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

Joshua Jordahl

dblp:129/2147 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2

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
Empirical software engineering · 77% Debugging and program repair · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › user behavior analysis
information foraging theory
0.212013
The whats and hows of programmers' foraging diets · CHI 2013
Debugging and program repair › human factors in debugging
debugging strategies
0.012013
The whats and hows of programmers' foraging diets · CHI 2013

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

qualitative analysis · 0.2information foraging theory · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 The whats and hows of programmers' foraging diets
abstract
One of the least studied areas of Information Foraging Theory is diet: the information foragers choose to seek. For example, do foragers choose solely based on cost, or do they stubbornly pursue certain diets regardless of cost? Do their debugging strategies vary with their diets? To investigate "what" and "how" questions like these for the domain of software debugging, we qualitatively analyzed 9 professional developers' foraging goals, goal patterns, and strategies. Participants spent 50% of their time foraging. Of their foraging, 58% fell into distinct dietary patterns - mostly in patterns not previously discussed in the literature. In general, programmers' foraging strategies leaned more heavily toward enrichment than we expected, but different strategies aligned with different goal types. These and our other findings help fill the gap as to what programmers' dietary goals are and how their strategies relate to those goals.
David Piorkowski, Scott D. Fleming, Irwin Kwan, Margaret M. Burnett, Christopher Scaffidi, Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Joshua Jordahl
CHI7
2013 End-user programmers in trouble: Can the Idea Garden help them to help themselves?
abstract
End-user programmers often get stuck because they do not know how to overcome their barriers. We have previously presented an approach called the Idea Garden, which makes minimalist, on-demand problem-solving support available to end-user programmers in trouble. Its goal is to encourage end users to help themselves learn how to overcome programming difficulties as they encounter them. In this paper, we investigate whether the Idea Garden approach helps end-user programmers problem-solve their programs on their own. We ran a statistical experiment with 123 end-user programmers. The experiment's results showed that, even when the Idea Garden was no longer available, participants with little knowledge of programming who previously used the Idea Garden were able to produce higher-quality programs than those who had not used the Idea Garden.
Jill Cao, Irwin Kwan, Faezeh Bahmani, Margaret M. Burnett, Scott D. Fleming, Joshua Jordahl, Amber Horvath, Sherry Yang 0002
VL/HCC6