Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Ux poster
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Ux poster

99
views

Published on

Poster from CHI 2008 Work-In-Progress paper: …

Poster from CHI 2008 Work-In-Progress paper:

Karapanos, E., Hassenzahl, M. & Martens, J.-B. (2008) User experience over time. CHI’08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. Florence, ACM Press. DOI: 10.1145/1358628.1358891 - See more at: http://ekarapanos.com/publications.html#sthash.ST0Cs5Pq.dpuf

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
99
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Evangelos Karapanos, Marc Hassenzahl, Jean-Bernard Martens User Experience over Time Overview The studyThe way we experience and evaluate interactive products develops • 10 subjects (4 female)over time. An exploratory study aimed at understanding how users • uWand, a novel pointing device for Interactive TV contextform evaluative judgments during the first experiences with a prod-uct as well as after four weeks of use. Goodness, an evaluative judg- • 4 weeks of use st thment related to the overall satisfaction with the product, was largely • 2 measurements, 1 week—4 weekformed on the basis of pragmatic aspects (i.e. utility and usability) • Attrakdiff 2 Questionnaireduring the first experiences; after four weeks of use identification - Pragmatic (e.g. simple, clear, predictable)(i.e. what the products expresses about its owner) became a domi-nant aspect of how good a product is. Surprisingly, beauty judg- - Stimulation (e.g. exciting, original, innovative)ments were largely affected by stimulation (e.g. novelty) during the - Identification (e.g. presentable, classy, professional)first experiences. Over time stimulation lost its power to make theproduct beautiful in the users’ eyes. st th 1 week 4 week new innovative Clear Predictable Good Manageable creative Integrating courageous Presentable original Human Direct Practical Direct valuable closertopeople Human inclusive Valuable exciting Good Brings me Challenging Exciting closer to people Professional Integrating Courageous Professional Predictable simple simple Beautiful Inclusive Practical Manageable innovative New Original challenging classy Classy Clear Creative Beautiful Pragmatic Pragmatic Stimulation Stimulation Identification presentable Identification Figure 1 2D view on the 3-dimensional visualization of distances between quality attributes, beauty and goodness. st Users’ perceptions during the 1 week of use (left) and after 4 weeks of use (right).Analysis Distances Dij = 1 - |Rij| between the individual attrib- ity problems; at the same time they restrain themselves only to partutes i and j was derived from the correlation Rij between the ratings of the product’s functionality that is most attractive to them. Theon the two attributes. The obtained distances were subsequently value of the product is now derived on a different basis, being own- st ership-based rather than usage-based. Social aspects (i.e. identifi-visualized in three dimensions (Stress value S=0.19 1 week; th cation) became more prominent here.S=0.15 4 week) using the Multidimensional Scaling tool XGms. Hi-erarchical clustering (with minimum variance) was applied to the pre- For beauty judgments however, the results seemed more divergent.dicted distances in the three-dimensional space. While Hassenzahl (2004) found identification to be the major deter- minant of beauty judgments, we found stimulation to be even moreConclusion As far as goodness judgments are concerned, we prominent than identification in the first experiences.partially replicated Hassenzahl’s (2004) results. During the first ex- The question remains: is beauty solely an appearance-based judg-periences pragmatic aspects were the most prominent determinants ment, largely affected by the products’ ability to communicate a fa-of goodness. Here, users are still exploring the functionality of the vorable image about its owner, as Hassenzahl (2004) suggested, orproduct, trying out new things and experiencing usability problems. does it encompass other aspects of the products, e.g. its perceivedAs people get used to using the product they learn to handle usabil- novelty or a stimulating interaction?