我应该如何改进应用的UI ?

Qiuyuan Chen, Chunyang Chen, Safwat Hassan, Zhengchang Xing, Xin Xia, Ahmed E. Hassan
{"title":"我应该如何改进应用的UI ?","authors":"Qiuyuan Chen, Chunyang Chen, Safwat Hassan, Zhengchang Xing, Xin Xia, Ahmed E. Hassan","doi":"10.1145/3447808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"UI (User Interface) is an essential factor influencing users’ perception of an app. However, it is hard for even professional designers to determine if the UI is good or not for end-users. Users’ feedback (e.g., user reviews in the Google Play) provides a way for app owners to understand how the users perceive the UI. In this article, we conduct an in-depth empirical study to analyze the UI issues of mobile apps. In particular, we analyze more than 3M UI-related reviews from 22,199 top free-to-download apps and 9,380 top non-free apps in the Google Play Store. By comparing the rating of UI-related reviews and other reviews of an app, we observe that UI-related reviews have lower ratings than other reviews. By manually analyzing a random sample of 1,447 UI-related reviews with a 95% confidence level and a 5% interval, we identify 17 UI-related issues types that belong to four categories (i.e., “Appearance,” “Interaction,” “Experience,” and “Others”). In these issue types, we find “Generic Review” is the most occurring one. “Comparative Review” and “Advertisement” are the most negative two UI issue types. Faced with these UI issues, we explore the patterns of interaction between app owners and users. We identify eight patterns of how app owners dialogue with users about UI issues by the review-response mechanism. We find “Apology or Appreciation” and “Information Request” are the most two frequent patterns. We find updating UI timely according to feedback is essential to satisfy users. Besides, app owners could also fix UI issues without updating UI, especially for issue types belonging to “Interaction” category. Our findings show that there exists a positive impact if app owners could actively interact with users to improve UI quality and boost users’ satisfactoriness about the UIs.","PeriodicalId":7398,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","volume":"61 1","pages":"1 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Should I Improve the UI of My App?\",\"authors\":\"Qiuyuan Chen, Chunyang Chen, Safwat Hassan, Zhengchang Xing, Xin Xia, Ahmed E. Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3447808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"UI (User Interface) is an essential factor influencing users’ perception of an app. However, it is hard for even professional designers to determine if the UI is good or not for end-users. Users’ feedback (e.g., user reviews in the Google Play) provides a way for app owners to understand how the users perceive the UI. In this article, we conduct an in-depth empirical study to analyze the UI issues of mobile apps. In particular, we analyze more than 3M UI-related reviews from 22,199 top free-to-download apps and 9,380 top non-free apps in the Google Play Store. By comparing the rating of UI-related reviews and other reviews of an app, we observe that UI-related reviews have lower ratings than other reviews. By manually analyzing a random sample of 1,447 UI-related reviews with a 95% confidence level and a 5% interval, we identify 17 UI-related issues types that belong to four categories (i.e., “Appearance,” “Interaction,” “Experience,” and “Others”). In these issue types, we find “Generic Review” is the most occurring one. “Comparative Review” and “Advertisement” are the most negative two UI issue types. Faced with these UI issues, we explore the patterns of interaction between app owners and users. We identify eight patterns of how app owners dialogue with users about UI issues by the review-response mechanism. We find “Apology or Appreciation” and “Information Request” are the most two frequent patterns. We find updating UI timely according to feedback is essential to satisfy users. Besides, app owners could also fix UI issues without updating UI, especially for issue types belonging to “Interaction” category. Our findings show that there exists a positive impact if app owners could actively interact with users to improve UI quality and boost users’ satisfactoriness about the UIs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3447808\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3447808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

UI(用户界面)是影响用户对应用感知的重要因素。然而,即使是专业的设计师也很难确定UI对最终用户来说是好是坏。用户反馈(如Google Play中的用户评论)为应用所有者提供了一种了解用户如何看待UI的方法。在这篇文章中,我们进行了深入的实证研究来分析移动应用的UI问题。我们特别分析了Google Play Store中22199款热门免费应用和9380款热门非免费应用的超过3M条ui相关评论。通过比较ui相关评论和其他评论的评分,我们发现ui相关评论的评分低于其他评论。通过手动分析1447个ui相关评论的随机样本,置信水平为95%,间隔为5%,我们确定了17个ui相关问题类型,属于四个类别(即,“外观”,“交互”,“体验”和“其他”)。在这些问题类型中,我们发现“Generic Review”是最常见的一种。“比较评论”和“广告”是最负面的两种UI问题类型。面对这些UI问题,我们探索了应用程序所有者和用户之间的交互模式。我们确定了应用程序所有者如何通过评论-响应机制与用户就UI问题进行对话的八种模式。我们发现“道歉或感谢”和“信息请求”是最常见的两种模式。我们发现根据用户反馈及时更新UI是满足用户需求的关键。此外,应用程序所有者也可以在不更新UI的情况下修复UI问题,特别是属于“交互”类别的问题类型。我们的研究结果表明,如果应用程序所有者能够积极地与用户互动,以改善UI质量并提高用户对UI的满意度,那么就会产生积极的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Should I Improve the UI of My App?
UI (User Interface) is an essential factor influencing users’ perception of an app. However, it is hard for even professional designers to determine if the UI is good or not for end-users. Users’ feedback (e.g., user reviews in the Google Play) provides a way for app owners to understand how the users perceive the UI. In this article, we conduct an in-depth empirical study to analyze the UI issues of mobile apps. In particular, we analyze more than 3M UI-related reviews from 22,199 top free-to-download apps and 9,380 top non-free apps in the Google Play Store. By comparing the rating of UI-related reviews and other reviews of an app, we observe that UI-related reviews have lower ratings than other reviews. By manually analyzing a random sample of 1,447 UI-related reviews with a 95% confidence level and a 5% interval, we identify 17 UI-related issues types that belong to four categories (i.e., “Appearance,” “Interaction,” “Experience,” and “Others”). In these issue types, we find “Generic Review” is the most occurring one. “Comparative Review” and “Advertisement” are the most negative two UI issue types. Faced with these UI issues, we explore the patterns of interaction between app owners and users. We identify eight patterns of how app owners dialogue with users about UI issues by the review-response mechanism. We find “Apology or Appreciation” and “Information Request” are the most two frequent patterns. We find updating UI timely according to feedback is essential to satisfy users. Besides, app owners could also fix UI issues without updating UI, especially for issue types belonging to “Interaction” category. Our findings show that there exists a positive impact if app owners could actively interact with users to improve UI quality and boost users’ satisfactoriness about the UIs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Turnover of Companies in OpenStack: Prevalence and Rationale Super-optimization of Smart Contracts Verification of Programs Sensitive to Heap Layout Assessing and Improving an Evaluation Dataset for Detecting Semantic Code Clones via Deep Learning Guaranteeing Timed Opacity using Parametric Timed Model Checking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1