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

Ali Ebrahimi Pourasad

dblp:392/4138 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research
usability evaluation
0.912025
Does GenAI Make Usability Testing Obsolete? · ICSE 2025
Usability and user experience research › usability evaluation
usability testing
0.912025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Does GenAI Make Usability Testing Obsolete?
abstract
Ensuring 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
ICSE1