skip to main content
10.1145/3183440.3195026acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Towards a formal API assessment

Published: 27 May 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Assessing the quality of an API is important in many different aspects: First, it can assist developers in deciding which API to use when they are faced with a list of potential APIs to choose from, by comparing the benefits and drawbacks of each option [1]; we refer to this as the API selection problem. Second, it can help guide the design process and expose problem areas in early stages of API design, even before implementing the actual API [2]; we refer to this as the API design problem. In order to assess the quality of an API, various evaluation methods have been used: some are based on empirical laboratory studies, gathering feedback from API users; others are based on inspection methods where experts evaluate the quality of an API based on a list of design guidelines [3] [4] such as Nielsen's heuristics and the cognitive dimensions framework [2] [5]. In this paper, we are particularly interested in extending Steven Clarke's approach of measuring API usability based on the cognitive dimensions framework [5]. The usability of an API is assessed by comparing the API (what it actually offers) with the profiles of its potential users (what they expect out of it).

References

[1]
Andrew J. Ko, B. A. Myers, and H. H. Aung. Six learning barriers in end-user programming systems. In 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing, pages 199--206, Sept 2004.
[2]
Brad A. Myers and Jeffrey Stylos. Improving api usability. Commun. ACM, 59(6):62--69, May 2016.
[3]
Thomas Grill, Ondrej Polacek, and Manfred Tscheligi. Methods towards API Usability: A Structural Analysis of Usability Problem Categories, pages 164--180. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012.
[4]
Umer Farooq and Dieter Zirkler. Api peer reviews: A method for evaluating usability of application programming interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW'10, pages 207--210, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[5]
Steven Clarke. Measuring api usability. Dr.Dobb's, 2004.
[6]
E. Knauss and I. Hammouda. Eam: Ecosystemability assessment method. In 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pages 319--320, Aug 2014.
[7]
A. Zghidi, I. Hammouda, B. Hnich, and E. Knauss. On the role of fitness dimensions in api design assessment - an empirical investigation. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on API Usage and Evolution (WAPI), pages 19--22, May 2017.
[8]
Joshua Bloch. How to design a good api & why it matters, 2007.
[9]
Michael D Constantin Z. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Springer International Publishing, 2017.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICSE '18: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceeedings
May 2018
231 pages
ISBN:9781450356633
DOI:10.1145/3183440
  • Conference Chair:
  • Michel Chaudron,
  • General Chair:
  • Ivica Crnkovic,
  • Program Chairs:
  • Marsha Chechik,
  • Mark Harman
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 May 2018

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Poster

Conference

ICSE '18
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 276 of 1,856 submissions, 15%

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media