Cited by 60Spreadsheets and End-User ComputingData Visualization and AnalyticsUsability and User Interface Design

End-user debugging strategies: A sensemaking perspective

Grigoreanu, Valentina, Burnett, Margaret, Wiedenbeck, Susan, Cao, Jill, Rector, Kyle, Kwan, Irwin·2012·ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Abstract

Despite decades of research into how professional programmers debug, only recently has work emerged about how end-user programmers attempt to debug programs. Without this knowledge, we cannot build tools to adequately support their needs. This article reports the results of a detailed qualitative empirical study of end-user programmers' sensemaking about a spreadsheet's correctness. Using our study's data, we derived a sensemaking model for end-user debugging and categorized participants' activities and verbalizations according to this model, allowing us to investigate how participants went about debugging. Among the results are identification of the prevalence of information foraging during end-user debugging, two successful strategies for traversing the sensemaking model, potential ties to gender differences in the literature, sensemaking sequences leading to debugging progress, and sequences tied with troublesome points in the debugging process. The results also reveal new implications for the design of spreadsheet tools to support end-user programmers' sensemaking during debugging.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2147783.2147788

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • IFT has proven useful for explaining and predicting developer behaviors during software maintenance, in ways beneficial to tool design.

    “IFT has already proven useful for explaining and predicting developer behaviors during software maintenance, in ways beneficial to tool design [12,16,17,25,26,27,33].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grigoreanu, V., Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Cao, J., Rector, K., & Kwan, I.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
Published
2012-03
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
1-28
ISSN
  • 1073-0516 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7325
OpenAlex
W1974307657
Cited by
60
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
14.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (325273, 917366)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-09-1-0213)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Spreadsheets and End-User Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
end-user programming, debugging, sensemaking, spreadsheet software, information foraging, gender differences

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