Advertisement

An empirical study of Android Wear user complaints

  • Suhaib Mujahid
  • Giancarlo Sierra
  • Rabe Abdalkareem
  • Emad Shihab
  • Weiyi Shang
Article
  • 157 Downloads

Abstract

Wearable apps are becoming increasingly popular in recent years. Nevertheless, to date, very few studies have examined the issues that wearable apps face. Prior studies showed that user reviews contain a plethora of insights that can be used to understand quality issues and help developers build better quality mobile apps. Therefore, in this paper, we mine user reviews in order to understand the user complaints about wearable apps. We manually sample and categorize 2,667 reviews from 19 Android wearable apps. Additionally, we examine the replies posted by developers in response to user complaints. This allows us to determine the type of complaints that developers care about the most, and to identify problems that despite being important to users, do not receive a proper response from developers. Our findings indicate that the most frequent complaints are related to Functional Errors, Cost, and Lack of Functionality, whereas the most negatively impacting complaints are related to Installation Problems, Device Compatibility, and Privacy & Ethical Issues. We also find that developers mostly reply to complaints related to Privacy & Ethical Issues, Performance Issues, and notification related issues. Furthermore, we observe that when developers reply, they tend to provide a solution, request more details, or let the user know that they are working on a solution. Lastly, we compare our findings on wearable apps with the study done by Khalid et al. (2015) on handheld devices. From this, we find that some complaint types that appear in handheld apps also appear in wearable apps; though wearable apps have unique issues related to Lack of Functionality, Installation Problems, Connection & Sync, Spam Notifications, and Missing Notifications. Our results highlight the issues that users of wearable apps face the most, and the issues to which developers should pay additional attention to due to their negative impact.

Keywords

Wearable apps Users’ reviews User complaints Google Play Store Empirical studies 

References

  1. Ahola J (2015) Challenges in android wear application development. In: Proceedings of the international conference on web engineering, ICWE ’15. Springer, pp 601–604Google Scholar
  2. Android Developers Documentation (2016a) Creating wearable apps. https://developer.android.com/training/wearables/apps/index.html. Accessed 2 Oct 2016
  3. Android Developers Documentation (2016b) Filters on google play. https://developer.android.com/google/play/filters.html. Accessed 18 Dec 2016
  4. Android Wear Center (2016) http://www.androidwearcenter.com. Accessed 9 Sep 2016
  5. Bonato P (2010) Wearable sensors and systems. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 29 (3):25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chauhan J, Seneviratne S, Kaafar MA, Mahanti A, Seneviratne A (2016) Characterization of early smartwatch apps. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communication workshops, PerCom ’16. IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  7. Chen N, Lin J, Hoi SC, Xiao X, Zhang B (2014) Ar-miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace. In: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering, ICSE ’14. ACM, pp 767–778Google Scholar
  8. Ciurumelea A, Schaufelbühl A, Panichella S, Gall HC (2017) Analyzing reviews and code of mobile apps for better release planning. In: Proceedings of the 24th IEEE international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering, SANER ’17. IEEE, pp 91–102Google Scholar
  9. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scale. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Sorbo A, Panichella S, Alexandru CV, Shimagaki J, Visaggio CA, Canfora G, Gall H (2016) What would users change in my app? summarizing app reviews for recommending software changes. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, FSE ’16. ACM, pp 499–510Google Scholar
  11. Di Sorbo A, Panichella S, Alexandru CV, Visaggio CA, Canfora G (2017) Surf: summarizer of user reviews feedback. In: Proceedings of the 39th international conference on software engineering companion, ICSE-C ’17. IEEE Press, pp 55–58Google Scholar
  12. Do Q, Martini B, Choo KKR (2017) Is the data on your wearable device secure? An android wear smartwatch case study. Softw: Pract Exp 47(3):391–403Google Scholar
  13. Finkelstein A, Harman M, Jia Y, Martin W, Sarro F, Zhang Y (2017) Investigating the relationship between price, rating, and popularity in the blackberry world app store. Inf Softw Technol 87:119– 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleiss JL, Cohen J (1973) The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 33:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fu B, Lin J, Li L, Faloutsos C, Hong J, Sadeh N (2013) Why people hate your app: making sense of user feedback in a mobile app store. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ’13. ACM, pp 1276–1284Google Scholar
  16. Galvis Carreño LV, Winbladh K (2013) Analysis of user comments: an approach for software requirements evolution. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on software engineering, ICSE ’13. IEEE Press, pp 582–591Google Scholar
  17. Goko Store (2016) http://goko.me. Accessed 9 Sep 2016
  18. Guzman E, Maalej W (2014) How do users like this feature? A fine grained sentiment analysis of app reviews. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE ’14. IEEE, pp 153–162Google Scholar
  19. Ha E, Wagner D (2013) Do android users write about electric sheep? Examining consumer reviews in google play. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE consumer communications and networking conference, CCNC ’13, pp 149–157Google Scholar
  20. Harman M, Jia Y, Zhang Y (2012) App store mining and analysis: Msr for app stores. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE working conference on mining software repositories, MSR ’12. IEEE Press, pp 108– 111Google Scholar
  21. Hoon L, Vasa R, Schneider JG, Mouzakis K (2012) A preliminary analysis of vocabulary in mobile app user reviews. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian computer-human interaction conference, OzCHI ’12. ACM, pp 245–248Google Scholar
  22. Keertipati S, Savarimuthu BTR, Licorish SA (2016) Approaches for prioritizing feature improvements extracted from app reviews. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, EASE ’16. ACM, pp 33:1–33:6Google Scholar
  23. Khalid H, Nagappan M, Shihab E, Hassan A (2014) Prioritizing devices to test your app on: a case study of android game apps. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, FSE ’14. IEEE, pp 610–620Google Scholar
  24. Khalid H, Shihab E, Nagappan M, Hassan A (2015) What do mobile app users complain about? IEEE Softw 32(3):70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyons K (2015) What can a dumb watch teach a smartwatch?: Informing the design of smartwatches. In: Proceedings of the ACM international symposium on wearable computers, UbiComp ’15. ACM, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  26. Martin W, Harman M, Jia Y, Sarro F, Zhang Y (2015) The app sampling problem for app store mining. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM working conference on mining software repositories, MSR ’15. IEEE, pp 123–133Google Scholar
  27. Martin W, Sarro F, Jia Y, Zhang Y, Harman M (2017) A survey of app store analysis for software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 43(9):817–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McIlroy S, Shang W, Ali N, Hassan A (2015) Is it worth responding to reviews? A case study of the top free apps in the google play store. IEEE Softw 34:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McIlroy S, Ali N, Khalid H, Hassan A (2016) Analyzing and automatically labelling the types of user issues that are raised in mobile app reviews. Empir Softw Eng 21(3):1067–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Min C, Kang S, Yoo C, Cha J, Choi S, Oh Y, Song J (2015) Exploring current practices for battery use and management of smartwatches. In: Proceedings of the ACM international symposium on wearable computers, UbiComp ’15. ACM, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  31. Mujahid S (2017) Determining and detecting permission issues of wearable apps. Master’s thesis, Concordia University, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  32. Mujahid S, Sierra G, Abdalkareem R, Shihab E, Shang W (2017) Examining user complaints of wearable apps: a case study on android wear. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE/ACM international conference on mobile software engineering and systems, MobileSoft ’17. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagappan M, Shihab E (2016) Future trends in software engineering research for mobile apps. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering, SANER ’16. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  34. Pagano D, Maalej W (2013) User feedback in the appstore: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE ’13. IEEE Press, pp 125–134Google Scholar
  35. Palomba F, Linares-Vásquez M, Bavota G, Oliveto R, Penta MD, Poshyvanyk D, Lucia AD (2015) User reviews matter! Tracking crowdsourced reviews to support evolution of successful apps. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution, ICSME ’15, pp 291–300Google Scholar
  36. Palomba F, Salza P, Ciurumelea A, Panichella S, Gall H, Ferrucci F, De Lucia A (2017) Recommending and localizing change requests for mobile apps based on user reviews. In: Proceedings of the 39th international conference on software engineering, ICSE ’17. IEEE Press, pp 106–117Google Scholar
  37. Panichella S, Sorbo AD, Guzman E, Visaggio CA, Canfora G, Gall H (2015) How can i improve my app? classifying user reviews for software maintenance and evolution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution, ICSME ’15. IEEE, pp 281–290Google Scholar
  38. Panichella S, Di Sorbo A, Guzman E, Visaggio CA, Canfora G, Gall H (2016) Ardoc: app reviews development oriented classifier. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, FSE ’16. ACM, pp 1023–1027Google Scholar
  39. Park S, Jayaraman S (2003) Smart textiles: wearable electronic systems. MRS Bull 28(8):585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rawassizadeh R, Price BA, Petre M (2015) Wearables: has the age of smartwatches finally arrived? Commun ACM 58(1):45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seaman CB (1999) Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng (IST) 25(4):557–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sentistrength (2017) Sentiment strength detection. http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk/. Accessed 24 Aug 2017
  43. Tehrani K, Michael A (2014) Wearable technology and wearable devices: everything you need to know. Wearable Devices Magazine. http://www.wearabledevices.com/what-is-a-wearable-device/. (Accessed 25 Aug 2017
  44. Teng XF, Zhang YT, Poon CCY, Bonato P (2008) Wearable medical systems for p-health. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 1:62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Usman M, Britto R, Börstler J, Mendes E (2017) Taxonomies in software engineering: a systematic mapping study and a revised taxonomy development method. Inf Softw Technol 85(Supplement C):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vasa R, Hoon L, Mouzakis K, Noguchi A (2012) A preliminary analysis of mobile app user reviews. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian computer-human interaction conference, OzCHI ’12. ACM, pp 241–244Google Scholar
  47. Wei J (2014) How wearables intersect with the cloud and the internet of things: considerations for the developers of wearables. IEEE Consum Electron Mag 3(3):53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wright R, Keith L (2014) Wearable technology: if the tech fits, wear it. J Electron Resour Med Libr 11(4):204–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang H, Rountev A (2017) Analysis and testing of notifications in android wear applications. In: Proceedings of the 39th international conference on software engineering, ICSE ’17. IEEE PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suhaib Mujahid
    • 1
  • Giancarlo Sierra
    • 1
  • Rabe Abdalkareem
    • 1
  • Emad Shihab
    • 1
  • Weiyi Shang
    • 2
  1. 1.Data-Driven Analysis of Software (DAS) Lab, Department of Computer Science and Software EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Software Engineering and System Engineering (SENSE) Lab, Department of Computer Science and Software EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations