CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Spreadsheets and End-User ComputingTeaching and Learning ProgrammingUsability and User Interface Design

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Characterizing Visual Programming Approaches for End-User Developers: A Systematic Review

Open access
Kuhail, Mohammad Amin, Farooq, Shahbano, Hammad, Rawad, Bahja, Mohammed·2021·IEEE Access
DOI 10.1109/access.2021.3051043
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recently many researches have explored the potential of visual programming in robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), and education. However, there is a lack of studies that analyze the recent evidence-based visual programming approaches that are applied in several domains. This study presents a systematic review to understand, compare, and reflect on recent visual programming approaches using twelve dimensions: visual programming classification, interaction style, target users, domain, platform, empirical evaluation type, test participants' type, number of test participants, test participants' programming skills, evaluation methods, evaluation measures, and accessibility of visual programming tools. The results show that most of the selected articles discussed tools that target IoT and education, while other fields such as data science, robotics are emerging. Further, most tools use abstractions to hide implementation details and use similar interaction styles. The predominant platforms for the tools are web and mobile, while desktop-based tools are on the decline. Only a few tools were evaluated with a formal experiment, whilst the remaining ones were evaluated with evaluation studies or informal feedback. Most tools were evaluated with students with little to no programming skills. There is a lack of emphasis on usability principles in the design stage of the tools. Additionally, only one of the tools was evaluated for expressiveness. Other areas for exploration include supporting end users throughout the life cycle of applications created with the tools, studying the impact of tutorials on improving learnability, and exploring the potential of machine learning to improve debugging solutions developed with visual programming.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2021.3051043

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 115

  1. 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2019.00037 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/3375900.3375917 · DOI
  3. 10.1145/3313831.3376670 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.future.2017.09.068 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.010 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/s40692-018-0101-5 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.jpdc.2017.01.018 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/3025013 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.039 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/978-3-030-24781-2_12 · DOI
  11. 10.1109/ICWS.2015.70 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/978-3-319-18425-8_5 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.jss.2018.11.041 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/2.156380 · DOI
  15. 10.1207/s15516709cog1901_3 · DOI
  16. 10.1109/ICSE.1998.671118 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb02740.x · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x · DOI
  19. 2020, Microsoft word
  20. 10.1155/2013/532659 · DOI
  21. 2020, LabVIEW
  22. 10.1006/jvlc.2002.0240 · DOI
  23. stratton, 2047, Quando: Enabling museum and art gallery practitioners to develop interactive digital exhibits, End-User Development, 10303
  24. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.10.009 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.11.002 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/2542168 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/2166966.2167003 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/978-3-642-38706-7_4 · DOI
  29. cabitzaiade, 2012, Rule-based programming as easy as a child’s play. A user study on active documents, Proc Int Conf Interface Hum Comput Interact (IHCI IADIS), 73
  30. 10.1109/VLHCC.2015.7357206 · DOI
  31. 10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139973 · DOI
  32. 10.1109/BigData.2016.7840860 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/978-3-319-40651-0_24 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.08.025 · DOI
  35. zhang, 1998, On the design of a generic visual programming environment, Proc IEEE Symp Vis Lang, 88
  36. 10.1016/j.cola.2020.100970 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.jpdc.2018.02.021 · DOI
  38. 10.1007/978-3-030-22646-6_14 · DOI
  39. 10.1109/ISM.2014.24 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.cola.2020.100999 · DOI
  41. 10.1049/trit.2018.0016 · DOI
  42. 10.1007/s11042-016-3910-4 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.visinf.2018.04.008 · DOI
  44. cannavò, 2020, A visual editing tool supporting the production of 3D interactive graphics assets for public exhibitions, Int J Hum -Comput Stud, 141, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102450 · DOI
  45. 10.1145/3364183.3364202 · DOI
  46. 10.1109/VLHCC.2018.8506504 · DOI
  47. 10.1007/978-3-030-24781-2_6 · DOI
  48. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3002591 · DOI
  49. 10.1145/1943371.1943373 · DOI
  50. 10.1145/1453101.1453119 · DOI
  51. 10.1145/344949.344959 · DOI
  52. 10.1007/978-3-642-00427-8_2 · DOI
  53. 10.21125/inted.2020.2446 · DOI
  54. 10.1145/3350768.3352456 · DOI
  55. annie, 2020, The State of Mobile in 2020 The Key Stats You Need to Know
  56. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.003 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.03.005 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2012.07.002 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2013.11.003 · DOI
  60. nielsen, 1994, Heuristic evaluation, Usability Inspection Methods
  61. nielsen, 1993, Usability Engineering
  62. shneiderman, 2016, Designing the User Interface Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction
  63. green, 1989, Cognitive dimensions of notations, People and Computers V, 443
  64. lauesen, 2004, User Interface Design A Software Engineering Perspective
  65. 10.1109/2.241424 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1006/jvlc.1994.1015 · DOI
  67. 10.1109/ICSE.2003.1201191 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/S1045-926X(05)80036-9 · DOI
  69. 2020, RoboFlow
  70. 2020, Microsoft visual programming language
  71. 2020, Flink Visual Programming
  72. 2020, Atooma
  73. 2020, Quando—Visual Programming for Digital Interactive Exhibits
  74. 2020, App Inventor
  75. 2020, M project
  76. 10.1145/1592761.1592779 · DOI · Paper page
  77. 2020, Snap4City Platform
  78. 2020, Microsoft PowerApps
  79. 2020, Think
  80. 2020, Amazon Honey Code
  81. 2020, Smart Blockchain
  82. 2020, Wave Low-Code Development Platforms For AD&D Pros Q1 2019
  83. 2020, NetsBlox
  84. 2020, VisComposer
  85. 2020, Modkit
  86. 2020, Arduino
  87. 2020, Github
  88. 2020, MIT Open Blocks
  89. 2020, Blockly
  90. 10.1155/2017/1231430 · DOI
  91. 10.1007/1-4020-5386-X_1 · DOI
  92. burnett, 2013, End-user development, Encylopedia of human-computer interaction
  93. 10.18293/VLSS2017-010 · DOI
  94. 10.1007/3-540-18507-0_1 · DOI
  95. 10.1142/S0218001487000084 · DOI
  96. 2020, VIPLE Tool
  97. 10.1007/978-3-642-21530-8_6 · DOI
  98. macefield, 2009, How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: A practitioner’s guide, J usability Stud, 5, 34
  99. 2020, WS-BPEL Tool
  100. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.01.003 · DOI
  101. soegaard, 2020, Interaction styles, The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction
  102. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2013.12.004 · DOI
  103. 10.1371/journal.pone.0088941 · DOI
  104. 2020, SCImago Journal & Country Rank
  105. 10.1109/VLHCC.2017.8103464 · DOI
  106. 10.21125/edulearn.2016.0422 · DOI
  107. 2020, Enchant
  108. 2020, Jeeves ESM Tool
  109. dalal, 2014, Impact of multi-media tutorials in a computer science laboratory course—An empirical study, Electron J E-Learning, 12, 366
  110. 2020, TAPAS
  111. 2020, PMI’s Report on Artificial Intelligence
  112. nielsen, 2000, Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users
  113. nielsen, 2001, Usability Metrics
  114. 2020, Ubisoft
  115. 2020, Functionize An Intelligent-Based Testing Company

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kuhail, M. A., Farooq, S., Hammad, R., & Bahja, M.
Affiliations
  • Zayed University (AE)
  • University of East London (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Access
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2021
Volume
9
Pages
14181-14202
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/access.2021.3051043
OpenAlex
W4247063504
Cited by
69
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UEL Research Repository (University of East London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Research Incentive Fund (R20051)
  • Zayed University, United Arab Emirates
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Spreadsheets and End-User Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
visual programming, end-user developers, visual programming tools, Internet of Things, programming education, robotics, data science, interaction styles, tool evaluation, usability, accessibility, programming abstractions, learnability, debugging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review