Cited by 10Software Engineering ResearchUsability and User Interface DesignMobile and Web Applications

UISGPT: Automated Mobile UI Design Smell Detection with Large Language Models

Open access
Yang, Bo, Li, Shanping·2024·Electronics

Abstract

Manual inspection and remediation of guideline violations (UI design smells) is a knowledge-intensive, time-consuming, and context-related task that requires a high level of expertise. This paper proposes UISGPT, a novel end-to-end approach for automatically detecting user interface (UI) design smells and explaining each violation of specific design guidelines in natural language. To avoid hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) and achieve interpretable results, UISGPT uses few-shot learning and least-to-most prompting strategies to formalize design guidelines. To prevent the model from exceeding the input window size and for the enhancement of the logic in responses, UISGPT divides design smell detection into the following three subtasks: design guideline formalization, UI component information extraction, and guideline validation. The experimental results show that UISGPT performs effectively in automatically detecting design violations (F1 score of 0.729). In comparison to the latest LLM methods, the design smell reports generated by UISGPT have higher contextual consistency and user ratings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/electronics13163127

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”
  • Most prior work on AI-supported UI evaluation-including the single-pass baseline condition-treats models as automated judges: systems that take a screen as input and output a fixed list of issues, with users interacting mainly through coarse-grained, post-hoc prompts to revise it.

    “Most prior work on AI-supported UI evaluation-including our single-pass baseline condition-treats models as automated judges : systems that take a screen as input and output a fi xed list of issues, with users interacting mainly through coarse-grained, post-hoc prompts to revise it [17, 85, 93].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, B., & Li, S.
Affiliations
Zhejiang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yang, Bo
Venue
Electronics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-08-07
Volume
13
Issue
16
Pages
3127
ISSN
2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401422911
Cited by
10
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile and Web Applications
Keywords
mobile interface design, large language models, natural language explanations, few-shot learning, least-to-most prompting, hallucination mitigation, explainable AI

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