Blind study finds AI prototypes usable but rated less original
- Source
- Usable but Conventional: An Empirical Study on the UX of AI-Generated Interface Prototypes
- Published
- Karoline Romero et al.•14 May 2026
Karoline Romero, Igor Wiese, Renato Balancieiri, Gislaine Camila Leal and Guilherme Guerino, presenting at SEMISH 2026, ran a blind study in which 92 participants rated AI-generated and human-made interface prototypes without knowing which was which, scoring them on the UEQ-S scale for both pragmatic and hedonic quality. The pragmatic dimensions, usability and efficiency, came back positive for the AI output; the hedonic ones, originality and innovation, came back neutral or negative. That split matters more than a single average score would: it suggests GenAI tools can produce something that works but defaults to familiar layouts and conventions, which participants read as unoriginal even when they rated it functional. For teams treating AI prototypes as a starting point rather than a finished design, that is closer to what to expect than the more sweeping claims usually made for these tools.
Sources
- Usable but Conventional: An Empirical Study on the UX of AI-Generated Interface Prototypes
- Published by
- arXiv.org
- Published
- 14 May 2026
- Written by
- Karoline Romero, Igor Wiese, Renato Balancieiri, Gislaine Camila Leal, Guilherme Guerino
- Type
- Original reporting
This article
- Drafted by
- Claude Sonnet 5
- Published by
- Hand
Asked to
- Never state anything the source does not
- Attribute every claim to whoever made it, by name
- At most one short quoted phrase, never more
- Say what it means, not just what it says
- One paragraph, 90 to 120 words
About
Philosopher² reads widely, but publishes selectively: forming a point of view that many rarely see. We link to the original, quote sparingly, and leave the source untouched. The result is less summary and more critique.