Textual analysis reveals that LLM-generated UX evaluations exhibit strengths in systematic analysis, professional expression, and proactive risk identification; however, they show limitations in capturing nuanced emotions and dynamic interaction details.
Abstract
This study aims to explore the potential of general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) in generating User Experience (UX) evaluations during the product verification phase, addressing issues in traditional UX research methods such as difficulties in user recruitment and long scheduling cycles. Using the User Experience Honeycomb model as the theoretical framework, the research selects the off-the-shelf GPT-4o as the experimental model. By combining optimized prompt engineering with multimodal inputs, a comparative analysis is conducted on the similarities and differences between LLMs and human users regarding evaluation coverage rate, language style, and problem perspectives. The experiment employs a deductive-inductive approach to code and analyze the collected evaluation data. The results indicate that the thematic overlap rate between LLM-generated evaluations and human user evaluations reaches 81.05%, demonstrating significant potential in simulating human users to output experience evaluations. Textual analysis reveals that LLM-generated UX evaluations exhibit strengths in systematic analysis, professional expression, and proactive risk identification; however, they show limitations in capturing nuanced emotions and dynamic interaction details. Additionally, the efficiency of UX evaluation is improved by 88.0% compared to human users. The study recommends adopting a Hybrid Intelligence evaluation model, leveraging the systematic analysis capabilities of LLMs while incorporating human users' acute perception of emotions and immediate experiences to enhance both the efficiency and comprehensiveness of UX research.
Usability is a key non-functional requirement in interactive software systems, and heuristic evaluation can support the verification and validation of user interfaces by identifying violations of usability principles. However, this process still depends on human expertise, is subject to evaluator variability, and may b...
Ana Beatriz Farias, D. Albuquerque, Emanuel Dantas et al.· Brazilian Symposium on Syste...· 0 citations
WebCraftBench, an interactive benchmark for evaluating web application generation from a software testing perspective, is proposed and experiments show that coverage guidance improves exploration coverage and the model rankings remain stable when the judge model is replaced.
Chen-Xu Liu, Zi-Lu Zou, Pei-Zhong Gao et al.· 0 citations
This work presents the first cross-task empirical evaluation of LLMs spanning five RE-related activities, as well as replication materials supporting reproducibility, and a broader understanding of the capabilities, limitations, and practical readiness of current LLMs for RE.
Jacek Dabrowski, Manjeshwar Aniruddh Mallya, Alessio Ferrari et al.· 1 citation
It is argued that Nielsen-Landauer’s model extends naturally to AI personas in usability studies, where a small number of personas is sufficient to surface the majority of usability issues.
Karan Sharma, A. Phatak, T. Petrosyan et al.· 0 citations
Refining user stories (USs) into tasks is an important step in agile software development, as it translates software requirements into project management artifacts that are assigned to team members. This story-to-task decomposition can be tedious. In this paper, we propose and evaluate DELTA, a Large Language Model (LL...
Delina Ly, F. Aydemir, F. Dalpiaz· Proceedings of the 41st IEEE...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.