Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ali Ebrahimi Pourasad
dblp:392/4138
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0008-7206-726XORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
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.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Usability and user experience research · 87% Human-AI interaction · 13% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Usability and user experience research
usability evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Does GenAI Make Usability Testing Obsolete? · ICSE 2025 |
Usability and user experience research › usability evaluation
usability testing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Does GenAI Make Usability Testing Obsolete? · ICSE 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large vision-language model · 0.9focus groups · 0.9expert review · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Does GenAI Make Usability Testing Obsolete?abstractEnsuring usability is crucial for the success of mobile apps. Usability issues can compromise user experience and negatively impact the perceived app quality. This paper presents UX-LLM, a novel tool powered by a Large Vision-Language Model that predicts usability issues in iOS apps. To evaluate the performance of UX-LLM, we predicted usability issues in two open-source apps of a medium complexity and asked two usability experts to assess the predictions. We also performed traditional usability testing and expert review for both apps and compared the results to those of UX-LLM. UX-LLM demonstrated precision ranging from 0.61 and 0.66 and recall between 0.35 and 0.38, indicating its ability to identify valid usability issues, yet failing to capture the majority of issues. Finally, we conducted a focus group with an app development team of a capstone project developing a transit app for visually impaired persons. The focus group expressed positive perceptions of UX-LLM as it identified unknown usability issues in their app. However, they also raised concerns about its integration into the development workflow, suggesting potential improvements. Our results show that UX-LLM cannot fully replace traditional usability evaluation methods but serves as a valuable supplement particularly for small teams with limited resources, to identify issues in less common user paths, due to its ability to inspect the source code. Ali Ebrahimi Pourasad, Walid Maalej |
ICSE | 1 |