End-user development (EUD) or end-user programming (EUP) refers to activities and tools that allow end-users – people who are not professional software developers – to program computers. People who are not professional developers can use EUD tools to create or modify software artifacts (descriptions of automated behavior) and complex data objects without significant knowledge of a programming language. In 2005 it was estimated (using statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) that by 2012 there would be more than 55 million end-user developers in the United States, compared with fewer than 3 million professional programmers. Various EUD approaches exist, and it is an active research topic within the field of computer science and human-computer interaction. Examples include natural language programming,spreadsheets, scripting languages (particularly in an office suite or art application), visual programming, trigger-action programming and programming by example.
The most popular EUD tool is the spreadsheet. Due to their unrestricted nature, spreadsheets allow relatively un-sophisticated computer users to write programs that represent complex data models, while shielding them from the need to learn lower-level programming languages. Because of their common use in business, spreadsheet skills are among the most beneficial skills for a graduate employee to have, and are therefore the most commonly sought after In the United States of America alone, there are an estimated 13 million end-user developers programming with spreadsheets
The programming by example (PbE) approach reduces the need for the user to learn the abstractions of a classic programming language. The user instead introduces some examples of the desired results or operations that should be performed on the data, and the PbE system infers some abstractions corresponding to a program that produces this output, which the user can refine. New data may then be introduced to the automatically created program, and the user can correct any mistakes made by the program in order to improve its definition. Low-code development platforms are also an approach to EUD.
One evolution in this area has considered the use of mobile devices to support end-user development activities. In this case previous approaches for desktop applications cannot be simply reproposed, given the specific characteristics of mobile devices. Desktop EUD environments lack the advantages of enabling end users to create applications opportunistically while on the move.
More recently, interest in how to exploit EUD to support development of Internet of Things applications has increased. In this area trigger-action programming seems a promising approach.
Application specific low code development platforms
Roughly 40 vendors now offer solutions targeted at end users designed to reduce programming efforts. These solutions do not require traditional programming and may be based around relatively narrow functionality, e.g. contract management, customer relationships management, issue and bug tracking. Often referred to as low code development platforms, web based interactions guide a user to develop an application in as little as 40–80 hours.[circular reference]
Lieberman et al. propose the following definition:
End-User Development can be defined as a set of methods, techniques, and tools that allow users of software systems, who are acting as non-professional software developers, at some point to create, modify or extend a software artifact.
End-user programming is programming to achieve the result of a program primarily for personal, rather [than] public use.
Artifacts defined by end users may be objects describing some automated behavior or control sequence, such as database requests or grammar rules, which can be described with programming paradigms such as programming by demonstration, programming with
examples, visual programming, or macro generation. They can also be parameters that choose between alternative predefined behaviors of an application. Other artifacts of end-user development may also refer to the creation of user-generated content such as annotations, which may be or not computationally interpretable (i.e. can be processed by associated automated functions).
Examples of end-user development include the creation and modification of:
Animation scripts used by graphic artists to describe characters, environments and how characters move to produce an intended animation
Configuration files that blur the line between programs and data (e.g., email filters are sequenced lists of criteria and actions to take)
3D models created with end-user oriented tools and apps such as Sketchup
According to Sutcliffe, EUD essentially outsources development effort to the end user. Because there is always some effort to learn an EUD tool, the users' motivation depends on their confidence that it will empower their work, save time on the job or raise productivity. In this model, the benefits to users are initially based on marketing, demonstrations and word-of-mouth. Once the technology is put into use, experience of actual benefits becomes the key motivator.
This study defines costs as the sum of:
Technical cost: the price of the technology and the effort to install it
Learning cost: the time taken to understand the technology
Development cost: the effort to develop applications using the technology
Test and debugging cost: the time taken to verify the system
The first and second costs are incurred once during acquisition, whereas the third and fourth are incurred every time an application is developed. Benefits (which may be perceived or actual) are seen as:
Functionality delivered by the technology
Flexibility to respond to new requirements
Usability of applications produced
Overall quality of the applications produced
Collaborations in end-user development
Many end-user development activities are collaborative in nature, including collaboration between professional developers and end-user developers and collaboration among end-user developers.
Mutual development is a technique where professional developers and end-user developers work together in creating software solutions. In mutual development, the professional developers often “under design” the system and provide the tools to allow the “owners of problems" to create the suitable solution at use time for their needs, objectives and situational contexts. Then the communication between professional developers and end-user developers can often stimulate formalizing ad hoc modifications by the end users into software artifacts, transforming end-user developed solutions into commercial product features with impacts beyond local solutions.
In this collaboration, various approaches such as the Software Shaping Workshop are proposed to bridge the communication gap between professional developers and end-user developers. These approaches often provide translucency according to the social translucence model, enabling everyone in the collaboration to be aware of changes made by others and to be held accountable of their actions because of the awareness.
Besides programming collaboration platforms like GitHub, which are mostly utilized by expert developers due to their steep learning curve, collaborations among end-user developers often take place on wiki platforms where the software artifacts created are shared. End-user development is also often used for creating automation scripts or interactive tutorials for sharing “how-to” knowledge. Examples of such application include CoScripter and HILC. In such applications, user can create scripts for tasks using pseudo-natural language or via programming by demonstration. The users can choose to upload the script to a wiki style repository of scripts. On this wiki, users can browse available scripts and extend existing scripts to support additional parameters, to handle additional conditions or to operate on additional objects.
Online and offline communities of end-user developers have also been formed, where end-user developers can collaboratively solve EUD problems of shared interest or for mutual benefit. In such communities, local experts spread expertise and advice. Community members also provide social support for each other to support the collaborative construction of software.
Commentators have been concerned that end users do not understand how to test and secure their applications. Warren Harrison, a professor of computer science at Portland State University, wrote:
It’s simply unfathomable that we could expect security... from the vast majority of software applications out there when they’re written with little, if any, knowledge of generally accepted good practices such as specifying before coding, systematic testing, and so on.... How many X for Complete Idiots (where "X" is your favorite programming language) books are out there? I was initially amused by this trend, but recently I’ve become uneasy thinking about where these dabblers are applying their newfound knowledge.
This viewpoint assumes that all end users are equally naive when it comes to understanding software, although Pliskin and Shoval argue this is not the case, that sophisticated end users are capable of end-user development. However, compared with expert programmers, end-user programmers rarely have the time or interest in systematic and disciplined software engineering activities, which makes ensuring the quality of the software artifact produced by end-user development particularly challenging.
In response to this, the study of end-user software engineering has emerged. It is concerned with issues beyond end-user development, whereby end users become motivated to consider issues such as reusability, security and verifiability when developing their solutions.
An alternative scenario is that end users or their consultants employ declarative tools that support rigorous business and security rules at the expense of performance and scalability; tools created using EUD will typically have worse efficiency than those created with professional programming environments. Though separating functionality from efficiency is a valid separation of concerns, it can lead to a situation where end users will complete and document the requirements analysis and prototyping of the tool, without the involvement of business analysts. Thus, users will define the functions required before these experts have a chance to consider the limitations of a specific application or software framework. Senior management support for such end-user initiatives depends on their attitude to existing or potential vendor lock-in.
^Scaffidi, C.; Shaw, M.; Myers, B. (2005-09-01). Estimating the numbers of end users and end user programmers. 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC'05). pp. 207–214. doi:10.1109/VLHCC.2005.34. ISBN 978-0-7695-2443-6.
^Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Klann, M., and Wulf, V. (2006). End-User Development: An Emerging Paradigm. In: End-User Development, Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., and Wulf, V. (eds.), Springer Netherlands, 2006, ser. Human-Computer Interaction Series, vol. 9, Chapter 1, pp. 1-7, doi:10.1007/1-4020-5386-X_1
^Ko, Andrew J.; Abraham, Robin; Beckwith, Laura; Blackwell, Alan; Burnett, Margaret; Erwig, Martin; Scaffidi, Chris; Lawrance, Joseph; Lieberman, Henry (2011-04-01). "The State of the Art in End-user Software Engineering". ACM Comput. Surv. 43 (3): 21:1–21:44. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1145/1922649.1922658. ISSN 0360-0300.
^H. Lieberman, B. A. Nardi, and D. Wright. Grammex: Defining grammars by example. In ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Summary, Demonstrations) (CHI ’98), Los Angeles, California, USA, pages 11–12. ACM
Press, Apr. 1998.
^Scaffidi, Christopher; Brandt, Joel; Burnett, Margaret; Dove, Andrew; Myers, Brad (2012). SIG: end-user programming. CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Chi Ea '12. pp. 1193–1996. doi:10.1145/2212776.2212421. ISBN 9781450310161.
^Leonardi, Nicola; Manca, Marco; Paternò, Fabio; Santoro, Carmen (2019). Trigger-Action Programming for Personalising Humanoid Robot Behaviour. CHI '19 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300675. ISBN 978-145035970-2.
^Sarkar, Advait; Blackwell, Alan; Jamnik, Mateja; Spott, Martin (July 2014). Teach and Try: A simple interaction technique for exploratory data modelling by end users. 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2014). pp. 53–56. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1109/VLHCC.2014.6883022. ISBN 978-1-4799-4035-6.
^Sutcliffe, Alistair (July 2005). "Evaluating the costs and benefits of end-user development". ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. 30 (4): 1–4. doi:10.1145/1082983.1083241.
^Andersen, Renate; Mørch, Anders I. (2009-03-02). Mutual Development: A Case Study in Customer-Initiated Software Product Development. End-User Development. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 5435. pp. 31–49. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00427-8_3. ISBN 978-3-642-00425-4.
^Fischer, Gerhard (1994-01-01). "Putting the Owners of Problems in Charge with Domain-oriented Design Environments". User-Centred Requirements for Software Engineering Environments. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 297–306. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03035-6_23. ISBN 978-3-642-08189-7.
^Lieberman, Henry; Paternò, Fabio; Klann, Markus; Wulf, Volker (2006-01-01). Lieberman, Henry; Paternò, Fabio; Wulf, Volker (eds.). End User Development. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer Netherlands. pp. 1–8. doi:10.1007/1-4020-5386-x_1. ISBN 9781402042201.
^Erickson, Thomas; Kellogg, Wendy A. (2000-03-01). "Social Translucence: An Approach to Designing Systems That Support Social Processes". ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7 (1): 59–83. doi:10.1145/344949.345004. ISSN 1073-0516.
^Leshed, Gilly; Haber, Eben M.; Matthews, Tara; Lau, Tessa (2008-01-01). CoScripter: Automating & Sharing How-to Knowledge in the Enterprise. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '08. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 1719–1728. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357323. ISBN 9781605580111.
^Intharah, Thanapong; Turmukhambetov, Daniyar; Brostow, Gabriel J. (2017-01-01). Help, It Looks Confusing: GUI Task Automation Through Demonstration and Follow-up Questions. Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. IUI '17. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 233–243. doi:10.1145/3025171.3025176. ISBN 9781450343480.
^Fischer, G.; Giaccardi, E.; Ye, Y.; Sutcliffe, A. G.; Mehandjiev, N. (2004-09-01). "Meta-design: A Manifesto for End-user Development". Commun. ACM. 47 (9): 33–37. doi:10.1145/1015864.1015884. ISSN 0001-0782.
^Harrison, Warren (July–August 2004). "The Dangers of End-User Programming". IEEE Software. 21 (4): 5. doi:10.1109/MS.2004.13.
^Brandt, Joel; Guo, Philip J.; Lewenstein, Joel; Klemmer, Scott R. (2008-01-01). Opportunistic Programming: How Rapid Ideation and Prototyping Occur in Practice. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on End-user Software Engineering. WEUSE '08. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 1–5. doi:10.1145/1370847.1370848. ISBN 9781605580340.
B. Guo, D. Zhang, M. Imai. Enabling User-Oriented Management for Ubiquitous Computing: The Meta-Design Approach, Computer Networks, Elsevier, Vol. 54, No. 16, 2010.
Burnett, Margaret M. and Scaffidi, Christopher (2011): End-User Development. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). "Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction".
Kierkegaard, Patrick(2011) Kierkegaard, Patrick (2011). Beefing Up End User Development: Legal Protection and Regulatory Compliance. End-user Development. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6654/2011. pp. 203–217. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21530-8_16. ISBN 978-3-642-21529-2.