skip to main content
10.1145/3387940.3391492acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On Building an Automatic Identification of Country-Specific Feature Requests in Mobile App Reviews: Possibilities and Challenges

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 September 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mobile app stores are available in over 150 countries, allowing users from all over the world to leave public reviews of downloaded apps. Previous studies have shown that such reviews can serve as sources of requirements and suggested that users from different countries have different needs and expectations regarding the same app. However, the tremendous quantity of reviews from multiple countries, as well as several other factors, complicates identifying country-specific app feature requests. In this work, we present a simple approach to address this through NLP-based analysis and discuss some of the challenges involved in using the NLP-based analysis for this task.

References

  1. Apple. [n.d.]. Build Apps for the World. https://developer.apple.com/internationalization/. Accessed: 2019-03-27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple. [n.d.]. Developer Insight - Evernote. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/evernote/. Accessed: 2019-06-05.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hajer Ayed, Benoît Vanderose, and Naji Habra. 2017. Agile cultural challenges in Europe and Asia: insights from practitioners. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP). IEEE, 153--162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Anton Barua, Stephen W Thomas, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2014. What are developers talking about? an analysis of topics and trends in stack overflow. Empirical Software Engineering 19, 3 (2014), 619--654.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research 3, Jan (2003), 993--1022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Machine learning 45, 1 (2001), 5--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Siva Dorairaj, James Noble, and Petra Malik. 2012. Understanding lack of trust in distributed agile teams: A grounded theory study. In The 16th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering Conference (EASE). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. EF. [n.d.]. EF English Proficiency Index. https://www.ef.edu/epi/. Accessed: 2019-04-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Laura V Galvis Carreño and Kristina Winbladh. 2013. Analysis of user comments: an approach for software requirements evolution. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press, 582--591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cuiyun Gao, Jichuan Zeng, Michael R Lyu, and Irwin King. 2018. Online app review analysis for identifying emerging issues. In 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 48--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Eduard C Groen, Sylwia Kopczyńska, Marc P Hauer, Tobias D Krafft, and Joerg Doerr. 2017. Users The Hidden Software Product Quality Experts?: A Study on How App Users Report Quality Aspects in Online Reviews. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, 80--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Emitza Guzman, Luís Oliveira, Yves Steiner, Laura C Wagner, and Martin Glinz. 2018. User feedback in the app store: a cross-cultural study. In IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society. IEEE, 13--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hanyang Hu, Shaowei Wang, Cor-Paul Bezemer, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2019. Studying the consistency of star ratings and reviews of popular free hybrid Android and iOS apps. Empirical Software Engineering 24, 1 (2019), 7--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Markus Kemmelmeier. 2016. Cultural differences in survey responding: Issues and insights in the study of response biases. International Journal of Psychology 51, 6 (2016), 439--444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Soo Ling Lim, Peter J Bentley, Natalie Kanakam, Fuyuki Ishikawa, and Shinichi Honiden. 2014. Investigating country differences in mobile app user behavior and challenges for software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 41, 1 (2014), 40--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. William Martin, Federica Sarro, Yue Jia, Yuanyuan Zhang, and Mark Harman. 2016. A survey of app store analysis for software engineering. IEEE transactions on software engineering 43, 9 (2016), 817--847.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Osayande P Omondiagbe, Sherlock A Licorish, and Stephen G MacDonell. 2019. Features that Predict the Acceptability of Java and JavaScript Answers on Stack Overflow. In Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment on Software Engineering. 101--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Dennis Pagano and Walid Maalej. 2013. User feedback in the appstore: An empirical study. In 2013 21st IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE). IEEE, 125--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Sebastiano Panichella, Andrea Di Sorbo, Emitza Guzman, Corrado A Visaggio, Gerardo Canfora, and Harald C Gall. 2015. How can i improve my app? classifying user reviews for software maintenance and evolution. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). 281--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Katharina Reinecke and Abraham Bernstein. 2011. Improving performance, perceived usability, and aesthetics with culturally adaptive user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 18, 2 (2011), 8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Katharina Reinecke and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2014. Quantifying visual preferences around the world. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kamonphop Srisopha, Barry Boehm, and Pooyan Behnamghader. 2019. Do consumers talk about the software in my product? An Exploratory Study of IoT Products on Amazon. CLEI Electronic Journal 22 (04 2019). https://doi.org/10.19153/cleiej.22.1.1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. K. Srisopha, C. Phonsom, K. Lin, and B. Boehm. 2019. Same App, Different Countries: A Preliminary User Reviews Study on Most Downloaded iOS Apps. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). 76--80. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME.2019.00017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Carolin Strobl, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin, and Achim Zeileis. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC bioinformatics 9, 1 (2008), 307.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Tanja Walsh, Piia Nurkka, and Rod Walsh. 2010. Cultural differences in smart-phone user experience evaluation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. ACM, 24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Xiaohui Yan, Jiafeng Guo, Yanyan Lan, and Xueqi Cheng. 2013. A biterm topic model for short texts. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. 1445--1456.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Liu Yang, Susan T Dumais, Paul N Bennett, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2017. Characterizing and predicting enterprise email reply behavior. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 235--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Jiang, Jianshu Weng, Jing He, Ee-Peng Lim, Hongfei Yan, and Xiaoming Li. 2011. Comparing twitter and traditional media using topic models. In European conference on information retrieval. Springer, 338--349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On Building an Automatic Identification of Country-Specific Feature Requests in Mobile App Reviews: Possibilities and Challenges
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ICSEW'20: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops
          June 2020
          831 pages
          ISBN:9781450379632
          DOI:10.1145/3387940

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          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: 25 September 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Upcoming Conference

          ICSE 2025

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader