Wajdi Aljedaani

Mingchen Li, Wajdi Aljedaani, Yingjie Liu et al.

Skin-toned emojis are crucial for fostering personal identity and social inclusion in online communication. As AI models, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), increasingly mediate interactions on web platforms, the risk that these systems perpetuate societal biases through their representation of such symbols is a significant concern. This paper presents the first large-scale comparative study of bias in skin-toned emoji representations across two distinct model classes. We systematically evaluate dedicated emoji embedding models (emoji2vec, emoji-sw2v) against four modern LLMs (Llama, Gemma, Qwen, and Mistral). Our analysis first reveals a critical performance gap: while LLMs demonstrate robust support for skin tone modifiers, widely-used specialized emoji models exhibit severe deficiencies. More importantly, a multi-faceted investigation into semantic consistency, representational similarity, sentiment polarity, and core biases uncovers systemic disparities. We find evidence of skewed sentiment and inconsistent meanings associated with emojis across different skin tones, highlighting latent biases within these foundational models. Our findings underscore the urgent need for developers and platforms to audit and mitigate these representational harms, ensuring that AI's role on the web promotes genuine equity rather than reinforcing societal biases.

Wajdi Aljedaani, Rubel Hassan Mollik

Web accessibility aims to ensure that web content and services are usable by people with diverse abilities. In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly explored to support accessibility-related tasks on the web, such as content generation, issue detection, and remediation. However, little is known about the characteristics of these approaches, the accessibility issues they target, the standards they follow, and how they are evaluated. In this paper, we present a systematic literature review of 38 peer-reviewed studies that investigate the use of LLMs in web accessibility contexts. We begin by performing a comprehensive search of scientific publications to identify relevant studies. We then conduct a comparative analysis to examine the accessibility tasks addressed, the LLM models and prompting strategies employed, the system architectures adopted, the accessibility issues and guidelines considered, and the evaluation methods used across studies. Our findings show that most studies apply LLMs to text-centric and structurally explicit accessibility tasks, with WCAG serving as the primary reference framework and limited consideration of cognitive accessibility guidelines (COGA). The reviewed approaches predominantly rely on general-purpose LLMs and prompt-based interactions, while evaluation practices vary widely and often lack direct involvement of users with disabilities. We envision this review as a consolidated reference for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand the current landscape of LLM-supported web accessibility, and as a foundation to guide future research and tool development in this area.

Wajdi Aljedaani, Anthony Peruma, Ahmed Aljohani et al.

Test smells are defined as sub-optimal design choices developers make when implementing test cases. Hence, similar to code smells, the research community has produced numerous test smell detection tools to investigate the impact of test smells on the quality and maintenance of test suites. However, little is known about the characteristics, type of smells, target language, and availability of these published tools. In this paper, we provide a detailed catalog of all known, peer-reviewed, test smell detection tools. We start with performing a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed scientific publications to construct a catalog of 22 tools. Then, we perform a comparative analysis to identify the smell types detected by each tool and other salient features that include programming language, testing framework support, detection strategy, and adoption, among others. From our findings, we discover tools that detect test smells in Java, Scala, Smalltalk, and C++ test suites, with Java support favored by most tools. These tools are available as command-line and IDE plugins, among others. Our analysis also shows that most tools overlap in detecting specific smell types, such as General Fixture. Further, we encounter four types of techniques these tools utilize to detect smells. We envision our study as a one-stop source for researchers and practitioners in determining the tool appropriate for their needs. Our findings also empower the community with information to guide future tool development.