Aalto Interface Metrics (AIM): A Service and Codebase for Computational GUI Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Aalto Interface Metrics (AIM) pools several empirically validated models and metrics of user perception and attention into an easy-to-use online service for the evaluation of graphical user interface (GUI) designs. Users input a GUI design via URL, and select from a list of 17 different metrics covering aspects ranging from visual clutter to visual learnability. AIM presents detailed breakdowns, visualizations, and statistical comparisons, enabling designers and practitioners to detect shortcomings and possible improvements. The web service and code repository are available at interfacemetrics.aalto.fi.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Recent generative models can offload parts of UI evaluation: metrics quantify visual properties, predictive models simulate user behaviors, and LLMs detect heuristic violations from screenshots.
“Metrics can quantify visual properties [71], predictive models can simulate user behaviors [17, 91], and Large Language Models (LLMs) can detect heuristic violations directly from screenshots [17, 85, 93].”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [71]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation
Ko, J., Choi, J., Morales, C., Kim, D., & Ko, M. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790929 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oulasvirta, A., De Pascale, S., Koch, J., Langerak, T., Jokinen, J., Todi, K., Laine, M., Kristhombuge, M., Zhu, Y., Miniukovich, A., Palmas, G., & Weinkauf, T.
- Affiliations
- Aalto University (FI)
- Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland
- University of Trento (IT)
- KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Adjunct Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-10-11
- Pages
- 16-19
- OpenAlex
- W2896533325
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 3.42
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.aalto.fi
- Locations
- ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) (publishedVersion)
- Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- H2020 European Research Council (637991)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- user attention, visual clutter, human-computer interaction
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
