ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
User-centric AI: evaluating the usability of generative AI applications through user reviews on app stores.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship Between Generative AI Use and Life Satisfaction and the Mediating Role of AI Literacy Among Hong Kong Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- AI Awareness and Tobacco Policy Messaging Among US Adults: Electronic Experimental Study.JMIR AI · 2025Article
- Enhancing mental health care through human-computer interaction: AI holistic design of a mental health APP in China.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents a usability evaluation and comparison of generative AI applications through the analysis of user reviews from popular digital marketplaces, specifically Apple's App Store and Google Play. The study aims to bridge the research gap in real-world usability assessments of generative AI tools. A total of 11,549 reviews were extracted and analyzed from January to March 2024 for five generative AI apps: ChatGPT, Bing AI, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini AI, and Da Vinci AI. The dataset has been made publicly available, allowing for further analysis by other researchers. The evaluation follows ISO 9241 usability standards, focusing on effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. This study is believed to be the first usability evaluation for generative AI applications using user reviews across digital marketplaces. The results show that ChatGPT achieved the highest compound usability scores among Android and iOS users, with scores of 0.504 and 0.462, respectively. Conversely, Gemini AI scored the lowest among Android apps at 0.016, and Da Vinci AI had the lowest among iOS apps at 0.275. Satisfaction scores were critical in usability assessments, with ChatGPT obtaining the highest rates of 0.590 for Android and 0.565 for iOS, while Gemini AI had the lowest satisfaction rate at -0.138 for Android users. The findings revealed usability issues related to ease of use, functionality, and reliability in generative AI tools, providing valuable insights from user opinions and feedback. Based on the analysis, actionable recommendations were proposed to enhance the usability of generative AI tools, aiming to address identified usability issues and improve the overall user experience. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of user experiences and offers valuable guidance for enhancing the usability of generative AI applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.