Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2915970.2915995acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Reporting usability defects: do reporters report what software developers need?

Published: 01 June 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Reporting usability defects can be a challenging task, especially in convincing the software developers that the reported defect actually requires attention. Stronger evidence in the form of specific details is often needed. However, research to date in software defect reporting has not investigated the value of capturing different information based on defect type. We surveyed practitioners in both open source communities and industrial software organizations about their usability defect reporting practices to better understand information needs to address usability defect reporting issues. Our analysis of 147 responses show that reporters often provide observed result, expected result and steps to reproduce when describing usability defects, similar to the way other types of defects are reported. However, reporters rarely provide usability-related information. In fact, reporters ranked cause of the problem is the most difficult information to provide followed by usability principle, video recoding, UI event trace and title. Conversely, software developers consider cause of the problem as the most helpful information for them to fix usability defects. Our statistical analysis reveals a substantial gap between what reporters provide and what software developers need when fixing usability defects. We propose some remedies to resolve this gap.

References

[1]
J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering, vol. 44. 1993, p. 362.
[2]
C. Wilson and K. P. Coyne, "The whiteboard: Tracking usability issues: to bug or not to bug?," Interactions, pp. 15--19, 2001.
[3]
M. B. Twidale, D. M. Nichols, and N. Zealand, "Exploring Usability Discussions in Open Source Development," in Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii Internatioal Conference on System Sciences, 2005, pp. 1--10.
[4]
N. Bettenburg, C. Weiß, S. Just, and A. Schröter, "Quality of Bug Reports in Eclipse," in Proceedings of the 2007 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange, 2007, pp. 21--25.
[5]
T. Zimmermann, R. Premraj, N. Bettenburg, C. Weiss, S. Just, and A. Schro, "What Makes a Good Bug Report?," IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 618--643, 2010.
[6]
E. I. Laukkanen and M. V. Mantyla, "Survey Reproduction of Defect Reporting in Industrial Software Development," in 2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2011, pp. 197--206.
[7]
S. Davies and M. Roper, "What's in a bug report?," in Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement - ESEM '14, 2014, pp. 1--10.
[8]
S. Zaman, B. Adams, and A. E. Hassan, "Security Versus Performance Bugs: A Case Study on Firefox," in Proceedings of the 8th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, 2011.
[9]
S. Breu and J. Sillito, "Information Needs in Bug Reports: Improving Cooperation Between Developers and Users," in The 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2010, pp. 301--310.
[10]
P. Bhattacharya and I. Neamtiu, "Bug-fix time prediction models: Can we do better?," in Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, 2011, no. 3, pp. 207--210.
[11]
L. D. Panjer, "Predicting Eclipse Bug Lifetimes," in Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'07), 2007.
[12]
P. Hooimeijer and W. Weimer, "Modeling Bug Report Quality," in Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering, 2007, pp. 34--43.
[13]
P. Anbalagan, M. Vouk, C. Science, and N. Carolina, "An Empirical Study of Security Problem Reports in Linux Distributions," in Third International Symposiumm on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009, pp. 481--484.
[14]
A. Følstad, P. O. Box, E. L. Law, K. Hornbæk, and S. Copenhagen, "Analysis in Practical Usability Evaluation: A Survey Study," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2012, pp. 2127--2136.
[15]
P. Bhattacharya, L. Ulanova, I. Neamtiu, and S. C. Koduru, "An empirical analysis of bug reports and bug fixing in open source Android apps," in Proceedings of the European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, CSMR, 2013, pp. 133--143.
[16]
K. Hornbæk and E. Frokjær, "Comparing usability problems and redesign proposals as input to practical systems development," in CHI 2005: Technology, Safety, Community: Conference Proceedings - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2005, pp. 391--400.
[17]
K. Hornbæk and E. Frøkjær, "Comparison of techniques for matching of usability problem descriptions," Interact. Comput., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 505--514, Dec. 2008.
[18]
J. Itkonen and C. Lassenius, "The Role of the Tester's Knowledge in Exploratory Software Testing," IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 707--724, 2013.
[19]
G. Guest, K. MacQueen, and E. Namey, Introduction to applied thematic analysis. London, UK: Sage, 2012, pp. 3--20.
[20]
F. P. Simões, "Supporting End User Reporting of HCI Issues in Open Source Software,". PhD Thesis. Pontificia Universidade Catolica, Do Rio De Janeiro, 2013.
[21]
X. Wang, L. Zhang, T. Xie, J. Anvik, and J. Sun, "An Approach to Detecting Duplicate Bug Reports using Natural Language and Execution Information," in Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering, 2008, pp. 461--470.
[22]
N. Shahida, M. Yusop, J. Grundy, and R. Vasa, "Reporting Usability Defects: Limitations of Open Source Defect Repositories and Suggestions for Improvement," in Proceedings of the ASWEC 2015 24th Australasian Software Engineering Conference, 2015, pp. 38--43.
[23]
T. S. Andre, H. Rex Hartson, S. M. Belz, and F. A. Mccreary, "The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools," Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 54, pp. 107--136, 2001.
[24]
D. M. Nichols and M. B. Twidale, "Usability processes in open source projects," Softw. Process Improv. Pract., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 149--162, Mar. 2006.
[25]
G. Çetin, D. Verzulli, and S. Frings, "An Analysis of Involvement of HCI Experts in Distributed Software Development: Practical Issues," Online Communities Soc. Comput., vol. 4564, pp. 32--40, 2007.
[26]
Y. Tao, "Grammatical analysis of user interface events for task identification," Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 8517 LNCS, pp. 197--205, 2014.
[27]
B. J. S. Dumas, B. R. Molich, and B. R. Jeffries, "Describing usability problems: Are we sending the right message?," Interactions, pp. 0--4, 2004.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Educating for Accessibility: Insights into Knowledge Gaps and Practical Challenges in Software EngineeringProceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3701625.3701689(646-656)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Toward the Automated Localization of Buggy Mobile App UIs from Bug DescriptionsProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3650212.3680357(1249-1261)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2024
  • (2024)How do software practitioners perceive human-centric defects?Information and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107549176(107549)Online publication date: Dec-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Reporting usability defects: do reporters report what software developers need?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    EASE '16: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
    June 2016
    310 pages
    ISBN:9781450336918
    DOI:10.1145/2915970
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 June 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. defect repository
    2. software quality
    3. usability defect reporting

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    EASE '16

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 71 of 232 submissions, 31%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)15
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 04 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Educating for Accessibility: Insights into Knowledge Gaps and Practical Challenges in Software EngineeringProceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3701625.3701689(646-656)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2024
    • (2024)Toward the Automated Localization of Buggy Mobile App UIs from Bug DescriptionsProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3650212.3680357(1249-1261)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2024
    • (2024)How do software practitioners perceive human-centric defects?Information and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107549176(107549)Online publication date: Dec-2024
    • (2023)Analysis of Bug Report Qualities with Fixing Time using a Bayesian NetworkProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3593434.3593484(235-240)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2023
    • (2022)Understanding the Characteristics of Visual Contents in Open Source Issue Discussions: A Case Study of Jupyter NotebookProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3530019.3534082(249-254)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2022
    • (2022)Accessibility in Software Practice: A Practitioner’s PerspectiveACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/350350831:4(1-26)Online publication date: 28-Jul-2022
    • (2021)What are the Features of Good Discussions for Shortening Bug Fixing Time?IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems10.1587/transinf.2020MPP0007E104.D:1(106-116)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2021
    • (2021)Extracting features related to bug fixing time of bug reports by deep learning and gradient-based visualization2021 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Applications (ICAICA)10.1109/ICAICA52286.2021.9498236(402-407)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2021
    • (2020)Usability Testing: A Practitioner's Guide to Evaluating the User ExperienceSynthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics10.2200/S00987ED1V01Y202001HCI0451:1(i-105)Online publication date: 9-Mar-2020
    • (2019)What are Good Discussions Within Bug Report Comments for Shortening Bug Fixing Time?2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS)10.1109/QRS.2019.00044(280-287)Online publication date: Jul-2019
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media