User Interface Design

Vibe design agents turn natural-language briefs into rendered interfaces and frontend code. Yet a useful design agent should do more than produce one valid page: it should help users explore coherent alternatives. Increasing token-level temperature is a blunt solution because it varies aesthetic decisions and syntax-sensitive code at the same time. We instead separate exploration from implementation through an inference architecture that makes design direction an explicit intermediate decision. Inspired by Verbalized Sampling, a pre-pass proposes structured design specifications with typicality scores, an external selector samples one, and the downstream generator realizes the selected specification together with the original request under fixed settings. We apply this approach to UI themes and visual-asset prompts. Across 168 prompts, with 1,255 paired comparisons per temperature for each intervention, theme sampling broadens observed selection coverage and screenshot variation, while LLM-judge preferences vary across interventions, prompt complexity, and viewport. In an online experiment with more than 300,000 tasks, the observed code-export increase remains statistically uncertain, while fewer negative feedback events coexist with more correction interactions and modest operational costs. Together, these findings identify structured design specifications as a practical control point for exploring alternative UI concepts while keeping downstream generation settings fixed.

Conversational Task Assistants (CTAs) are multimodal dialogue systems that support users in complex real-world tasks such as cooking and DIY through voice, text, image, and video interactions. Prior user studies have focused on controlled settings, leaving limited understanding of real-world CTA usage at scale. In this work, we present a large-scale study of CTA usage based on thousands of users in-the-wild. Our large-scale real-world data analysis unveils new understandings of (i) user-CTA interaction flows, (ii) user intents, (iii) user conversational traits, and (iv) behavioral factors associated with user satisfaction. Our findings reveal key opportunities for future research in CTAs, particularly in user interaction design and task engagement, concluding with concrete design guidelines.

System prompts are instructions configured by developers to govern the behaviors of foundation models in AI applications. They are used throughout commercial AI products, but are rarely disclosed to the public or regulators, creating a serious trust and accountability gap in the wide deployment of AI systems. In this paper, we introduce Artificial Intelligence System Prompt Assurance (AISPA), a user-centric framework for systematically auditing system prompts in AI systems. AISPA examines specific parts of a system prompt and evaluates them along eight dimensions that matter to users. We then use this framework to review 3,249 instructions from system prompts in 88 commercial AI products, classifying each instruction as either protective (of users) or problematic. Our audit surfaces four core findings. First, system prompt design varies substantially across products and developers, with some organizations averaging over 60 protective instructions per product while others average fewer than 5. Second, protective instructions are widely adopted but shallow in scope: 98.9% of products contain at least one, yet only 24% cover all eight dimensions of the AISPA taxonomy. Third, system prompts have grown steadily longer and more protective of users, suggesting that user protection is becoming a more visible concern in commercial prompt design. Fourth, despite this progress, problematic instructions remain pervasive: roughly 40% of products contain at least one instruction that works against user interests, and protective and problematic instructions frequently coexist within the same prompt. Our findings highlight the need for greater transparency, standardization, and independent oversight for system prompts in commercial AI products.

Generative UI (GenUI) lets large language models synthesize a complete, renderable interface directly from a natural-language instruction, but evaluating the quality of what they generate remains an open problem. Human evaluation is costly and rater-variant, while LLM-as-a-judge is scalable but reflects only a single implicit viewpoint, unable to capture how different populations of real users actually perceive the same interface. We propose the Evidence-Grounded, Social-Weighted Persona Panel (ESPP), a three-stage GenUI evaluation method in which a panel of psychologically diverse, evidence-grounded personas independently rates a screenshot, exchanges opinions under a trait-derived, semantically-gated bounded-confidence mechanism, and is aggregated via Delphi-inspired social weighting into a single judgment. ESPP tracks human judgment substantially more closely than a naive single-pass judge, raising Pearson $r$ from $0.716$ to $0.922$, and a prompt-ensemble control recovers only about a third of this gap, isolating genuine persona and evidence grounding as the dominant source of improvement. Beyond this fidelity gain, retaining each panelist's individual rating further reveals that user subgroups agree on overall model rankings yet diverge sharply on specific rating dimensions, a structural disagreement a single homogeneous judge would systematically erase. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/ESPP.

Generative UI tools promise to democratize UI design by turning natural language descriptions into complete interfaces. Alongside the interface, these tools generate user-facing design rationales that explain their layout, accessibility, and design choices. However, it remains unclear whether these stated rationales are actually reflected in the interfaces they produce. We call this disconnect ``Design Theater'': plausible and confident design rationales that have little relationship to the actual implementation. To study this phenomenon, we introduce a benchmark and three metrics for measuring Design Theater. The benchmark includes 24 UI generation tasks spanning structural, styling, and functional design requirements. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 120 interfaces created by five generative UI tools. On average, over 25% of user-facing design rationales are not implemented in the generated interface, and the implementation failure increases to 34% for functional requirements. Tools recognize roughly half of the UX principles embedded in prompts (mean = 0.54), with four of five tools implementing 6% or fewer functional principles. We also measure interface similarity across tools and find convergence in visual appearance and layout organization, with greater variation in color choices. Overall, we contribute: 1) the concept of Design Theater; 2) a benchmark with metrics for assessing whether the stated reasoning of generative UI tools is reflected in their implementations; 3) and findings from a systematic evaluation of these tools. We discuss what these findings mean for the design and evaluation of generative UI tools.

Small language models and coding agents increasingly generate web front-end code, yet their outputs are typically evaluated primarily for functional correctness. A generated interface may compile, render, and pass unit tests while still violating established interface quality principles, including accessibility barriers, deceptive design patterns, poor visual hierarchy, and excessive decision complexity. Existing auditing approaches face a trade-off between cost, coverage, and scalability: expert human review provides rich judgment but is slow and expensive; frontier vision-language models offer broader reasoning capabilities but remain costly to deploy at scale; and rule-based tools such as axe-core and Lighthouse are inexpensive but primarily capture mechanically checkable accessibility issues. We investigate whether a lightweight vision-language model can serve as an effective critic for generated interfaces. We unify 19 interface-quality principles from three complementary sources of HCI knowledge: WCAG 2.2 accessibility standards, deceptive design taxonomies, and established theories of perception, cognition, and interaction. To train this critic, we construct a verified dataset of approximately 10,000 generated web pages by synthetically injecting known violations into clean, LLM-generated Tailwind pages. Continued reinforcement learning on a 4B vision-language model improves micro-F1 from 36% to 84%, with 13 of 19 principles exceeding 80% F1. The resulting critic can audit generated interfaces, filter low-quality interface training data, and provide a reward signal for design-aware code generation. We release our data-generation recipe and injection/verification prompts to support reproducible evaluation and future work on scalable interface-quality assessment.

We propose a hybrid approach for user-centric modeling of transactional event sequences that combines contrastive representation learning (CoLES) with State Space Models (SSMs). While contrastive methods yield high-quality compressed user representations, existing encoders -- RNNs and Transformers -- suffer from vanishing gradients or quadratic complexity, respectively. Mamba, a selective SSM, efficiently handles long-range dependencies but remains underexplored for personalized user analysis. We investigate two integration strategies: (1)~initializing the Mamba hidden state with a CoLES embedding, and (2)~prepending the projected CoLES embedding as a prefix token to the input sequence. Both approaches supply the model with an informative user prior from the first step. Experiments on three public datasets -- Age (multiclass age-group prediction), MBD (multi-label product acquisition), and Taobao (binary purchase prediction) -- demonstrate consistent improvements over standalone Mamba and CoLES with a linear classifier, with the hybrid models converging 2--3$\times$ faster than the plain SSM baseline. Explainability analysis via discretization-step maps and Integrated Gradients reveals selective event filtering on behavior-rich datasets and identifies the most informative transaction features.

As AI agents become integral to business workflows, establishing guiding user experience (UX) principles is crucial for ensuring user trust and successful adoption. To address this, our study uses a multi-method approach - combining participatory design workshop, paper-and-pencil, expert review, meta-analysis, and in-depth interviews - to identify and validate a design framework of eight core UX principles for human-AI agent interaction in the workplace. Together with their underlying criteria, these principles provide actionable guardrails for designers and software engineers, creating a foundation for developing effective and human-centered AI agent interactions. This study contributes to a structured foundation for future empirical studies on agentic AI in enterprise settings.

Stateful personal agents increasingly maintain long-term user profiles, episodic memories, and reusable skills. This persistence turns conversational sycophancy into a state-writing failure: accepted user-centric claims can be committed as lasting preferences, background facts, or workflows and later reused after the original conversation is gone. We call this persistent sycophancy and introduce the Personal Agent Sycophancy Benchmark (PASB), a 1,600-task benchmark that traces whether a conversational claim is accepted, written into durable agent state, and reused in a later neutral query. Unlike prior benchmarks that provide pre-written memories, PASB evaluates real agents (Hermes-Agent and OpenClaw) that decide what to store. It isolates the write process by combining four scenario framings with four temporal delivery patterns and separating a five-turn persist stage from a cleared three-turn query stage, ensuring downstream effects arise only from durable state. Across twelve models, the commit boundary is the key inflection point: downstream failure increases from 45.0% in session-only episodes to 71.9% after commitment, a consistent increase of 27.0 percentage points. Committed claims exhibit three write-time patterns: status promotion, attribution removal, and scope broadening. These patterns become stronger under memory-like or procedural framing, repeated reinforcement, and even across domain boundaries. These results show that agent sycophancy is fundamentally a state-writing governance problem. Once user content is committed to durable memory, safety must govern what agents write, not only what they say. PASB identifies the write-time controls needed to gate risky commits while preserving the source, role, and scope of stored content beyond response-level mitigations.

Recent text-to-image models such as DALLE-3 excel at following diverse prompts yet remain blind to individual aesthetic preferences. We study personalized image generation, where models must align outputs with a user's implicit visual preferences based on a few historically preferred images and a short prompt. To this end, we introduce PIPBench, the first profile-inclusive benchmark for evaluating personalized image generation. We further propose a novel data construction pipeline that leverages psychological and demographic profiling dimensions for both real-user data collection and scalable agent-based data generation. Using PIPBench, we conduct a thorough evaluation of representative line of methods. Our experiments reveal key limitations in existing methods, suggesting new challenges and opportunities for personalized text-to-image synthesis. Project page: https://wuyuhang05.github.io/PIPBench/

The present study analyzed over 26,000 research articles published between 1991 and 2021 in twenty-one major LIS (Library and Information Science) journals, using the machine learning (ML) approach to categorize the research methods used by LIS scholars. The findings of this study are significant. Firstly, there has been a shift in the research strategy from conceptual research (e.g., "Theoretical approach") to empirical research (e.g., "Interview") in LIS investigations over the past 31 years. Secondly, the research topics explored by LIS scholars during this period have moved from system-centered issues (e.g., "Information retrieval/models and algorithms") to user-centered topics (e.g., "Information services "). Thirdly, the study revealed dynamic and revealing relationships between the 18 research topics identified in the study and the 16 research methods commonly adopted in the LIS field. These dynamic relationships can be visualized by year and longitudinally via an interactive map created in this study.

LLM-powered chatbots are increasingly embedded in everyday workflows, raising sustainability concerns due to their energy use. Most mitigation strategies emphasize model or infrastructure efficiency, while the user-interface (UI) layer remains underexplored despite its potential to shape interaction behavior. We investigate whether sustainability-oriented UI interventions can increase users' energy awareness and encourage more energy-responsible chatbot use without reducing usability. We first conducted a baseline survey with 77 participants to assess awareness and receptiveness to intervention concepts. Guided by prior work on persuasive technology and choice architecture, we implemented a web-based chatbot prototype with a three-mode switch (Energy-efficient, Balanced, Performance), per-response energy feedback, pre-send energy estimates, a usage metrics dashboard, and energy analogies. We then evaluated the prototype in a five-day field study with 11 participants. In the baseline survey, 94.8% of respondents reported at least some awareness of AI energy use, yet 88.3% misestimated actual consumption. Although concern about environmental impact was high, only 39.0% indicated willingness to accept a performance trade-off for lower energy use. In the field study, Energy-efficient mode accounted for 55.8% of logged prompts, while 90.9% self-reported actively choosing Eco-mode when high accuracy was not required. Participants did not reduce prompt length, suggesting mode switching as the primary behavioral mechanism. Sustainability-oriented UI interventions can improve awareness and support more energy-responsible interaction patterns in LLM chatbots. These effects are best interpreted as behavioral and model-based estimates that complement backend efficiency work, and the provided prototype and replication package support further research on energy-aware conversational AI design.

Speech translation (ST) is increasingly adopted in user applications, yet its evaluation largely focuses on decontextualized testbeds and holistic quality, rather than end users' communication needs. We introduce Ouvia, an evaluation framework for measuring user-perceived usability of speech translation outputs in real-world settings. Ouvia focuses on one-to-one communication: an English speaker needs to convey a request to a Portuguese speaker, and the message is automatically translated. Through a custom web app and multi-phase study design, we collect more than 1,750 such interactions in healthcare and everyday situations, mediated by four ST systems, involving speakers from three English dialects and two genders. We find that modern ST serves people only to a limited extent -- only around half of interactions are rated as usable -- with significant gaps in reported usability across demographic groups. Moreover, among quality metrics, we find that QA-based evaluation is a substantially stronger predictor of real-world usability than standard approaches. Together, these findings stress the importance of situated, user-centered evaluation frameworks that go beyond holistic quality scores and attend to who the technology serves -- and how well.

In menstrual cycle tracking apps (MCTAs), AI-based predictions and insights have become increasingly popular. These features enable users to receive personalized information about their bodies and mental states. However, there is currently little research on how these predictive AI features and explanations affect users' lived experiences. This paper examines human-AI entanglement in MCTAs through 14 semi-structured user interviews and a group autoethnography. These methods uncover the processes leading to this phenomenon. Our results reveal that: (1) users understand their lived experiences in light of AI predictions, although these predictions can be faulty due to imperfect logging practices, (2) the user interface features and AI explanations do not support awareness or critical engagement with this entanglement and meaning-making, and (3) non-normative MCTA users report a sense of isolation in this entangled interaction. Based on our findings, we propose design implications for predictive AI features and explanations.

AI agents operating on user interfaces must understand how interfaces communicate state and feedback to act reliably. As a core communicative modality, animations are increasingly used in modern interfaces, serving critical functional purposes beyond mere aesthetics. Thus, understanding UI animation is essential for comprehensive interface interpretation. However, recent studies of Vision Language Models (VLMs) for UI understanding have focused primarily on static screenshots, leaving it unclear how well these models handle dynamic UI animations. To address this gap, we created AniMINT, a novel dataset of 300 densely annotated UI animation videos. We systematically evaluate state-of-the-art VLMs on UI animation understanding, including their abilities to perceive the animation effects, identify animation purposes, and interpret animation meaning. Our results show that VLMs can reliably detect primitive motion. However, their high-level animation interpretation remains inconsistent, with substantial gaps relative to human performance. Finally, we use Motion, Context, and Perceptual Cues (MCPC) to probe factors affecting VLM performance, revealing key bottlenecks and directions for future improvement.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed, yet their outputs can be highly sensitive to routine, non-adversarial variation in how users phrase queries, a gap not well addressed by existing red-teaming efforts. We propose Green Shielding, a user-centric agenda for building evidence-backed deployment guidance by characterizing how benign input variation shifts model behavior. We operationalize this agenda through the CUE criteria: benchmarks with authentic Context, reference standards and metrics that capture true Utility, and perturbations that reflect realistic variations in the Elicitation of model behavior. Guided by the PCS framework and developed with practicing physicians, we instantiate Green Shielding in medical diagnosis through HealthCareMagic-Diagnosis (HCM-Dx), a benchmark of patient-authored queries, together with structured reference diagnosis sets and clinically grounded metrics for evaluating differential diagnosis lists. We also study perturbation regimes that capture routine input variation and show that prompt-level factors shift model behavior along clinically meaningful dimensions. Across multiple frontier LLMs, these shifts trace out Pareto-like tradeoffs. In particular, neutralization, which removes common user-level factors while preserving clinical content, increases plausibility and yields more concise, clinician-like differentials, but reduces coverage of highly likely and safety-critical conditions. Together, these results show that interaction choices can systematically shift task-relevant properties of model outputs and support user-facing guidance for safer deployment in high-stakes domains. Although instantiated here in medical diagnosis, the agenda extends naturally to other decision-support settings and agentic AI systems.

Users increasingly rely on consumer-facing generative AI (GenAI) for tasks ranging from everyday needs to sensitive use cases. Yet, it remains unclear whether and how existing security and privacy (S&P) communications in GenAI tools shape users' adoption decisions and experiences. Understanding how users seek, interpret, and evaluate S&P information is critical for designing usable transparency that users can trust and act on. We conducted semi-structured interviews and design sessions with 21 U.S. GenAI users. Our findings suggest that available S&P information rarely drove initial adoption in practice, as participants often perceived it as incomplete, ineffective, or not credible. Instead, they relied on rough proxies (e.g., popularity) to infer S&P practices. After adoption, S&P uncertainty constrained participants' willingness to use GenAI tools, especially for high-stakes purposes, and, in some cases, contributed to discontinued use. Participants therefore called for transparency that supports decisions and actions through trustworthy information (e.g., independent evaluations) and usable interfaces (e.g., on-demand disclosure). We categorize participants' desired design practices into five dimensions to facilitate systematic future investigation into best practices. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, designers, and policymakers to improve S&P transparency in consumer-facing GenAI.

Generative user interfaces (GenUIs) create new opportunities to adapt interfaces to individual users on demand. Yet personalization is difficult because it is not possible to provide settings for screens that have not yet been generated, making it necessary to learn preferences from users' feedback on generated interfaces. Such feedback is sparse, subjective, and often difficult to articulate. We study this problem through a new dataset in which 20 participants each judge the same 600 pairs of GenUIs. Their judgments differ substantially (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.25), and written rationales show that even when participants consider similar UI properties, such as color tone or hierarchy, they often make different choices and prioritize them differently. We develop a sample-efficient personalization method that uses a few pairwise judgments to weight prior users' preferences rather than relying on a fixed rubric of UI attributes. Our method outperforms a pretrained UI evaluator and a larger multimodal model offline. In an online study with 12 new users, participants preferred interfaces personalized by our method over all baselines, including shared guidelines and users' own written preferences.

As web agents close the gap with humans on benchmarks, one question arises: Do today's agents perform just as well on tomorrow's web? We introduce TimeWarp, a benchmark that emulates the evolving web. TimeWarp consists of three web environments, each with six UI versions spanning UI design, frontend code, and workflows from different eras of the internet. We pair TimeWarp with a set of complex, realistic tasks covering different forms of web navigation. Our experiments reveal that vision-based agents are vulnerable to changes, while text-based agents become brittle once fine-tuned on a single version. To address this, we propose TimeTraj, a new annotation method that uses plan distillation to collect trajectories across multiple versions. By training agents on teacher rollouts using our BC-variant, we achieve substantial performance gains: 20.4% to 37.7% for Qwen-3 4B and 0% to 27.0% for Llama-3.1 8B models. Our work helps study generalization across web designs and opens a new paradigm for collecting plans rather than trajectories to improve the robustness of web agents.