What Pulls the Strings? Understanding the Characteristics and Role of Argumentation in Open-Source Software Usability Discussions
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.08032v1
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2025 20:44:40 GMT
- Title: What Pulls the Strings? Understanding the Characteristics and Role of Argumentation in Open-Source Software Usability Discussions
- Authors: Arghavan Sanei, Chaima Amiri, Atefeh Shokrizadeh, Jinghui Cheng,
- Abstract summary: The usability of open-source software (OSS) is important but frequently overlooked in favor of technical and functional complexity.<n>Argumentation can be a pivotal device for diverse stakeholders in OSS usability discussions to express opinions and persuade others.<n>This research offers insights to help OSS stakeholders build more effective arguments and eventually improve OSS usability.
- Score: 12.204548043421454
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: The usability of open-source software (OSS) is important but frequently overlooked in favor of technical and functional complexity. Argumentation can be a pivotal device for diverse stakeholders in OSS usability discussions to express opinions and persuade others. However, the characteristics of argument discourse in those discussions remain unknown, resulting in difficulties in providing effective support for discussion participants. We address this through a comprehensive analysis of argument discourse and quality in five OSS projects. Our results indicated that usability discussions are predominantly argument-driven, although their qualities vary. Issue comments exhibit lower-quality arguments than the issue posts, suggesting a shortage of collective intelligence about usability in OSS communities. Moreover, argument discourse and quality have various impacts on the subsequent behavior of participants. Overall, this research offers insights to help OSS stakeholders build more effective arguments and eventually improve OSS usability. These insights can also inform studies about other distributed collaborative communities.
Related papers
- SAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset [60.33125467375306]
In practice, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue.<n>We present the first large-scale textbfStrategic textbfArgumentative textbfDialogue dataset, consisting of 392,822 examples.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-12T11:11:37Z) - Stakeholder Suite: A Unified AI Framework for Mapping Actors, Topics and Arguments in Public Debates [3.272909051546268]
This paper presents a framework deployed in operational contexts for mapping actors, topics, and arguments within public debates.<n>The tool has proven effective for operational use: helping project teams visualize networks of influence, identify emerging controversies, and support evidence-based decision-making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-19T08:38:28Z) - MMPersuade: A Dataset and Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Persuasion [73.99171322670772]
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in domains such as shopping, health, and news.<n> MMPersuade provides a unified framework for systematically studying multimodal persuasion dynamics in LVLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-26T17:39:21Z) - Debating for Better Reasoning: An Unsupervised Multimodal Approach [56.74157117060815]
We extend the debate paradigm to a multimodal setting, exploring its potential for weaker models to supervise and enhance the performance of stronger models.<n>We focus on visual question answering (VQA), where two "sighted" expert vision-language models debate an answer, while a "blind" (text-only) judge adjudicates based solely on the quality of the arguments.<n>In our framework, the experts defend only answers aligned with their beliefs, thereby obviating the need for explicit role-playing and concentrating the debate on instances of expert disagreement.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-20T17:18:17Z) - Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models [45.832808321166844]
A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality.
We identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment.
We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-24T10:43:21Z) - Characterizing Usability Issue Discussions in Open Source Software
Projects [13.901618206448049]
Usability is one of the most neglected concerns in open source software (OSS)
There is little knowledge about the extent to which OSS community members engage in usability issue discussions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-19T01:47:08Z) - Solving NLP Problems through Human-System Collaboration: A
Discussion-based Approach [98.13835740351932]
This research aims to create a dataset and computational framework for systems that discuss and refine their predictions through dialogue.
We show that the proposed system can have beneficial discussions with humans improving the accuracy by up to 25 points in the natural language inference task.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-19T16:24:50Z) - Towards a Holistic View on Argument Quality Prediction [3.182597245365433]
A decisive property of arguments is their strength or quality.
While there are works on the automated estimation of argument strength, their scope is narrow.
We assess the generalization capabilities of argument quality estimation across diverse domains, the interplay with related argument mining tasks, and the impact of emotions on perceived argument strength.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-19T18:44:23Z) - Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of
Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication.
We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions.
Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z) - Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion [39.74040217761505]
We investigate the role of discourse structure of the arguments from online debates in their persuasiveness.
We find that argument structure features play an essential role in achieving the better predictive performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-07T17:34:50Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.