Developing Mashup Tools for End-Users: On the Importance of the Application Domain

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jul 1, 2012
https://doi.org/10.47164/ijngc.v3i2.31
Download
PDF
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 3, Issue 2, July 2012

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Florian Daniel
University of Trento, Via Sommarive 5, 38123, Trento
Muhammad Imran
University of Trento, Via Sommarive 5, 38123, Trento
Stefano Soi
University of Trento, Via Sommarive 5, 38123, Trento
Antonella De Angeli
University of Trento, Via Sommarive 5, 38123, Trento
Chritopher R. Wilkinson
University of Trento, Via Sommarive 5, 38123, Trento
Fabio Casati
University of Trento, Via Sommarive 5, 38123, Trento, Italy
Maurizio Marchese
University of Trento, Via Sommarive 5, 38123, Trento

Abstract

The recent emergence of mashup tools has refueled research on end-user development, i.e., on enabling end-users without programming skills to compose own applications. Yet, similar to what happened with analogous promises in web service composition and business process management, research has mostly focused on technology and, as a consequence, has failed its objective. Plain technology (e.g., SOAP/WSDL web services) or simple modeling languages (e.g., Yahoo! Pipes) don't convey enough meaning to non-programmers.
In this article, we propose a domain-specific approach to mashups that \speaks the language of the user", i.e., that is aware of the terminology, concepts, rules, and conventions (the domain) the user is comfortable with. We show what developing a domain-specific mashup tool means, which role the mashup meta-model and the domain model play and how these can be merged into a domain-specific mashup meta-model. We exemplify the approach by implementing a mashup tool for a specific scenario (research evaluation) and describe the respective user study. The results of a first user study confirm that domain-specific mashup tools indeed lower the entry barrier to mashup development.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Daniel, F. ., Imran, M. ., Soi, S. ., Angeli, A. D. ., Chritopher R. Wilkinson, Fabio Casati, & Maurizio Marchese. (2012). Developing Mashup Tools for End-Users: On the Importance of the Application Domain. International Journal of Next-Generation Computing, 3(2), 144–172. https://doi.org/10.47164/ijngc.v3i2.31
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Active Endpoints, Adobe, BEA, IBM, Oracle, SAP. 2007a. Web Services Human Task (WS-HumanTask) Version 1.0. Tech. rep. June.
  2. Active Endpoints, Adobe, BEA, IBM, Oracle, SAP. 2007b. WS-BPEL Extension for People (BPEL4People) Version 1.0. Tech. rep. June.
  3. Costabile, M. F., Fogli, D., Fresta, G., Mussio, P., and Piccinno, A. 2004. Software environments for end-user development and tailoring. PsychNology Journal 2, 1, 99-122.
  4. Daniel, F., Casati, F., Benatallah, B., and Shan, M.-C. 2009. Hosted Universal Composition: Models, Languages and Infrastructure in mashArt. In ER'09. Berlin, Heidelberg, 428-443.
  5. Daniel, F., Soi, S., Tranquillini, S., Casati, F., Heng, C., and Yan, L. 2010. From People to Services to UI: Distributed Orchestration of User Interfaces. In BPM'10. 310-326.
  6. De Angeli, A., Battocchi, A., Roy Chowdhury, S., Rodriguez, C., Daniel, F., and Casati, F. 2011. End-user requirements for wisdom-aware eud. In Proceedings of IS-EUD 2011. 245-250.
  7. France, R. and Rumpe, B. 2005. Domain speci c modeling. Software and Systems Modeling 4, 1-3.
  8. Hands, D., A. S. and Davidoff, J. 2001. Recency and duration neglect in television picture quality evaluation. applied cognitive psychology. Applied Cognitive Psychology 15, 639-657.
  9. Hartmann, B., Doorley, S., and Klemmer, S. 2006. Hacking, Mashing, Gluing: A Study of Opportunistic Design and Development. Pervasive Computing 7, 3, 46-54.
  10. Jarke, M., Bui, X., and Carroll, J. 1998. Scenario management: An interdisciplinary approach. Requirements Engineering 3, 3, 155-173.
  11. Karlsson, M. and Wikstrom, L. 2006. Contemporary Ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, Great Britain, Chapter Safety semantics: A study on the e ect of product expression on user safety behaviour, 169-173.
  12. Ledeczi, A., Bakay, A., Maroti, M., Volgyesi, P., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., and Karsai, G. 2001. Composing domain-speci c design environments. IEEE Computer 34, 11, 44-51.
  13. Maximilien, E. M., Wilkinson, H., Desai, N., and Tai, S. 2007. A domain-speci c language for web apis and services mashups. In ICSOC. 13-26.
  14. Mehandjiev, N., De Angeli, A., Wajid, U., Namoun, A., and Battocchi, A. 2011. Empowering end-users to develop service-based applications. End-User Development, 413-418.
  15. Mernik, M., Heering, J., and Sloane, A. M. 2005. When and how to develop domain-speci c languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 4, 316-344.
  16. Monk, A. 1998. Cyclic interaction: a unitary approach to intention, action and the environment. Cognition 68, 95-110.
  17. Namoun, A., Nestler, T., and De Angeli, A. 2010a. Conceptual and Usability Issues in the Composable Web of Software Services. In Current Trends in Web Engineering-10th International Conference on Web Engineering ICWE 2010 Workshops. Springer, 396-407.
  18. Namoun, A., Nestler, T., and De Angeli, A. 2010b. Service Composition for Non Programmers: Pro-spects, Problems, and Design Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS). IEEE, 123-130.
  19. Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. Academic Press, California.
  20. Norman, D. A. 1991. Cognitive artifacts. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 17-38.
  21. OASIS. 2007. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Tech. rep., http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html. April.
  22. Okeye, H. 1998. Metaphor mental model approach to intuitive graphical user interface design. Ph.D. thesis, Cleveland State University, USA.
  23. Pietschmann, S., Voigt, M., Rumpel, A., and Meiner, K. 2009. Cruise: Composition of rich user interface services. In ICWE'09. 473-476.
  24. Rouse, W. and Morris, N. 1986. On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological bulletin 100, 3, 349.
  25. Roy Chowdhury, S., Daniel, F., and Casati, F. 2011. Ecient, Interactive Recommendation of Mashup Composition Knowledge. In Proceedings of ICSOC 2011. Springer, 374-388.
  26. Teague, R., De Jesus, K., and Ueno, M. 2001. Concurrent vs. post-task usability test ratings. In CHI'01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 289-290.
  27. Thomas, B. and van-Leeuwen, M. 1999. The user interface design of the zz and spark GSM telephones. Taylor & Francis, London.
  28. Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., and Daniel, F. 2008. Understanding Mashup Development. IEEE Internet Computing 12, 44-52.