Personas are commonly used in software projects to gain a better understanding of end-users' needs. However, there is a limited understanding of their usage and effectiveness in practice. This paper presents the results of a two-step investigation, comprising interviews with 26 software developers, UI/UX designers, business analysts and product managers and a survey of 203 practitioners, aimed at shedding light on the current practices, methods and challenges of using personas in software development. Our findings reveal variations in the frequency and effectiveness of personas across different software projects and IT companies, the challenges practitioners face when using personas and the reasons for not using them at all. Furthermore, we investigate the coverage of human aspects in personas, often assumed to be a key feature of persona descriptions. Contrary to the general perception, our study shows that human aspects are often ignored for various reasons in personas or requirements engineering in general. Our study provides actionable insights for practitioners to overcome challenges in using personas during requirements engineering stages, and we identify areas for future research.
Understanding Undesirable Attributes of Requirements Engineers: Insights from Practitioners
Federal Institute of Ceará（塞阿拉联邦学院）；State University of Ceará（塞阿拉州立大学）；Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro（里约热内卢天主教大学）；University of Saskatchewan（萨斯喀彻温大学）；Virginia Commonwealth University（弗吉尼亚联邦大学）；Federal University of Bahia（巴伊亚联邦大学）
What Characterizes a Software Leader? Identifying Leadership Practices from Practitioners Social Media
Atlantico Institute（大西洋研究所）；State University of Ceará（塞阿拉州立大学）；University of Molise（莫利塞大学）；Federal University of Cariri（卡里里联邦大学）；Federal Institute of Ceará（塞阿拉联邦学院）
How Do Practitioners Interpret Conditionals in Requirements?
上下文：像“If A and B then C”这样的条件语句是描述软件需求的核心元素。然而，在自然语言中有许多方法来表达这样的条件句，并且也有许多方法可以解释它们。我们假设需求中的条件语句是歧义的来源，潜在地影响下游活动，如测试用例生成。目标：我们的目标是理解特定条件句是如何被处理需求的读者解释的。方法：对104名RE从业者进行描述性调查，询问他们如何理解12个不同的条件句。我们将他们的解释映射到命题（时间）逻辑中的逻辑公式，并讨论其含义。结果：我们测试的需求中的条件句被解释得模棱两可。我们发现，从业者不同意是否前件是唯一的充分或必要的后果。有趣的是，即使系统行为为实践者所知，这种分歧仍然存在。我们还发现，某些提示短语与特定的解释有关。结论：需求中的条件句是模糊性的来源，并且不只有一种方法可以正式地解释它们。这会影响任何基于形式化需求的分析（例如，不一致性检查、测试用例生成）。我们的研究结果也可能影响写作要求的指导方针。
Let the Agent Do It? How Software Practitioners Understand and Make Permission Decisions in Agentic AI Assistants
Chalmers University of Technology（查尔姆斯理工大学）；University of Gothenburg（哥德堡大学）；The University of Melbourne（墨尔本大学）；Eindhoven University of Technology（埃因霍温理工大学）
