Randomized trial demonstrates context-aware scoring enhances UX evaluation in software applications, suggesting improved integration into workflows.
User experience (UX) evaluation is central to software quality, yet it remains difficult to integrate into software engineering workflows in a systematic, explainable, and early-stage manner. This paper presents TraceUX, a framework for operationalizing UX heuristics and design guidance into a rule-based static evaluation pipeline that combines machine-interpretable formalization, executability-aware assessment, context-sensitive scoring, and actionable reporting. The framework is instantiated using Apple Human Interface Guidelines, Swift abstract syntax trees, and mobile games, and implemented in a proof-of-concept tool named TraceHIG. Evaluation was conducted in four layers: analysis of the full rule repository, controlled synthetic validation with injected violations, baseline assessment of 12 public Swift game projects, and a case study on one project. The full repository contained 206 rules; after excluding non-iOS yet platform-specific rules, 193 rules were retained for the downstream experiments. In controlled validation, 216 injected violations yielded 99.2% precision, 61.6% recall, and an F1-score of 0.760. In baseline analysis, overall project scores ranged from 41.6 to 88.0, reflecting rule-conformance spread under the instantiated rule base rather than direct measures of UX quality. The case study demonstrated that profile-aware scoring can yield materially different UX assessments for the same codebase under different game configurations, highlighting the importance of app profiling in static UX evaluation. These findings show that a meaningful subset of UX knowledge can be operationalized into explainable, context-aware static analysis that provides structured and actionable decision support while complementing, rather than replacing, manual and empirical UX evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fouzia Alzhrani (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: