skip to main content
10.1145/3555228.3555230acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

UX Requirements Matters: Guidelines to Support Software Teams on the Writing of Acceptance Criteria

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

User Stories (USs) are artifacts that define requirements in agile software development and that are usually complemented by Acceptance Criteria (AC) which provide details about what should be implemented. These details often attempt to integrate User Experience (UX) requirements to their descriptions. This paper aims to introduce a set of guidelines that supports software teams to write UX requirements during the elaboration of AC. The guidelines are separated into Interaction Design (ID) and Visual Elements (VE). We conducted a case study with 10 agile teams that develop mobile applications that used the guidelines during a sprint. After that, we carried out a qualitative analysis of the UX requirements described in the USs/AC to evaluate the usage of the guidelines. We analyzed the guidelines’ acceptance regarding usefulness and ease of use based on feedback from the teams. We analyzed 242 AC and identified that 99 AC had UX requirements related to ID and 87 to VE. We identified that only 7 developers, spread over four teams, reported negative feedback about the guidelines. We conclude that teams were helped by the guidelines that respectively address details about the user’s interaction with the product, as well as the definition of the most adequate visual elements to enable this interaction.

References

  1. Jim Buchan, Muneera Bano, Didar Zowghi, Stephen MacDonell, and Amrita Shinde. 2017. Alignment of Stakeholder Expectations about User Involvement in Agile Software Development. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084251Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Joelma Choma, Luciana A. M. Zaina, and Daniela Beraldo. 2016. UserX Story: Incorporating UX Aspects into User Stories Elaboration. In Human-Computer Interaction. Theory, Design, Development and Practice, Masaaki Kurosu (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39510-4_13Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mike Cohn. 2004. User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Joseph L. Fleiss. 1981. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Wiley, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ron Garland. 1991. The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing bulletin 2, 1 (1991), 66–70. https://www.rangevoting.org/MB_V2_N3_Garland.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jesse James Garrett. 2011. The elements of user experience: user-centered design for the web and beyond, Second Edition. New Riders, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham R Gibbs. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data(1st ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Laura Hokkanen and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2015. UX Work in Startups: Current Practices and Future Needs. In Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Robert Johns. 2005. One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Selecting Response Scales For Attitude Items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 15, 2 (2005), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880500178849Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Fernando Kamei, Gustavo Pinto, Bruno Cartaxo, and Alexandre Vasconcelos. 2017. On the Benefits/Limitations of Agile Software Development: An Interview Study with Brazilian Companies. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084278Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Pariya Kashfi, Robert Feldt, and Agneta Nilsson. 2019. Integrating UX principles and practices into software development organizations: A case study of influencing events. Journal of Systems and Software 154 (2019), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.066Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kati Kuusinen. 2015. Task allocation between UX specialists and developers in agile software development projects. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer,., 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22698-9_3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Wiley, International Biometric Society 33 (1977), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Effie Lai-Chong Law, Virpi Roto, Marc Hassenzahl, Arnold P.O.S. Vermeeren, and Joke Kort. 2009. Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Larissa A. Lopes, Eduardo G. Pinheiro, Tiago S. da Silva, and Luciana A. M. Zaina. 2018. Using UxD Artefacts to Support the Writing of User Stories: Findings of an Empirical Study with Agile Developers. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Agile Software Development: Companion (Porto, Portugal) (XP ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234152.3234158Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Garm Lucassen, Fabiano Dalpiaz, Jan Martijn E.M. van der Werf, and Sjaak Brinkkemper. 2015. Forging high-quality User Stories: Towards a discipline for Agile Requirements. In IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). Ottawa, Canada, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2015.7320415Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Garm Lucassen, Fabiano Dalpiaz, Jan Martijn E. M. van der Werf, and Sjaak Brinkkemper. 2016. The Use and Effectiveness of User Stories in Practice. In Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Maya Daneva and Oscar Pastor (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_14Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ana M. Moreno and Agustín Yagüe. 2012. Agile User Stories Enriched with Usability. In Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, Claes Wohlin (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30350-0_12Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Jakob Nielsen. 2020. Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Nielsen Normamn Group (NNGroup). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ July 28, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Don Norman. 2018. Ad-Hoc Personas & Empathetic Focus. jnd.org. https://jnd.org/ad-hoc_personas_empathetic_focus/ July 28, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dan North. 2006. Introducing behaviour driven development. Better Software Magazine(2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Anathan Pereira, Abner Cleto Filho, Eduardo Guerra, and Luciana A. M. Zaina. 2021. Towards a Pattern Language to Embed UX Information in Agile Software Requirements. In EuroPLoP’21: European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs 2021, Graz, Austria, July 7 - 11, 2021. ACM, 18:1–18:8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3489449.3489991Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Kai Petersen, Robert Feldt, Shahid Mujtaba, and Michael Mattsson. 2008. Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering. In 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE). Bari, Italy, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EASE2008.8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering, In .Empirical software engineering 14, 2, 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Cristian Rusu, Silvana Roncagliolo, Virginica Rusu, and Cesar Collazos. 2011. A Methodology to Establish Usability Heuristics. In The 4th Int. Conf. on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI 2011). Gosier, Guadeloupe, France, 59–62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Eva-Maria Schön, Jörg Thomaschewski, and María José Escalona. 2017. Agile Requirements Engineering: A systematic literature review. Computer Standards & Interfaces 49 (2017), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland. 2011. The scrum guide. Scrum Alliance 21, 19 (2011), 1. https://billlewistraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PMP-Agile-Study-Materials.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Tiago Silva da Silva, Milene Selbach Silveira, and Frank Maurer. 2013. Ten Lessons Learned from Integrating Interaction Design and Agile Development. In 2013 Agile Conference. Agile Conference 2013, Nashville, TN, USA, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2013.11Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jonathan H. J. Souza. 2021. ACUX: um guia para escrita de aspectos de UX em Critérios de Aceitação de User Stories - In Portuguese. Master’s thesis. Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brazil. https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/14347Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Yves Wautelet, Dries Gielis, Stephan Poelmans, and Samedi Heng. 2019. Evaluating the Impact of User Stories Quality on the Ability to Understand and Structure Requirements. In The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, Jaap Gordijn, Wided Guédria, and Henderik A. Proper (Eds.). Springer, Cham, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35151-9_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering. In The Kluwer International Series in Software Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Luciana AM Zaina, Helen Sharp, and Leonor Barroca. 2021. UX information in the daily work of an agile team: A distributed cognition analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 147 (2021), 102574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102574Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. UX Requirements Matters: Guidelines to Support Software Teams on the Writing of Acceptance Criteria

      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 Other conferences
        SBES '22: Proceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
        October 2022
        457 pages
        ISBN:9781450397353
        DOI:10.1145/3555228

        Copyright © 2022 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: 5 October 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate147of427submissions,34%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format