# Context-Aware End-User Development Review
## 3 Review Method
### Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria  
We divided the inclusion/exclusion criteria into three phases of relevant literature for the review (Table 3). In the first phase, we queried research databases obtaining 968 documents. We then obtained 492, discarding papers mainly because they are duplicate, inaccessible (due to license restrictions), or unrelated to the subject. In the second phase, we  
Figure 1: Review method.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Consideration**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Criteria for Inclusion**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Phase**} \\ \hline Year of publication & No regarded but restricted by the search keywords: “context-aware” + & 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd \\  & EUP, EUD, EUSE. The search results show research from 2001. & \\ \hline Relationship with the Subject & The tool includes a visual/graphical interface for context-aware & \\  & application development. The paper must consider a sensor/actuator & 1 st \\  & context integration/simulation and an adaptation involving such context. & \\ \hline Type of document & The research is published in proceedings or journal papers indexed on & 1 st \\  & Scopus, IEEE, or ACM. & \\ \hline Available and comprehensible & The paper presents arguments and details related to EUP, EUD, EUSE, and & 2 nd \\  & UI concepts with enough information to evaluate. & \\ \hline Research outcome & The paper describes a solution with the implementation of a tool for & \\  & development. We discarded when a paper only refers to service & \\  & integration, e.g., using IFTTT, Web mashups, or templates without & \\  & describing the “programming” implementation. & \\ \hline Target end-user & For technical users (i.e., with some software knowledge) and non-technical & \\  & users. We discarded when the target is exclusively for software experts. & 3 rd \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Screening of papers.  
screened in detail the papers, primarily based on the available details. The major criteria are comprehension aspects related to UI building techniques (based on EUP, EUD, EUSE). After the second phase, we obtained 90 for an in-depth reading. In the third phase, we selected 37 papers for the review, based on the following considerations:  
* Research outcome (Table 3): The paper includes enough detail to answer the research questions. We discarded tools that are not described at the implementation level.
* Target end-user (Table 3): End-user application building tools have been proposed for software experts (technical people) and non-software experts (non-technical people). Even though traditional end-user empowering mechanisms [8; 40] involve many users, we consider end-user development for non-software experts. However, some approaches propose a level of software experts' involvement before end-user development (e.g., to create APIs, models, meta-design/collaboration). We included those approaches because they target an end-user development process with fewer restrictions.
* On the other hand, we discarded approaches that require software experts or advanced technical aspects. For example, the Context Modeling Toolkit (CMT) proposes a context model to augment the template-based development of rules [42]. We discarded CMT because the authors propose the involvement of software programmers in the development process. Similarly, other solutions use human-readable configurations (e.g., plain text, XML). We also discarded them because it is highly probable that non-technical users (i.e., non-software experts) encounter difficulties configuring required resources, actions, and services.