ArticlePDF Available


In the last decade, User eXperience (UX) research in the academic community has produced a multitude of UX models and frameworks. These models address the key issues of UX: its subjective, highly situated and dynamic nature, as well as the pragmatic and hedonic factors leading to UX. At the same time, industry is adopting the UX term but the practices in the product development are still largely based on traditional usability methods. In this paper we discuss the need for pragmatic UX evaluation methods and how such methods can be used in product development in industry. We conclude that even though UX definition still needs work it seems that many of the methods from HCI and other disciplines can be adapted to the particular aspects of UX evaluation. The paper is partly based on the results of UX evaluation methods in product development (UXEM) workshop in CHI 2008. Author Keywords User experience, evaluation methods, product development.
Towards Practical User Experience Evaluation Methods
Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila
Tampere University of Technology
Human-Centered Technology
Korkeakoulunkatu 6
33720 Tampere, Finland
Virpi Roto
Nokia Research Center
P.O.Box 407
00045 Nokia Group, Finland
Marc Hassenzahl
University of Koblenz-Landau
Economic Psychology and
Human-Computer Interaction,
Campus Landau, Im Fort 7
76829 Landau, Germany
In the last decade, User eXperience (UX) research in the
academic community has produced a multitude of UX
models and frameworks. These models address the key
issues of UX: its subjective, highly situated and dynamic
nature, as well as the pragmatic and hedonic factors leading
to UX. At the same time, industry is adopting the UX term
but the practices in the product development are still largely
based on traditional usability methods. In this paper we
discuss the need for pragmatic UX evaluation methods and
how such methods can be used in product development in
industry. We conclude that even though UX definition still
needs work it seems that many of the methods from HCI
and other disciplines can be adapted to the particular
aspects of UX evaluation. The paper is partly based on the
results of UX evaluation methods in product development
(UXEM) workshop in CHI 2008.
Author Keywords
User experience, evaluation methods, product development.
ACM Classification Keywords
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Companies in many industrial sectors have become aware
that designing products and services is not enough, but
designing experiences is the next level of competition [19,
22]. Product development is no longer only about
implementing features and testing their usability, but about
designing products that are enjoyable and support
fundamental human needs and values. Thus, experience
should be a key concern of product development.
There are many definitions for UX, but not an agreed one
[16]. However, even the most diverse definitions of user
experience all agree that it is more than just a product's
usefulness and usability [2,6,17,18,23,26]. In addition, they
stress the subjective nature of UX: UX is affected by the
user’s internal state, the context, and perceptions of the
product [2,6,17].
However, definitions alone are not sufficient for the proper
consideration of UX throughout product development.
Product development in its current form needs tools from
the very early concept to market introduction: UX must be
assessable and manageable. An important element of this is
a set of evaluation methods focused on UX.
Apparently, there is a gap between the research
community's and the product developers' understanding of
what UX is and how it should be evaluated (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Currently the academic UX research and industrial
UX development are focusing on different issues.
As an attempt to close the gap, we organised a workshop on
UX evaluation methods for product development (UXEM)
[25] in the context of the CHI 2008 conference on human
factors in computing. The aim of the workshop was to
identify truly experiential evaluation methods (in the
research sense) and discuss their applicability and
practicability in engineering-driven product development.
In addition, we hoped for lively and fruitful discussions
between academics and practitioners about UX itself and
evaluation methods. In this paper, we present the central
findings of this workshop.
Hedonic aspects,
Dynamics of
etc. etc.
Product life
etc. etc.
UX the
in product
Traditionally, technology-oriented companies have tested
their products against technical and usability requirements.
Experiential aspects were predominantly the focus of the
marketing department, which tried to create a certain image
of a product through advertising. For example, when
Internet became an important channel in communicating the
brand and image, technical and usability evaluations of
Web sites needed to be integrated with more experiential
goals [4,15]. Today, industry is in need of user experience
evaluation methods for a wide variety of products and
User-centered development (UCD) is still the key to
designing for good user experiences. We must understand
users’ needs and values first, before designing and
evaluating solutions. Several methods exist for
understanding users and generating ideas in the early phases
of concept design, such as Probes [5] or Contextual Inquiry
[3]. Fewer methods are available for concept evaluation
that would assess the experiential aspects of the chosen
A number of evaluation methods were presented and
discussed in the UXEM workshop. However, only a few
were "experiential" in the sense of going beyond traditional
usability methods by emphasizing the subjective, positive
and dynamic nature of UX.
Isomursu's "experimental pilots" [11], for example, stress
the importance of evaluating before (i.e., expectation),
while (i.e., experience) and after product use (i.e.,
judgment). This acknowledges the subjective and changing,
dynamic nature of UX: expectations influence experience,
experience influences retrospective judgments and these
judgments in turn set stage for further expectations and so
forth. In addition, Isomursu points at the importance of
creating an evaluation setting, which resembles an actual
use setting. UX is highly situated; its assessment requires a
strong focus on situational aspects. Roto and colleagues as
well as Hoonhout [21,10] stress the importance of positive
emotional responses to products and embrace the notion
that task effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., usability) might
be not the only source for positive emotions. Their focus is
on early phases of development where idea creation and
evaluation is closely linked and short-cycled.
Hole and Williams suggest "emotion sampling" as an
evaluation method [9]. While using a product, people are
repeatedly prompted to assess their current emotional state
by going through a number of questions. This approach
takes UX evaluation a step further, by focusing on the
experience itself instead of the product. However, in the
context of product development additional steps would
have to be taken to establish a causal link between a
positive experience and the product: how does the product
affect the measured experience. Bear in mind, that product
evaluation is not interested in experiences per se but in
experiences caused by the product at hand.
Two further methods presented in the workshop (Repertory
Grid, Multiple Sorting) [1,12] make use of Kelly’s
"personal construct psychology" [e.g., 13]. Basically, these
are methods to capture the personal meaning of objects.
They have a strong procedural structure, but are open to any
sort of meaning, whether pragmatic or hedonic.
Interestingly, the methods derived from Kelly’s theory tend
to provide both a tool for analysis and evaluation [7]. The
results give an idea of the themes, topics, concerns people
have with a particular group of products (i.e., content). At
the same time, all positive and negative feelings (i.e.,
evaluations) towards topics and products become apparent.
Finally, Heimonen and colleagues [8] use "forced choice"
to evaluate the "desirability" of a product. This method
highlights another potential feature of UX, which may pose
additional requirements for UX evaluation methods: There
might be drivers of product appeal and choice, which are
not obvious to the users themselves. Tractinsky and Zmiri
[24], for example, found hedonic aspects (e.g, symbolism,
beauty) to be predictive of product choice. When asked,
however, participants gave predominantly pragmatic
reasons for the choice. Note that the majority of the
"experiential" methods discussed so far rely on people's self
report. This might be misleading, given that experiential
aspects are hard to justify or even to verbalize. In other
words, choice might be driven by criteria not readily
available to the people choosing. Forced choice might bring
this out.
All in all, a number of interesting approaches to measure
UX were suggested and discussed in the workshop. All of
them addressed at least one key feature of UX, thereby
demonstrating that "experiential" evaluation is possible.
More work, however, has to be done to integrate methods to
capture more aspects of UX simultaneously. In addition,
methods need to be adapted to the requirements of
evaluation in an industrial setting. So far, most suggested
methods are still demanding in the sense of the skills and
time required.
In industry, user experience evaluation is done in order to
improve a product. Product development is often a hectic
process and the resources for UX evaluation scarce.
Evaluating early and often is recommended, as the earlier
the evaluations can be done, the easier it is to change the
product to the right direction.
The early phases of product development are challenging
for UX evaluation, since at that point, the material available
about the concept may be hard to understand and assess for
the participants [10, 21]. In the early phases, it is not
possible to test the non-functional concept in the real
context of use, although user experience is tied to the
context [6]. We need good ideas for simulating real context
in a lab [14]. Later on, when prototypes are stable enough
to be handed for field study participants, UX evaluation
becomes much easier. The most reliable UX evaluation data
comes from people who have actually purchased and used a
product on the market. This feedback helps improving the
future versions of the product.
In summary, the UXEM workshop presentations and group
works produced the following requirements for practical
UX evaluation methods:
Valid, reliable, repeatable
For managing UX also in a big company
Fast, lightweight, and cost-efficient
For fast-pace iterative development
Low expertise level required
For easy deployment (no extensive training needed)
Applicable for various types of products
For comparisons and trend monitoring
Applicable for concept ideas, prototypes, and products
For following how UX develops during the process
Suitable for different target user groups
For a fair outcome
Suitable for different product lifecycle phases
For improving e.g. taking into use, repurchasing UX
Producing comparable output (quantitative and qualitative)
For UX target setting and iterative improvement
Useful for the different in-house stakeholders
As UX is multidisciplinary, many company
departments are interested in UX evaluation results.
Clearly, it is not possible to have just one method that
would fulfill all the requirements above. Some of the
requirements may be contradictory, or even unrealistic. For
example, a method which is very lightweight may not
necessarily be totally reliable. Also, it might be challenging
if not impossible to find a method which is suitable for
different types of products, product development phases,
and product lifecycle phases. We thus need to have a toolkit
of experiential methods to be used for the different
In the UXEM workshop, we noticed that there is not always
a clear line between the design and evaluation methods,
since evaluating current solutions often gives ideas for new
ones. On the other hand, companies do need evaluation
methods that focus in producing UX scores or a list of pros
and cons for a pool of concept ideas in an efficient way.
After the product specification has been approved, the
primary interest is to check that the user experience
matches the original goal. In this phase, the methods
applied are clearly about evaluation, not about creating new
Obviously, applying and developing methods for UX
evaluation requires an understanding of what UX actually
is. This is still far from being settled. Although everybody
in the workshop agreed that the UX perspective adds
something to the traditional usability perspective, it was
hard to even put a name to this added component: Is it
"emotional", "experiential" or "hedonic"? The lack of a
shared understanding on what UX means was identified as
one of the major problems of UX evaluation in its current
state. As long we do not agree or at least take a decision on
what we are looking for, we cannot pose the right questions.
Without an idea of the appropriate questions, selecting a
method is futile. Nevertheless, once a decision is made
for example to take a look at the emotional consequences of
product use there seem to be a wealth of methods already
in use within HCI or from other disciplines, which could be
adapted to this particular aspect of evaluation.
Working with UX evaluation is a double task: We have to
understand UX and make it manageable and measurable.
Given the fruitful discussions in the workshop, a practice-
driven development of the UX concept may be a valid road
to a better understanding of UX. "UX is what we measure"
might be an approach as long as there is no accepted
definition of UX at hand. However, this approach requires
some reflection on the evaluation needs and practices. By
discussing the implicit notions embedded in the evaluation
requirements and methods, we might be able to better
articulate what UX actually should be. The UXEM
workshop and this paper hopefully open up the discussion.
We thank all participants of the UXEM workshop: Jim
Hudson, Jon Innes, Nigel Bevan, Minna Isomursu, Pekka
Ketola, Susan Huotari, Jettie Hoonhout, Audrius
Jurgelionis, Sylvia Barnard, Eva Wischnewski, Cecilia
Oyugi, Tomi Heimonen, Anne Aula, Linda Hole, Oliver
Williams, Ali al-Azzawi, David Frohlich, Heather Vaughn,
Hannu Koskela, Elaine M. Raybourn, Jean-Bernard
Martens, and Evangelos Karapanos. We also thank the
programme committee of UXEM: Anne Aula, Katja
Battarbee, Michael "Mitch" Hatscher, Andreas Hauser, Jon
Innes, Titti Kallio, Gitte Lindgaard, Kees Overbeeke, and
Rainer Wessler.
1. al-Azzawi, A., Frohlich, D. and Wilson, M. User
Experience: A Multiple Sorting Method based on
Personal Construct Theory, Proc. of UXEM,
2. Alben, L. (1996), Quality of Experience: Defining the
Criteria for Effective Interaction Design. Interactions,
3, 3, pp. 11-15.
3. Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design.
Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann.
4. Ellis, P., Ellis, S. (2001), Measuring User Experience.
New Architect 6, 2 (2001), pp. 29-31.
5. Gaver, W. W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker,
B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty.
6. Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N. (2006), User
Experience – a Research Agenda. Behaviour and
Information Technology, Vol. 25, No. 2, March-April
2006, pp. 91-97.
7. Hassenzahl, M. & Wessler, R. (2000). Capturing
design space from a user perspective: the Repertory
Grid Technique revisited. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 441-459.
8. Heimonen, T., Aula, A., Hutchinson, H. and Granka, L.
Comparing the User Experience of Search User
Interface Designs, Proc. of UXEM,
9. Hole, L. and Williams, O. Emotion Sampling and the
Product Development Life Cycle, Proc. of UXEM,
10. Hoonhout, J. Let's start to Create a Fun Product:
Where Is My Toolbox?, Proc. of UXEM,
11. Isomursu, M. User experience evaluation with
experimental pilots, Proc. of UXEM,
12. Karapanos, E. and Martens, J.-B. The quantitative side
of the Repertory Grid Technique: some concerns, Proc.
of UXEM,
13. Kelly, G. A. (1963). A theory of personality. The
psychology of personal constructs, paperback. New
York: Norton.
14. Kozlow, S., Rameckers, L., Schots, P. (2007). People
Research for Experience Design. Philips white paper.
15. Kuniavsky, M. (2003), Observing The User Experience
– A Practitioner’s Guide to User Research. Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers, Elsevier Science, USA
16. Law, E., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A., Kort, J., &
Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a Shared Definition
for User Experience. Special Interest Group in CHI’08.
Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems 2008, pp.
17. Mäkelä, A., Fulton Suri, J. (2001), Supporting Users’
Creativity: Design to Induce Pleasurable Experiences.
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Affective Human Factors Design, pp. 387-394.
18. Nielsen-Norman group (online). User Experience –
Our Definition.
19. Nokia Corporation (2005), Inspired Human
Technology. White paper available at
20. Norman, D.A., Miller, J., and Henderson, A. (1995)
What you see, some of what's in the future, and how
we go about doing it: HI at Apple Computer. Proc. CHI
1995, ACMPress (1995), 155.
21. Roto, V., Ketola, P. and Huotari, S. User Experience
Evaluation in Nokia, Proc. of UXEM,
22. Seidel, M., Loch, C., Chahil, S. (2005). Quo Vadis,
Automotiven Industry? A Vision of Possible Industry
Transformations. European Management Journal, Vol.
23, No. 4, pp. 439–449, 2005
23. Shedroff, N. An Evolving Glossary of Experience
Design, online glossary at
24. Tractinsky, N. & Zmiri, D. (2006). Exploring attributes
of skins as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI. In
P.Fishwick (Ed.), Aesthetic computing (pp. 405-421).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., & Hassenzahl,
M. (2008). Now Lets Do It in Practice: User
Experience Evaluation Methods for Product
Development. Workshop in CHI’08. Proc. Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3961-3964.
26. UPA (Usability Professionals’ Association): “Usability
Body of Knowledge”, (22.5.2008)
... User experience is also considered to be the key concern in the heart of product development [20], because it brings a much more humanistic approach by relating the hedonic level of personal Human needs and values, which motivate people to use a set of products and help managers set UX targets for product development. ...
... Considering ISO [6] and the authors in which the proposed approach is based on [2,8,13,20,36,37,41], it should be iterative, explicit, and inclusive, performed by a multidisciplinary team and following these phases with subsequent design guidelines: ...
There has been an increasing interest in gerontechnology due to the growth of an ageing population and subsequent challenges in interface design development. Methods of user-centered design and gamification have demonstrated to be powerful, leading to an excellent user experience, and also motivating and changing senior citizens’ behaviors. Applying user-centered design and gamification is starting to gain its importance in the design field, but there is still a lack of studies regarding the use of these concepts with senior citizens and/or applied to the cyclotourism context. The goal of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art review on user-centered design, user experience and gamification, to outline and propose an approach for senior cyclotourism. The approach is based on user-centered design to senior citizens, followed by gamification design guidelines to the development and testing of products or prototypes. It is recommended that the method should be iterative, unequivocal, and inclusive, performed by a multidisciplinary team and should followed phases of requirement gathering and analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation with subsequent design guidelines. This study may also deliver maneuverable and adaptable guides on how to conduct a method of user-centered design and user experience with gamification for senior citizens applied to other contexts.
... It is often stated that the needs a person might have when using a product or service can differ depending on the individual situation and the specific context of use [2,[36][37][38]. This is, however, often not acknowledged by existing need taxonomies and need-based user research approaches which focus on characterizing the whole number of needs relevant for UX design. ...
Full-text available
Adopting a need-based approach can help companies to create products and services that are preferred by their customers and improve their well-being, thus providing a competitive advantage. To put need-based designs into practice, it would be interesting to know how innovative product and service ideas can address the needs of a specific target group in a specific business domain. This paper presents an approach for (a) identifying such target group-specific need sets based on an online survey and (b) integrating them into the company’s innovation processes as part of a Need-based Creativity Workshop. To illustrate and validate this approach, we present a case study that investigates varying need subsets for two different user groups of future banking products and services in France: adults with and without families. Our study shows that a different set of needs is important for each group and reflects upon the benefits and challenges of a target group-specific, need-based design approach to leverage a company’s potential for innovation.
... The UX in recent years has taken a very representative role in the industry allowing to design experiences that take their products to a competitive level. It is not only a matter of implementing functionalities, but also of having solutions that are centered in the human users, for their satisfaction and comfort, and lead to cover their needs [51]. ...
In this work, we propose the use of Multimodal Human-Computer Interfaces (MHCI) through body poses to command a drone in an easy and intuitive way. First, the human-user pose is recovered from a video stream, with the help of the open source library Open Pose. Then, a Support Vector Classifier (SVC), trained to distinguish between different body poses, is used to interpret eleven different human poses as the most important high level commands to the drone. The proposed strategy was successfully implemented to remotely control a drone through a web interface, where the user can interact with a drone in a remote location using only a web interface. Real-time experiments were carried out with fourteen different volunteers, selected to represent different segments of the population, with different ages, gender, experience with technology, socioeconomic class, etc., in order to evaluate the user experience with the help of a User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ), demonstrating satisfactory results. The study suggests that the use of the proposed MHCI received good acceptance between the participants, even in users without previous experience with drones, and received excellent scores in terms of attractiveness, stimulation and novelty from most of the volunteers.
... The user's internal state, the system's functional, aesthetic, and symbolic attributes, and the environment and context of use influence the perceived UX (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006;Saucken et al., 2013a). Such a comprehensive and diverse understanding of UX leads to challenges in the practical implementation (Väänänen et al., 2008). Pettersson & Ju (2017) emphasize the in-vehicle UX as particularly relevant for product engineers in the automotive industry. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The importance of UX is widely recognized by product developers among automotive OEMs. A distinctive UX shaping the brand is an important goal in the development of a new product generation. Trends such as advancing digitalization and connectivity of products open up numerous innovation potentials for UX developers. This contribution focuses on in-vehicle UX in terms of designing interactions between the vehicle and the user. In academia, theories and models to explain the phenomenon of user experience are widespread. Furthermore, numerous research approaches in the field of engineering sciences pursue the goal of making user experience measurable and evaluable. However, in the course of our literature review, we found that there is currently a lack of tools and methods that support product developers in eliciting user needs and subsequently synthesizing concepts. For this purpose, particularly the early phase of product development offers required creative freedom. However, this phase is also characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. These circumstances raise the question of which challenges product developers face when designing interactions. This paper aims to contribute to this question through a two-step descriptive analysis in cooperation with a leading German automotive group. Based on a literature review, challenges and strategic potentials were first discussed with UX experts in a workshop (n=11). From these results, a total of 28 hypotheses were derived, which were then evaluated in a second step in an online survey (n=45) by a broad set of experts. Subsequently, the challenges identified in this way were translated into four qualitative success factors to provide product developers with concrete recommendations for action. Additionally, a total of seven requirements were extracted from these factors to help product development research close the identified research gap in further prescriptive studies.
... Other experiences, like events, space, brands, exercises, face-to-face interactions and art have explicitly been excluded from this definition. However, even then, the definition of UX remains a subjective one, dependent from 9 what exactly is measured (Väänänen-Vaainio-Mattila, Roto, & Hassenzahl, 2008), and when (Vermeeren, et al., 2010). ...
Full-text available
In this study, we explored the possibilities for enhancing the user experience (UX) of technology-enhanced workplace learning to stimulate acceptance. This was studied using a systematic literature review to gain possibly helpful insights and thematic and causal analyses of questionnaires regarding a naturalistic case, to ultimately develop UX design propositions to stimulate acceptance. We found that existing literature focussed on 9 aspects: self-regulation, the need for interventions, usability and user experience, social influence, (real-life) interaction, availability, relevance, demographics, and safety. Regarding user experience, hedonic factors seemed to be of bigger concern than pragmatic factors. The analyses of the questionnaires, however, showed that, in the studied case, the pragmatic factors were of greater importance for acceptance. The initial design propositions we developed thus mainly focus on pragmatic quality. We hope this study provides a source of information for future research in this field of study, providing insights which could be helpful for the research community. Future research could focus on further verifying and developing the initial design propositions. The acceptance of technology enhanced workplace learning may be an even more unexplored field of study than we initially thought.
Full-text available
Although citizen participation in decision-making has emerged as one of the fundamental pillars of good governance, there is seemly a low level of citizen participation in the governance processes in many developing countries. Yet, it is difficult to envisage lasting solutions if the citizens directly affected do not take part in the decision process. Citizen participation is, therefore, a pressing requirement, enabling countries to determine for and by themselves ways to overcome their biggest challenges. In the quest for more effective and efficient government service delivery, a number of citizen participation mechanisms have been fronted. The use of ICTs to engage government is one of the major approaches suggested, always referred to as E-participation. However, whereas E-participation would improve citizen participation, studies show that the major challenges of implementing E-participation in developing countries are the negative perceptions and responses towards E-participation, which is largely influenced by four major factors namely; Political, Social, Economic and Technological related challenges. Perceptions and responses towards the use of a computing product are referred to as User Experience (UX), a field in Human-Computer Interaction. ISO defines UX as the perceptions and responses that arise during the use of a product or service, or/and perceptions and responses that arise before a product or service is used (referred to as Anticipated UX or AUX). UX has been under extensive study over the last decade, generating a number of UX models and frameworks. Ideally, any UX model or framework could be used to influence positive perceptions and responses towards the use of mobile phones for voting. However, the existing UX models and frameworks provide very little on how experience before use (AUX) can be achieved. Many of the models and frameworks majorly focus on how user experience during use of a product or service can be achieved. There was a need to develop an Anticipated User Experience framework for influencing positive perceptions and responses towards Eparticipation in a developing country context We used literature review to establish requirements for influencing positive perceptions and responses towards E-participation in a developing country context. Using mobile phone voting as a case for E-participation, the requirements were validated using a survey study. The validation results from the survey study show that the requirements can influence positive perceptions and responses towards E-participation to a considerable extent. We used design science to extend Yogasara AUX framework. The new AUX framework contributes to theory in that the AUX gap in UX was identified and largely narrowed. The new AUX framework also demonstrates how an established Theory in Psychology like Cognitive Psychology Theory can be used to explain in practical terms- how AUX occurs, an approach that had not been used before. The AUX framework further contributes to practice by providing more practical guidance on how to achieve AUX at a product/service level.
The psychological needs-driven UX approach is a well-explored area in UX research and a powerful framework for the design of optimal experiences with systems and products. However, the transfer from research to practice is slow and this approach is not yet widely used by practitioners. As card-based methods have been shown to support designers in both the generation of ideas and the evaluation of their designs, we created the UX needs cards as a pragmatic tool able to support a needs-driven UX process. We present the iterative development of the card-set and its associated techniques and report on three use cases, demonstrating the effectiveness of this tool for user research, idea generation and UX evaluation. Our empirical findings suggest that the UX needs cards are a valuable tool able to support design practice, being easily understood by lay users and a source of inspiration for designers. Acting as a tangible translation of a research framework, the UX needs cards promote theory-driven design strategies and provide researchers, designers, and educators with a tool to clearly communicate the framework of psychological needs.KeywordsDesign methodsExperience designUX cardsPsychological needsIdeation cards
Full-text available
Teknolojik ürün, Kullanıcı deneyim modeli Tasarım, insanlar ve teknoloji arasında bağlayıcı göreve sahiptir. Her teknolojik gelişme, yeni ve özgün bir deneyim yaratır; bu da insanların bir teknolojiyi nasıl deneyimlediği ve gerçek ihtiyaçlarının ne olduğunu anlamayı gerektirir. Bu bağlamda, kullanıcı odaklı metotlar, insanların bir teknolojiyi nasıl kullanmak istediği ve neye ihtiyaç duyduğuna ulaşmaya sağlar. Son yıllarda, deneyim ve etkileşimin, her kullanımda farklılaştığı üzerine tartışmalar yoğunlaşmıştır. Bu durum da, deneyimin nesnel ve kişiye özel olduğunun önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Her kullanıcının deneyimi, o kişinin becerileri, motivasyonları ve beklentileri farklı olduğu için, diğer kullanıcılardan farklıdır. Belirli bir teknoloji, bir kullanıcıda olumlu deneyim yaratabilirken, başka bir kullanıcı için olumsuz bir deneyime neden olabilir. Kullanıcı deneyimi yazınında de, insanların belirli bir sistemi, ürünü ya da teknolojiyi nasıl deneyimlediğine dair çeşitli bakış açıları mevcuttur. Bu bakış açılarının özümsenmesi, tasarımcıların kullanıcıyı tanıyarak tasarım yapmasına yol gösterici olarak kullanılabilir. Kullanıcı deneyimi, kullanıcı-ürün etkileşimine bütünsel bir perspektif getirmektedir. Her ne kadar farklı tanımlamalar yapılsa da, yazında kullanıcı deneyiminin boyutlarını tanımlamak için ortak bir anlayış görülmektedir. Sonuç olarak bu bildiri, teknolojik ürünlerde kullanıcı deneyimini araştıran modelleri inceleyerek, teknolojik ürünlerin kullanıcı deneyimi üzerine daha bütünsel bir model ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. Abstract User Experience, Product Experience, Technological Products, User experience model Design can serve as the connector between people and technology. Each technological development creates new and unique experience. In relation, user centered methods can be utilized for understanding the way people wish to use and interact with technological products. It is recently argued that experience of and interaction with certain products or systems is different each time. One important point in experience is that it is subjective, private and personal. Experience of each person is different from one another, as abilities, motivations and expectations of each person can be different. While a specific technology can cause positive experience for one person, it can cause negative results for another. There are several frameworks in UX literature focusing on experience of users with systems, products or specific kind technologies. Refining and redesigning these frameworks is required to help the designers to get the most benefit from the HCI and design literature. User experience brings a holistic perspective on user-product interactions. Even though various definitions are made, a common ground is observed in defining the dimensions of experience. As a result, the aim of this paper is to explore the models that explain the user experience of technological products and put forward a holistic picture of user experience of technological products. * İlgili yazar:
In recent years, the goal of companies to retain customers through good usability has evolved into a more holistic view to enhance the user experience. The purely pragmatic view is to be extended by hedonic aspects in order to touch the users also on the emotional level. Although everyone talks about user experience (UX), it still seems to be just “old wine in new bottles”. Despite extensive UX theory research in recent years, UX is still often used as a synonym for usability. Due to increasing vehicle automation, the automotive industry now also has to rethink its (long) existing processes and develop new strategies in order to keep its customers loyal to the brand in the future. Traffic will change fundamentally—and drivers will often neither drive themselves nor own a vehicle. With this book chapter we want to create the basis for this transformation process. After an overview of the current state of UX practice in the development of user interfaces for vehicle automation, the topic is systematically unfolded from the perspective of academia (literature studies) and industry (expert interviews). Based on the findings, the “DAUX framework” is presented as part of a need-centered development approach. It serves as a structured guide on how to define and evaluate UX in consideration of the challenges of automated driving. For this purpose, it provides guidelines on how (a) relevant needs for hypotheses/UI concept development can be identified and (b) UX can be evaluated by triangulating behavioral-, product-, and experience-oriented methods. To demonstrate its potential, the framework is applied in three case studies, each addressing a different level of automation (SAE L2, SAE L3, and SAE L4). This demonstrates that the “DAUX framework” promotes a holistic view of UX to encourage the development of UIs for driving automation. In particular, it is intended to help resolve technical constraints faced by designers and developers in the different levels of automation with the aim to create a positive UX.
The cultural heritage (CH) sector has always been looking for preeminent ways to improve visitors’ interactions with their collections through interactive technologies such as applications and websites. However, economic inequality between developed and developing countries hinders the effective and widespread deployment of interactive technologies; therefore, there is a lack of understanding about how visitors interact with such applications in developing countries. Our research aims to understand the current user experience (UX) practices with CH interactive technologies in developing and developed countries and discuss how to improve the interactive application design for museums’ user experience in developing countries. We conducted two field surveys to examine the current UX practices with audio guides and websites at national CH museums in Vietnam and Australia. Additionally, short interviews with interactive service providers and museum interactive service managers confirm the current UX practices and help to fill the UX gaps in developing countries. Our work complements the wealth of knowledge about designing good UX in developed countries and concludes that UX requirements are likely similar between developing and developed countries.
Full-text available
When reason is away, smiles will play. --- Paul Eluard and Benjamin Péret
Full-text available
Over the last decade, 'user experience' (UX) became a buzzword in the field of human – computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. As technology matured, interactive products became not only more useful and usable, but also fashionable, fascinating things to desire. Driven by the impression that a narrow focus on interactive products as tools does not capture the variety and emerging aspects of technology use, practitioners and researchers alike, seem to readily embrace the notion of UX as a viable alternative to traditional HCI. And, indeed, the term promises change and a fresh look, without being too specific about its definite meaning. The present introduction to the special issue on 'Empirical studies of the user experience' attempts to give a provisional answer to the question of what is meant by 'the user experience'. It provides a cursory sketch of UX and how we think UX research will look like in the future. It is not so much meant as a forecast of the future, but as a proposal – a stimulus for further UX research.
Full-text available
The design of an artifact (e.g., software system, household appliance) requires a multi-tude of decisions. In the course of narrowing down the design process, "good ideas" have to be divided from "bad ideas." To accomplish this, user perceptions and evalua-tions are of great value. The individual way people perceive and evaluate a set of proto-types designed in parallel may shed light on their general needs and concerns. The Repertory Grid Technique (RGT) is a method of elucidating the so-called personal con-structs (e.g., friendly–hostile, bad–good, playful–expert-like) people employ when confronted with other individuals, events, or artifacts. We assume that the personal constructs (and the underlying topics) generated as a reaction to a set of artifacts mark the artifacts' design space from a user's perspective and that this information may be helpful in separating valuable ideas from the not so valuable. This article explores the practical value of the RGT in gathering design-relevant information about the design space of early artifact prototypes designed in parallel. Ways of treating the information gathered, its quality and general advantages, and limitations of the RGT are presented and discussed. In general, the RGT proved to be a valuable tool in exploring a set of ar-tifact's design space from a user's perspective.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
User experience (UX) is still an elusive notion with many different definitions, despite some recent attempts to develop a unified view on UX. The lack of a shared definition of UX not only confuses or even misleads customers of a product/service but also undermines the effectiveness of researching, managing and teaching UX. Diverse ideas have been generated in scientific activities that aim to develop a common understanding about the meaning and scope of UX. It is plausible, with sound methodologies, to converge these divergences, driving the UX community closer to a common definition and integrated views of UX. This SIG tackles this challenge by systematically assembling a set of existing definitions and viewpoints of UX and collecting opinions on them from known UX experts/researchers and general CHI'08 attendees.
Following research on the emotional effects of physical artifacts in organizational settings, we suggest that studying emotion in the context of using interactive applications can benefit from looking at how the application is evaluated by users on three distinct attributes: instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. We conducted an exploratory experiment to assess the viability of a subset of this model for the field of human-computer interaction, in the context of users' personalization of PC-based entertainment applications. Users exhibited a variety of tastes when choosing an interface for their application. The results of closed- format and open-format questionnaires reveal that the dimensions of usability, aesthetics, and symbolism are distinct of each other. Each of these dimensions contributed to explaining users' satisfaction and pleasant interaction experience. In line with the premises of Aesthetic Computing, the contribution of aesthetics to users' personalization of their computing environments is particularly evident.
The gap between who designers and developers imagine their users are, and who those users really are can be the biggest problem with product development. Observing the User Experience will help you bridge that gap to understand what your users want and need from your product, and whether they'll be able to use what you've created. Filled with real-world experience and a wealth of practical information, this book presents a complete toolbox of techniques to help designers and developers see through the eyes of their users. It provides in-depth coverage of 13 user experience research techniques that will provide a basis for developing better products, whether they're Web, software or mobile based. In addition, it's written with an understanding of how software is developed in the real world, taking tight budgets, short schedules, and existing processes into account.
The automotive industry has reached a mature state, as is evidenced by its growth and by the nature of competition (cost, speed, variants, a rush into a few growing regions and segments), and industry consolidation. In parallel, technical progress continues to be dynamic. In this paper, we examine how the automotive industry might evolve in the long term. In the foreseeable future, current trends will likely continue toward a highly competitive consumer products industry, with increasing features driven by electronics. In this base scenario the “autobahn” will merge with the “infobahn”, accompanied by possible market entry by software or electronics players, and a battle for dominance over the technology platform (which will have to be shared across car makers). Car makers will have to seek avenues for differentiation, for which we see three fundamental new business opportunities:❖The tailored car: Driven by production technology enablers, cars will be custom-made, not only by mixing and matching standard components, but by actually customizing the shape and style of components. And this at prices comparable to those of today.❖Brand Worlds: Car manufacturers extend their brands to other consumer product categories, attempting to “immerse” consumers in a “total brand experience” that includes, among others, financial, lifestyle, entertainment, and communication products.❖Multiple Transportation Modes: Cars will extend other modes of individual transportation, such as water (boat-car), air (flying car), etc. This would imply entering other industries and creating new variants of those industries.We offer a framework for proposing those scenarios. For each, we discuss technology drivers, current early indicators, economics, and supply chain implications (such as industry complexity). We conclude by evaluating the need for managers today to pursue not only the (inevitable) base case but also one or several of the three opportunities.