为认知多样性设计:改善新人的GitHub体验

Í. Santos, J. F. Pimentel, I. Wiese, Igor Steinmacher, A. Sarma, M. Gerosa
{"title":"为认知多样性设计:改善新人的GitHub体验","authors":"Í. Santos, J. F. Pimentel, I. Wiese, Igor Steinmacher, A. Sarma, M. Gerosa","doi":"10.1109/ICSE-SEIS58686.2023.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social coding platforms such as GitHub have become defacto environments for collaborative programming and open source. When these platforms do not support specific cognitive styles, they create barriers to programming for some populations. Research shows that the cognitive styles typically favored by women are often unsupported, creating barriers to entry for woman newcomers. In this paper, we use the GenderMag method to evaluate GitHub to find cognitive style-specific inclusivity bugs. We redesigned the \"buggy\" GitHub features through a web browser plugin, which we evaluated through a between-subjects experiment (n=75). Our results indicate that the changes to the interface improve users' performance and self-efficacy, mainly for individuals with cognitive styles more common to women. Our results can inspire designers of social coding platforms and software engineering tools to produce more inclusive development environments.General Abstract—Diversity is an important aspect of society. One form of diversity is cognitive diversity—differences in cognitive styles, which helps generate a diversity of thoughts. Unfortunately, software tools often do not support different cognitive styles (e.g., learning styles), disproportionately impacting those whose styles are not supported. These individuals pay a cognitive \"tax\" each time they use the tools. In this work, we found \"inclusivity bugs\" in GitHub, a social coding platform. We then redesigned these buggy features and evaluated them with users. Our results show that the redesign makes it easier for the group of individuals whose cognitive styles were unsupported in the original design, with the percentage of completed tasks rising from 67% to 95% for this group.","PeriodicalId":427165,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS)","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Designing for Cognitive Diversity: Improving the GitHub Experience for Newcomers\",\"authors\":\"Í. Santos, J. F. Pimentel, I. Wiese, Igor Steinmacher, A. Sarma, M. Gerosa\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICSE-SEIS58686.2023.00007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social coding platforms such as GitHub have become defacto environments for collaborative programming and open source. When these platforms do not support specific cognitive styles, they create barriers to programming for some populations. Research shows that the cognitive styles typically favored by women are often unsupported, creating barriers to entry for woman newcomers. In this paper, we use the GenderMag method to evaluate GitHub to find cognitive style-specific inclusivity bugs. We redesigned the \\\"buggy\\\" GitHub features through a web browser plugin, which we evaluated through a between-subjects experiment (n=75). Our results indicate that the changes to the interface improve users' performance and self-efficacy, mainly for individuals with cognitive styles more common to women. Our results can inspire designers of social coding platforms and software engineering tools to produce more inclusive development environments.General Abstract—Diversity is an important aspect of society. One form of diversity is cognitive diversity—differences in cognitive styles, which helps generate a diversity of thoughts. Unfortunately, software tools often do not support different cognitive styles (e.g., learning styles), disproportionately impacting those whose styles are not supported. These individuals pay a cognitive \\\"tax\\\" each time they use the tools. In this work, we found \\\"inclusivity bugs\\\" in GitHub, a social coding platform. We then redesigned these buggy features and evaluated them with users. Our results show that the redesign makes it easier for the group of individuals whose cognitive styles were unsupported in the original design, with the percentage of completed tasks rising from 67% to 95% for this group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":427165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS)\",\"volume\":\"91 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEIS58686.2023.00007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEIS58686.2023.00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

像GitHub这样的社交编码平台已经成为协作编程和开源的实际环境。当这些平台不支持特定的认知风格时,它们就会给某些人群的编程带来障碍。研究表明,女性通常喜欢的认知风格往往不受支持,这给女性新人的进入制造了障碍。在本文中,我们使用GenderMag方法来评估GitHub,以找到特定于认知风格的包容性错误。我们通过web浏览器插件重新设计了GitHub的“bug”功能,并通过受试者间实验(n=75)对其进行了评估。我们的研究结果表明,界面的改变提高了用户的表现和自我效能感,主要是针对女性更常见的认知风格的个体。我们的研究结果可以启发社交编码平台和软件工程工具的设计者,以产生更具包容性的开发环境。摘要:多样性是社会的一个重要方面。多样性的一种形式是认知多样性——认知风格的差异,这有助于产生思想的多样性。不幸的是,软件工具通常不支持不同的认知风格(例如,学习风格),不成比例地影响那些不支持风格的人。这些人每次使用这些工具时都要支付认知“税”。在这项工作中,我们在社交编码平台GitHub中发现了“包容性漏洞”。然后,我们重新设计了这些漏洞百出的功能,并与用户一起进行了评估。我们的研究结果表明,重新设计使那些认知风格在原始设计中不受支持的人更容易完成任务,完成任务的百分比从67%上升到95%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Designing for Cognitive Diversity: Improving the GitHub Experience for Newcomers
Social coding platforms such as GitHub have become defacto environments for collaborative programming and open source. When these platforms do not support specific cognitive styles, they create barriers to programming for some populations. Research shows that the cognitive styles typically favored by women are often unsupported, creating barriers to entry for woman newcomers. In this paper, we use the GenderMag method to evaluate GitHub to find cognitive style-specific inclusivity bugs. We redesigned the "buggy" GitHub features through a web browser plugin, which we evaluated through a between-subjects experiment (n=75). Our results indicate that the changes to the interface improve users' performance and self-efficacy, mainly for individuals with cognitive styles more common to women. Our results can inspire designers of social coding platforms and software engineering tools to produce more inclusive development environments.General Abstract—Diversity is an important aspect of society. One form of diversity is cognitive diversity—differences in cognitive styles, which helps generate a diversity of thoughts. Unfortunately, software tools often do not support different cognitive styles (e.g., learning styles), disproportionately impacting those whose styles are not supported. These individuals pay a cognitive "tax" each time they use the tools. In this work, we found "inclusivity bugs" in GitHub, a social coding platform. We then redesigned these buggy features and evaluated them with users. Our results show that the redesign makes it easier for the group of individuals whose cognitive styles were unsupported in the original design, with the percentage of completed tasks rising from 67% to 95% for this group.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信