Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Classifying design-level requirements using machine learning for a recommender of interaction design patterns

Silva‐Rodríguez, Viridiana, Nava‐Muñoz, Sandra Edith, Castro, Luis A., Martínez‐Pérez, Francisco E., Pérez‐González, Héctor G., Torres‐Reyes, Francisco·2020·IET Software
DOI 10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0291
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Software Engineering is a discipline that encompasses processes associated with the development of interactive systems. The perceived quality of an interactive system is heavily influenced by the user interface design, which may result in many challenges. One such challenge is design‐level requirements analysis. The success of the software system is mostly dependent on how well users’ requirements have been understood and translated into appropriate functionalities. During the interactive system design process, it is common to find recurring problems in human–computer interactions, for which reusing solutions is highly feasible. Interaction design patterns seek to support designers in decision making during the design of interactive systems. Due to the design task tends to be subjective and prone to errors. This work aims at presenting and evaluating an interaction design patterns recommendation model based on design‐level requirements classification, through the application of supervised machine learning algorithms. To compare the performance of four classification algorithms, a study was carried out, in which the linear support vector machine was the most suitable to this problem. The results of this work can be used for implementing frameworks that can better support designers’ decision making when designing user interfaces.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0291

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Hussain A., 2016, The role of requirements in the success or failure of software projects, Int. Rev. Manag. Mark., 6, 306
  2. 10.1007/978-3-642-12578-2 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Sommerville I., 2012, ‘Information requirements for enterprise systems', 266
  4. 10.1007/978-3-319-61073-3 · DOI
  5. KurtanovícZ.MaalejW.: ‘Automatically classifying functional and nonfunctional requirements using supervised machine learning’.2017 IEEE 25th Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE) Lisbon Portugal 2017 pp.490–495 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Tarawneh M.M., 2017, Software requirements classification using natural language processing and SVD, Int. J. Comput. Appl., 164, 7
  7. RahmanM.A.HaqueM.A.TawhidM.N.A.et al.: ‘Classifying nonfunctional requirements using RNN variants for quality software development’.Proc. of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT Int. Workshop on Machine Learning Techniques for Software Quality Evaluation Tallinn Estonia 2019 pp.25–30 · DOI
  8. Navarro‐AlmanzaR.Juarez‐RamirezR.LiceaG.: ‘Towards supporting software engineering using deep learning: a case of software requirements classification’.2017 5th Int. Conf. in Software Engineering Research and Innovation (CONISOFT) Mérida México 2017 pp.116–120 · DOI
  9. GrossA.DoerrJ.: ‘What you need is what you get!: the vision of view‐based requirements specifications’.20th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE) Chicago IL 2012 pp.171–180 · doi:10.1109/re.2012.6345801
  10. Lauesen S., 2002, Software requirements: styles and techniques
  11. 10.1016/j.infsof.2005.02.005 · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.02.005
  12. Iñiguez.JarrínC.PanachJ.I.LópezO.P.: ‘Defining interaction design patterns to extract knowledge from big data’.Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering Tallinn Estonia 2018 pp.490–504 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91563-0_30
  13. HochmüllerE.: ‘Requirements classification as a first step to grasp quality requirements’.Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality Austria 1997
  14. AlrumaihH.MirzaA.AlsalamahH.: ‘Toward automated software requirements classification’.21st Saudi Computer Society National Computer Conf. (NCC) 2018 pp.1–6 · doi:10.1109/ncg.2018.8593012
  15. RashwanA.: ‘Semantic analysis of functional and non‐functional requirements in software requirements specifications’.Canadian Conf. on Artificial Intelligence Toronto Canada 2012 pp.388–391 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30353-1_42
  16. 10.1016/j.jss.2007.01.006 · DOI
  17. Alexander C., 1977, A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction
  18. 10.1007/978-3-319-15687-3 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15687-3
  19. 10.1007/1-4020-4113-6 · DOI
  20. Tidwell J., 2010, Designing interfaces: patterns for effective interaction design
  21. Van.WelieM.Van.Der.VeerG.C.EliënsA.:‘Patterns as tools for user interface design’.Int. Workshop on Tools for Working with Guidelines Biarritz France October 2000 · DOI
  22. Gaffar A., 2014, Application‐agnostic interactive big data: managing HCI complexity at the source, Int. J. New Comput. Archit. Appl. (IJNCAA), 4, 1
  23. 10.1145/971258.971268 · doi:10.1145/971258.971268
  24. BertholdoA.P.O.KonF.GerosaM.A.: ‘Agile usability patterns for user‐centered design final stages’.Int. Conf. on Human‐Computer Interaction Toronto Canada 2016 pp.433–444 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.09.003 · DOI
  26. Calvary G., 2014, Introduction to model‐based user interfaces, Group Note, 7, W3C
  27. 10.1007/s11334-011-0178-8 · DOI
  28. Thanh.DianeN.VanderdoncktJ.SeffahA.: ‘UIPLML: pattern‐based engineering of user interfaces of multi‐platform systems’.2016 IEEE Tenth Int. Conf. on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) Grenoble France 2016 pp.1–12 · doi:10.1109/rcis.2016.7549348
  29. VanderdoncktJ.SimarroF.M.: ‘Generative pattern‐based design of user interfaces’.Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Pattern‐Driven Engineering of Interactive Computing Systems Berlin Germany 2010 pp.12–19 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/S0164-1212(01)00109-1 · doi:10.1016/s0164-1212(01)00109-1
  31. 10.1145/2815021.2815032 · DOI
  32. Silva.RodríguezV.Nava.MuñozS.E.Martínez.PérezF.E.et al.: ‘How to select the appropriate pattern of human‐computer interaction?: A case study with junior programmers’.2018 6th Int. Conf. in Software Engineering Research and Innovation (CONISOFT) San Luis Potosí México 2018 pp.66–71 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/s10579-017-9381-z · doi:10.1007/s10579-017-9381-z
  34. NazirF.ButtW.H.AnwarM.W.et al.: ‘The applications of natural language processing (NLP) for software requirement engineering – a systematic literature review’.Int. Conf. on information science and applications 2017 pp.485–493 · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4154-9_56
  35. 10.1108/eb026562 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1108/00220410410560573 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1007/978-3-319-29659-3_4 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.04.001 · DOI
  39. 10.1007/978-1-4842-4938-3_1 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-4938-3_1
  40. 10.22364/bjmc.2017.5.2.05 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Bali M., 2015, A survey on text classification with different types of classification methods, Int. J. Innov. Res. Comput. Commun. Eng., 3, 4888
  42. 10.1109/TNNLS.2012.2199516 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1016/j.patrec.2018.03.003 · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2018.03.003
  44. KhelifaA.HaouesM.SellamiA.: ‘Towards a software requirements change classification using support vector machine’.Proc. of the second Conf. on Language Processing and Knowledge Management Kerkennah (Sfax) Tunisia vol. 2279 2018 pp.1–10
  45. Shull F., 2007, Guide to advanced empirical software engineering
  46. Cawley G.C., 2010, On over‐fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 11, 2079
  47. 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.10.049 · DOI

Cited by

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Silva‐Rodríguez, V., Nava‐Muñoz, S. E., Castro, L. A., Martínez‐Pérez, F. E., Pérez‐González, H. G., & Torres‐Reyes, F.
Affiliations
  • Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí Dr. Manuel Nava 8 San Luis Potosí Mexico
  • Depto. de Computación y Diseño Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora Ciudad Obregón Mexico
ORCID
Venue
IET Software
Publisher
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
Published
2020-10
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
544-552
ISSN
1751-8806
DOI
10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0291
Cited by
12
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Classifying design-level requirements using machine learning for a recommender of interaction design patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0291
The paper
Silva‐Rodríguez, V., Nava‐Muñoz, S. E., Castro, L. A., Martínez‐Pérez, F. E., Pérez‐González, H. G., & Torres‐Reyes, F. (2020). Classifying design-level requirements using machine learning for a recommender of interaction design patterns. IET Software. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0291

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.