with questions by AI Friend; parents played a unique role in guiding children in more complex programming tasks when the AI Friend failed to help, and children were more encouraged to write code for novel ideas using the AI friend help. These findings suggest that AI supported platforms should highlight unique family AI interactions focused on children's agency and creative self-efficacy., Comment: 18 pages

Decision-making is a key software engineering skill. Developers constantly make choices throughout the software development process, from requirements to implementation. While prior work has studied developer decision-making, the choices made while choosing what solution to write in code remain understudied. In this mixed-methods study, we examine the phenomenon where developers select one specific way to implement a behavior in code, given many potential alternatives. We call these decisions implementation design decisions. Our mixed-methods study includes 46 survey responses and 14 semi-structured interviews with professional developers about their decision types, considerations, processes, and expertise for implementation design decisions. We find that implementation design decisions, rather than being a natural outcome from higher levels of design, require constant monitoring of higher level design choices, such as requirements and architecture. We also show that developers have a consistent general structure to their implementation decision-making process, but no single process is exactly the same. We discuss the implications of our findings on research, education, and practice, including insights on teaching developers how to make implementation design decisions.

Modern visualization tools aim to allow data analysts to easily create exploratory visualizations. When the input data layout conforms to the visualization design, users can easily specify visualizations by mapping data columns to visual channels of the design. However, when there is a mismatch between data layout and the design, users need to spend significant effort on data transformation. We propose Falx, a synthesis-powered visualization tool that allows users to specify visualizations in a similarly simple way but without needing to worry about data layout. In Falx, users specify visualizations using examples of how concrete values in the input are mapped to visual channels, and Falx automatically infers the visualization specification and transforms the data to match the design. In a study with 33 data analysts on four visualization tasks involving data transformation, we found that users can effectively adopt Falx to create visualizations they otherwise cannot implement., Comment: CHI 2021

Knowledge sharing plays a crucial role throughout all software application development activities. When programmers learn and share through media like Stack overflow, GitHub, Meetups, videos, discussion forums, wikis, and blogs, every developer benefits. However, there is one kind of knowledge that developers share far less often: strategic knowledge for how to approach programming problems (e.g., how to debug server-side Python errors, how to resolve a merge conflict, how to evaluate the stability of an API one is considering for adoption). In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of developers articulating and sharing their strategic knowledge, and the use of these strategies to support other developers in their problem-solving. We specifically investigate challenges that developers face in articulating strategies in a form in which other developers can use to increase their productivity. To observe this, we simulated a knowledge-sharing platform, asking experts to articulate one of their own strategies and then asked the second set of developers to try to use the strategies and provide feedback on the strategies to authors. During the study, we asked both strategy authors and users to reflect on the challenges they faced. In analyzing the strategies authors created, the use of the strategies, the feedback that users provided to authors, and the difficulties that authors faced addressing this feedback, we found that developers can share strategic knowledge, but authoring strategies require substantial feedback from diverse audiences to be helpful to programmers with varying prior knowledge. Our results also raise challenging questions about how future work should support searching and browsing for strategies that support varying prior knowledge.

Although exploring alternatives is fundamental to creating better interface designs, current processes for creating alternatives are generally manual, limiting the alternatives a designer can explore. We present Scout, a system that helps designers rapidly explore alternatives through mixed-initiative interaction with high-level constraints and design feedback. Prior constraint-based layout systems use low-level spatial constraints and generally produce a single design. Tosupport designer exploration of alternatives, Scout introduces high-level constraints based on design concepts (e.g.,~semantic structure, emphasis, order) and formalizes them into low-level spatial constraints that a solver uses to generate potential layouts. In an evaluation with 18 interface designers, we found that Scout: (1) helps designers create more spatially diverse layouts with similar quality to those created with a baseline tool and (2) can help designers avoid a linear design process and quickly ideate layouts they do not believe they would have thought of on their own., Comment: 13 pages, 8 figures, ACM CHI Full Paper (2020)

Software developers solve a diverse and wide range of problems. While software engineering research often focuses on tools to support this problem solving, the strategies that developers use to solve problems are at least as important. In this paper, we offer a novel approach for enabling developers to follow explicit programming strategies that describe how an expert tackles a common programming problem. We define explicit programming strategies, grounding our definition in prior work both within software engineering and in other professions which have adopted more explicit procedures for problem solving. We then present a novel notation called Roboto and a novel StrategyTracker tool that explicitly represents programming strategies and frame executing strategies as a collaborative effort between human abilities to make decisions and computer abilities to structure process and persist information. Ina formative evaluation, 28 software developers of varying expertise completed a design task and a debugging task. We found that, compared to developers who are free to choose their strategies, developers gave explicit strategies experienced their work as more organized, systematic, and predictable, but also more constrained. Developers using explicit strategies were objectively more successful at the design and debugging tasks. We discuss the implications of Roboto and these findings, envisioning a thriving ecosystem of explicit strategies that accelerate and improve developers programming problem solving., Comment: 48 pages, 8 figures, To appear in the proceedings of Empirical Software Engineering Journal