Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00007
Deniz Cemiloglu, E. Arden-Close, S. Hodge, Theodoros Kostoulas, Raian Ali, Maris Catania
Today many interactive online platforms are equipped with immersive and attention-grabbing elements to increase user engagement and persuade more online presence, interaction and transactions. Excessive and obsessive use of technology combined with harm can be seen as a behavioral addiction. While technology companies started to introduce tools to mitigate addictive behavior, their principles, design process and success are questionable. Given the potential conflict between the revenue model and such tools, our work aims to define ethical requirements categories that act as a reference point for analysts and designers. We base our discussion on online gambling, which provides a clear example of addictive technology. Reno Model I–V was examined to discover main guidelines for enabling conscious online activity. As a result, we identified three main ethical goals: 1) creating an environment that supports informed choice, 2) monitoring player data to identify risk factors, and 3) introducing measures to tackle problematic online behaviour. We then refined these upper level goals into more concrete functionalities and metrics.
{"title":"Towards Ethical Requirements for Addictive Technology: The Case of Online Gambling","authors":"Deniz Cemiloglu, E. Arden-Close, S. Hodge, Theodoros Kostoulas, Raian Ali, Maris Catania","doi":"10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00007","url":null,"abstract":"Today many interactive online platforms are equipped with immersive and attention-grabbing elements to increase user engagement and persuade more online presence, interaction and transactions. Excessive and obsessive use of technology combined with harm can be seen as a behavioral addiction. While technology companies started to introduce tools to mitigate addictive behavior, their principles, design process and success are questionable. Given the potential conflict between the revenue model and such tools, our work aims to define ethical requirements categories that act as a reference point for analysts and designers. We base our discussion on online gambling, which provides a clear example of addictive technology. Reno Model I–V was examined to discover main guidelines for enabling conscious online activity. As a result, we identified three main ethical goals: 1) creating an environment that supports informed choice, 2) monitoring player data to identify risk factors, and 3) introducing measures to tackle problematic online behaviour. We then refined these upper level goals into more concrete functionalities and metrics.","PeriodicalId":350879,"journal":{"name":"2020 1st Workshop on Ethics in Requirements Engineering Research and Practice (REthics)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132699671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00009
Liang Yu
High-level ethical principles have been introduced in software engineering. However, ethical concerns in empirical case studies require further investigation. This study aims to investigate ethical considerations in case studies of software engineering and evaluate the identified ethical concerns through a multi-case study in industry. 12 papers were selected and reviewed to extract ethical considerations, and an evidence-based analysis through coding is performed. As a result, 21 ethical considerations in total have been identified and mapped to case study design steps. 21 recommended actions have been proposed to mitigate ethical considerations based on the experience while adopting case studies in four software development companies, which could be used as a guideline for practitioners to conduct empirical studies in practice from the ethical perspective.
{"title":"Ethical Considerations in Case Studies","authors":"Liang Yu","doi":"10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00009","url":null,"abstract":"High-level ethical principles have been introduced in software engineering. However, ethical concerns in empirical case studies require further investigation. This study aims to investigate ethical considerations in case studies of software engineering and evaluate the identified ethical concerns through a multi-case study in industry. 12 papers were selected and reviewed to extract ethical considerations, and an evidence-based analysis through coding is performed. As a result, 21 ethical considerations in total have been identified and mapped to case study design steps. 21 recommended actions have been proposed to mitigate ethical considerations based on the experience while adopting case studies in four software development companies, which could be used as a guideline for practitioners to conduct empirical studies in practice from the ethical perspective.","PeriodicalId":350879,"journal":{"name":"2020 1st Workshop on Ethics in Requirements Engineering Research and Practice (REthics)","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127518435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1109/rethics51204.2020.00006
Farnaz Fotrousi, F. Dalpiaz, Fabian Fagerholm, M. Felderer, S. Ghanavati, Mohamad Gharib
Program committee: ● Raian Ali Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar ● Fatma Başak Aydemir Boğaziçi University, Turkey ● Stefanie Betz Furtwangen University, Germany ● Fabian Fagerholm Aalto University, Finland ● Michael Felderer University of Innsbruck, Austria ● Sepideh Ghanavati University of Maine, USA ● Mohamad Gharib University of Florence, Italy ● Jens Gulden Utrecht University, the Netherlands ● Paola Inverardi University of L'Aquila, Italy ● Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite PUC Rio, Brazil ● Haris Mouratidis University of Brighton, UK ● Maleknaz Nayebi Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada ● Marc Oriol Hilari Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain ● Rose Preethu TCS Corporate Research, India ● Awais Rashid University of Bristol, UK ● Norbert Syeff FHNW University, Switzerland ● Michael Unterkalmsteiner Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
程序委员会:●卡塔尔Raian Ali Hamad Bin Khalifa大学●土耳其Fatma ba ak Aydemir Boğaziçi大学●德国Stefanie Betz Furtwangen大学●芬兰Fabian Fagerholm Aalto大学●奥地利因斯布鲁克Michael Felderer大学●美国缅因州Sepideh Ghanavati大学●意大利佛罗伦萨Mohamad Gharib大学●荷兰延斯古尔登乌得勒支大学●意大利拉奎拉Paola Inverardi大学●里约Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite PUC巴西●英国布莱顿哈里斯·穆拉蒂迪斯大学●加拿大蒙特利尔理工学院Maleknaz Nayebi●西班牙加泰罗尼亚政治大学Marc Oriol Hilari●印度Rose Preethu TCS Corporate Research●英国布里斯托尔Awais Rashid大学●瑞士诺伯特·斯耶夫FHNW大学●瑞典Michael Unterkalmsteiner Blekinge理工学院
{"title":"REthics 2020 Organization","authors":"Farnaz Fotrousi, F. Dalpiaz, Fabian Fagerholm, M. Felderer, S. Ghanavati, Mohamad Gharib","doi":"10.1109/rethics51204.2020.00006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/rethics51204.2020.00006","url":null,"abstract":"Program committee: ● Raian Ali Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar ● Fatma Başak Aydemir Boğaziçi University, Turkey ● Stefanie Betz Furtwangen University, Germany ● Fabian Fagerholm Aalto University, Finland ● Michael Felderer University of Innsbruck, Austria ● Sepideh Ghanavati University of Maine, USA ● Mohamad Gharib University of Florence, Italy ● Jens Gulden Utrecht University, the Netherlands ● Paola Inverardi University of L'Aquila, Italy ● Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite PUC Rio, Brazil ● Haris Mouratidis University of Brighton, UK ● Maleknaz Nayebi Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada ● Marc Oriol Hilari Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain ● Rose Preethu TCS Corporate Research, India ● Awais Rashid University of Bristol, UK ● Norbert Syeff FHNW University, Switzerland ● Michael Unterkalmsteiner Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden","PeriodicalId":350879,"journal":{"name":"2020 1st Workshop on Ethics in Requirements Engineering Research and Practice (REthics)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116559219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1109/rethics51204.2020.00002
{"title":"Title Page iii","authors":"","doi":"10.1109/rethics51204.2020.00002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/rethics51204.2020.00002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":350879,"journal":{"name":"2020 1st Workshop on Ethics in Requirements Engineering Research and Practice (REthics)","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131106111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-01DOI: 10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00008
B. Paech, K. Schneider
Current research on ethics in software engineering focuses on the values of stakeholders and their tradeoffs. While an under-standing of these values is very important, it is not sufficient for a discussion about ethical values between developers and users or in society in general. Values need to be related to the func-tional and quality features of software. In this paper, we argue that we need a better understanding of the user view of software as a common ground for any discussion about the effects of software for its users. When users talk about software, com-pare its features, or complain about its usability, they do not use the terminology and mental models of IT-experts. This hinders effective communication about software in society. However, one cannot expect users to talk like developers. In order to provide such a common ground, we propose to study user utterances and to define a so-called user view lan-guage which comprises the concepts and relationships with which users describe the outside view of software. In this posi-tion paper, we present assumptions and hypotheses related to defining such a language. Furthermore, we present first ideas how to study user utterances. This will help us to better under-stand the current situation: how do users talk about software?
{"title":"How Do Users Talk About Software? Searching for Common Ground","authors":"B. Paech, K. Schneider","doi":"10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00008","url":null,"abstract":"Current research on ethics in software engineering focuses on the values of stakeholders and their tradeoffs. While an under-standing of these values is very important, it is not sufficient for a discussion about ethical values between developers and users or in society in general. Values need to be related to the func-tional and quality features of software. In this paper, we argue that we need a better understanding of the user view of software as a common ground for any discussion about the effects of software for its users. When users talk about software, com-pare its features, or complain about its usability, they do not use the terminology and mental models of IT-experts. This hinders effective communication about software in society. However, one cannot expect users to talk like developers. In order to provide such a common ground, we propose to study user utterances and to define a so-called user view lan-guage which comprises the concepts and relationships with which users describe the outside view of software. In this posi-tion paper, we present assumptions and hypotheses related to defining such a language. Furthermore, we present first ideas how to study user utterances. This will help us to better under-stand the current situation: how do users talk about software?","PeriodicalId":350879,"journal":{"name":"2020 1st Workshop on Ethics in Requirements Engineering Research and Practice (REthics)","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125438037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：