Previous research has revealed that newcomer women are disproportionately affected by gender-biased barriers in open source software (OSS) projects. However, this research has focused mainly on social/cultural factors, neglecting the software tools and infrastructure. To shed light on how OSS tools and infrastructure might factor into OSS barriers to entry, we conducted two studies: (1) a field study with five teams of software professionals, who worked through five use cases to analyze the tools and infrastructure used in their OSS projects; and (2) a diary study with 22 newcomers (9 women and 13 men) to investigate whether the barriers matched the ones identified by the software professionals. The field study produced a bleak result: software professionals found gender biases in 73 percent of all the newcomer barriers they identified. Further, the diary study confirmed these results: Women newcomers encountered gender biases in 63 percent of barriers they faced. Fortunately, many kinds of barriers and biases revealed in these studies could potentially be ameliorated through changes to the OSS software environments and tools.

Assessing and understanding intelligent agents is a difficult task for users who lack an AI background. “Explainable AI” (XAI) aims to address this problem, but what should be in an explanation? One route toward answering this question is to turn to theories of how humans try to obtain information they seek. Information Foraging Theory (IFT) is one such theory. In this article, we present a series of studies 1 using IFT: the first investigates how expert explainers supply explanations in the RTS domain, the second investigates what explanations domain experts demand from agents in the RTS domain, and the last focuses on how both populations try to explain a state-of-the-art AI. Our results show that RTS environments like StarCraft offer so many options that change so rapidly, foraging tends to be very costly. Ways foragers attempted to manage such costs included “satisficing” approaches to reduce their cognitive load, such as focusing more on What information than on Why information, strategic use of language to communicate a lot of nuanced information in a few words, and optimizing their environment when possible to make their most valuable information patches readily available. Further, when a real AI entered the picture, even very experienced domain experts had difficulty understanding and judging some of the AI’s unconventional behaviors. Finally, our results reveal ways Information Foraging Theory can inform future XAI interactive explanation environments, and also how XAI can inform IFT.

Research has revealed that significant barriers exist when entering Open-Source Software (OSS) communities and that women disproportionately experience such barriers. However, this research has focused mainly on social/cultural factors, ignoring the environment itself --- the tools and infrastructure. To shed some light onto how tools and infrastructure might somehow factor into OSS barriers to entry, we conducted a field study with five teams of software professionals, who worked through five use-cases to analyze the tools and infrastructure used in their OSS projects. These software professionals found tool/infrastructure barriers in 7% to 71% of the use-case steps that they analyzed, most of which are tied to newcomer barriers that have been established in the literature. Further, over 80% of the barrier types they found include attributes that are biased against women.

Assessing and understanding intelligent agents is a difficult task for users that lack an AI background. A relatively new area, called "Explainable AI," is emerging to help address this problem, but little is known about how users would forage through information an explanation system might offer. To inform the development of Explainable AI systems, we conducted a formative study -- using the lens of Information Foraging Theory -- into how experienced users foraged in the domain of StarCraft to assess an agent. Our results showed that participants faced difficult foraging problems. These foraging problems caused participants to entirely miss events that were important to them, reluctantly choose to ignore actions they did not want to ignore, and bear high cognitive, navigation, and information costs to access the information they needed.