• Like
  • Save
Scoping user experience
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Scoping user experience

on

  • 1,225 views

CHI 2009 paper study share.

CHI 2009 paper study share.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,225
Views on SlideShare
1,225
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
7
Downloads
33
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Scoping user experience Scoping user experience Presentation Transcript

    • Understanding,  Scoping  and  Defining   ì  User  eXperience:  A  Survey  Approach  CHI  2009  
    • During my 4-year Research life…Kai-­‐Yin  Cheng,  PhD  Candidate,  GINM,  NTU  Advisor  :  Dr.  Bing-­‐Yu  Chen  (Robin)  
    • SmartPlayer AmbientMemento GUI WIMP
    • MemoIcon iCon Multitouch Tangible User Interface
    • SocialAlbum RailwayVis Social Interaction Information Visualization
    • MusicSpace Robicon Music Interaction Human Robot Interaction
    • PUB/SonarWatch Grab-Carry-Release/ARM Kinetic User Interface Augmented Reality
    • TipTapTones GaussSense Mobile Learning Magnetic User Interface
    • ARTDEMO Exhibition
    • The value of HCI…
    • Enhance UserExperience
    • Search:  User  Experience  
    • Book:  User  Experience  
    • What’s the definitionof User Experience
    • One of my friends’ viewpoint
    • Product  
    • User  Interface  
    • User  Experience  
    • Dig for the real answers…
    • Things become more complicated
    • Do  we  speak  the  same  language?   Who’s  UX?  
    • Search  the  definition  in  Wikipedia….  
    • Donald  Norman  Donald  Norman!  
    • CHI  2009  paper  found!The  newest  reference!  
    • What’s the differencebetween User Experienceand Service Experience
    • What’s the differencebetween User Experience and Experience
    • What’s notUser Experience
    • Understanding,  Scoping  and  Defining   ì  User  eXperience:  A  Survey  Approach  CHI  2009  
    • Authors   Effie  L-­‐C.  Law     Virpi  Roto     University  of  Leicester     Nokia  Research  Center    Marc  Hassenzahl     Arnold  P.O.S.  Vermeeren     Joke  Kort    Folkwang  University     DelK  University  of  Technology     TNO  ICT  
    • 系統可接受性 Traditional  Usability  Framework   實際可接受性 社會可接受性 n ou gh  成本 Not  e 其他 有用性 (Usefulness) 兼容性 可靠性 實用性 可用性 (Utility) (Usability) 可學習性 效率 可記憶性 出錯 滿意度(Learnability) (Efficiency) (Memorability) (Errors) (Satisfaction)
    • Donald  Normal  –  Emo-onal  Design  UX  highlight  non-­‐utilization  aspect  
    • UX  highlight  non-­‐utilization  aspect   On ly  o ne    of   UX  di men si o n Donald  Normal  –  Emo-onal  Design  
    • Challenge  It  is  so  challenging  to  reach  a  common  defini-on  of  UX.   User  affect   Non-­‐uOlizaOon  sensaOon   AestheOc     hedonic   emoOonal   usability  
    • •  UX  is  associated  with  a  broad  range  of  fuzzy  and  dynamic   concepts,  including  emo-onal,  affec-ve,  experien-al,   hedonic,  and  aesthe-c  variables    •  The  unit  of  analysis  for  UX  is  too  malleable,  ranging  from  a   single  aspect  of  an  individual  end-­‐user’s  interacOon  with  a   standalone  applicaOon  to  all  aspects  of  mul-ple  end-­‐users’   interacOons  with  the  company  and  its  merging  of  services   from  mulOple  disciplines    •  the  landscape  of  UX  research  is  fragmented  and  complicated   by  diverse  theoreOcal  models  with  different  foci  such  as   pragma-sm,  emo-on,  affect,  experience,  value,  pleasure,   beauty,  hedonic  quality,  etc.    
    • ì  The  benefits  of  consensus    •  A  definiOon  will  facilitate  scien-fic  discourse,  especially  when   scholars  from  mulOple  disciplines  are  involved;  otherwise,   communicaOon  breakdowns  are  bound  to  occur.  •  It  will  enable  managing  pracOcal  applicaOons  of  UX,  for  which   UX  will  need  to  be  opera-onalized  and  evaluated  against   measurements.  •  It  will  help  the  teaching  of  the  noOon  UX  with  the   fundamental  understanding  of  its  nature  and  scope.    
    • 2006  NordiCHI   2007  HCI   2008  CHI  SIG  session  
    • ISO  9241   “A persons perceptionsand responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service." ISO 9241
    • Questionnaire   UX  Statements  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   UX DefiniOons  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   Your  Background  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………  
    • Questionnaire   UX  Statements  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   UX DefiniOons  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   Your  Background  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………  
    • Surveys  •  Round  1:  2008/2/E  -­‐-­‐  2008/3/M  •  Round  2:  2008/4/M  -­‐-­‐  2008/5/E  •  275  respondents   •  82  females  /  137  males   •  36.5  years  old  (avg.)  [18~59]   •  25  countries   •  Finland  (48)   •  USA  (43)   Western  viewpoint   •  UK  (36)   •  Netherland  (36)  
    • Profiles  •  UCD:  9  years  (avg.)  •  UX:  8  years  (avg.)  •  Industry:  UCD  =  UX  •  Academia:  UCD  !=  UX  
    • Questionnaire   UX  Statements  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   UX DefiniOons  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   Your  Background  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………  
    • Statements  
    • Statements  Strong  agreement  
    • Statements  Between  mild  and  strong  agreement  
    • Statements  Mild  agreement  
    • Statements  Mild  and  strong  disagreement  
    • “In summary, the respondents Conclusion  of  Surveys   understand UX as dynamic, context- dependent, and subjective, stemmingfrom a broad range of potential benefits users may derive from a product. However, UX is not construed assomething overly subjectivistic, where prediction of and design for experience would become futile. UX is seen as something new, which must be a part of the HCI domain and be grounded in UCD practices."
    • •  In  summary,  differences  in  the  respondents’  background   Agreement  Levels  and  Background   variables  did  not  strongly  influence  their  agreement  on   the  statements.  (F-­‐test,  10  background  variables)    •  The  higher  their  experOse  in  UCD/UX,  the  less  the   respondents  agreed  on  the  subjecOve  nature  of  UX   People  who  have  worked  for  years  in  UCD  or  UX  are   likely  to  become  aware  of  common  characterisOcs  in   product  requirements  and  to  gain  similar  experiences   across  a  number  of  yet  different  projects.  It  may  then   make  user  experience  less  subjecOve.  •  The  higher  the  experOse  in  UX  the  less  the  respondents   agreed  on  the  need  for  a  standard  definiOon.  An  explicit   definiOon  may  be  viewed  as  a  communicaOon  tool  for   non-­‐experts  rather  than  central  to  experts.  
    • Agreement  Levels  and  Background  •  The  Finnish  respondents  agreed  the  most  on  the   subjecOvity  noOon  of  UX  (statement  6),  whereas  those   from  the  USA  agreed  the  least.    •  Likewise,  the  Finnish  respondents  agreed  the  most  on  UX   as  emoOonal  apachment  (statement  20),  whereas  their   counterparts  from  the  USA  agreed  the  least.    •  The  Finnish  respondents  more  strongly  agreed  on  a   qualitaOve  approach  to  UX  (statement  22)  as  compared   to  the  respondents  from  the  UK  or  USA.  
    • Questionnaire   UX  Statements  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   UX DefiniOons  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………   Your  Background  1.………………………………………………  2.………………………………………………  3.………………………………………………  
    • Five  Definitions  concluded  from  •  The  five  definiOons  used  in  the  quesOonnaire  were   selected  from  a  larger  pool  of  definiOons.  This  pool  was   created  by  performing  a  Google  web  search,  and  by   searching  Google  scholar  as  well  as  the  ACM  Digital   Library.  The  following  keyword  combinaOons  were  used:   “User  experience”  AND  “definiOon”;  “User  experience  is   about”,  “Glossary”  AND  “user  experience”.  In  the   Google  web  search  the  following  addiOonal  keyword   combinaOons  were  used:  “End-­‐user  experience”  AND   “definiOon”,  and  “Glossary”  AND  “Product  experience”.   Unpublished  definiOons  from  Nokia  and  Philips  were   also  included  in  the  pool.  
    • Five  Definitions  
    • Five  Definitions  
    • Definition  Preference  108  worked  in  industry,  51  academia  or  49  both/between,    and  2  did  not  provide  this  specific  data.  
    • Definition  Preference  Industry  prefer  
    • Definition  Preference  Academia  prefer  
    • Definition  Preference  Academia  prefer  
    • Definition  Preference  
    • Definition  Preference  
    • Comments  on  the  picked  definitions  Frequency  higher  than  10   Descending  order  
    • Four  aspects  Temporal:  This  pertains  to  controversial  arguments  on  when  UX  is  brought  about:  before,  during  or  aKer  interacOng  with  a  system.  Some  respondents  stressed  that  the  Omeframe  should  cover  the  past,  present,  and  future.      Framework:    UX  should  be  understood  through  the  conceptual  lens  of  a  community  of  pracOce,  which  iteraOvely  defines  constructs  germane  to  UX  via  its  acOviOes  such  as  designing  and  criOquing  objects  of  interest.  Discipline  of  interacOon  design,  UCD  philosophy,  hedonic/pragmaOc  model  [5],  and  value-­‐based  design  [2]  are  also  relevant  frameworks  to  consider.  Besides,  parOculariOes  of  applicaOon  contexts  such  as  business  models  should  inform  how  UX  is  defined.  Elements:  Measurable  aspects  of  UX  such  as  physiological  responses  and  user  task  performances  (cf.  tradiOonal  usability  metrics)  are  considered  relevant.  So  are  other  subjecOve,  psychological  constructs  like  passion,  types  of  affects,  and  consumer  percepOon.  It  is  also  important  to  include  in  the  definiOon  for  whom  and  where  it  is  supposed  to  be  used.      Scoping:  Some  respondents  tended  to  understand  UX  in  terms  of  a  broad  scope,  stretching  beyond  interacOon.  Others  remarked  that  UX  is  not  necessarily  good  or  narrowly  equated  to  a  cogniOve  process  manipulated  by  designers.    
    • Four  aspects  Temporal:  This  pertains  to  controversial  arguments  on  when  UX  is  brought  about:  before,  during  or  aKer  interacOng  with  a  system.  Some  respondents  stressed  that  the  Omeframe  should  cover  the  past,  present,  and  future.      Framework:    UX  should  be  understood  through  the  conceptual  lens  of  a  community  of  pracOce,  which  iteraOvely  defines  constructs  germane  to  UX  via  its  acOviOes  such  as  designing  and  criOquing  objects  of  interest.  Discipline  of  interacOon  design,  UCD  philosophy,  hedonic/pragmaOc  model  [5],  and  value-­‐based  design  [2]  are  also  relevant  frameworks  to  consider.  Besides,  parOculariOes  of  applicaOon  contexts  such  as  business  models  should  inform  how  UX  is  defined.  Elements:  Measurable  aspects  of  UX  such  as  physiological  responses  and  user  task  performances  (cf.  tradiOonal  usability  metrics)  are  considered  relevant.  So  are  other  subjecOve,  psychological  constructs  like  passion,  types  of  affects,  and  consumer  percepOon.  It  is  also  important  to  include  in  the  definiOon  for  whom  and  where  it  is  supposed  to  be  used.      Scoping:  Some  respondents  tended  to  understand  UX  in  terms  of  a  broad  scope,  stretching  beyond  interacOon.  Others  remarked  that  UX  is  not  necessarily  good  or  narrowly  equated  to  a  cogniOve  process  manipulated  by  designers.    
    • Scoping:  Social  or  Individual  
    • Scoping:  Social  or  Individual  We  agree  that  other  people  may  influence  the  experience  a  lot  before,  during,  and  aKer  interacOng  with  a  product.  However,  only  an  individual  can  have  feelings  and  experiences.  A  group  can  experience  together,  but  the  experience  we  are  invesOgaOng  is  sOll  inside  each  individual  of  that  group.  The  community  forms  the  social  context  that  affects  user  experience  together  with  other  contextual  factors:  physical  technology  and  task  context  (cf.  ISO13407:  1999).  As  agreed  by  most  respondents,  the  contextual  factors  are  important  influencers  of  UX  (statement  5).      
    • Scoping:  Brand  Experience  Brand  experience  includes  not  only  interacOon  with  the  branded  products,  but  interacOon  with  the  company,  its  products  and  services.  Brand  experience  is  a  broader  concept  than  user  experience.  Brand  experience  affects  the  user  experience  when  you  interact  with  the  product:  you  forgive  flaws  for  a  loved  brand  and  blame  loudly  the  flaws  in  the  products  of  a  bad  brand.  If  you  have  never  used  a  product,  we  think  all  we  can  discuss  is  brand  experience  or  perhaps  product  experience,  but  not  user  experience.  Once  you  do  interact  with  a  product  the  user  experience  typically  affects  the  brand  experience.  Everything  before  the  first-­‐hand  encounter  with  a  product  just  builds  up  expectaOons  for  the  user  experience  or  affects  the  brand  experience.        
    • Scoping:  Product  Experience  Product  experience  has  a  narrower  scope  than  user  experience,  as  not  all  objects  are  commercial  products.  More  and  more  products  do  not  work  in  isolaOon,  but  are  dependent  on  external  systems.  We  are  definitely  interested  in  interacOons  with  any  kind  of  items  and  systems,  whether  commercial  or  non-­‐commercial.  If  we  want  to  emphasize  that  experience  is  subjecOve  (“I  had  great  experience  using  this”)  rather  than  a  product  apribute  (“this  product  has  excellent  user  experience”),  we  recommend  using  the  term  user  experience  over  product  experience.            
    • Scoping:  Service  Experience  Service  experience  in  a  broad  sense  can  refer  to  face-­‐to-­‐face  services  (e.g.  in  a  restaurant  or  repair  point),  public  services  (e.g.  roads),  digital  services  on  the  Internet  servers  (e.g.  gambling  site),  or  anything  in  between.  Because  of  the  wide  variety  of  services,  we  need  to  be  careful  when  talking  about  service  experience.  We  argue  that  face-­‐to-­‐face  services  are  not  in  the  focus  of  user  experience,  because  humans  do  not  have  a  user  interface  and  so  one  cannot  ‘use’  humans.  Customer  services  related  to  a  product  do  affect  the  overall  UX  of  the  product,  similar  to  reading  a  test  report  of  the  product  in  a  magazine.  If  a  company  provides  an  online  trouble-­‐shooOng  tool  for  problems  with  the  product,  we  can  examine  the  user  experience  of  using  that  tool  separately  from  the  user  experience  of  using  the  product  itself.  So  the  product  user  experience  is  separate  from  the  user  experience  of  the  product–related  service.              
    • Scoping:  User  Experience  We  recommend  the  term  user  experience  to  be  scoped  to  products,  systems,  services,  and  objects  that  a  person  interacts  with  through  a  user  interface.  These  can  be  tools,  knowledge  systems,  or  entertainment  services,  for  example.      
    • ISO  9241   “A persons perceptionsand responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service." ISO 9241
    • “A persons perceptions and ISO  9241   responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service." The  definiOon  focuses  UX  on  the  immediate  consequences  of  use   (percepOons  and  responses)  and  also  introduces  the  concept  of   ‘anOcipated  use’.    Some  respondents  commented  that  UX  can  or  even  should  be  invesOgated  during  and  aKer,  even  long  aKer,  the  interacOon.  Industry  is  typically  interested  in  the  long-­‐  term  user  experience,  as  temporary  feelings  are  less  important  than  the  overall  product  user  experience  when  people  evaluate  products.    
    • “A persons perceptions and ISO  9241   responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service." The  definiOon  focuses  UX  on  the  immediate  consequences  of  use   (percepOons  and  responses)  and  also  introduces  the  concept  of   ‘anOcipated  use’.    This  suggests  that  clarificaOons  are  also  needed  for  the  term  ‘anOcipated  use’,  especially  its  relaOon  to  user  expectaOons.      As  UX  is  strongly  affected  by  contextual  factors,  the  authors  see  it  important  to  vividly  imagine  use  cases  with  contextual  factors  to  evoke  realisOc  experiences  out  of  anOcipated  use.      For  pracOOoners,  it  is  essenOal  to  evaluate  UX  already  in  the  early  phases  of  product  development,  so  methods  for  studying  UX  of  anOcipated  use  without  an  actual  working  system  will  be  a  very  valuable  support  for  their  work.    
    • “A persons perceptions and ISO  9241   responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service."Specifically,  self-­‐made  or  natural  objects  do  not  fit  into  the  list,  and  ‘service’  is  a  term  too  broad.  According  to  our  views,  user  experience  focuses  on  interacOon  between  a  person  and  something  that  has  a  user  interface.    
    • In summary, the respondents Conclusion   understand UX as dynamic, context- dependent, and subjective, stemmingfrom a broad range of potential benefits users may derive from a product. UX is seen as something new, which must be a part of the HCI domain and be grounded in UCD practices.Our survey findings suggest that yearsof experience and work place seem not to have a strong impact on the respondents’ perceptions of the statements or definitions.  some socio- cultural factors seem relevant.