User-Centric Study and Enhancement of Python Static Code Analysers
(2023) PPIG: 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group- Abstract
- Despite the growing integration of code analysis tools into developer workflows, usability challenges
persist in many aspects. Previous research, primarily focused on static languages and professional developers, has largely overlooked the needs of novice developers and non-static languages like Python.
In this paper, we investigate the experiences of novice Python programmers with static code analysis
tools. We aim to understand how these novices interact with and perceive these tools, with a focus on
identifying usability pain points. To this end, we conducted initial user research with a survey followed
by interviews. The insights derived from these studies were used to develop an enhanced version of the
Pylint... (More) - Despite the growing integration of code analysis tools into developer workflows, usability challenges
persist in many aspects. Previous research, primarily focused on static languages and professional developers, has largely overlooked the needs of novice developers and non-static languages like Python.
In this paper, we investigate the experiences of novice Python programmers with static code analysis
tools. We aim to understand how these novices interact with and perceive these tools, with a focus on
identifying usability pain points. To this end, we conducted initial user research with a survey followed
by interviews. The insights derived from these studies were used to develop an enhanced version of the
Pylint extension to Visual Studio Code, incorporating additional quick-fixes to improve the user experience connected to configuration of static analysis tools. The developed prototype extension was finally
evaluated in a user study. The results from the interviews and surveys suggest that false positives, otherwise reported as a dominant cause of usability issues with code analysis, may not be as dominant for
novice users who may focus on other aspects and not challenge the code analysis results. In addition,
the results from the evaluation give early input on one possible direction for an enhanced Python code
analyser interaction focused on novices. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/92ecaccc-056f-4372-b6f1-ce7bf1312957
- author
- Chen, Steven ; Söderberg, Emma LU and McCabe, Alan LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2023
- type
- Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
- publication status
- published
- subject
- host publication
- Proceedings of the 34th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group
- publisher
- Psychology of Programming Interest Group
- conference name
- PPIG: 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group
- conference location
- Lund, Sweden
- conference dates
- 2023-08-21 - 2023-08-25
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 92ecaccc-056f-4372-b6f1-ce7bf1312957
- alternative location
- https://www.ppig.org/files/2023-PPIG-34th-chen.pdf
- date added to LUP
- 2024-01-22 10:37:22
- date last changed
- 2024-01-23 09:27:24
@inproceedings{92ecaccc-056f-4372-b6f1-ce7bf1312957, abstract = {{Despite the growing integration of code analysis tools into developer workflows, usability challenges<br/>persist in many aspects. Previous research, primarily focused on static languages and professional developers, has largely overlooked the needs of novice developers and non-static languages like Python.<br/>In this paper, we investigate the experiences of novice Python programmers with static code analysis<br/>tools. We aim to understand how these novices interact with and perceive these tools, with a focus on<br/>identifying usability pain points. To this end, we conducted initial user research with a survey followed<br/>by interviews. The insights derived from these studies were used to develop an enhanced version of the<br/>Pylint extension to Visual Studio Code, incorporating additional quick-fixes to improve the user experience connected to configuration of static analysis tools. The developed prototype extension was finally<br/>evaluated in a user study. The results from the interviews and surveys suggest that false positives, otherwise reported as a dominant cause of usability issues with code analysis, may not be as dominant for<br/>novice users who may focus on other aspects and not challenge the code analysis results. In addition,<br/>the results from the evaluation give early input on one possible direction for an enhanced Python code<br/>analyser interaction focused on novices.}}, author = {{Chen, Steven and Söderberg, Emma and McCabe, Alan}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 34th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group}}, language = {{eng}}, publisher = {{Psychology of Programming Interest Group}}, title = {{User-Centric Study and Enhancement of Python Static Code Analysers}}, url = {{https://www.ppig.org/files/2023-PPIG-34th-chen.pdf}}, year = {{2023}}, }