Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Embrace UX and adapt your evaluation methods accordingly (CanUX 2015 - short talk)

6,758 views

Published on

Short talk presented at the CanUX 2015 conference (Ottawa).
"Embrace UX and adapt your evaluation methods accordingly!"
Carine Lallemand, University of Luxembourg

Published in: Design

Embrace UX and adapt your evaluation methods accordingly (CanUX 2015 - short talk)

  1. 1. Embrace UX… and adapt your evaluation methods accordingly! Carine Lallemand University of Luxembourg @carilall
  2. 2. -Prof. Marc Hassenzahl (2013) « Strangely, while I find the proposition to consider the experience before the thing quite a radical change, many practitioners and academics of HCI happily embrace experience – however, without changing much in their approach. »
  3. 3. To think about experience first, we have to know what experience is about This knowledge has an impact on design practice
  4. 4. The nature and complexity of UX involves a deep change in the methods we use UX is highly dynamic The memory of an experience matters more than the experience itself UX is highly contextual UX is more than usability1 2 3 4
  5. 5. UX is more than usability Thüring & Mahlke, 2007 A system’s perceived attractiveness is based on the perception of its pragmatic and hedonic qualities System User Context Interaction characteristics Perception of non-instrumental qualities Emotions Perception of instrumental qualities Components of User Experience Consequences overall evaluation, acceptance, intention to use, choice of alternatives 1
  6. 6. System User Context Interaction characteristics Perception of non-instrumental qualities Emotions Perception of instrumental qualities Components of User Experience Consequences overall evaluation, acceptance, intention to use, choice of alternatives Thüring & Mahlke, 2007 Usability scales (SUS, QUIS, SUMI, WAMMI, etc) traditional usability questionnaires focus on pragmatic aspects only… this is not enough! 1 UX is more than usability
  7. 7. We need to assess both pragmatic and hedonic perceived qualities of a system AttrakDiff scale (Hassenzahl et al., 2003) User Experience Questionnaire (Laugwitz et al., 2008) meCUE scale (Minge & Riedel, 2013) 1
  8. 8. UX is highly contextual Context User System Social context Technical context Temporal context Task context Physical context Time 2
  9. 9. user testing in a controlled environment expert evaluation traditional evaluation methods assess UX in an artificial environment Context User System Time 2 UX is highly contextual
  10. 10. We need to evaluate UX in a natural or realistic setting Field testing and observation "In-sitro" user testing (Kjeldskov et al., 2004) Experience sampling (Csikszentmihalyi , 1990) 2
  11. 11. Before usage Anticipated UX Imagining experience During usage Momentary UX Experiencing After usage Episodic UX Reflecting on an experience Over time Cumulative UX Recollecting multiple periods of use When: What: How: UX White Paper, 2010 There are several time spans of UX UX starts before the interaction and doesn’t end immediately after the interaction UX is highly dynamic 3
  12. 12. traditional evaluation methods focus on momentary UX… this is not enough! UX White Paper, 2010 user testing psychophysiological measurements Before usage Anticipated UX Imagining experience During usage Momentary UX Experiencing After usage Episodic UX Reflecting on an experience Over time Cumulative UX Recollecting multiple periods of use When: What: How: UX is highly dynamic 3
  13. 13. The memory of an experience matters more than the experience itself Episodic UX is a reconstruction, a remembered experience biased by cognitive processes The momentary experience is not as important as the way it is remembered. It’s the memory of an experience that influences user’s behavior and the way he talks or recommends the product to someone 4
  14. 14. We need to assess UX across time and to focus on the memory of experiences UX Curve (Kujala et al., 2011) Diary methods Retrospective UX assessment Analytic scale (Karapanos et al., 2010) Longitudinal study 3 4
  15. 15. Established evaluation methods only explore a limited part of UX single user testing sessions psychophysiological measurements expert evaluationusability scales As we gain a deeper understanding of UX, we have to adapt the methods we use to design or evaluate it.
  16. 16. You already embraced UX… will you now consider changing something in your approach? -Prof. Marc Hassenzahl (2013) « …many practitioners and academics of HCI happily embrace experience – however, without changing much in their approach. »
  17. 17. References Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. The psychology of optimal experience, Harper and Row. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F. (2003) AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In: Ziegler, J., Szwillus, G. (eds.) Mensch & Computer 2003. Interaktion in Bewegung, pp. 187–196. B.G. Teubner, Stuttgart. / AttrakDiff. Internet Resource http://www.attrakdiff.de. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Martens, J. (2010). Measuring the Dynamics of Remembered Experience Over Time. Interacting with Computers, 22 (5), doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.003 Karapanos, E., Martens, J.-B., Hassenzahl, M. (2010) On the Retrospective Assessment of Users’ Experiences Over Time: Memory or Actuality?. CHI’10 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. Atlanta, ACM Press. Kjeldskov, J., & Skov, M. B. (2007). Studying Usability In Sitro: Simulating Real World Phenomena in Controlled Environments, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 22 (1-2). Kujala,S., Roto,V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila,K., Karapanos,E., & Sinnelä, A. (2011). UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interacting with Computers, 23, 473-483. Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., & Koenig, V. (2015). User experience: A concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 35-48. Lallemand, C. (2015). Towards Consolidated Methods for the Design and Evaluation of User Experience. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Luxembourg. https://publications.uni.lu/handle/10993/21463 Laugwitz, B, Held, T., & Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and evaluation of a user expe- rience questionnaire. In A. Holzinger (Ed.) USAB 2008, LNCS 5298. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Minge, M., & Riedel, L. (2013). meCUE – Ein modularer Fragebogen zur Erfassung des Nutzungserlebens. Presented at Mensch & Computer 2013. Roto, V., Law, E., Vermeeren, A., & Hoonhout, J. (2011). User Experience White Paper: Bringing clarity to the concept of user experience. Result from Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience, Finland. Thüring, M., & Mahlke, S. (2007). Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human-technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 253-264.

×