This is an old revision of the document!

Core motivations

Reasons to reinvigorate qfwfq from a FoAM perspective.

Cross/inter disciplinarity between fields

As an approach to connecting diverse fields (biology, architecture, physics, media art) with some specific common problems:

  • The increase of data volume and complexity and the requirement for designing processes (programming) to deal with it all. Alex says: This is close to the core aims of the OAK group in Sheffield too I think
  • The rise of computational solutions to problems in general has left some areas behind - eg. not all areas of biology have easy access to bioinformatics departments.
  • Not having enough of an understanding of the processes carried out on a data set can lead to problematic interpretations.

Currently the approach to a solution is a myriad of domain specific tools, languages and environments - is there a way to design tools and practices that can cross these domains? The project needs at least two distant fields or application areas involved to prove this.

One approach is applying lessons learned in education, graphics and games design with visual programming and applying them in a more general way.

Why is this needed? The Importance of a Code Literate Culture

“the code literate of our society are mostly white men” … “code written today is not representative of our society” http://rarlindseysmash.com/index.php?n=1309736919

With the introduction of algorithms into every part of our lives, diversification of programming is an important goal in itself (in which this could be seen as a case study):

  • Is the lack of diversity in programmers a self perpetuating situation?
  • Is the specialisation of information technology into separate fields problematic?
  • What is it about programming languages or its culture that is problematic for some?

Alex says: I think we need to find more data on this, will have a look around. Looking at this news item hints at a general problem of non-engagement rather than of lack of diversity. Interest in computing subjects in the UK has plummetted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11011564 – If you look at the gender disparity though you see that computing actually has above average gender equality, which surprised me. In bioinformatics I think programmers are mostly female, right? Perhaps the problem isn't so much diversity of programmers but of lack of programmers and lack of interest in computation in general. That said there is clearly lack of diversity in those who write programming languages, having strong lineage to brusque white men on military funds. So is it a problem for our project if we're all white men?

Aims/Unique selling points

Our aims are to design a tool/language/environment that crosses disciplines by:

  • Covering multiple levels of abstraction
  • Embodying multiple forms of representation
  • …

And will prove it with the evaluation of 2 (or more) use cases in diverse fields.

Alex says: I have a feeling that the aim of covering multiple levels of abstraction could be at odds with the aim of non-domain specificity. Are lower levels of abstraction necessarily domain specific?

Possible Methodologies

Measurement of success by the use of workshops with individuals from the target fields. They could be given problems (perhaps outside of their field) to solve, initially studying ways in which their approaches differ - later applying the developed software/tool/process and studying the results.

Previous qfwfq/vapour feedback

Good bits:

  • Scalability/differing levels of abstraction (still?) original
  • Use of real application
  • Mixed reality needs sound development methods
  • Broad range of partners (CS, HCI, M/AR)

Missing bits:

  • Why such performance is not currently achieved
  • ST approach vague
  • Measurable goals and targets needed
  • Concrete info on technical approach (proof of concept demonstrator)
  • Generalisation of results needed
  • Detail existing approaches, advantages/limitations
  • Underestimated human resources
  • Impact to application needs justification
  • Scientific impact need justification
Questions

Why are we better placed to tackle this than CS or bioinformatics or architecture departments? Some way to present diversity as strength?

Summary

By 2020 computer interfaces will have become embedded into the environment, following research and development in pervasive, ubiquitous and cyber-physical systems. To date these interfaces have largely been considered in terms of analog interactions; direct manipulation through tangible, touchscreen and gestural interfaces. Higher-order interfaces, including programming languages, have been left out of the picture.

However datasets continue to grow across fields of research and practice, already surpassing the practical limits of end-user programming tools such as Excel in some fields. Biology is a notable example, spawning a subfield of bioinformatics to cope with the influx of data.

As datasets continue to grow in size and complexity across fields, there will be opportunities for developing hybrid systems which take advantage of new modes of embodied HCI, but applied to higher order interactions. Formal linguistic abstractions which allow users to understand and process large datasets can be integrated with visuospatial manipulations, allowing knowledge and processes to be grounded in bodily interactions.

The fundamental scientific problem to solve in order to implement the technology and get the benefits by then is in how to map the abstractions of formal language to embodied interactions. Steps towards this goal is already well developed in object oriented and visual programming, but needs to be extended and applied using new interfaces embedded into the environment.

Our research questions are: How can linguistic interfaces be integrated with emerging, embodied modes of human-computer interaction? How can we apply these hybrid interfaces to create novel approaches to the design of environments for end user programmers?

The design of these language environments needs to be led by the needs of end user programmers from the start, through brainstorming, workflow analysis, leading to workshops and experiments to explore and evaluate prototype designs. All assumptions in the design of programming language environments need to be identified and reconsidered in the light of emerging technologies.

The challenges we will be facing are that the needs of end user programmers differ strongly from the computer scientists and professional programmers who generally lead the design of programming languages. By taking a scientifically rigourous and agile approach to the design, with close involvement of prospective end users, we offer an alternative to the lone visionary or massive crawling consensus approach to programming language design.

There are risks in taking a cross-domain approach, as research into Visual Programming and Tangible Interfaces have largely only seen success in particular specialised domains. However the possibilities for finding commonalities in problems surrounding information processing across domains brings the promise of huge returns.

http://www.ppig.org

Bioinformatics

  • project_qfwfq_notes.1314288352.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2011-08-25 16:05
  • by 143.167.9.237