The patchworks code editor: toward faster navigation with less code arranging and fewer navigation mistakes
Abstract
Increasingly, people are faced with navigating large information spaces, and making such navigation efficient is of paramount concern. In this paper, we focus on the problems programmers face in navigating large code bases, and propose a novel code editor, Patchworks, that addresses the problems. In particular, Patchworks leverages two new interface idioms - the patch grid and the ribbon - to help programmers navigate more quickly, make fewer navigation errors, and spend less time arranging their code. To validate Patchworks, we conducted a user study that compared Patchworks to two existing code editors: the traditional file-based editor, Eclipse, and the newer canvas-based editor, Code Bubbles. Our results showed (1) that programmers using Patchworks were able to navigate significantly faster than with Eclipse (and comparably with Code Bubbles), (2) that programmers using Patchworks made significantly fewer navigation errors than with Code Bubbles or Eclipse, and (3) that programmers using Patchworks spent significantly less time arranging their code than with Code Bubbles (and comparably with Eclipse).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Software engineering researchers have produced tools that help reduce developers' navigation costs.
“These and other findings about developers' foraging and navigations (e.g., [26,31,37,44]) have led software engineering researchers to produce tools that help to reduce developers' navigation costs as they look for the information they need [8,17,18,19,22,30,33,43].”
From Foraging and navigations, fundamentally: developers' predictions of value and cost (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
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].”
From Foraging and navigations, fundamentally: developers' predictions of value and cost (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 41
- Authors
- Henley, A. Z., & Fleming, S. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Memphis (US)
- ORCID
- Henley, Austin Z.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-04-26
- Pages
- 2511-2520
- OpenAlex
- W2130063609
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 4.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Keywords
- code editor, patchwork, ribbon interface, navigation errors, eclipses, developer productivity
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