Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Michelle Gantt

dblp:18/1790 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1992
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 67% Software maintenance and evolution · 33%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
computer-supported cooperative work
0.011992
Gardeners and Gurus: Patterns of Cooperation Among CAD Users · CHI 1992
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.011992
Gardeners and Gurus: Patterns of Cooperation Among CAD Users · CHI 1992
Empirical software engineering
end-user programming
0.011992
Gardeners and Gurus: Patterns of Cooperation Among CAD Users · CHI 1992
Software maintenance and evolution › software evolution › software adaptation
software customization
0.011992
Gardeners and Gurus: Patterns of Cooperation Among CAD Users · CHI 1992

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

interviews · 0.0field study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1992 Gardeners and Gurus: Patterns of Cooperation Among CAD Users
abstract
We studied CAD system users to find out how they use the sophisticated customization and extension facilities offered by many CAD products. We found that users of varying levels of expertise collaborate to customize their CAD environments and to create programmatic extensions to their applications. Within a group of users, there is at least one local expert who provides support for other users. We call this person a local developer. The local developer is a fellow domain expert, not a professional programmer, outside technical consultant or MIS staff member. We found that in some CAD environments the support role has been formalized so that local developers are given official recognition, and time and resources to pursue local developer activities. In general, this formalization of the local developer role appears successful. We discuss the implications of our findings for work practices and for software design.
Michelle Gantt, Bonnie A. Nardi
CHI1