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
Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

León Welicki

dblp:85/3010 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

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 · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research
usability inspection		 0.112010
API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfaces · CHI 2010
Requirements engineering and software design › interface design
API design		 0.012010
API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfaces · CHI 2010
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture		 0.012010
API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfaces · CHI 2010

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

usability testing · 0.2usability inspection · 0.2peer review · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 API usability peer reviews: a method for evaluating the usability of application programming interfaces
abstract
We describe a usability inspection method to evaluate Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). We found the method useful as it identified usability defects in Microsoft's .NET Framework, of which 59% were new and 21% were fixed. Based on a comparison of usability defects identified between API usability peer reviews and API usability tests, API usability tests were found to expose design issues related to actually using an API whereas API usability peer reviews were found to expose the design rationale of an API. We reflect on the efficiency and productivity of each method: each API usability test is equivalent to 16 API usability peer reviews with the former having a 2.5x productivity advantage. We discuss how API usability peer reviews can be used in conjunction with API usability tests to increase usability coverage on APIs.
León Welicki, Dieter Zirkler
 CHI2