journal article·2024-10-29Open access

Evaluating Usability and Accessibility of Visual Programming Tools for Novice Programmers—The Case of App Inventor, Scratch, and StarLogo

Kamil Żyła, Kinga Chwaleba, Dominik Choma

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 21

Abstract

The current state of the labor market requires modern engineers to acquire programming skills at different levels of advancement and to apply them in multidisciplinary environments. Not all modern engineers will become fully fledged programmers, but sometimes the possibility to use low-code programming environments like LabView or MIT App Inventor will be sufficient. In order to give good foundations for adulthood, schools use elements of visual programming, e.g., Scratch or StarLogo, to enhance the critical and algorithmic thinking of future engineers. This article attempts to answer the question of whether anyone cares about following general accessibility and usability guidelines in the case of solutions like Scratch, App Inventor, and StarLogo. Another goal is to show a set of tools that is successful in such an assessment. The authors used Nielsen’s heuristics, followed by analyzing WAVE output and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines compliance. Especially, the last one provides insights usually omitted when evaluating low-code environments. It was found that Scratch and App Inventor are leading solutions in terms of look and feel, functionality, documentation, interface navigation, and memorization. The StarLogo interface, on the other hand, is less friendly in terms of aesthetics and functionality.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Digital Accessibility for Disabilities · Usability and User Interface Design · Software Engineering Techniques and Practices

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 36B, 20-618 Lublin, Poland

Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 36B, 20-618 Lublin, Poland

Funding

the Lublin University of Technology

References (50)

Show source-provided references
1. LabView (2024, July 01). LabView Homepage. Available online: https://www.ni.com/pl-pl/shop/labview.html.
2. App Inventor (2024, July 01). MIT App Inventor homepage. Available online: https://appinventor.mit.edu/.
3. Diverse Categories of Programming Learning Activities Could Be Performed Within Scratch10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.267 ↗
4. Harvey, B., and Mönig, J. (2010, January 16–20). Bringing “No Ceiling” to Scratch: Can One Language Serve Kids and Computer Scientists?. Proceedings of the Constructionism 2010, Paris, France.
5. Park, Y., and Shin, Y. (2019). Comparing the Effectiveness of Scratch and App Inventor With Regard to Learning Computational Thinking Concepts. Electronics, 8.10.3390/electronics8111269 ↗
6. “Scratch”-ing Computational Thinking With Arduino: A Meta-analysis10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100726 ↗
7. Scratch as Driver to Foster Interests for STEM and Educational Robotics
8. Alturayeif, N., Alturaief, N., and Alhathloul, Z. (2020). DeepScratch: Scratch Programming Language Extension for Deep Learning Education. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., 11.10.14569/IJACSA.2020.0110777 ↗
9. Cottone, A.M., Yoon, S.A., Coulter, B., Shim, J., and Carman, S. (2021). Building System Capacity With a Modeling-Based Inquiry Program for Elementary Students: A Case Study. Systems, 9.10.3390/systems9010009 ↗
10. Making Sense of Models: How Teachers Use Agent-based Modeling to Advance Mechanistic Reasoning10.1111/bjet.12844 ↗
11. Zavery, A. (2024, July 01). How No-Code and the Democratization of Application Development Are Helping Businesses. Forbes. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/googlecloud/2020/06/25/how-no-code-and-the-democratization-of-application-development-are-helping-businesses/.
12. GSM Based Home Automation System Using App-Inventor for Android Mobile Phone
13. Efficient Android Software Development Using MIT App Inventor 2 for Bluetooth-Based Smart Home10.1007/s11277-018-6110-x ↗
14. Selection of Machining Parameters with Android Application Made Using MIT App Inventor Bookmarks10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.027 ↗
15. Munasinghe, T., Patton, E.W., and Seneviratne, O. (2019, January 9–12). IoT Application Development Using MIT App Inventor to Collect and Analyze Sensor Data. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Los Angeles, CA, USA.10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9006203 ↗
16. Wireless Technology Applied in 3-axis Filament Winding Machine Control System Using MIT App Inventor10.1088/1757-899X/469/1/012030 ↗
17. Pérez-Jorge, D., and Martínez-Murciano, M.C. (2022). Gamification with Scratch or App Inventor in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Future Internet, 14.10.3390/fi14120374 ↗
18. Developing Educational 3D Games With StarLogo: The Role of Backwards Fading in the Transfer of Programming Experience10.1177/0735633118806747 ↗
19. Using Scratch and App Inventor for teaching introductory programming in secondary education. A case study10.1504/IJTEL.2016.082317 ↗
20. Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., Orfanakis, V., and Zaranis, N. (2014, January 9). Novice Programming Environments. Scratch & App Inventor: A first comparison. Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Interaction Design in Educational Environments (IDEE ‘14), Albacete, Spain.10.1145/2643604.2643613 ↗
21. Chang, C.K. (2016, January 10–14). Using Computational Thinking Patterns to Scaffold Program Design in Introductory Programming Course. Proceedings of the 5th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Kumamoto, Japan.10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2016.27 ↗
22. JetLearn (2024, October 01). Scratch Statistics: Examining the Popularity of Scratch 2024. Available online: https://www.jetlearn.com/blog/scratch-statistics.
23. MIT (2024, October 01). App Inventor Stats. Available online: http://ai2.appinventor.mit.edu/stats.
24. Fakrudeen, M., Yousef, S., and Hussein, A.H. (2014, January 30–31). Analyzing App Inventor for building usable touch screen courseware for blind users. Proceedings of the International Conference on eBusiness, eCommerce, eManagement, eLearning and eGovernance 2014 (IC5E 2014), London, UK.
25. Solecki, I., Porto, J., Da Cruz Alves, N., Von Wangenheim, C.G., Hauck, J., and Borgatto, A.F. (2020, January 11–14). Automated Assessment of the Visual Design of Android Apps Developed with App Inventor. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’20), Portland, OR, USA.10.1145/3328778.3366868 ↗
26. Colter, A.J. (2024, July 01). Evaluating and Improving the Usability of MIT App Inventor. Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/106027.
27. Suzuki, A. (2024, July 01). Improving the Ability of StarLogo Nova Users to Save and Organize Their Work. Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/113100.
28. Heuristic Evaluation for Novice Programming Systems10.1145/2872521 ↗
29. Comparison of App Inventor 2 and Java in creating personal applications for Android on example of a notepad
30. Simplified graphical domain-specific languages for the mobile domain–perspectives of learnability by nontechnical users10.35784/acs-2017-19 ↗
31. Scratch (2024, July 01). MIT Scratch Homepage. Available online: https://scratch.mit.edu/.
32. Use of Scratch for the Teaching of Second Languages10.3991/ijet.v14i21.11217 ↗
33. Rholl, D. (2021). Complex Systems in a Complex Time: Two Flexible Activities Using Online Models to Study Infectious Disease Transmission and Code Complex Systems Simulations. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 22.10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2397 ↗
34. StarLogo (2024, July 01). MIT StarLogo Homepage. Available online: https://education.mit.edu/project/starlogo-tng/.
35. Klopfer, E. (2021). The Complex Evolution of Technologies and Pedagogies for Learning About Complex Systems. Systems, 9.10.3390/systems9020031 ↗
36. Examination of the Use of Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics &Amp; Outlooks for the Future10.1177/1541931213601853 ↗
37. Establishing Usability Heuristics for Heuristics Evaluation in a Specific Domain: Is There a Consensus?10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.016 ↗
38. Nielsen, J. (1994, January 24–28). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proceedings of the 1994 SIGCHI Conference On Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA.10.1145/259963.260333 ↗
39. NNG (2024, July 01). Nielsen Norman Group Homepage—World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/people/jakob-nielsen/.
40. Web Accessibility Automatic Evaluation Tools: To What Extent Can They Be Automated?10.1007/s42486-023-00127-8 ↗
41. Ballantyne, M., Jha, A., Jacobsen, A., Hawker, J.S., and El-Glaly, Y.N. (2018, January 25–28). Study of Accessibility Guidelines of Mobile Applications. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, Cairo, Egypt.10.1145/3282894.3282921 ↗
42. W3C (2024, July 01). WCAG 2.1 Homepage. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/.
43. Sarita, K., Kaur, P., and Kaur, S. (2022, January 26–27). Accessibility of Healthcare Sites: Evaluation by Automated Tools. Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Science and Applications, Kolkata, India. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems.10.1007/978-981-16-5348-3_50 ↗
44. Vigo, M. (2013, January 13–15). Benchmarking Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: Measuring the Harm of Sole Reliance on Automated Tests. Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.10.1145/2461121.2461124 ↗
45. Improving Accessibility of CMS-based Websites Using Automated Methods10.1007/s10209-020-00784-x ↗
46. Ikhsan, I.N., and Candra, M.Z.C. (2018, January 7–8). Automatically: An Automated Refactoring Method and Tool for Improving Web Accessibility. Proceedings of the 2018 5th International Conference on Data and Software Engineering (ICoDSE), Mataram, Indonesia.10.1109/ICODSE.2018.8705894 ↗
47. Nielsen, J. (1992, January 3–7). Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. Proceedings of the 1992 SIGCHI Conference On Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’92), Monterey, CA, USA.10.1145/142750.142834 ↗
48. NN Group (2024, July 01). How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-conduct-a-heuristic-evaluation/.
49. Invesp (2024, July 01). Heuristic Evaluation: Your Complete Guide to Heuristic Evaluation for Conversion Optimization. Available online: https://www.invespcro.com/blog/heuristic-evaluation-your-complete-guide/.
50. Utah State University (2024, July 01). WAVE Tool Homepage. Available online: https://wave.webaim.org/.