Talk:End-user computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

IMHO this Wikipedia page presents a very narrow view of End User Computing. The concept has been around as long as computing itself - I would refer you to textbooks like "Automating the Office: Office Systems and End-User Computing" by Regan and O'Connor written in 1989. Yes 1989. End-Users are the entire audience or clientèle who use and access information technology as opposed to the group of professionals who develop and support information technology. Now, of course, that audience is massive. Since the advent of personal computers end-users have been able to do much more that simply interact with or "use" technology. End-users have been able to actively shape the computing environment particularly the software environment. Now, with the wider acceptance of BYOD and a greater awareness of the role played by a shared workplace (i.e. cloud computing), end-user computing is shaping the future of computing in very tangible ways. End-User are responsible for the shift in hardware preference with End-user technology now outselling corporate desktops. This is turn lead Microsoft to re-skinning Windows 7 to make it more appealing to the End-user market (i.e. Windows 8). The plethora of applets in the hand-held market is testimony to the importance of End-User Computing. -- Stephor -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.209.118 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Here is a little reading to help you to better appreciate EUC [1]. --stephor--

End User Computing is similar to the End User approach to software development, but differs in that EUC allows users to (re)program applications. Research explores alternative ways for users to write applications without using traditional computer languages. In the EUC approach, the End User is assumed to have the knowledge needed to complete tasks, while the typical End User is expected to access existing knowledge in applications. Is that about right?

-- anonymous

What's in a name?[edit]

I think that the edits of April 22 were a good step, except that they didn't account for the connotation that I was trying to use. I used “end-user computing” since we have had this discussion many times in IT. Here on 'wiki', there may a larger framework (around EUC) that will cover the range of connotations may need to be covered.

When I started this page, I was trying to describe KBE’s impact on Engineering. One example was the use of ICAD which had remarkable payback events that were sustained over several years. One characteristics of the type represented by the KBE example is how engineers actually did their work with what could be called a development language which had been extended with 'domain' particulars.

The main point about this connotation is that the 'user' and 'developer' roles are intermingled. In the current vogue for KBE, the language is VB; however, the language is used within a context of an interactive and highly-competent set of workbenches. The idea is that the end user (we might use SME here) has access to this power. This use of VB is not unlike that of an Excel/VBA session. In this newer KBE approach, though, any extensions to the systems that are required to support this type of end-user computing is C++ based and requires extensive training and development knowledge. One might say that venturing into this side of the field really takes one away from the SME role.

Further, I've heard it said many times that it's easier to take an expert (domain) and teach them computational tricks than it is to teach domain knowledge to the computer expert. A demarcation between the domain and its tools is important in this regard.

Yet, at the same time, we have to discuss the growing incursion of computational modeling into all of the higher-order disciplines. In this case, the computer as a tool actually is part of the thinking process (we can take this as far as experimental mathematics – I can provide links). Then, we would need to describe how having the computer involved both augments and limits the solution process.

Now, the April 22 edits mentioned the influences that we’ll see from the growing presence of Internet/Intranet capabilities and applications. I thought that was a good touch and ought to be expanded further.

So, the question now is how to merge these two threads into something coherent, such that the gaps are obvious such that we can get them filled in. jmswtlk 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The page needs to consider the range of disciplines and user types that may be involved, including impacts on foundational views. jmswtlk 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wha???[edit]

Is "End-user computing" an established term within one discipline? If so, the intro section should establish context and explain to which discipline it belongs. If not, the article should cover all possible meanings of the "End-user computing" expression. Sincerely, the current first sentence was unintelligible. I've tried to add a lay-term explanation, but I'm not sure if this is describes the contents of the article since the prose is hard to follow. Diego Moya (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tab[edit]

I don't think that the tag is necessary now. The page will converge from here. jmswtlk 01:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

EUC pertains to more than computer science or software engineering. We need to make all the links to associated disciplines. jmswtlk 14:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the check list to get rid of the tab? Section editting is very productive!! jmswtlk
Just go ahead and remove it. Thanks for all your work. · rodii · 03:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Series of research books about End-user computing: http://www.idea-group.com/bookseries/details.asp?id=3

phoebe 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, it's time for a rewrite that has more use of citations. jmswtlk 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

this page needs a reboot[edit]

As researcher in the end-user programming/development area I find this entire wiki entry to be very confusing and even misleading. The initial author states "When I started this page, I was trying to describe KBE’s impact on Engineering." This is not a good starting point for this kind of page. End User computing is a much more general concept. Sure, SQL and VB may qualify as examples of end-user computing but it is much more important to capture some kind of meaningful definition of what end user computing is and could be. Examples are important but certainly will have include a much broader range of applications including web app with end-user computing support (e.g., Yahoo Pipes), spreadsheets, email filters, photoshop actions, ...etc.

I am sorry but neither the content nor the structure of this article works well. For instance, under the heading of research there is a discussion of internationalization. I the Wiki spirit one could just rewrite bits and pieces but I think one would have to really start from scratch here. Some books (e.g., End-user Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications) and journals are forthcoming. Perhaps these would serve as a better starting place than the original authors reflections on personal experiences with specific technologies.

Do not understand me wrong. These are some good points being made here but I advise to reboot this entry and start from scratch.

Have at it. The page currently has more of an operational flavor than it could have for several reasons. As mentioned in the above section "Sources" where this same topic was brought up, we need a re-write with citations and ought to balance the academic and the 'practice' viewpoints. Plus, a look at the history of who owns computing (and the related thought, for that matter) might have some consideration. IMHO. This topic is not as trivial as it might appear. jmswtlk 14:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As this is re-worked, there needs to be a full spectrum of viewpoints covered. For example, the July CACM has a column which considers that computing is now more a natural science than just a tool. Computational supports for the scientific method lead to discussions about our bases, operational and otherwise. 64Plus 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Content cleanup[edit]

Per wp:preserve, let's point out that this revision removed a lot of unreferenced content. Diego (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)