Developer experience · Mixed empirical usability study combining cognitive-dimensions interviews with systematic task-based evaluation.

An Empirical Study of API Usability

Peer-reviewed research · 2013

Carlo A. Furia, Martin Nordio, Nadia Polikarpova

Original paper ↗

Summary

The study provides empirical evidence that API usability is affected by discoverability, consistency and cognitive dimensions encountered while completing programming tasks.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Test API designs with representative developers and measure task success, errors and discoverability rather than relying on style guidance alone.

Reported result

What the study found

The study provides empirical evidence that API usability is affected by discoverability, consistency and cognitive dimensions encountered while completing programming tasks.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Which API characteristics make library APIs usable for programmers?

Design

Mixed empirical usability study combining cognitive-dimensions interviews with systematic task-based evaluation.

Sample and setting

25 programmers including students, researchers and professionals; library/API programming tasks.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Small, heterogeneous participant sample and controlled tasks limit generalization to production teams and domains.

Research sources

Authoritative publisher/repository page fetched in this run; abstract, bibliographic metadata, methods/results and limitations on the cited page support this synthesis (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6681333/). Firecrawl research job 01a14366-d263-71d0-bc44-b95482987b7b returned this citation and metadata.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper