Empowering software engineers in human-centered design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usability is about to become the quality measure of today's interactive software including Web sites, and mobile appliances. User-centered design approach emerges from this need for developing more usable products. However, interactive systems are still designed and tested by software and computer engineers unfamiliar with UCD and the related usability engineering techniques. While most software developers may have been exposed with basic concepts such as GUI design guidelines, few developers are able to understand the human/user-centered design (UCD) toolbox at a level that allows them to incorporate it into the software development lifecycle. This paper describes an approach for skilling developers and students enrolled in an engineering program in critical user-centered design techniques and tools. The proposed approach starts from the analysis of the usability and software engineer's work context, identifies critical UCD skills and then associates relevant learning resources with each of the identified skills. Our approach suggests a list of patterns for facilitating the integration the UCD skills into the software engineering lifecycle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it