skip to main content
10.1145/3475716.3475770acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards a Human Values Dashboard for Software Development: An Exploratory Study

Published:11 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Background: There is a growing awareness of the importance of human values (e.g., inclusiveness, privacy) in software systems. However, there are no practical tools to support the integration of human values during software development. We argue that a tool that can identify human values from software development artefacts and present them to varying software development roles can (partially) address this gap. We refer to such a tool as human values dashboard. Further to this, our understanding of such a tool is limited. Aims: This study aims to (1) investigate the possibility of using a human values dashboard to help address human values during software development, (2) identify possible benefits of using a human values dashboard, and (3) elicit practitioners' needs from a human values dashboard. Method: We conducted an exploratory study by interviewing 15 software practitioners. A dashboard prototype was developed to support the interview process. We applied thematic analysis to analyse the collected data. Results: Our study finds that a human values dashboard would be useful for the development team (e.g., project manager, developer, tester). Our participants acknowledge that development artefacts, especially requirements documents and issue discussions, are the most suitable source for identifying values for the dashboard. Our study also yields a set of high-level user requirements for a human values dashboard (e.g., it shall allow determining values priority of a project). Conclusions: Our study suggests that a values dashboard is potentially used to raise awareness of values and support values-based decision-making in software development. Future work will focus on addressing the requirements and using issue discussions as potential artefacts for the dashboard.

References

  1. Sultan S Alqahtani and Juergen Rilling. 2017. An ontology-based approach to automate tagging of software artifacts. In 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 169--174. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.25 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Lingfeng Bao, David Lo, Xin Xia, Xinyu Wang, and Cong Tian. 2016. How Android app developers manage power consumption?. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. ACM, 37--48. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901739.2901748 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Balbir S Barn. 2016. Do you own a volkswagen? Values as non-functional requirements. In Joint 6th International Working Conference on Human-Centred Software Engineering and 8th International Working Conference on Human Error, Safety, and System Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44902-9_10Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Olga Baysal, Reid Holmes, and Michael W. Godfrey. 2013. Developer dashboards: The need for qualitative analytics. IEEE Software 30, 4 (2013), 46--52. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2013.66 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ben K Beitin. 2012. Interview and sampling. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2012), 243--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Shivali Best. 2021. WhatsApp loses MILLIONS of users to rivals Telegram and Signal amid fears of increased data sharing with Facebook. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9183553/WhatsApp-loses-MILLIONS-users-rivals-Telegram-Signal-ahead-privacy-policy-update.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Waters. Bird. 1998. The nature of managerial moral standards. Journal of Business Ethics 6, 1 (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Tegawende F. Bissyande, David Lo, Lingxiao Jiang, Laurent Reveillere, Jacques Klein, and Yves Le Traon. 2013. Got issues? Who cares about it? A large scale investigation of issue trackers from GitHub. In 2013 IEEE 24th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2013. 188--197. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE.2013.6698918Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Vol.2. Research Designs. Vol. 2. 57--71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Enrico Bunde. 2021. AI-Assisted and explainable hate speech detection for social media moderators - A design science approach. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2021.154Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cauldron. [n.d.]. Level up Software Development Analytics. Retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://cauldron.io/exploreGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. An Shou Cheng and Kenneth R. Fleischmann. 2010. Developing a meta-inventory of human values. In Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting, Vol. 47. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701232 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Nicholas Confessore. 2018. Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniela S. Cruzes and Tore Dybå. 2011. Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE, 275--284. https://doi.org/10.1109/esem.2011.36 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. João M. Fernandes and Ricardo J. Machado. 2016. Requirements Elicitation. In Requirements Engineering in Projects. Springer, Cham, 85--117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18597-2_5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Felix Fischer, Konstantin Bottinger, Huang Xiao, Christian Stransky, Yasemin Acar, Michael Backes, and Sascha Fahl. 2017. Stack Overflow considered harmful? the impact of copy & paste on Android application security. In Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 121--136. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2017.31Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory. Springer, Dordrecht, 55--95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Jr., and Alan Borning. 2008. Value sensitive design and information systems. In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. 69--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Bin Fu, Jialiu Lin, Lei Liy, Christos Faloutsos, Jason Hong, and Norman Sadeh. 2013. Why people hate your App - Making sense of user feedback in a mobile app store. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Vol. Part F1288. 1276--1284. https://doi.org/10.1145/2487575.2488202 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Marko Gasparic, Andrea Janes, Francesco Ricci, Gail C. Murphy, and Tural Gurbanov. 2017. A graphical user interface for presenting integrated development environment command recommendations: Design, evaluation, and implementation. Information and Software Technology 92 (dec 2017), 236--255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.08.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Clint Gibler, Jonathan Crussell, Jeremy Erickson, and Hao Chen. 2012. AndroidLeaks: Automatically detecting potential privacy leaks in Android applications on a large scale. In International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing, Vol. 7344 LNCS. 291--307. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30921-2_17 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. GitHub. [n.d.]. About issues. Retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/about-issuesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. GitHub. [n.d.]. About your organization dashboard. Retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/collaborating-with-groups-in-organizations/about-your-organization-dashboardGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. GitHub. [n.d.]. About your personal dashboard. Retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://docs.github.com/en/github/setting-up-and-managing-your-github-user-account/about-your-personal-dashboard#accessing-your-personal-dashboardGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. GitLab. [n.d.]. Issues. Retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/issues/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin Glinz. 2007. On non-functional requirements. In Proceedings - 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2007. 21--26. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2007.45Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Antonio Gonz, Roberto Ther, and Francisco J Garc. 2011. Maleku: An evolutionary visual software analytics tool for providing insights into software evolution. In 27th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. 594--597. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Egon G. Guba. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication & Technology 29, 2 (jun 1981), 75--91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Theodore Hammer, Lenore Huffman, H Rosenberg Linda, William Wilson, and Lawrence E Hyatt. 1998. Doing requirements right the first time! (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mark A. Harris, Robert Brookshire, and Amita Goyal Chin. 2016. Identifying factors influencing consumers' intent to install mobile applications. International Journal of Information Management 36, 3 (2016), 441--450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.004 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Tim Holmes, Elena Blackmore, Richard Hawkins, and Tom Wakeford. 2011. The common cause handbook. Public Interest Research Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Waqar Hussain, Mojtaba Shahin, Rashina Hoda, Jon Whittle, Harsha Perera, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Rifat Ara Shams, and Gillian Oliver. 2021. How can human values be addressed in Agile Methods? A case study on SAFe. arXiv:2102.12107 [cs.SE]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Vladimir Ivanov, Daria Larionova, Dragos Strugar, and Giancarlo Succi. 2019. Design of a dashboard of software metrics for adaptable, energy efficient applications. Proceedings - DMSVIVA 2019: 25th International DMS Conference on Visualization and Visual Languages November (2019), 75--82. https://doi.org/10.18293/jvlc2019n2-009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Vladimir Ivanov, Vladislav Pischulin, Alan Rogers, Giancarlo Succi, Jooyong Yi, and Vasilii Zorin. 2018. Design and validation of precooked developer dashboards. In ESEC/FSE 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 821--826. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236024.3275530 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Vladimir Ivanov, Alan Rogers, Giancarlo Succi, Jooyong Yi, and Vasiii Zorin. 2018. Precooked developer dashboards: What to show and how to use. In International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion. 402--403. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183440.3195028 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Andrea Janes, Alberto Sillitti, and Giancarlo Succi. 2013. Effective dashboard design. Cutter IT Journal 26, 1 (2013), 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Rashidah Kasauli, Grischa Liebel, Eric Knauss, Swathi Gopakumar, and Benjamin Kanagwa. 2017. Requirements engineering challenges in large-scale Agile system development. Proceedings - 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2017 (2017), 352--361. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.60Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Seil Kim, Jae Ik Cho, Hee Won Myeong, and Dong Hoon Lee. 2012. A study on static analysis model of mobile application for privacy protection. In Computer Science and Convergence. 529--540. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2792-2_50Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sari Kujala and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2009. Value of information systems and products: Understanding the users' perspective and values. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 9, 4 (2009), 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Konstantin Kuznetsov, Vitalii Avdiienko, Alessandra Gorla, and Andreas Zeller. 2016. Checking app user interfaces against app descriptions. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on App Market Analytics. 1--7. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993259.2993265 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Larissa Leite, Christoph Treude, and Fernando Figueira Filho. 2015. UE dashboard: Awareness of unusual events in commit histories. In 2015 10th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2015 - Proceedings. 978--981. https://doi.org/10.1145/2786805.2803184 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Li Li, Alexandre Bartel, Tegawendé F Bissyandé, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, Steven Arzt, Siegfried Rasthofer, Eric Bodden, Damien Octeau, and Patrick McDaniel. 2015. IccTA: Detecting inter-component privacy leaks in Android apps. In Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering. 280--291. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2015.48 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Dewi Mairiza, Didar Zowghi, and Nurie Nurmuliani. 2010. An investigation into the notion of non-functional requirements. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. 311--317. https://doi.org/10.1145/1774088.1774153 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Mautic. [n.d.]. Mautic Community Dashboard. Retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://dashboard.mautic.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Davoud Mougouei, Harsha Perera, Waqar Hussain, Rifat Shams, and Jon Whittle. 2018. Operationalizing human values in software: A research roadmap. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 780--784. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236024.3264843 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Mohammad Naseri, Nataniel P Borges, Andreas Zeller, and Romain Rouvoy. 2019. AccessiLeaks: Investigating privacy leaks exposed by the Android accessibility service. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 291--305. https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2019-0031Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Arif Nurwidyantoro, Mojtaba Shahin, Michel Chaudron, Waqar Hussain, Harsha Perera, Rifat Shams, and Jon Whittle. 2021. Human Values Dashboard Interview Questions. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14600952.v2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Zakaria Ournani, Romain Rouvoy, Pierre Rust, and Joel Penhoat. 2020. On reducing the energy consumption of software: From hurdles to requirements. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1145/3382494.3410678 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Rui Pereira, Tiago Carcao, Marco Couto, Jacome Cunha, Joao Paulo Fernandes, and Joao Saraiva. 2017. Helping programmers improve the energy efficiency of source code. In Proceedings - 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion, ICSE-C 2017. 238--240. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-C.2017.80 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Harsha Perera, Waqar Hussain, Jon Whittle, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Davoud Mougouei, Rifat Ara Shams, and Gillian Oliver. 2020. A study on the prevalence of human values in software engineering publications, 2015 - 2018. In IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 409--420. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380393 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Harsha Perera, Gunter Mussbacher, Waqar Hussain, Rifat Ara Shams, Arif Nurwidyantoro, and Jon Whittle. 2020. Continual Human Value Analysis in Software Development: A Goal Model Based Approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering. 192--203. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE48521.2020.00030Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Miguel Pestana, Rúben Pereira, and Sérgio Moro. 2018. A productivity dashboard for hospitals: An empirical study. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 333. 184--199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00060-8_14Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Miguel Pestana, Ruben Pereira, and Sérgio Moro. 2020. Improving health care management in hospitals through a productivity dashboard. Journal of Medical Systems 44, 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-01546-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Daniel Pletea, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2014. Security and emotion: Sentiment analysis of security discussions on GitHub. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 348--351. https://doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597117 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Gede Artha Azriadi Prana, Christoph Treude, Ferdian Thung, Thushari Atapattu, and David Lo. 2019. Categorizing the content of GitHub README files. Empirical Software Engineering 24, 3 (2019), 1296--1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-018-9660-3 arXiv:1802.06997 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Milton Rokeach. 1973. The nature of human values. Free press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Avi-Asher Schapiro and Umberto Bacchi. 2020. U.S. protests fuel calls for ban on racially biased facial recognition tools. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-tech-trfn-idUSKBN23B3B5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Shalom H. Schwartz. 2012. An overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2, 1 (2012), 12--13. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Shalom H Schwartz. 2017. The refined theory of basic values. In Values and Behavior: Taking a Cross Cultural Perspective. 51--72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Rifat Ara Shams, Waqar Hussain, Gillian Oliver, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Harsha Perera, and Jon Whittle. 2020. Society-oriented applications development: Investigating users' values from Bangladeshi agriculture mobile applications. In 2020 IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). 53--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Vibhu Saujanya Sharma, Roshni R Ramnani, and Shubhashis Sengupta. 2014. A framework for identifying and analyzing non-functional requirements from text. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture. 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593861.2593862 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Rocky Slavin, Xiaoyin Wang, Mitra Bokaei Hosseini, James Hester, Ram Krishnan, Jaspreet Bhatia, Travis D Breaux, and Jianwei Niu. 2016. Toward a framework for detecting privacy policy violations in Android application code. In 38th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. 25--36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884855 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Klaas Jan Stol, Paris Avgeriou, Muhammad Ali Babar, Yan Lucas, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2014. Key factors for adopting Inner Source. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 23, 2 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2533685 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Sarah Thew and Alistair Sutcliffe. 2018. Value-based requirements engineering: method and experience. Requirements Engineering 23, 4 (2018), 443--464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0273-y Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Christoph Treude and Margaret-anne Storey. 2009. ConcernLines: A timeline view of co-occurring concerns. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. 575--578. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Christoph Treude and Margaret Anne Storey. 2010. Awareness 2.0: Staying aware of projects, developers and tasks using dashboards and feeds. In Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering. 365--374. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806799.1806854 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. John Viega, J T Bloch, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Gary McGraw. 2002. Token-based scanning of source code for security problems. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 5, 3 (2002), 238--261. https://doi.org/10.1145/545186.545188 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Hsiu-Yu Wang, Chechen Liao, and Ling-Hui Yang. 2013. What affects mobile application use? The roles of consumption values. International Journal of Marketing Studies 5, 2 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v5n2p11Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Steve Wexler, Jeffrey Shaffer, and Andy Cotgreave. 2017. The Big Book of Dashboards: Visualizing Your Data Using Real World Business Scenarios. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Emily Winter, Steve Forshaw, and Maria Angela Ferrario. 2018. Measuring human values in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 8--11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239235.3267427 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Towards a Human Values Dashboard for Software Development: An Exploratory Study

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ESEM '21: Proceedings of the 15th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)
      October 2021
      368 pages
      ISBN:9781450386654
      DOI:10.1145/3475716

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 October 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      ESEM '21 Paper Acceptance Rate24of124submissions,19%Overall Acceptance Rate130of594submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader