Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Michael Flanagan
dblp:36/3456
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0003-0964-7030ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Software maintenance and evolution · 70% Empirical software engineering · 30% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution › program comprehension
code navigation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Eyes on Code: A Study on Developers' Code Navigation Strategies · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Eyes on Code: A Study on Developers' Code Navigation Strategies · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022 |
Software maintenance and evolution
program comprehension |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Eyes on Code: A Study on Developers' Code Navigation Strategies · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022 |
Software maintenance and evolution › software evolution
maintenance tasks |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Eyes on Code: A Study on Developers' Code Navigation Strategies · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical analysis · 0.6eye tracking · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Eyes on Code: A Study on Developers' Code Navigation StrategiesabstractWhat code navigation strategies do developers use and what mechanisms do they employ to find relevant information? Do their strategies evolve over the course of longer tasks? Answers to these questions can provide insight to educators and software tool designers to support a wide variety of programmers as they tackle increasingly-complex software systems. However, little research to date has measured developers’ code navigation strategies in ecologically-valid settings, or analyzed how strategies progressed throughout a maintenance task. We propose a novel experimental design that more accurately represents the software maintenance process in terms of software complexity and IDE interactions. Using this framework, we conduct an eye-tracking study (n=36) of realistic bug-fixing tasks, dynamically and empirically identifying relevant code areas. We introduce a three-phase model to characterize developers’ navigation behavior supported by statistical variations in eye movements over time. We also propose quantifiable notion of “thrashing” with the code as a navigation activity. We find that thrashing is associated with lower effectiveness. Our results confirm that the relevance of various code elements changes over time, and that our proposed three-phase model is capable of capturing these significant changes. We discuss our findings and their implications for tool designers, educators, and the research community. Zohreh Sharafi, Ian Bertram, Michael Flanagan, Westley Weimer |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 3 |