MDD_Evaluation_Study.github.io/Qualitative/README.md at main · ipa-nhg/MDD_Evaluation_Study.github.io

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

Section 1: Responder Profile

Q1 How many years of experience do you have in software development for the robotics field?

Less than one year
More than one year but less than 2 years
More than 2 years but less than 5 years
More than 5 years
I don’t have experience in the field

Q2 Which role or roles do you hold in the projects you are involved in?

Q3 If you use ROS (1) or ROS 2, how many years of experience do you have?

Less than one year
More than one year but less than 2 years
More than 2 years but less than 5 years
More than 5 years
I do not have experience developing ROS code

Q4 When developing a robot application, do you typically begin with analyzing requirements and designing the system architecture?

Yes
No, I typically start by writing or collecting nodes that implement the required features.
Sometimes, it depends on the project and the maturity of the expected solution.

Section 2: Models Evaluation

Q5 Do you find that the RosTooling models are clear?

Q6 Do you think that the RosTooling models accurately represent the properties of a ROS system?

Q7 Do you think the models are precise in capturing the nuances of ROS systems?

Section 3: Ease of Use

Q8 Do you find the RosTooling easy to use?

Q9 Do you feel confident using the RosTooling?

Q10 Do you find the RosTooling unnecessarily complex?

Q11 Do you think you need assistance to use the RosTooling in your projects?

Q12 Do you find the RosTooling too cumbersome or unmanageable?

Q13 Was learning to use the RosTooling approach easy for you?

Q14 Do you think new users need to learn too many things to be able to work with the RosTooling?

Section 4: Usability

Q15 By using the RosTooling, do you still feel you can write the software in the way you want?

Q16 By using the RosTooling, do you find it easy to integrate models with your everyday code (software you wrote manually)?

Q17 Do you think the features integrated within the RosTooling are inconsistent among them?

Q18 Do you find the model extraction tools useful during the development of robotic solutions?

Q19 Do you find the ROS node code generators (e.g., rossdl) useful during the development of robotic solutions?

Q20 Do you find the ROS system code generators (packages containing the launch file structure) useful during the development of robotic solutions?

Q21 Do you find the visualization tools useful for the design of the system?

Q22 Do you find that the RosTooling approach reduces the validation and testing efforts for you?

Q23 Do you find that the code generator makes it easier the implementation and deployment for you?

Q24 Generally speaking, do you think that the communication between developers is reduced by using models?

Q25 Does the RosTooling improve the way you develop software by encouraging you to think about the design of your solution before you start writing the code?

Section 5: Comparative Evaluation with Existing Methods

Q26 When developing a component with the RosTooling, is the amount of system configuration reduced compared to manual development?

Q27 When configuring a ROS system with the RosTooling, is the amount of changes inside the code reduced compared to manual development of launch files?

Q28 Do you find that the models from the RosTooling can be better understood compared to manually written packages?

Q29 Is the system software developed with the RosTooling better documented than typical manual-written launch packages?

Section 6: Future Usage Intentions

Q30 Do you intend to use the RosTooling in the future? Only answer if you develop software for robotic systems.

Q31 After the test of the RosTooling, do you intend to explore other model-based solutions to be applied to your development process?

Indicates that the question is mandatory.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

Section 1: Responder Profile

Section 2: Models Evaluation

Section 3: Ease of Use

Section 4: Usability

Section 5: Comparative Evaluation with Existing Methods

Section 6: Future Usage Intentions

FilesExpand file tree

README.md

Latest commit

History

README.md

File metadata and controls

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

Section 1: Responder Profile

Section 2: Models Evaluation

Section 3: Ease of Use

Section 4: Usability

Section 5: Comparative Evaluation with Existing Methods

Section 6: Future Usage Intentions