Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Hammad Khalid

dblp:05/7984 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
0000-0001-9597-8455ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Empirical software engineering · 58% Software maintenance and evolution · 22% Software testing · 20%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › app store mining
app review analysis
0.422014
Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.422014
Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013
Software testing › regression testing
test case prioritization
0.212014
Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
Software maintenance and evolution
software maintenance
0.212013
On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013
Software maintenance and evolution › software updates
app updates
0.012013
On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013
Software testing
regression testing
0.012013
On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

review mining · 0.2qualitative analysis · 0.2manual tagging · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Analyzing and automatically labelling the types of user issues that are raised in mobile app reviews
Stuart McIlroy, Nasir Ali, Hammad Khalid, Ahmed E. Hassan
Empir. Softw. Eng.3
2014 Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps
abstract
Star ratings that are given by the users of mobile apps directly impact the revenue of its developers. At the same time, for popular platforms like Android, these apps must run on hundreds of devices increasing the chance for device-specific problems. Device-specific problems could impact the rating assigned to an app, given the varying capabilities of devices (e.g., hardware and software). To fix device-specific problems developers must test their apps on a large number of Android devices, which is costly and inefficient. Therefore, to help developers pick which devices to test their apps on, we propose using the devices that are mentioned in user reviews. We mine the user reviews of 99 free game apps and find that, apps receive user reviews from a large number of devices: between 38 to 132 unique devices. However, most of the reviews (80%) originate from a small subset of devices (on average, 33%). Furthermore, we find that developers of new game apps with no reviews can use the review data of similar game apps to select the devices that they should focus on first. Finally, among the set of devices that generate the most reviews for an app, we find that some devices tend to generate worse ratings than others. Our findings indicate that focusing on the devices with the most reviews (in particular the ones with negative ratings), developers can effectively prioritize their limited Quality Assurance (QA) efforts, since these devices have the greatest impact on ratings.
Hammad Khalid, Meiyappan Nagappan, Emad Shihab, Ahmed E. Hassan
SIGSOFT FSE1
2013 On identifying user complaints of iOS apps
abstract
In the past few years, the number of smartphone apps has grown at a tremendous rate. To compete in this market, both independent developers and large companies seek to improve the ratings of their apps. Therefore, understanding the user's perspective of mobile apps is extremely important. In this paper, we study the user's perspective of iOS apps by qualitatively analyzing app reviews. In total, we manually tag 6,390 reviews for 20 iOS apps. We find that there are 12 types of user complaints. Functional errors, requests for additional features, and app crashes are examples of the most common complaints. In addition, we find that almost 11% of the studied complaints were reported after a recent update. This highlights the importance of regression testing before updating apps. This study contributes a listing of the most frequent complaints about iOS apps to aid developers and researchers in better understanding the user's perspective of apps.
Hammad Khalid
ICSE1