Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Dieter Zirkler
dblp:99/7848
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3 · 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
2 papers |
Usability and user experience research · 87% Collaborative and social computing · 13% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Requirements engineering and software design · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Usability and user experience research
usability inspection |
0.2 | 2 | 2010 | API peer reviews: a method for evaluating usability of application programming interfaces · CSCW 2010 API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfaces · CHI 2010 |
Collaborative and social computing › information sharing › scholarly communication
peer review |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | API peer reviews: a method for evaluating usability of application programming interfaces · CSCW 2010 |
Requirements engineering and software design › interface design
API design |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfaces · CHI 2010 |
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfaces · CHI 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
usability inspection · 0.3usability testing · 0.2peer review · 0.2qualitative analysis · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfacesabstractWe describe a usability inspection method to evaluate Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). We found the method useful as it identified usability defects in Microsoft's .NET Framework, of which 59% were new and 21% were fixed. Based on a comparison of usability defects identified between API usability peer reviews and API usability tests, API usability tests were found to expose design issues related to actually using an API whereas API usability peer reviews were found to expose the design rationale of an API. We reflect on the efficiency and productivity of each method: each API usability test is equivalent to 16 API usability peer reviews with the former having a 2.5x productivity advantage. We discuss how API usability peer reviews can be used in conjunction with API usability tests to increase usability coverage on APIs. León Welicki, Dieter Zirkler |
CHI | 3 |
| 2010 | API peer reviews: a method for evaluating usability of application programming interfacesabstractAPI usability tests in the lab are time and resource intensive, thus allowing a relatively small percentage of the API namespace to be evaluated. We describe a group-based usability inspection method -- API Peer Reviews -- to evaluate API usability. Based on an analysis of usability breakdowns from API Peer Reviews and API usability tests, results show that API Peer Reviews identified breakdowns across several cognitive dimensions, some of which were different than what was identified by API usability tests. We reflect on the adoption of API Peer Reviews as a collaborative practice in organizations for evaluating API usability. Dieter Zirkler |
CSCW | 2 |
| 1994 | Usability testing in a competive market: lessons learnedabstractUsability testing is a relatively new and rapidly developing field. Newcomers to usability testing typically enter the profession with a knowledge of social science research methods and the belief that usability testing is conducted in a lab using thinking aloud techniques to identify usability defects. Our practice of usability testing at Mead Data Central has shown that these core beliefs represent an approach of limited utility in designing products like the LEX1S®NEXIS® research systems. In this paper, we describe our experiences in conducting traditional usability testing and how we used the results of those efforts to develop more effective methods of testing for Mead Data Central's products and customers. Dieter Zirkler, Donald R. Ballman |
Behav. Inf. Technol. | 1 |