MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399478946 · doi:10.54941/ahfe1005443

Challenges and Opportunities of Low-Code Figma and Modul-F for Use within the Public Sector

2024· article· en· W4399478946 on OpenAlex
Marleen Vanhauer, Stephan Raimer

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAHFE international · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultimedia Communication and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sectorCode (set theory)Computer scienceBusinessProgramming languagePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-code/no-code applications becoming more and more popular would especially within the public sector foster faster digitalization of public services. Working with these applications requires no programming skills and therefore, professionals within their domain can easily implement digital prototypes independent of designers and software developers. Respectively, public administrative employees and executives often have a deep understanding of the actual digital public services to be implemented. Low-code development tools have been evaluated within the healthcare sector (Ness et al., 2019), educational sector (Khosrojerdi et al., 2021), whereas Gottschick et al. (2023) applied a software development approach using low-code/no-code for implementation of a public sector cloud service. Lethbridge (2021) stated a need to first provide proper low-code platforms, to have an impact on faster development of digital services. This led us to the question: Which low-code prototyping tools exist and what their opportunities and challenges are when used by public sector employees? By expert evaluation (Harley, 2019), we compared Figma (Figma, 2016) and the Figma-Low-Code plugin (Figma Community, 2020) with the customized low-code platform Modul-F (Senatskanzlei Hamburg, 2023) for the public sector. We found an advanced maturity in structure, layout and functions of both low-code platforms. According to Nielsen’s (2023) usability quality criteria, learnability of Modul-F was fast (high), and learnability of Figma with Low-Code plugin was rated neutral (medium). The efficiency of the Modul-F Editor was high, it was low for Figma with the low-code plugin. However, memorability was low for both platforms. Running the Figma-Low-Code plugin did require programming skills. Building a prototype with the Modul-F Editor did not allow to design individual user flows. In the future, usability studies should be conducted to assess flaws and satisfaction during actual use by public administrative employees, executives, and designers having no programming skills. Moreover, we anticipate that a nation-wide public service design system with component library, e.g. KERN UX-Standard (Senatskanzlei Hamburg, 2024), would fully leverage the potential of any low-code/no-code platform. To conclude, using low-code/no-code platforms requires interdisciplinary teams of administrative staff and designers working together on digital concepts on a professional daily basis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.281
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.095 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it