Papers › ArguLens: Anatomy of Community Opinions On Usability Issues Using Argumentation Models
ArguLens: Anatomy of Community Opinions On Usability Issues Using Argumentation Models
Wenting Wang, Deeksha Arya, Nicole Novielli, Jinghui Cheng, Jin L. C. Guo
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
In open-source software (OSS), the design of usability is often influenced by the discussions among community members on platforms such as issue tracking systems (ITSs). However, digesting the rich information embedded in issue discussions can be a major challenge due to the vast number and diversity of the comments. We propose and evaluate ArguLens, a conceptual framework and automated technique leveraging an argumentation model to support effective understanding and consolidation of community opinions in ITSs. Through content analysis, we anatomized highly discussed usability issues from a large, active OSS project, into their argumentation components and standpoints. We then experimented with supervised machine learning techniques for automated argument extraction. Finally, through a study with experienced ITS users, we show that the information provided by ArguLens supported the digestion of usability-related opinions and facilitated the review of lengthy issues. ArguLens provides the direction of designing valuable tools for high-level reasoning and effective discussion about usability.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections