Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Systematic Literature Review of Automation and Artificial Intelligence in Usability Issue Detection

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.01415 v1 pith:XAKYII3V submitted 2025-04-02 cs.HC cs.SE

Eduard Kuric , Peter Demcak , Matus Krajcovic , Jan Lang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.SE
keywords usabilityartificialautomationdetectionintelligenceissueresearchreview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Usability issues can hinder the effective use of software. Therefore, various techniques are deployed to diagnose and mitigate them. However, these techniques are costly and time-consuming, particularly in iterative design and development. A substantial body of research indicates that automation and artificial intelligence can enhance the process of obtaining usability insights. In our systematic review of 155 publications, we offer a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art for automated usability issue detection. We analyze trends, paradigms, and the technical context in which they are applied. Finally, we discuss the implications and potential directions for future research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Card Sorting Simulator: Augmenting Design of Logical Information Architectures with Large Language Models

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-generated aggregate card sortings agree moderately with human results (NMI around 0.68), with accuracy decreasing for larger card sets and complex labels.

Pith tools