Content uploaded by Pariya Kashfi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pariya Kashfi on Jun 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Supporting Practitioners in Prioritizing User Experience Requirements
Figures
Figures - uploaded by Pariya Kashfi
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Pariya Kashfi
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Admittedly, various UX models have been developed so far, mainly in the field of HCI [4,10]. But such models are often too complex and use terminologies less familiar to practitioners with SE or similar technical backgrounds [11]. In addition, these models do not clearly present the interrelation between UX and other software quality characteristics and their corresponding models (e.g., ISO/IEC 25010). ...
User eXperience (UX) is becoming increasingly important for success of software products. Yet, many companies still face various challenges in their work with UX. Part of these challenges relate to inadequate knowledge and awareness of UX and that current UX models are commonly not practical nor well integrated into existing Software Engineering (SE) models and concepts. Therefore, we present a conceptual UX-aware model of requirements for software development practitioners. This layered model shows the interrelation between UX and functional and quality requirements. The model is developed based on current models of UX and software quality characteristics. Through the model we highlight the main differences between various requirement types in particular essentially subjective and accidentally subjective quality requirements. We also present the result of an initial validation of the model through interviews with 12 practitioners and researchers. Our results show that the model can raise practitioners' knowledge and awareness of UX in particular in relation to requirement and testing activities. It can also facilitate UX-related communication among stakeholders with different backgrounds.
... One example is Quality in Use (QiU) model that according to ISO25010 [14] is "the degree to which a product or system can be used by specific users to meet their needs to achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency, freedom from risk and satisfaction in specific contexts of use." QiU mainly covers the task-related aspect of UX, and does not include much non-task-related quality attributes [19]. Nevertheless, we find such efforts important in taking the first step and lifting researchers' and practitioners' awareness regarding the role of user and user's perception in accepting or rejecting software in general; which traditionally has not been the focus of SE. ...
The user's overall experience and perception of functionalities and qualities
of a product, User eXperience (UX), is becoming increasingly important for
success of software products. Yet, many software companies face challenges with
their UX practices, hence fail to achieve a good UX in their products. Part of
these challenges are rooted in inadequate knowledge and awareness about UX but
also in that UX models are commonly not well integrated with existing software
engineering (SE) models and concepts. Therefore, we present two SE-specific
models of UX for practitioners: (i) a layered model that shows the relation
between functional, quality, and UX requirements, and (ii) a general, UX-aware
software process overview model that shows the additional concepts and
activities that can help achieve a good UX. Validation of the models in
interviews with 12 practitioners and researchers generally found the models
useful for practice; for instance to raise knowledge and awareness about UX,
improve communications regarding UX and facilitating making UX-aware decisions
in the development process. In total, we identified six different areas of use
for the models.
Prioritization is an essential task within requirements engineering to cope with complexity and to establish focus properly. The 3rd Workshop on Requirements Prioritization for customer oriented Software Development (RePriCo'12) focused on requirements prioritization and adjacent themes in the context of customer oriented development of bespoke and standard software. Five submissions have been accepted for the proceedings and for presentation. The report summarizes and points out key findings.
Over the last decade, there has been growing interest in the topic of User Experience (UX). As technology matured, interactive products became not only more useful and usable, but also fashionable, fascinating things to desire. Traditionally, human-computer interaction (HCI) research has developed quality measures for interactive, goal- and task-oriented technology. 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 are looking for a viable alternative to traditional HCI.
Although the usability definition in the ISO 9241-11 standard (ISO, 1998) already contains the notion of satisfaction, UX is encompassing more than just satisfaction. However, UX research is a still young discipline that incorporates researchers from diverse fields with their differing views. It comes as no surprise that UX theory and definitions are somewhat fuzzy and inconclusive. A common understanding has formed around the notion that UX takes a holistic view that encompasses also non-task related issues, is subjective and emphasizes positive aspects of interaction. The theoretical research frameworks that evolved over the years stress three different aspects of UX: non-task related, hedonic aspects, user needs, and affect and emotions.
In parallel with the emerging research frameworks, a range of new measurement methods was developed. Based on the diverging theoretical basis, there are numerous measurement methods, ranging from mood boards to sophisticated questionnaires, from interviews to physiological measurements. A need for systematic measurement and the development of new measures for UX has been identified.
Based on a model of UX that is described in this thesis, two aspects of UX were found to be important to measure: mood and perceived hedonic quality. Mood plays a central, mediating role in product perception and evaluation. Although there are existing methods to measure mood state, they are not applicable to the interaction phase of human product interaction. The hypothesis states that a changing mood state expresses itself in motor behaviour and that the changes in motor behaviour can be measured. A test environment for the recording of computer mouse actions was developed. Two experiments were conducted with inconclusive results. There are indications that motor expression and affective arousal are connected.
The second measurement method is based on first impressions of products, so called “sensory encounters”. Perceived hedonic quality, encompassing aesthetic and symbolic aspects of products, plays an important role in sensory encounters. Hedonic qualities of a product are comprised of the needs for stimulation, identification and evocation. The complex nature of product character has led to the development of a multifactorial measurement method, which applies a projective method with visual and verbal test modules.
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.
Usability can be broadly defined as quality of use. However, even this broad definition neglects the contribution of perceived fun and enjoyment to user satisfaction and preferences. Therefore, we recently suggested a model taking "hedonic quality" (HQ; i.e., non-task-oriented quality aspects such as innovativeness, originality, etc.) and the sub-jective nature of "appealingness" into account (Hassenzahl, Platz, Burmester, & Leh-ner, 2000). In this study, I aimed to further elaborate and test this model. I assessed the user perceptions and evaluations of 3 different visual display units (screen types). The results replicate and qualify the key findings of Hassenzahl, Platz, et al. (2000) and lend further support to the model's notion of hedonic quality and its importance for subjective judgments of product appealingness.
This paper is about how to enhance software applications with engaging interaction. A methodology is presented that provides a structured way to elicit how to turn boring tasks into enjoyable challenges, giving users the possibility to grow or compete, or empowering users to perform sophisticated tasks and as a consequence gain social appreciation. The paper is addressed to practitioners who want to know more about how to make applications more appealing and to researchers, who want to see theories from emotion, motivation and organizational growths successfully put into interactive applications.
In order to create a successful software product and assure its quality, it is not enough to fulfill the functional requirements, it is also crucial to find the right balance among competing quality requirements (QR). An extended, previosluy piloted, interview study was performed to identify specific challenges associated with the selection, trade-off, and management of QR in industrial practice. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with eleven product managers and eleven project leaders from eleven software companies. The contribution of this study is fourfold: First, it compares how QR are handled in two cases, companies working in business-to-business markets, and companies that are working in business-to-consumer markets. These two are also compared in terms of impact on the handling of QRs. Second, it compares the perceptions and priorities of QR by product and project management respectively. Third, it includes an examination of the interdependencies among quality requirements perceived as most important by the practitioners. Fourth, it characterizes the selection and management of QR in down-stream development activities.
Requirements prioritization is recognized as an important but challenging activity in software product development. For a product to be successful, it is crucial to find the right balance among competing quality requirements. Although literature offers many methods for requirements prioritization, the research on prioritization of quality requirements is limited. This study identifies how quality requirements are prioritized in practice at 11 successful companies developing software intensive systems. We found that ad-hoc prioritization and priority grouping of requirements are the dominant methods for prioritizing quality requirements. The results also show that it is common to use customer input as criteria for prioritization but absence of any criteria was also common. The results suggests that quality requirements by default have a lower priority than functional requirements, and that they only get attention in the prioritizing process if decision-makers are dedicated to invest specific time and resources on QR prioritization. The results of this study may help future research on quality requirements to focus investigations on industry-relevant issues.
Essentially a software system's utility is determined by both its functionality and its non-functional characteristics, such as usability, flexibility, performance, interoperability and security. Nonetheless, there has been a lop-sided emphasis in the functionality of the software, even though the functionality is not useful or usable without the necessary non-functional characteristics. In this chapter, we review the state of the art on the treatment of non-functional requirements (hereafter, NFRs), while providing some prospects for future directions.
Interaktive Systeme werden heute zu Erfüllung zahlreicher privater und beruflicher Ziele verwendet. Die Nutzung interaktiver Systeme hat sich zu einem integralen Teil des Alltagslebens entwickelt. Im Gegenzug wird bei der Gestaltung interaktiver Systeme nicht mehr allein auf Nützlichkeit und Benutzbarkeit gezielt, sondern das gesamt Nutzungserleben berücksichtig, um erfolgreich zu sein. Aber was bestimmt ein positives Nutzungserleben? Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage, wir ein Ansatz zum Themenbereich Nutzungserleben der Interaktion mit technische Systemen vorgestellt, der theoretische, methodische, empirische und anwendungs-orientierte Beiträge liefert, um Schwächen bisheriger Herangehensweisen zu überwinden und Empfehlungen zu geben, wie Gestaltungsziele im Bezug auf das Nutzungserleben bereits in frühen Phasen des Entwicklungsprozesses interaktiver Systeme berücksichtigt werden können. Ein Rahmenmodell des Nutzungserlebens definiert aufgabenbezogenen und nicht-aufgabenbezogenen Qualitätswahrnehmungen sowie emotionale Nutzerreaktionen als zentrale Komponenten des Nutzungserlebens. Die wahrgenommene Nützlichkeit und Benutzbarkeit werden als Aspekte aufgabenbezogener Qualitäten diskutiert. Ein hierarchischer Ansatz bezüglich nicht-aufgabenbezogener Qualitätswahrnehmungen berücksichtigt drei Kategorien: ästhetische, symbolische und motivationale Aspekte. Ein Multi-Komponenten-Ansatz emotionaler Nutzerreaktionen wird vorgeschlagen der fünf Aspekte von Emotionen definiert: subjektive Gefühle, physiologische Reaktionen, motorischer Ausdruck, kognitive Bewertungen und Verhaltenstendenzen. Die Eigenschaften eines interaktiven Systems, Charakteristika des Nutzers und Kontextparameter werden als Einflussfaktoren auf das Nutzungserleben diskutiert, während Gesamtbewertungen, die Wahl zwischen alternativen Systemen und das Nutzungsverhalten als Konsequenzen des Nutzungserlebens berücksichtigt werden. Die zusammenhänge zwischen diesen Komponenten des Rahmenmodell werde im Details beleuchtet und bilden die Basis für die empirischen Forschungsfragen. Die Messung nicht-aufgabenbezogener Qualitätswahrnehmungen und emotionaler Nutzerreaktionen steht im Mittelpunkt des methodischen Teilabschnitts. Sammlungen von Methoden werden für beide Komponenten des Nutzungserlebens vorgeschlagen, die im empirischen Teil Anwendung finden. Zusammengefasst untermauern die Ergebnisse dreier empirischer Studien zu tragbaren Audiogeräten die Annahmen des Rahmenmodells. Alle drei Kategorien von Einflussfaktoren haben einen signifikanten Effekt auf das Nutzungserleben. Während Systemeigenschaften direkt die Wahrnehmung aufgabenbezogener und nicht-aufgabenbezogener Qualitäten beeinflussen, wirken Nutzercharakteristika und Kontextparameter auf die Zusammenhänge der Komponenten des Nutzungserlebens und ihren Einfluss auf die Konsequenzen des Nutzungserlebens. Im Bezug auf die Zusammenhänge der Komponenten zeigt sich, dass (1) aufgabenbezogene und nicht-aufgabenbezogene Qualitäten unabhängig voneinander wahrgenommen werden, (2) emotionale Reaktionen durch aufgabenbezogene und nicht-aufgabenbezogene Qualitäten bestimmt sind und (3) die Konsequenzen des Nutzungserlebens von allen drei Komponenten beeinflusst werden. Schlussfolgernd werden die theoretischen, methodischen und empirischen Ergebnisse zu Empfehlungen, um Gestaltungsziele bezüglich des Nutzungserlebens während des Entwicklungsprozesses berücksichtigen zu können, zusammengefasst. Die Hinweise beziehen sich auf Analyse-, Gestaltungs- und Evaluations-Aktivitäten.
It is commonly acknowledged that the management of quality requirements is an important and difficult part of the requirements engineering process, which plays a critical role in software product development. In order to identify current research about quality requirements, a systematic literature review was performed. This paper identifies available empirical studies of quality requirements. A database and manual search identified 1,560 studies, of which 18 were found to be empirical research studies of high quality, and relevant to the research questions. The review investigates what is currently known about the benefits and limitations of methods of quality requirements. In addition, the state of research is presented for five identified areas: elicitation, dependencies, quality requirements metrics, cost estimations, and prioritization.