## 4 Results
### User Experience Evaluation  
As presented in Section 3, UX was evaluated with the UEQ-S tool. Initially, 82 responses were received for Taguette, 83 for ChatGPT, and 84 for Gemini. The results of the pragmatic and hedonic scales and the overall results are presented in Table 5. They indicate an overall positive evaluation, except for Taguette, which was negatively evaluated in hedonic quality (slightly suppressing the benchmark of <0.8). Taguette tool was evaluated as neutral overall, while ChatGPT and Gemini achieved a positive overall evaluation. Mean values per UEQ-S item are presented in Figure 6. They show very similar results for ChatGPT and Gemini and some disparities for Taguette. Taguette tool was perceived as similarly supportive, easy, and clear as other tools, but less efficient than them. The previously mentioned, the difference in hedonic quality items is visible; users evaluated Taguette as more boring, not interesting, more conventional and usual compared to the other two tools. [PERSON]'s Alpha values were analyzed separately for pragmatic and hedonic scales. They reached \(\alpha_{pragmatic}\) = 0.814 and \(\alpha_{hedonic}\) = 0.803 in the whole sample. In the Taguette sample, they reached \(\alpha_{pragmatic}\) = 0.70 and \(\alpha_{hedonic}\) = 0.80, in the ChatGPT sample they reached \(\alpha_{pragmatic}\) = 0.90 and \(\alpha_{hedonic}\) = 0.82, and on the Gemini sample they reached \(\alpha_{pragmatic}\) = 0.82 and \(\alpha_{hedonic}\) = 0.80. All values indicate good to very good consistency. The results of all three observed tools compared to the benchmark values are presented in Figure 7. The pragmatic quality of the Taguette and ChatGPT tool is considered 'Good', while Gemini reached the threshold for 'Excellent' quality. The hedonic quality of the Taguette tool was evaluated as 'bad', which is placed in the range of the 25% worst results. On the contrary, ChatGPT and Gemini were positioned as 'Excellent', i.e., in the range of the 10% best results. The difference in the hedonic value for the Taguette tool is also reflected in its positioning of the overall scale. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Samples** & **Test Statistic** & **Std. Error** & **Std. Test Statistic** & **Sig.** \\ \hline Taguette–Gemini & \(-4.555\) & \(11.16\) & \(-0.408\) & 0.683 \\ Taguette–ChatGPT & \(-23.377\) & \(11.20\) & \(-2.088\) & **0.037** \\ Gemini–ChatGPT & \(18.822\) & \(11.13\) & \(1.691\) & 0.091 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} _Note: Bold values indicate statistical significance at the 0.05 level._  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Pairwise comparison of SUS scores for tools with Dunn’s Test procedure. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r} \hline \hline  & & **Taguette** & **ChatGPT** & **Gemini** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pragmatic Quality} & Mean & \(1.57\) & \(1.67\) & \(1.77\) \\  & Std & \(1.04\) & \(1.28\) & \(1.02\) \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Hedonic Quality} & Mean & \(-0.84\) & \(1.91\) & \(1.94\) \\  & Std & \(1.18\) & \(1.01\) & \(0.84\) \\ Overall & Mean & \(0.36\) & \(1.78\) & \(1.85\) \\  & Std & \(0.90\) & \(0.99\) & \(0.84\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of UEQ Scales for observed tools. The difference in the UEQ Scale scores between tools was analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis H test. The results showed a significant difference in overall UEQ score, \(\chi^{2}(2)=102.888\), \(p<0.001\), with a very large effect size (\(\eta^{2}=0.4186\)). Taguette reached the lowest mean rang with 58.43, followed by ChatGPT with 149.09 and Gemini with 160.48. An additional pairwise comparison conducted with the Dunn's Test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in overall UEQ score between Taguette and ChatGPT (\(p<0.001\)) and between Taguette and Gemini (\(p<0.001\)). There was no statistically significant difference between the observed AI tools. The results of the Dunn's Test are presented in Table 6. They confirm the previously indicated difference in UX of the AI and non-AI tools in this context.