skip to main content
10.1145/3641822.3641869acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

UX Debt: Developers Borrow While Users Pay

Published: 12 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Technical debt has become a well-known metaphor among software professionals, illustrating how shortcuts taken during development can accumulate and become a burden for software projects. In the traditional notion of technical debt, software developers borrow from the maintainability and extensibility of a software system for a short-term speed up in development time. In the future, they are the ones who pay the interest in form of longer development times. User experience (UX) debt, on the other hand, focuses on shortcuts taken to speed up development at the expense of subpar usability, thus mainly borrowing from user efficiency. Most research considers code-centric technical debt, focusing on the implementation. With this article, we want to build awareness for the often overlooked UX debt of software systems, shifting the focus from the source code towards users. We outline three classes of UX debt that we observed in practice: code-centric, architecture-centric, and process-centric UX debt. In an expert survey, we validated those classes, with code-centric and process-centric UX debt getting the strongest support. We discuss our participants' feedback and present recommendations on how software development teams can mitigate UX debt in their user-facing applications.

References

[1]
Muhammad Ovais Ahmad and Tomas Gustavsson. 2022. The Pandora's box of social, process, and people debts in software engineering. Software: Evolution and Process (2022).
[2]
Sebastian Baltes and Veronika Dashuber. 2021. UX Debt: Developers Borrow While Users Pay. arXiv:2104.06908 [cs.SE]
[3]
Sebastian Baltes and Veronika Dashuber. 2024. UX Debt: Developers Borrow While Users Pay (Supplementary Material).
[4]
Joelma Choma, Letícia Machado, Cleidson R. B. de Souza, Helen Sharp, Leonor Barroca, and Luciana A. M. Zaina. 2022. Towards Understanding How Software Startups Deal with UX from Customer and User Information. In Software Business - 13th International Conference, ICSOB 2022, Bolzano, Italy, November 8--11, 2022, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 463), Noel Carroll, Anh Nguyen-Duc, Xiaofeng Wang, and Viktoria Stray (Eds.). Springer, 287--303.
[5]
Marcus Ciolkowski, Valentina Lenarduzzi, and Antonio Martini. 2021. 10 Years of Technical Debt Research and Practice: Past, Present, and Future. IEEE Softw. 38, 6 (2021), 24--29.
[6]
Melvin E. Conway. 1968. How do committees invent. Datamation (April 1968).
[7]
Ward Cunningham. 1992. The WyCash portfolio management system. In Addendum to the Proceedings on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 1992 Addendum, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, October 18--22, 1992, Jerry L. Archibald and Mark C. Wilkes (Eds.). ACM, 29--30.
[8]
George Fairbanks. 2020. Ur-Technical Debt. IEEE Softw. 37, 4 (2020), 95--98.
[9]
GitLab. 2023. UX Department Performance Indicators. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/ux/performance-indicators/. Accessed: 2023-10-20.
[10]
ISO/TC 159/SC 4. 2019. ISO 9241-210:2019: Ergonomics of human-system interaction. ISO, Chapter Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.
[11]
Ciera Jaspan and Collin Green. 2023. Defining, Measuring, and Managing Technical Debt. IEEE Softw. 40, 3 (2023), 15--19.
[12]
Jim Kalbach. 2014. UX Debt: Borrowing From Your Users. https://experiencinginformation.com/2014/05/03/ux-debt-borrowing-from-your-users/. Accessed: 2023-10-20.
[13]
Philippe Kruchten, Robert L. Nord, and Ipek Ozkaya. 2012. Technical Debt: From Metaphor to Theory and Practice. IEEE Softw. 29, 6 (2012), 18--21.
[14]
Andres Rodriguez, Juan Cruz Gardey, Julian Grigera, Gustavo Rossi, and Alejandra Garrido. 2023. UX debt in an agile development process: evidence and characterization. Software Quality Journal (2023).
[15]
SAFe. 2023. Lean UX. https://www.scaledagileframework.com/lean-ux/. Accessed: 2023-10-20.
[16]
Harald Störrle and Marcus Ciolkowski. 2019. Stepping Away From the Lamppost: Domain-Level Technical Debt. In 45th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, SEAA 2019, Kallithea-Chalkidiki, Greece, August 28--30, 2019, Miroslaw Staron, Rafael Capilla, and Amund Skavhaug (Eds.). IEEE, 325--332.
[17]
Xiaoyu Sun, Xiao Chen, Yanjie Zhao, Pei Liu, John Grundy, and Li Li. 2022. Mining Android API Usage to Generate Unit Test Cases for Pinpointing Compatibility Issues. In 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2022, Rochester, MI, USA, October 10--14, 2022. ACM, 70:1--70:13.
[18]
A. J Wright. 2013. User Experience Debt. https://ajw.design/blog/ux-debt/. Accessed: 2023-10-20.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CHASE '24: Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering
April 2024
210 pages
ISBN:9798400705335
DOI:10.1145/3641822
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 the author(s) 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].

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

  • Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 June 2024

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Conference

CHASE '24
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 47 of 70 submissions, 67%

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 60
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)60
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media