# FRAMUX-EV: A Framework for Evaluating User Experience in Agile Software Development
## 7 Discussions
### Comparison between FRAMUX-EV and Existing Proposals  
As mentioned in Section 2.3, we identified six different proposals that integrate various elements for evaluating UX in agile software development [2; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21]. Table 13 presents a comparison between the six analyzed proposals and FRAMUX-EV, in terms of the components they include (events, artifacts, and UX evaluation methods), the representation mode (whether figures, diagrams, or tables are used to explain the proposal), the validation performed on the proposal, strengths, and weaknesses.  
Of the six proposals analyzed (see Table 13), five do not propose UX events [2; 17; 19; 20; 21], and five do not propose UX artifacts [2; 17; 18; 20; 21]. Having specific events and artifacts can facilitate the continuous and planned integration of UX evaluation in each agile iteration. In comparison with the proposals by [PERSON] et al. [2], [PERSON] [17], [PERSON] et al. [20], and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [21], which do not include specific UX events or artifacts, FRAMUX-EV introduces seven UX artifacts and four UX-specific events, providing a clear evaluation structure that integrates with Scrum. The inclusion of \"weekly UX meetings\" and the \"UX backlog\" allows for iterative and continuous UX evaluation, aligned with agile principles, offering greater flexibility and responsiveness.  
Regarding UX methods, most of the proposals analyzed include UX evaluation methods, except for one [18]. The number of methods included in each proposal varies between one and five. FRAMUX-EV includes eight UX evaluation methods, four of which appear in existing proposals (user testing [19; 20; 21], heuristic evaluation [17], evaluation with mockups or prototypes [2], and the RITE method [2]), and four additional UX evaluation methods (guerrilla testing, A/B testing, pluralistic walkthrough, and SUS), based on the results obtained from the systematic literature review conducted [29] and interviews with practitioners [30]. While [PERSON] and [PERSON] [18] and [PERSON] et al. [19] offered interesting proposals for evaluating UX within each sprint (including Lean UX principles [18] and various UX evaluation methods [19]), they did not specify when to conduct UX evaluations or how to manage UX work in each iteration. In comparison, FRAMUX-EV provides a clear structure that includes artifacts (such as the \"UX evaluation repository\" and the \"UX sprint backlog\") and events (such as the \"pre-planning UX meeting\" and the \"pre-review UX meeting\"), facilitating UX evaluations at key moments in the agile development cycle and providing visibility into UX work.  
On the other hand, three of the proposals analyzed have not been validated [2; 17; 18], while the other three were validated through interviews [19; 21]), case studies [19], real projects [20], and questionnaires [21]. FRAMUX-EV was validated through surveys conducted with practitioners who have been working in the industry for several years developing agile projects (see Section 6). FRAMUX-EV, in addition to addressing the deficiencies of previous approaches, adds significant value by formalizing UX activities within Scrum through the introduction of specific artifacts and events. This ensures that UX evaluation becomes an integral part of the agile process, improving collaboration between UX and development teams and enabling faster and more effective feedback in each sprint. The combination of these elements provides a more comprehensive and adaptable framework for evaluating user experience in agile environments.