1. Designing for
user experience
in smart environments
identifying users' needs in early concept creation phase
Master’s thesis
Minni Kanerva
Industrial and Strategic Design
Department of Design
Aalto University
School of Design

3. ABSTRACT
Author
Minni Kanerva
Year of publication
2011
Department
Department of Design
Degree programme
Industrial and Strategic Design
Title
Designing for user experience in smart environments - identifying users' needs in early concept creation phase
Type of work
Master’s thesis
Language
English
Number of pages
74 + 6 appendix pages
Abstract
Information and communication technologies are increasingly embedded in our environment and in the future we
might be living in smart environments which understand our behaviours and with which we are in direct interaction
instead of interacting with traditional information appliances. This will change the relationship between human and
technology substantially and it has effects on both our experience of environment and the design of it. The theories of
user experience are nowadays concentrating on the user experience of single products and understand environment
only in terms of a context which affects the experience. When interaction is moving from products increasingly towards
entire smart environments the environment must be taken to the focus of user experience research.
The goal of this thesis was to define the characteristics of user experience in smart environments and its implications
to design. Moreover, the goal was to sketch a vision for an interface concept in smart environments. My research
questions were: 1. What are the characteristics of user experience that are specific to smart environments? 2. What
are users' needs and expectations for interaction in different types of smart environments? My study situates in the
fields of use experience research and human-computer interaction.
I investigated the experience in smart environments with a literature review on which I based my conception of user
experience in smart environments. The research indicates that the user experience in smart environments manifests
itself in two levels: as an experience of the smart products and services in the environment which is the case of user
experience and as an experience of the environment which is the case of experience in a more holistic sense. Based
on this it can be concluded that when designing either smart products or entire smart services, both of these levels of
experience must be considered.
I charted the users’ needs and expectations with focus group discussions and “idea cards” (postcards with which the
users sent Father Christmas a wish for a smart service they needed). The studies showed that the users want smart
environments primarily to make everyday life tasks easier by reducing the effort in them. The most prominent needs
were efficacy, control and independence. Interaction was expected to be natural, easy and well adaptable for different
situations and needs. Furthermore, differences in users’ needs were discovered between different types of
environment. I compared home, office and public environments, and the two most different from each other were
home and public environment. In the home environment independence was emphasised when in the public
environment it was security.
I used the information from the literature review and the user research results in sketching an initial vision of the
Space Browser which is intended as an interface application for smart environments. The purpose of the browser is to
bring controllability into the interaction with a complex smart environment and promote coherence of the experience in
these environments. The browser is meant to be used in all types of environments.
This thesis takes a broad view on user experience from different angles and contributes to the UX research field by
increasing knowledge about user experience in smart environments. It also provides insights into the users' needs and
expectations towards different types of smart environments. The results of the study can be used in design practice on
both product and environment levels.
Keywords
user experience, smart environment, design for user experience, human-computer interaction

4. TIIVISTELMÄ
Tekijä
Minni Kanerva
Työn julkaisuvuosi
2011
Laitos
Muotoilun laitos
Koulutusohjelma
Teollisen muotoilun koulutusohjelma
Työn nimi
Käyttäjäkokemuksen suunnittelu älykkäissä ympäristöissä – käyttäjien tarpeiden tunnistaminen konseptisuunnittelun
varhaisessa vaiheessa
Opinnäytteen tyyppi
Taiteen maisterin opinnäyte
Kieli
englanti
Sivumäärä
74 + 6 liitesivua
Tiivistelmä
Tietotekniikka on yhä enemmän sulautuneena ympäristöömme ja tulevaisuudessa saatamme elää älykkäissä
ympäristöissä, jotka ymmärtävät toimintaamme ja joiden kanssa vuorovaikutamme suoraan perinteisten
tietotekniikkalaitteiden sijasta. Tämä muuttaa ihmisen ja ympäristön suhdetta olennaisesti ja sillä on vaikutuksia niin
kokemukseemme ympäristöstä kuin sen suunnitteluun. Käyttäjäkokemuksen teoriat keskittyvät nykyään yksittäisten
tuotteiden käyttökokemukseen käsittäen ympäristön ainoastaan kokemukseen vaikuttavana kontekstina. Kun
vuorovaikutus siirtyy tuotteista yhä enemmän kokonaisiin älykkäisiin ympärisöihin, on ympäristö otettava keskiöön
käyttäjäkokemuksen tutkimuksessa.
Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää käyttäjäkokemuksen luonnetta älykkäissä ympäristöissä ja sen seurauksia
suunnittelulle. Lisäksi tavoitteena oli hahmotella visio älykkään ympäristön käyttöliittymäkonseptista.
Tutkimuskysymykseni olivat: 1. Mitkä ovat älykkäille ympäristöille erityiset käyttäjäkokemuksen piirteet? 2. Mitkä ovat
käyttäjien tarpeet ja odotukset vuorovaikutuksesta erityyppisissä älykkäissä ympäristöisä? Työni sijoittuu
käyttäjäkokemuksen sekä ihmisen ja teknologian vuorovaikutuksen tutkimusaloihin.
Selvitin älykkäiden ympäristöjen kokemusta kirjallisuuskatsauksella, minkä pohjalta muodostin käsityksen älykkäiden
ympäristöjen käyttäjäkokemuksesta. Tutkimustieto osoittaa, että älykkäiden ympäristöjen käyttäjäkokemus ilmenee
kahdella tasolla: ympäristössä olevien älykkäiden tuotteiden ja palveluiden kokemuksena, jolloin kyseessä on
käyttäjäkokemus sekä ympäristön kokemuksena, jolloin on kyseessä kokemus kokonaisvaltaisemmassa mielessä.
Tästä voi tehdä johtopäätöksen, että niin älykkäitä tuotteita kuin kokonaisia älykkäitä ympäristöjä suunniteltaessa on
otettava huomioon nämä molemmat kokemuksen tasot.
Käyttäjien tarpeita ja odotuksia kartoitin fokusryhmäkeskusteluilla ja ”ideakorteilla” (postikortteja, joilla käyttäjät
lähettivät joulupukille toivomuksen tarvitsemastaan älykkään ympäristön palvelusta). Tutkimukset osoittivat, että
käyttäjät haluavat älykkäiden ympäristöjen pääsääntöisesti helpottavan arkielämän askareita tehden niistä
vaivattomampia. Eniten esiin nousseet tarpeet olivat tehokkuus, hallinta ja itsenäisyys. Vuorovaikutuksen odotettiin
olevan luonnollista ja helppoa sekä eri tilanteisiin ja tarpeisiin mukautuvaa. Lisäksi erityyppisten ympäristöjen kesken
oli havaittavissa eroja käyttäjien tarpeissa. Vertailussa olivat koti-, toimisto- ja julkinen ympäristö, joista koti- ja julkinen
ympäristö poikkesivat toisistaan eniten. Kotiympäristössä korostui itsenäisyys ja julkisessa ympäristössä turvallisuus.
Käytin kirjallisuuskatsauksesta saatuja tietoja ja käyttäjätutkimuksen tuloksia hyväkseni hahmotellessani alustavaa
visiota älykkään ympäristön käyttöliittymäsovellukseksi tarkoitetusta ympäristön selainkonseptista. Selaimen
tarkoituksena on tuoda hallittavuutta vuorovaikutukseen monimutkaisessa älykkäässä ympäristössä ja edesauttaa
yhtenäisen käyttäjäkokemuksen muodostumista näissä ympäristöissä. Selain on tarkoitettu käytettäväksi
kaikentyppisissä ympäristöissä.
Tutkimukseni luo kattavan kuvan käyttäjäkokemukseen eri näkökulmista ja lisää tietämystä älykkäiden ympäristöjen
käyttäjäkokemuksesta sekä käyttäjien tarpeista ja odotuksista älykkäitä ympäristöjä kohtaan. Tuloksia voidaan käyttää
hyödyksi suunnittelussa sekä tuote- että ympäristötasolla.
Avainsanat
käyttäjäkokemus, älykäs ympäristö, käyttäjäkokemuksen suunnittelu, ihmisen ja teknologian vuorovaikutus

5. PREFACE
Two years ago I started at VTT as a research trainee. One of my tasks was to write my
master’s thesis as part of some project but there was no ready subject for me. As everything
was very new to me I spent the first half year mainly working in different projects and
getting to know the world of research and VTT. During the early times I remember coming
across a strange combination of letters: “UX” and wondering what on earth it meant. I had
to ask from someone.
Finally, a topic was found in the DIEM project and my exploration into user experience
and smart environments begun. From the start the topic seemed very interesting but over
time it proved to be very challenging. Studying experience of something that does not yet
exist is paradoxical. Tangling with the unanswered questions about user experience has
been hard and it has taken a longer time than I first anticipated, but it has also been very
educative. After this process I am still wondering what on earth UX is, but at least I have
some better understanding of the reasons why it is so difficult to grasp.
I want to thank my thesis supervisor Marketta Niemelä for giving great advices and
valuable feedback during the process. From each of our meetings I left with a clear vision
about the thesis subject and the next steps in the process. I am also thankful to Thomas
Olsson, Minna Kynsilehto and Olli-Pekka Pohjola for additional comments. Furthermore,
I want to thank Aleksi Rinta-Kauppila, Pasi Välkkynen and Tiina Kymäläinen for assisting
me with the focus groups and the smart environment animation. I am thankful to VTT
for giving me this opportunity to work with top research scientists, and I want to thank
those scientists for being such great people to work with. The spirit at our team is one of
the things I will remember the best from my time at VTT. Finally, I want to give my thanks
to my family and friends for supporting me throughout this process. I want to give special
thanks to my boyfriend, Alexis, who has supported and encouraged me tirelessly, and
convinced me in the difficult times that “Yes, I can!”
Tampere, March 31st, 2011
Minni Kanerva

6. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
TIIVISTELMÄ
PREFACE
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Theoretical framework and research approach................................................................ 10
1.3 Research objectives.............................................................................................................. 10
1.4 Thesis outline........................................................................................................................ 10
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Smart environments............................................................................................................ 12
2.1.1 Characteristics of smart environments............................................................ 13
2.1.2 Designing smart environments........................................................................ 16
2.2 User experience.................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 The anatomy of user experience...................................................................... 19
2.2.2 Shaping the body of experience........................................................................ 25
2.2.3 User experience in smart environments.......................................................... 30
2.2.4 Designing for user experience.......................................................................... 34
3 METHODS............................................................................................................................................ 36
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Focus groups......................................................................................................................... 38
3.3 “Idea cards”............................................................................................................................ 39
3.4 Analysis of the material....................................................................................................... 40
4 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................ 41
4.1 Users’ needs ......................................................................................................................... 41
4.2 User expectations for interaction in smart environments.............................................. 46
4.3 Comparing home, office and public environments.......................................................... 52
4.4 Discussion of the results..................................................................................................... 56
5 APPLYING THE RESULTS................................................................................................................. 59
5.1 Active layer and tracking.................................................................................................... 61
5.2 Viewing and saving information....................................................................................... 63
5.3 Searching information ....................................................................................................... 64
5.4 Manipulating the environment.......................................................................................... 64
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 66
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIXES

7. 7
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
We are living in a world that is becoming increasingly embedded with information and
communication (ICT) technologies. Computers are already everywhere and people have
access to digital information almost anywhere thanks to mobile devices and wireless
networks. Our everyday objects from cars to toys are having computing more and more
embedded in them. Many visions for the future describe ecologies of these technologies
and devices which can be called smart environments. The most famous one of these is
Mark Weiser’s ubiquitous computing vision from 1991 (Weiser 1991). He envisioned a
world of interconnected devices which would render the computer ”invisible” but present
everywhere and natural to use.
Currently the technological development is going towards smart environments but it is
not as fast as the development of the technologies that enable them. So far, we do not
yet have actual smart environments but only applications of ubiquitous computing. The
technologies in future smart environments will offer new possibilities for direct interaction
with the environment. The fact that the physical environment will have intelligent
properties will change people’s relationship with it since the environment will have some
human-like qualities and can appear as a ”living” and conscious thing when it is able to
monitor people and understand their actions and intentions or feelings.
The terms that are used in the research and design of smart environments have overlapping
meanings and are used in reference to similar subjects. The term I will mostly use in this
thesis is smart environment. Ubiquitous, embedded or pervasive computing and ambient
intelligence are terms that are all widely used to describe the type of technologies enabling
smart environments. The technologies are more or less synonymous with each other but
they bare a fundamental difference to the concept of smart environment. The difference

8. 8
is that they are naming a type of technology when the term smart environment is naming
a type of environment. Ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence are technologies
that are in the environment but they are not an environment. One single application can be
an example of ubiquitous computing or artificial intelligence but it does not yet constitute
a smart environment. In this thesis my focus is on the environment as a whole, hence the
term smart environment. Lastly, for the sake of consistency with the DIEM project I will
use the term smart environment because it is the term used in the project and my thesis
will be part of it. To conclude, in this thesis I will use ubiquitous computing when referring
to the technologies used in smart environment, unless I am discussing some particular
technology, and smart environment when referring to the environment or space which
incorporates these ubiquitous technologies. The concept of user is wider in this thesis than
normally. Firstly, it refers to people who are using the smart services and are in interaction
with the smart environments. Secondly, it refers also to people who might not use the
service but who still are in the smart environments.
Smart environments will develop gradually and by different actors. The environment will
never be fully complete and it will continue changing as technologies develop and offer
always new possibilities. There is a danger that these environments will become overloaded
with information, complicated and difficult to use if they are not carefully designed. They
might also not respond to people’s actual needs which would result in people experiencing
them as useless or annoying. It is important that the smart environments are designed
to fulfil real needs of people and to give a positive user experience (UX, sometimes also
UE). Kaasinen et al. (2007) argue that smart environments should be designed with a
holistic view on the environment and people’s relationship with it. User experience takes
such a holistic view which makes it potentially a good model to be used in the design of
particular smart environments.
The problem with designing for UX in smart environments is the fact that they do not yet
exist. To get knowledge about experience beforehand is challenging, especially as there
is nothing equivalent to smart environments which could be observed, and it is often
impossible to build an entire environment for studying users in it. UX theories have also
mainly concentrated on user’s relationship with products. While this does not prevent
us from using that knowledge in designing smart environments – and a large part of the
theories are directly applicable also to them – there is still a significant difference between

9. 9
a product and an environment. There is not much research on UX in smart environments
and few knowledge about how the experience is formed in such environments. To be able
to design for UX in smart environments it is essential to know the special characteristics
of experiencing environment and its “smartness”.
MythesisispartoftheDIEM(DevicesandInteroperabilityEcosystem)projectcoordinated
by TIVIT and part of the Finnish ICT SHOK program. I am participating in the project
as a member of Human-technology interaction for well-being team at the ICT cluster in
VTT. The DIEM project is developing a system architecture that will enable the realisation
of environments where different devices can communicate with each other and operate
together in multiple ways. The devices can send and receive information between each
other which enables new kinds of services and applications. One property of this system
is locality. The services exist in specific physical locations and they make use of location-
based information.
My design topic focuses on the concept of interface for smart environments. The purpose is
to bring consistency to various smart environments by means of a generic interface which
would present the smart services and applications in a way that promotes understanding
of them as a unified digital layer or a counterpart of the physical environment. It would
also make the environments more controllable for the user since it would give a window
to the smart services that are available in the current space but can be so well incorporated
in the environment that they are not easily perceivable otherwise. I call this interface
application the Space Browser.
Due to the scope of the thesis and its theoretical emphasis, I am further focusing on the
function of presenting the services in the environment through the Space Browser and
leaving other possible functionalities out. On the other hand, I am applying it for different
kinds of environments since the core idea of the browser is to be truly generic. The Space
Browser is linked to a physical interaction concept called Phi/o Fusion under development
at VTT. This technical interaction concept and demo is a tool for modifying a smart
environment ad hoc by connecting smart objects with each other and defining the input
and output functions freely. An example could be defining that when a TV is switched on
the stereos would turn off if they were on. I present a visionary concept idea for the Space
Browser which is intended to be realisable in the future. In order to contribute to the Phi/o
Fusion project I also present a version of the browser that can be realised with available
technologies.

10. 10
1.2 Theoretical framework and research approach
This is a theory based scientific thesis situating in the fields of UX research and human-
computerinteraction(HCI).UXresearchaimsatunderstandingthecomplexphenomenon
of experiencing and to provide models and tools for designing of products, systems or
services.Thetheoreticalbasisofmythesisisontheoriesandframeworksofuserexperience
which explain the process of experiencing and the elements affecting experience. I have
applied these theories in the field of HCI and interaction design in particular. The design
approach of my thesis is human-centred design. I have gathered information from users
with qualitative research methods in the early concept creation phase of an interaction
concept.
1.3 Research objectives
This thesis investigates both smart environments and user experience. The goal of the thesis
is to understand user experience in smart environments and to sketch an early interaction
concept for a universal space browser application. My two main research questions are:
1. What are the characteristics of user experience that are specific to smart environments?
2. What are users’ needs and expectations for interaction in different types of smart
environments?
To answer the first question I analysed UX theories and the concept of smart environment.
I identified the elements affecting user experience that have significance from an
environmental perspective. For the second question I analysed material gathered from
users in focus group discussions and with an “idea cards” method. Finally, I applied the
research results in the concept creation process.
1.4 Thesis outline
The chapter 2 contains literature review and it is divided in to parts: in 2.1 I present smart
environments. In section 2.1.1 I describe their characteristics from a technological point
of view and in section 2.1.2 I discuss the development of smart environments in a general
level. 2.2 is devoted to user experience. I begin in 2.2.1 by analysing the phenomenon of
experiencing as a mental process, which I call the anatomy of experience, and the section

11. 11
2.2.2 deals with theories about the elements affecting user experience. 2.2.3 analyses the
special characteristics of user experience in smart environments and 2.2.4 concludes the
chapter by reviewing theories and practice of designing for user experience. The chapter 3
presents the methods of this study and chapter 4 the results of the user research. In chapter
5 I apply the results of the user study and the literature review in an initial concept sketch
for a Space Browser application. Finally, the chapter 6 contains the overall discussion and
conclusions of this study.

12. 12
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Smart environments
Smart environments have existed in technological ICT visions since the late 20th century.
The smartness is normally described as a feature of the technological environment. Das &
Cook define smart environment as
one that is able to acquire and apply knowledge about an environment and also to adapt to its
inhabitants in order to improve their experience in that environment. (Cook & Das 2005, p. 3).
Streitz (2006) distinguishes system-oriented smartness, which means autonomously
acting environments from people-oriented smartness which means enabling people to
make smart decisions. He argues that smart environments will have a combination of
both types of smartness, but that the design of smart environments should be directed in
a people-oriented way.
Kaasinen et al. (2007) take a non-technical view on smart environments. They define
smart environment as a result of joint operation of human and environment, where the
intelligence is not only a quality of the technology or the environment but it manifests as
adaptability of the system formed by human, techniques and environment. In a similar
way, Williams et al. (2005) and Dourish (2006) describe that spaces do not exist only
because they have a physical embodiment but because they become meaningful through
people’s encounters with them.

13. 13
2.1.1 Characteristics of smart environments
Kaasinen et al. (2007) have defined the characteristics of smart environments under
three well summarised categories: ubiquitous computing, computational intelligence and
advanced interaction. I will follow the same division and present the characteristics under
these titles.
Ubiquitous computing
Mark Weiser is considered to be the founder of ubiquitous computing. His article “The
computer for the 21st century” published in 1991 in the Scientific American is mentioned
in almost any writing of smart environments. In Weiser’s vision the computer has become
invisible and is working in the background. He describes the smartness as interaction
between many different devices. In Weiser’s account the most important benefit of
ubiquitous computing is in natural interaction. This is still one of the main characteristics
of smart environments.
Ubiquitouscomputingconsistsofdistributedandembeddedcomputingandcomprehensive
network infrastructure where wireless networks are essential. Miniature computers are
incorporated in the environment in any objects, devices and structures. These computers
are very simple and very limited in their processing capacity. Examples of such computers
are radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags that can contain a small amount of data
and send or receive it via radio waves, and sensors that can receive information from the
physical environment such as pressure, touch, temperature, humidity etc. and transform
it into digital information. (e.g. Posland 2009 and Cook & Das 2005.)
These enhanced objects are also connected to each other and the Internet with either
high-speed wired technologies or, more importantly in the future, with different kinds of
wirelesscommunicationtechnologies.Suchtechnologiesincludenearfieldcommunication
(NFC), infrared and Bluetooth for short-range communication between devices, wireless
local area network (WLAN) for medium-range communication and mobile connectivity
such as the current 3G and satellite technology, of which global positioning system (GPS)
is the most important application, for long-distance and mobile communication. With
the use of these technologies all objects can communicate with each other independent of
their location. They will form the Internet of Things which can be seen as a materialisation
of the Internet. (e.g. Posland 2009 and ITU Internet Reports 2005.)

14. 14
In the Internet the concept of physical location does not exist – the same information
can be accessed anywhere in the connected world and the same “information space”
exists everywhere at the same time. Smart environments can “localise” the Internet by
restricting the access to some information to be available only in the actual physical space.
This information would be something that is related to the particular physical space, its
activities and objects, and irrelevant elsewhere. The Internet of things is a term used of a
network of interconnected material objects in space where each object which is embedded
with a tiny computer is associated with its own web address and in that way serves as a
physical link to the page in the Internet and to other objects. These links normally contain
some relevant information about the object or its physical surroundings. (ibid.)
Augmented reality (AR) is also an important technology in smart environments. It is
closely related to virtual reality and is a way of combining it with the material reality.
Augmented reality overlays digital information onto the physical environment in a way
that it appears to be in the environment. This mixture of real and virtual is viewed through
a display device such as a mobile phone that shows the real environment and the digital
information in real-time. The biggest advantages of AR applications are in the mobile
use so they are mostly used with mobile phones or head-mounted displays. (e.g. Posland
2009.)
Computational intelligence
The prefix “smart” in smart environments directly implies that there must be some artificial
intelligence (AI) involved. The computational intelligence manifests itself as intelligence
of both the services or applications and their interoperability. The level of human
intelligence is still very far from the reach of artificial intelligence but already lower-level
intelligence enables construction of systems that are for example able to make decisions
independently, adapt to different situations based on observations of its surroundings and
predict events. (e.g. Posland 2009 and Cook & Das 2005.) Context-aware systems are able
to understand the state of their environment and people in it as well as other systems that
they are connected to. Based on the knowledge they receive from these situations they can
adapt their behaviours accordingly. (Dey 2000.)
With the contextual knowledge and sufficiently developed logic the systems are able to
learn to better adapt to the user’s behaviours and preferences in time. Learning systems
and environments monitor events, remember them and develop according to the
consequences. The learning can happen either automatically or by active teaching. When
the systems are either intelligent from the start or systems that have learned to recognise

15. 15
the user’s intentions they are able to make autonomous decisions and act proactively. Such
environments can offer the services automatically to the user without the need to search or
require them. There are still many challenges in recognising the users’ changing contexts
and desires and the best potential for applying proactivity is in environments that are
familiar to the user. (Kaasinen et al. 2007.)
Advanced interaction
The most prominent property of smart environments from the user perspective is the
new interaction paradigm it imposes. Since the computer has dissolved everywhere in
the environment and does not always contain a screen and a keyboard anymore, a new
way of interaction is needed. Naturalness is a central feature in interaction. Since the
environment can sense people in many ways, the interaction can happen by using gestures,
voice, movement or direct manipulation of the physical objects. Weiser already said that
These hundreds of computers will come to be invisible to common awareness. People will simply use
them unconsciously to accomplish everyday tasks. (Weiser 1991).
This kind of interaction is called implicit human-computer interaction (iHCI) in contrast
to explicit interaction which is the traditional HCI paradigm.
Schmidt (2000) coined the term iHCI and defines it as
an action, performed by the user that is not primarily aimed to interact with a computerized system
but which such a system understands as input.
He compares it to the communication between people where a large part of interaction
is non-verbal, such as gestures, body language and voice. Badia et al. (2009) note that in
iHCI users do not have prior knowledge about the interaction type. The environment then
needs to have some understanding of the user’s behaviour and context in order to respond
to the natural input which is not necessarily aimed at interacting with the system (Posland
2009).
If iHCI is understood in a wider sense, it does not necessarily require the disappearance
of the computer nor such interaction which is not intended to happen with a computer.
In many visions (e.g. Rehman et al. 2002) ubiquitous computing has been understood
as disappearing computing where the computer is so completely incorporated in the
environment through miniaturisation that it is totally invisible. Some researchers,
though, disagree with this conception. Tomie et al. (2002) challenge the idea of perceptual
invisibility in ubiquitous computing visions by introducing the concept of “invisibility
in use”. The technology does not need to be invisible to the senses to be “calm” and

16. 16
unobtrusive. The key is in making the devices and objects support the user’s activities
so well that the user does not have to think about the object or interaction. Here the
implicitness comes from the routine nature of interaction which leads to such fluency that
the device can “disappear”.
Natural interaction includes multimodality. Multimodal interfaces enable interaction with
several modalities such as gestures, voice, touch and movement. This makes the interaction
more flexible since it gives the user the freedom to choose the modality that best suits
him/her. Several alternative modalities also benefit a wide group of users, since people
with disabilities are more likely to find a way to interact with systems that offer a series of
possibilities than with systems that are restricted to one single interaction method. (Oviatt
2008.)
Incorporating computing into everyday objects enables tangible interaction methods.
Tangible user interfaces (TUIs) are physical embodiments of digital information. Users
are interacting with the system by manipulating objects in the physical world instead of
virtual objects on a computer screen with a graphical user interface. The representation
and control are combined in a tangible interface object which can make interaction more
intuitive. (Sears & Jacko 2008 and Ishii & Ulmer 1997.) Tangible interfaces have been
most popularly applied in the fields of music and edutainment but also in other areas such
as planning, information visualisation and social communication (see e.g. an extensive
survey on tangible user interfaces by Shaer and Hornecker, 2009).
2.1.2 Designing smart environments
There is a difference between the development of technologies and the development of
smart environments. Technologies can be developed from their own premises and at a
speed that is dependent only what is possible. The development of smart environments
cannot be directed by only what is possible in a technological sense because they have to
be built on already existing environments and be accepted by people. The problem in the
current development of smart environments is the fact that it is too technology-driven.
When users and their needs are not the driving force in the design of smart environments
they have a risk to not succeed in fulfilling the original visions of making people’s lives

17. 17
easier. (Aarts & Grotenhuis 2009.) This is why smart environments must be developed in
a human-driven way. However, when the development follows human requirements it is
necessarily slower because it is dependent on development of people’s values and attitudes
which is always considerably slower than the development of technologies.
Kaasinen et al. (2007) emphasise the changing and emergent nature of smart
environments. They refer the design of smart environments to urban planning which is
always done in connection to the existing infrastructures and which is never finished.
Smart environments can be understood as digital layers or counterparts of physical
cities as they need complex underlying structures and need to be built gradually. For
example the building of communication networks can be compared with building of a
road infrastructure. Smart environments are also developed by multidisciplinary groups
and including multiple stakeholders, which is also similar to urban planning. Kaasinen et
al. (2007) however note that urban environments, unlike smart environments, have well
established forms and relationships with people. The formation of smart environments
remains still unpredictable since there are no such relationships yet.
Furthermore, the design of smart environments exists in multiple levels simultaneously
and the different levels are affecting each other. When designing devices and services to be
incorporated in the environment the underlying infrastructure must be taken into account
as well as the social and cultural implications. On the other hand the infrastructure should
be designed so that it enables the development and implementation of the services in the
best possible way. This is a dialogue between rapid development of services and long-term
development of the basic infrastructure. (Kaasinen et al. 2006.)
The problem is that one designer cannot have the same kind of control over the
environment that s/he has with a single product. When products are designed as part
of the smart environment the changing nature and incompleteness of it has to be taken
into account. As the technologies are constantly under development it is not possible to
wait for their perfection because in that case the development would halt. It is a question
of a kind of chicken or egg dilemma which may be one reason for the slow realisation of
smart environments. The slow development of NFC applications is one example of such a
dilemma: The applications consist of two components – RFID tags that are incorporated
in objects and tag readers that recognise the tags. The both technologies are fully ready

18. 18
and feasible for commercial production but there are still very few tag reader devices (this
can be a feature in a mobile phone for example) because of the lack of tagged objects –
and vice-versa. Hence, this would call for collaboratively coordinated development across
industries.
2.2 User experience
User experience has been an important research topic in the field of product and
interaction design since the 1990’s. It stems from usability research which aims to improve
the efficiency, easiness and ergonomics in the use of a product. Usability concentrates in
the instrumental aspects of product use and sees the use of a product as a goal-oriented,
pragmatic process. A product with good usability is easy to learn and to use, ergonomic
and executes its intended tasks efficiently with minimal amount of errors made by the
user.
Satisfaction is a concept included in the usability approach and as a feeling it has a
relationship to UX. Still, it is limited to a goal-oriented attitude towards a product
as a utility. The user’s overall experience related to a product is a much more complex
phenomenon which is affected not only by the product but also by the user’s mental state,
feelings, attitudes, values and the context of use to mention a few. Jordan (2000) was one
of the first to recognise the need for this wider perspective. He argues that satisfaction
is concentrating on the avoidance of discomfort and that a pleasure-based approach is
needed in order to get a holistic picture of people’s relationship with products.
Usability is still an important aspect of product and interaction design but UX approach
complements it with knowledge about other components of experience. Generally UX is
perceived to include usability as one part of it, but Roto (2007) has made a clear distinction
between usability and UX. She argues that the part of usability which measures actual
objective efficiency of product use is not part of UX since experience covers only perceived
efficiency which is the subjective part of usability.

19. 19
Knowledge about UX is expected to enable the design of products that produce better
experiences for users. In order to get a holistic view on UX it must be approached from
two different angles:
What is experience as a phenomenon inside the user’s mind
What affects the nature and quality of UX
The first question belongs to the field of psychology. In HCI and design research the
question is much less discussed and the researchers generally base their conceptions of
experience on psychological theories. Regarding the scope and purpose of this study it is
sufficient to rely on these interpretations in forming an understanding of experience. Most
frameworks of UX in the HCI and design research literature present experience as a single
term without profoundly explaining its essence. These frameworks rather aim at depicting
what aspects affect the experience and they are meant as tools for design. Roto (2006.) In
the next two sections I will discuss both of the questions separately.
2.2.1 The anatomy of user experience
Forlizzi & Ford (2000) created one of the earliest frameworks of experience. They do not
use the term user experience but the focus is still on the use of products. The understanding
of the term experience can be divided into three categories: experience, an experience and
experience as story. Experience is the constant stream happening in our consciousness. An
experience on the other hand is an event that has a beginning and an end and it changes the
user and perhaps the context of experience. The experience as story is related to memories
and giving meaning to an experience. It is also used to communicate experiences to others.
All of these categories are present in the process of UX.
sub-consciousness storytelling
cognition narrative
an experience
experience experience as story
meaning
Figure 1. An initial framework of product experience as it relates to interaction design (Forlizzi &
Ford 2000, 421)

20. 20
Theframeworkalsodefinesfourdimensionsofexperienceexplainingwhatdoesexperience
mean and what is its nature in different levels of the human mind. These four dimensions
are sub-consciousness, cognition, narrative and storytelling. Sub-conscious experiences
stay in the background when we are using familiar products and doing routine tasks that
we do not have to concentrate on while doing them. Cognition is on the second level of
consciousness and defines experiences that require thinking about what we are doing.
This happens with new or confusing products and tasks that require attention. A narrative
experience is a formalised experience and the storytelling experience is on the highest
mental level giving meaning to experiences. It is the experience after being reflected upon
and made personal by relating it to aspects that have personal significance. It is also a way
to communicate experiences to others.
When there is a change from sub-conscious or narrative to cognitive experience the person
is having An experience. The user is consciously involved in an action and as a result either
the user, context or both are changed. An experience can be identified as a separate event
having a beginning and an end. When a sub-conscious or narrative experience change to
storytelling experience the user adds meaning to the experience, makes it her own and
communicates it with others. This is a result of sense-making (Wright et al. 2004) which I
will describe later in this chapter.
Forlizzi and Battarbee (2004) have later modified the framework of experience to be better
suited for understanding experience of interaction in social context. When their earlier
model described what is experience in a more general sense the later model describes
user-product interactions in particular. This requires some changes to the concepts in
the initial framework. Instead of four dimensions of experience the new model had three
types of interaction, as the narrative experience was discarded. Fluent interaction in the
new model corresponds to the sub-conscious experience in the old model of experience,
expressive interaction corresponds to storytelling experience and cognitive interaction

21. 21
corresponds to cognitive experience. The categories of experience that the interactions
evoke stayed the same for experience and an experience but to emphasise the social side of
experience they changed experience as story to co-experience. In co-experience the sense-
making is a social process and the experience is created together or shared with others.
Figure 2. The dynamics of experience in interaction (Forlizzi & Battarbee 2004, 264)
Wright et al. (2004) have analysed experience by dividing it into four threads and six
ways of making sense in experience. The four threads of experience, the compositional, the
sensual, the emotional and the spatio-temporal thread, describe experience from different
viewpoint each. They occur simultaneously but they can be seen as describing different
levels of experience. The Compositional thread has a narrative character. It can be seen
as an understanding of structures and components of interaction and the object that the
interaction is happening with. The sensual thread is about the immediate feelings the user
experiences in a sensory engagement in a situation. The emotional thread sums up the
experience. It differs from the sensual thread in that instead of being passive reactions to
situations it is a result of processed feelings and intellectual analysis. The spatio-temporal
thread is related to the sense of space and time and their effect on experience.
The four threads are not enough to describe experiencing because people do not simply
receive experiences as ready-made. According to Wright et al. (2004) the actual experience
is created through a sense-making process which can be divided into six

22. 22
sub-categories: anticipating, connecting, interpreting, reflecting, appropriating and
recounting. These processes do not have a linear cause and effect relationship but instead
they can go on simultaneously and affect each other in various ways. The first three
processes go on mostly before or during the interaction.
Anticipating begins before interaction when the user has expectations about it. However,
it is not limited to the pre-interaction phase. Expectations change during interaction and
remain afterwards as anticipations for the possible next interaction. Connecting is the
immediate, pre-conceptual understanding the user has when s/he engages in a situation.
By connecting the user is able to orientate and operate in the situation. Interpreting is
the third process that happens during interaction. It is the most basic process of giving
meaning to what is happening.
The last three processes continue also after interaction and they can be thought of as
finalising the process of experiencing and creating the overall user experience that includes
all use cases. In reflecting the user makes judgements about the experience both during
and after interaction. S/he evaluates the pragmatic aspects of the interaction as well as his/
her feelings about it and how well it matches his/her expectations. In appropriating the
experience is related to earlier experiences and the sense of self which makes it personal.
Recounting is about storytelling. It is how experiences are remembered and communicated
to others.
Many theories of UX stress the importance of emotion or affect (e.g. Mahlke 2005 and
Hassenzahl & Tractinsky 2006). Desmet and Hekkert (2007) base their framework of
product experience on emotion psychology and theories of affect. They place emotional
experience at the highest hierarchical level of their model with aesthetic experience and
experience of meaning at the lower level. They argue that even though all of the three
components may influence each other, emotional experience is resulting from the two
lower-level experiences. Aesthetic experience is closely related to the sensory thread of
Wright et al. (2004). Both are about feelings evoked by stimulation of senses. Experience
of meaning consists of cognitive processes such as interpretation, memory retrieval and
associations. Hence, it seems to have many similarities with the six sense-making processes
of Wright et al. (2004). Desmet & Hekkert conclude that emotional experience is the result
of interpreting the situation of interaction and evaluating the lower level experiences. They
remark however that the processes described in the framework are limited to the actual
interaction unlike the sense-making processes of Wright et al. (2004).

23. 23
Figure 3. Framework of product experience (Desmet & Hekkert 2007, 60)
Finally, the UX framework of Kort et al. (2007) combines the models of Wright et al.
(2004) and Desmet and Hekkert (2007). This model consists of three lower level experience
aspects that develop into the resulting emotion by the six sense-making processes. The
three experience aspects, compositional, aesthetic and aspects of meaning, are derived from
both the four threads of experience of Wright et al. and Desmet and Hekkert’s experience
components. The compositional aspects correspond to the compositional thread of Wright
et al. and describe the user’s understanding of interaction. They relate to pragmatic and
behavioural characteristics in the use of a product. Since Desmet and Hekkert have
concentrated on the higher level emotional aspects of experience, the compositional
aspects are not included in their framework. Instead, the aesthetic aspects and aspects of
meaning are derived from their framework. Aesthetic aspects correspond to the sensual
thread of Wright et al. describing immediate feelings during interaction, and the aspects
of meaning have similarities with the emotional thread relating to symbolic values and
identification.
Figure 4. UX framework (Kort et al. 2007, 58)

24. 24
ThekeydifferencebetweentheusabilityandUXapproachesisinthewaytheyseeexperience.
The usability research limits its focus on the compositional aspects of experience which
relate to goal-oriented task execution, when UX research takes a broader view on the
experience concentrating on the emotional aspects and the user’s overall relationship with
the product.
Figure 5. The anatomy of experience. My synthesis on the theories. The emotion emerges from the
boundary between an exeperience and it’s elaboration, the experience as story.

25. 25
2.2.2 Shaping the body of experience
Describing the anatomy of experience gives us understanding of what the experience is
as a mental process. It is not, however, enough to enable us to design for experiences. As
an analogy, the anatomy of human body for example explains the basic structure and
functions of a human but it does not tell us anything about people’s individual physical
traits. In order to know how a particular experience gets its shape we need to know what
affects experience. Especially in designing for user experience it is important to know
those elements, how they are related to each other and which of them are elements that
the designer can have control over. In the case of a single product it can be relatively
simple to identify requirements for design but when designing complex systems like
smart environments it becomes essential to know how the experience of such a system is
constructed and what is the role of different elements in it. Ideally, the smart space should
be designed so that the user experiences it as a unified entity even though there are several
different kinds of products and services offered by different providers independently. This
is a real challenge.
The majority of UX frameworks in HCI and design research concentrate on the
question of what affects user experience. Different models approach user experience
from different angles. They may for example emphasise the role of product or time in
relation to user experience depending on the main interest of research. Some models
are more comprehensive than others but most of them have a similar basic structure.
The fundamental elements constituting a unified model of UX that I have found when
comparing different models are product, user, context and time.
The simplest models consist of two components, user and product. These models are
normally product-centred and they concentrate on the properties of the product as the
source of experience. The traditional usability research has been limited mainly on these
two components and studied efficacy in the use of products. The UX research has added
emotional aspects to this and is interested in product qualities that create emotional
responses. The third component in UX models is context. Many of the UX models include
these three parts. The final component is time. This has not been considered in all models,
but it is clear that time affects UX. Next I will explain each of these components in more
detail.

26. 26
Product
In some models the concept of product has been extended in including services and
systems to the same category (e.g. Roto 2006). Here I will use the word product in reference
to all of these.
Hassenzahl (2001 and 2004a) has studied how different qualities of a product affect
user experience in different ways. He groups all product qualities under two categories:
pragmatic and hedonic. Pragmatic qualities are goal-related attributes in the product and
its use, which is the domain of usability. Hedonic qualities are related to the users’ self and
relate to the emotional affects the product can elicit. He further divides hedonic quality to
stimulation which is related to sensorial and intellectual pleasures and identification which
is related to the user’s sense of identity and values, and their communication. Different
qualities are emphasised in different products, and users form judgements about the
products based on their perceptions of how well the qualities of a particular product fit its
purpose. These judgements then lead to emotional and behavioural consequences, which
is the way products affect user experience according to Hassenzahl. Mahlke (2007) has
also studied the effects of pragmatic and hedonic aspects in product use and concluded
that even though hedonic product qualities have an effect on emotional reactions, usability
is still the major cause of them.
Product is the agent affecting UX over which the designer has the most control. The way a
product is perceived through different senses (sight, touch, hearing, smell and with some
products also taste) directly creates emotional responses in users. Jääskö et al. (2003)
list style, technological level, product features and trends as the elements affecting the
desirability of a product. They also point out that products have to be viewed in relation
to other products in the market.
User
On the user’s side the factors shaping experience are more complex and often out of reach
of the designer’s control. Before use people have expectations based on their knowledge,
prior experiences, needs, goals and values. These elements direct people’s motivation in
regards to the use of a product. For example values alone can determine whether a person

27. 27
will even try some product or not. During and after use the user evaluates how the actual
experience corresponds to his/her expectations and this will lead to modified expectations
and new experiences (Kankainen 2002).
Figure 6. A conceptual model of user experience (Kankainen 2002, 32)
Hassenzahl (2007, 2008) has analysed users’ different goals and divided them in two
categories: do-goals and be-goals. In do-goals the goal determines the action and the
product is “a means to an end” serving the user’s instrumental needs. Be-goals are higher-
level goals relating to the user’s self, to something the user wants to be such as “competent”,
“related to others” or “special”. These different goals are not exclusionary, instead do-goals
often serve the less conscious be-goals. Hassenzahl gives phone call as an example where
the do-goal is to actually make the call and the be-goal is to be related to others. The goals
are related to product qualities so that do-goals are supported by pragmatic qualities and
be-goals are supported by hedonic qualities.
Be-goals are perhaps more generally called basic human needs. It is widely agreed among
UX researchers that the fulfilment of needs is an important factor in creating positive user
experiences.ThemostfamoustheoryofneedsisMaslow’s(1954)TheoryofPersonalitywhere
he identifies five universal needs: physical health, security, self-esteem, belongingness and
self-actuation. Later, many researchers in the fields of psychology and HCI have studied
needs and categorised them in different ways. Especially the hierarchical organisation of
the needs has been widely criticised (Sheldon et al. 2001). Through comparative analysis
of different theories of needs Hassenzahl et al. (2010) have created a list of seven basic
needs that are derived from the ten needs listed by Sheldon et al. (2001). These seven needs
which Hassenzahl et al. consider to be the most important in the context of experiences
with technology are competence, relatedness, popularity, stimulation, meaning, security,
and autonomy.

28. 28
The basic needs are affecting in a subconscious level and they are more general than the
conscious, more concrete needs that users have in relation to products and interaction.
These more instrumental needs can be divided into two categories: needs originating
from problems that have to be solved and needs that present as desires which come from
opportunities for improvement (Kujala 2008). Sheldon et al. have found proof by their
research to the hierarchical order of these two types of needs which they call, according
to Wahba & Bridwell, “deficiency” or “security” needs and “enhancement” or “growth”
needs (Wahba & Bridwell 1976; ref. Sheldon et al. 2001, p. 337). They suggest that the
deficiency needs must be satisfied before the enhancement needs occur, but they continue
that further research is needed to validate their suggestion.
Context
The third component in the UX models is context which appears in the majority of models.
Context is important since the interaction with a product always happens in a particular
situation which affects the experience. Dey & Abowd (1999) define that:
Context is any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity
is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an
application, including the user and applications themselves.
Roto (2006) divides context into four sub-categories: physical, social, temporal and task
context.Physicalcontextrelatestolocationandthephysicalconditionsintheenvironment.
It is the immediate environment the user can perceive with his/her senses. The effects of the
physical context are often very bodily, such as sound, lighting or temperature conditions.
Social context relates to user’s relationship with other people at the current situation. This
involves for example accepted behavioural norms. Social context does not need to limit
around the people that are in the same physical space. It also includes situations where
communication happens across distances. Temporal context relates to the time available
for executing a task, and task context relates to the higher-level goals that the user’s current
task is aiming at. The user may also have several simultaneous task contexts.
Hassenzahl validates his model of pragmatic and hedonic product qualities by several user
studies. In one study (Hassenzahl 2004a) he divided the users into two groups, where one
half was given a task to complete and the other group were told just to have fun with the
product. The aim of this study was to prove that users perceive pragmatic and hedonic

29. 29
qualities independently of each other but it shows also how different contexts, in this case
the task context, affect the user experience. Hassenzahl states that
Using a product with a particular character in a particular situation will lead to consequences…
(Hassenzahl 2004a, p. 322) (boldfacing by the author)
but he does not discuss it further. However, this can be understood as one proof that
context is affecting experience.
Time
Many theories of UX understand that the experience is developing through time as the
user is developing his/her relationship with the product. Some of the models emphasise the
actual moment of interaction as the source of experience even though prior experiences
would also have an effect on it. Vyas & van der Veer (2006) argue that final experience,
as presented in the previous chapter, is formed through the sense-making process during
which the user is giving meaning to the experience. The user interprets the experience
during interaction which may change the immediate experience from the moment of
interaction, but the experience is still highly related to the moment of interaction.
Other models treat the current moment of interaction more equally with moments outside
of interaction. Forlizzi & Battarbee (2004) talk about the scalability of experience. They
distinguish small experiences occurring during interaction from the larger experiences
which build upon these small experiences in time and so affects the development of
the relationship between the user and product. Roto (2006) talks about a holistic user
experience which includes not only the interaction in use cases and the small experiences
developed from them but also the times outside of the interaction when the user gets
information about the product in other ways.
Karapanos et al. (2008, 2009) have studied the effects of time on user experience. They
found out that the qualities that were important to users changed over time as the
relationship between the user and product developed. The effect of stimulation, which is
an important factor for purchasing a product, became weaker in time and identification
and usefulness became stronger. In other words the “wow” effect loses its power when the
product becomes more familiar and it becomes replaced with qualities which make the
product meaningful and useful for the user.

30. 30
Figure 7. Temporality of experience (Karapanos 2009, 732)
2.2.3 User experience in smart environments
This section is partly based on a section in a co-authored chapter “User expectations
for Ambient Intelligence” for a publication Promises for 2010 - ISTAG Report Revisited.
ISTAG report was an EU research report on the future of ambient intelligence published
in 2001. It contains four scenarios aiming at the year 2010 and considerations for their
implications to societies. The chapter is currently under review process, and if accepted,
will be published by IOS PRESS Amsterdam in the series Ambient Intelligence and Smart
Environments. The publication is anticipated to be released in May 2011.
UX research has concentrated mainly on user’s interaction with products and services
instead of whole environments. The frameworks and models of user experience have also
been created from the perspective of products, information applications or services. While
these frameworks can be applied also for understanding experience in smart environments
therearesomesignificantdifferencesinthewaypeopleexperienceenvironmentscompared
to products. Because of this some elements in the user experience frameworks must be
given a higher importance than in the case of product experience.
Roto (2006) makes a difference between “user experience” and “experience”. In her
definition user experience requires the possibility of the user to manipulate or control the
product (or system as Roto calls it) in a two-way interaction. This makes the person a user.
Experience is a broader concept including all other ways people are experiencing the world
they are living in and this can be described as experiencing the context. When studying

31. 31
and designing smart environments both types of experience must be taken into account.
On the one hand smart environments consist of devices and provide different services with
which users can be in interaction. These interactions create user experiences. On the other
hand the smart products and their interoperation create a physical smart environment,
and people are part of it, experiencing it whether they are in interaction with the products
or not. Furthermore, many of the technological systems in smart environments do not
require human interaction but work autonomously, still changing the environment and
affecting people’s experience. For example in the ISTAG scenario ‘Carmen’ the ambient
intelligence system autonomously monitors traffic and air pollution in the city and adjusts
the maximum speeds of all cars accordingly thus affecting the experience of not only
car drivers but all people in the city (ISTAG 2001). Here it is appropriate to talk about
experience without the prefix “user”.
This also means that the relationship of people with smart environments is not only a
relationship of a user and a system. People use the services provided by the environments
but they do not “use” the environments themselves. Instead they live and are in them, and
in the same time live with the smart systems that inhabit the environments. (Kuutti et al.
2007.) Hallnäs & Redström (2002) discuss the shift from use to presence in people’s relation
with interactive products. They explain presence as a status of computational products
which is achieved when people have incorporated them to be part of their lives. These
products are no longer tools but expressionals that have special value to the owners and are
present in a more profound sense than mere tools. This calls for a holistic understanding
of experience where the term “user” is understood in a wider sense. The ubiquity of the
technology also requires that the smart services are designed not only for those who are
using and owning them but taking account also other people who are not using them but
share the environment with them (Kuutti et al. 2007).
The user experience of smart environments occurs in two levels. On the one hand there is
the user experience of smart systems and on the other hand people can have an experience
of the environment as an ensemble of all the smart systems. Mark (1999) has suggested
the possibility of people having metaphors for active spaces in the future. Pentland (2005)
proposes a butler metaphor for smart rooms which would act discretely in the background
but always ready to help. Wright & Steventon (2004) suggest the possibility that the
environment is experienced as “intelligent” world. However, a conscious experience of
the smart environment requires that the systems and their ensemble are designed in a way
that it can be perceived as a unified entity. Otherwise people will only experience different
separate products and services in the environment.

32. 32
iHCI can potentially make smart environments easy to use for people who do not have
experienceinusingICTtechnologiessincetheydonothavetolearnnewskillsorunderstand
computers, but this is possible only if the environment has enough understanding of the
users in order to react correctly to their behaviour. Errors in interpreting user behaviour
might increase the users’ confusion if they are not aware that they are interacting with
a smart system and are unable to detect the reason of malfunction. The examples of
implicit interaction included in the ISTAG scenarios mainly relate to the environments
reacting to users’ movements in the space (e.g. in ‘Maria’: opening of the car door as
Maria is approaching it or adaptation of the hotel room to her preferences as she enters
it, or in ‘Annette and Solomon’: recognition of people and initiation of communication
between ambient intelligence and people when entering the room). In ‘Carmen’ iHCI
is also illustrated when Carmen’s action of taking her shopping out of a smart delivery
box initiates the payment from her account and deletes the items from her shopping list.
(ISTAG 2001.)
Implicitness of interaction has been one of the main goals in AmI visions from the
beginning. Mark Weiser (1991) for example anticipated that
...these hundreds of computers will come to be invisible to common awareness. People will simply use
them unconsciously to accomplish everyday tasks.
A natural feeling human interface is also one user requirement in smart environments
described in the ISTAG report. Badia et al. (2009) have studied the effects of explicit and
implicit interaction on user experience and found out that with implicit interaction the
users had a weaker experience that they were in an interactive environment even if the
environment responded similarly to the both ways of interaction. This infers that the more
hidden and natural the interaction is the more difficult it may be for the user to perceive
the effects of interaction. Geven et al. (2007) have studied the use of NFC applications
which enable hiding the technology, and their results showed that the invisibility caused
problems for the users since they were not able to make a correct mental model of the
system.
Ubiquitous technologies enable tangible interaction with the environment. Tangibility
introduces aspects of playfulness in the interaction which increases the importance of
social interaction. Several studies indicate that tangible interaction can enhance creativity,
communication and collaboration between people. Africano et al. (2004), Ryokai et
al. (2004) and Zuckerman et al. (2005) have tested tangible interaction concepts in the
learning environment with children using hi-fidelity prototypes. All of the studies report
that the tangible interfaces promoted collaboration and communication, the children

33. 33
were engaged in the interaction and considered it fun. Hornecker & Buur (2006) show
examples of three case studies of tangible interfaces where the same applies to adults.
When tangible interfaces clearly enhance the social aspects of interaction, virtual and
augmentedrealitytendtoservemoresolitaryexperiencessincetheenvironmentisgenerally
viewed through a personal device such as goggles or a hand-held display device. These
technologies have potential to change people’s perception and experiential relationship
with the environment significantly by getting them immersed in the interaction.
Immersive experiences are most often related to game-play (e.g. Jennett et. al 2008) but
virtual environments and augmented reality technologies can provide experiences of
immersion of different degrees also in other contexts. Hornecker (2010) has compared
experiences with two different kinds of exhibition installations in museum environment.
One installation consisted of a multi-touch interactive table and the other installation
provided an augmented reality view on the museum environment with a telescope device.
The ethnographic study indicated that while the telescope installation provided a more
immersive experience the multi-touch table enabled more social and shared experiences.
Studying user experience of smart environments is still challenging today because such
environments do not yet exist and setting them up is laborious and often impossible.
Experimental smart environments have normally been built in closed spaces such as
laboratories, homes and museums where the technical arrangements are manageable
and affordable, and where there are fewer stakeholders involved. For the same reasons
long-term user studies are also rare even though they would provide useful information
about actually living in the new smart environments. Koskela & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila
(2004) have conducted a long-term experiment of living in a smart home. They recruited
a young couple to live in a smart home for six months. The study shows that adapting new
technologies and new ways of interaction is a slow process and that even six months was
not enough for the inhabitants to achieve full trust on the intelligent system. The study
also gave useful information about the preferred ways of interaction in a smart home. Here
mobility, availability and accessibility were decisive factors, and the preferred interaction
device was a mobile phone.

34. 34
2.2.4 Designing for user experience
The previous sections illustrate how complex use experience is as a phenomenon.
Consequently, designing products, systems, services and environments which create good
user experiences is challenging. It is widely agreed in the field of UX research and design
that it is not possible to design any specific experiences because the product is not alone
responsible of the resulting experience. Instead it is possible to design for user experience
(Wright et al. 2004 and Law et al. 2009). This means that the designer can intend to create
a context which would result in a wanted experience rather than the experience itself
(Forlizzi & Ford 2000 and Hassenzahl & Tractinsky 2006). Roto (2006) suggests that it
might be reasonable to design for good user experiences in general instead of anything
more particular. Many of the UX models can be used for understanding what different
aspects must be taken into account when designing. The challenge remains to find out
how these different aspects affect the experience in each particular design case.
Different methods are used for getting information about the experience in different
phases of product development. It is important to gather information in all stages of
the design process from the beginning to the end. User driven design processes start
commonly by identifying users’ needs and expectations. There are several methods for
getting information about the needs and I will discuss them in more detail in the next
chapter since the user study done for this thesis concerns identifying user needs. When the
design process has advanced to the level of mock-ups or prototypes, or when the research
is focusing on existing products, user experiences can be evaluated. User tests are often
conducted at laboratories but in that case the research concentrates more on usability
issues. To get understanding about experiences which are highly affected by the context
of use, it is more useful to make field studies in real contexts of use. Also, considering the
effects of time on user experience it is fruitful to make long-term studies about product
use which gives information about the incorporation of products in the users’ lives.
TheUXmodelsoftenemphasisetheexperienceinthemomentofinteraction.Itisimportant
to get information about the user’s immediate feelings in the actual usage situation, and
this is also challenging because these feelings are often difficult or impossible to formalise.
Experience sampling methods have been developed in order to get immediate feedback
from users in real situations (Hole & Williams 2007). Even here the situation of gathering
that information still affects the experience and different methods for measuring the user’s
physiological reactions automatically have been developed to identify immediate feelings
(Mahlke et al. 2006). However, if designers base their conception of user experience only

35. 35
on the moment of interaction they separate the interaction from other aspects related to
the product which have their effect on the experience. Memories and product meanings
are important for the user when they are making decisions about purchasing a product. In
such moments the user cannot always interact with the product but s/he must rely on his/
her other knowledge about the product and his/her recollections which are interpretations
about possible previous interactions with the product.
Finally, I will discuss some practical considerations about designing for UX in smart
environments. The difficulty in designing for UX in smart environments is the fact that
they do not exist yet and therefore it is hard or impossible to get empirical information
about the experience. Therefore, the design of smart environments must rely on studying
users’ needs and expectations which can give hints about the actual experience in the
future. Roto (2007) defines the concept of expected user experience which arises from the
other knowledge about the product, such as the brand image, other people’s opinions and
earlier experiences. In the case of smart environments the knowledge people have about
them is mostly created by media and arts, such as literature and films, since there are no
companies which would create such environments.
Some design issues have already been found in experimental studies on interaction and
UX in smart environments. The problem of the “invisible” computer was already handled
in the section about UX in smart environments. This means that an “interface” should be
designedfortheenvironment.Traditionallyinterfaceshavebeendesignedonlyforproducts
but in the case of an environment the interface should be a spatial construction. On the
whole, the interface would consist of two parts: the interface for the entire environment
and the interface for the single products in it. The invisibility of the technology also leads
to the need for designing affordances which are cues for interaction.
Another purpose for a spatial interface which will come of interest when the smart
environmentshavedevelopedtobecomplexecosystemsofnumerousservices,applications
andproducts,istocreateacoherentuserexperienceofaunifiedsystem.Bowersetal.(2007)
have studied how coherence of experience is formed in a technology enhanced museum
environment consisting of multiple smart devices. Based on the research results they
created principles for assembling multi-device environments. These principles emphasise
the importance of similar interaction methods and activities across the different devices
for creating a coherent experience of a larger intelligent system. They also suggested a
portable device to be used for enhancing the coherence between different spaces.

36. 36
3 METHODS
3.1 Introduction
Identifying user needs in early concept creation phase is challenging for several reasons.
First of all, when there is no detailed concept yet it is not possible to make a prototype or
a mock-up for testing users’ reactions to it and the users cannot evaluate how useful the
concept would be based on their experience of the real or simulated use. It is very difficult
for users to recognise needs for something they do not have experience of. At the initial
stages of concept development the users should express their needs in relation to the
concept which still exists as only a very general idea even in the minds of the researchers
or designers.
Secondly, in some cases the need for a product in development might even be dependent
on some conditions that are only anticipated to exist in the future in which case the users
should not only be able to understand their needs but more specifically to understand
their needs in an imagined future context because the concept in question can be relevant
only there. This is the case with the Space Browser concept. The need for such a browser
is only expected to emerge when smart environments will reach a level of complexity
where any single place inhabits a large amount of digital services and different interaction
possibilities.
Besides the most common methods in early concept creation phase, focus groups,
interviews and questionnaires, there are other methods that have been developed for
getting information about needs, experiences and behaviours that are difficult for the
users to formalise. Ethnographic methods include observing users’ activities in their own
environment(Hyysalo2009,pp.106–124).Heretheinterpretationoftheusers’behaviours
remains with the observer who can notice things in the activities that the users might not
be able to recognise. Probing is an alternative when observations cannot be made. Design

37. 37
probes have been developed to involve the users in the design process to provide self-
documented information about their personal lives, experiences and ideas to be used in
the design practice. This method fits has potential in exploring new opportunities and
enabling users to generate more creative ideas than with the more traditional methods.
(Mattelmäki 2006.)
Empathising methods such as bodystorming or placestorming concentrate on imagining
and experiencing use through engaging in the action. There are several ways to use these
methods. On the one hand, the designers can empathise users to understand them or
the users can act out situations of use in order to get a more realistic conception of them
and to generate ideas. Furthermore, professional actors can be used in order to benefit
from their empathising and improvisation skills. On the other hand, these methods can
be used in different settings from laboratory to the real context of use. Oulasvirta et al.
(2002) have compared the use of bodystorming in different environments and found out
that it is beneficial to use it in real contexts, especially when the activities studied are not
familiar to the participants. We tried the bodystorming method with three improvisation
actors in one session in a seminar at VTT but it turned out to not to work. The reason was
inexperience in using the method which resulted in the session becoming entertaining
theatre rather than a method for generating new ideas. An interview was conducted with
the actors afterwards and they provided useful feedback for development in the use of the
method.
Despite the benefits that these methods have for identifying users’ needs I decided to use
the focus group method and another light method which I call “idea cards” for my study.
The main reason for the choice was the restrictions in time and resources. Focus group is
cost-effective and time-saving method which can still provide useful information if done
properly. Furthermore, the study covered different kinds of environments where the Space
Browser concept would be applied and for example the home environment would have
been difficult to access. Probe study could have been applied in all environments but it is
very demanding to the users and it would have been difficult to recruit uses for it because
there are no immediate benefits for the users in this study. Probes fit best in projects which
are developing solutions for a user group with particular needs that the users identify
themselves and see personal benefits in participating in the study. Next, I will describe the
methods I used individually.

38. 38
3.2 Focus groups
Three focus group sessions were conducted with 11 participants in total (7 males, 4
females). Each of the groups concentrated on different types of environment: home
(private environment), office (semi-public) and public.
In the beginning of the session the participants were shown an introductory presentation
about smart environments. I had created the animated presentation on PowerPoint
and it explained briefly what smart environments are and what kind of interaction
possibilities they offer. This tool was a form of scenario and its purpose was to ensure
that the participants who were not necessarily familiar with ICT technologies would get
a common understanding about the subject. The presentation included all of the three
environments, and by showing through examples some possibilities the new technologies
offer the participants were encouraged to be imaginative in creating ideas for new kinds of
digital services which was the next phase of the session.
Figure 8. Screen shots from the smart environment animation: home, office and public contexts.
The participants were asked to create ideas for possible smart services and applications.
Each group concentrated on one of the three types of environment. The ideas were written
on Post-It notes and after the participants did not create anymore ideas they were gathered
and each idea was discussed in the group. After discussing about the ideas for possible
smart services the discussion continued with topics related more closely to the interaction
in smart environments and more general topics such as the participants’ attitudes
towards smart environments. The idea creation phase further helped the participants in
the discussion by providing an example collection of services which could form a smart
environment.

39. 39
Figure 9. Participants’ ideas on Post-Its. The different colours belonged to different groups.
3.3 “Idea cards”
The “idea cards” was a method for gathering ideas from colleagues at VTT. These were
postcards to be sent to Father Christmas as the ideas were gathered around Christmas time.
The cards had prewritten “Dear Father Christmas, I wish for a following smart service:” and
“I need this service because:”. I gathered the ideas with the cards in several occasions. Most
of the ideas were produced in two seminars where I first showed the same presentation of
smart environments that I showed in the focus groups and then handed out the cards for
the audience to fill. In addition to that I left the cards for a few days in two lounges at VTT
where the employees go for coffee breaks. Alongside the cards I had a box to drop them
in and a sheet of paper to explain briefly the purpose of the cards. There was, however,
no presentation about smart environments as in the seminars. From one lounge I got no
answers and from the other only three. The purpose of the idea cards was to identify users’
needs similarly as the idea generation session in the focus groups. Here, however, the
participants were not able to discuss the ideas further as was done in the focus groups, and
I had to rely on the written reasons the respondents had given in order to clarify the needs.
Furthermore, the cards did not have any restrictions in regards of the type of environment
the services would be intended to belong.

40. 40
Figure 10. Idea cards filled by VTT employees.
3.4 Analysis of the material
I used a data-driven analysis for identifying the needs and expectations from the
participants’ responses. The service ideas from both the focus groups and the “idea cards”
provided as material for need finding. I coded the material iteratively by regrouping and
reorganising the categories and compared them to other categorisations of needs found
in the literature. For the identification of the expectations for interaction I used the focus
group discussions and conducted a similar kind of coding although I did not need to iterate
as much because the expectations were more explicitly expressed by the participants.

41. 41
4. RESULTS
4.1 Users’ needs
Participants were asked to create as many ideas as possible in the manner of brainstorming,
without criticism. However, all of the participants clearly tried to come up with ideas that
they saw useful or desirable, often fulfilling some need they felt they had. There were no
“crazy” ideas, which is not surprising considering the fact that the participants did not
know each other and probably did not want to risk appearing foolish to others. On the
other hand, the purpose of the brainstorming was not primarily to discover novel ideas in
which case we would have had to encourage the creative thinking of the participants with
some additional exercises. The purpose of this exercise was to gather needs that could be
identified through the analysis of the users’ ideas. The total number of ideas was 48 from
the focus groups and 27 from the idea cards. Some of the ideas are similar with each other
but created by different participants. The more there are ideas of a similar type, the more
general the related need can be expected to be. Many of the ideas featured elements of smart
environments such as ubiquitous computing, automation and proactivity which shows
that the participants had a sufficient understanding of the concept of smart environment.
After the first round of analysis I had identified 13 different needs which were feeling
of being in control, orderliness / organisation, independent living, comfort / reduced effort,
efficacy, security, communication, getting information, leisure time / reducing work, physical
well-being, financial well-being, enjoyment / fun and self-esteem. I compared these with a list
of ten fundamental psychological needs that Sheldon and colleagues (2001) had compiled
from prominent psychological theories and evaluated by three quantitative studies with
students. These ten needs are autonomy, relatedness, competence, self-esteem, security, self-
actualization-meaning, physical thriving, popularity-influence and money-luxury. Even
though these needs are of a more fundamental and abstract nature than the needs that I
identified, there are similarities between them and they can be seen to have a hierarchical

42. 42
relationship with each other. To get to the most basic needs I should have used additional
methods such as laddering but for identifying user requirements for interaction in smart
environments it is more useful to stay in a more concrete level.
After the comparison and further analysis I joined some similar needs and refined my
list to contain 9 needs which are efficacy, control, independence, knowledge, pleasure / fun,
security, physical well-being, communication and financial well-being. I discarded self-esteem
because, as Hassenzahl et al. (2010) argue, it can be seen as the outcome of the fulfilment of
the other needs rather than a need in itself. Next, I will handle each of the needs separately
and present the results from the focus groups and the idea cards under those needs. See
the appendixes 1 and 2 for the division of the ideas between environments and needs.
Efficacy
The purpose of many technologies is to make our everyday lives easier by either freeing
people from doing some tasks or reducing the effort that has to be put in them. Reduced
effort enables increased efficiency but does not need to result in it. However, they are
closely related to each other and I have included both of the needs under this category.
The effort can be either mental or physical, and the solution can be making the task more
simple or enabling for example a quicker way to accomplish the task. Reducing effort also
refers to services that do some work on behalf of the user and this way increase his/her
leisure time.
64 out of 75 service ideas answered to this need directly and 4 secondarily or with a weaker
importance, which means that it is a very common need that the users have towards
technological solutions. Participants expressed the need to reduce effort much more often
than the need to increase productivity. A typical service idea for reducing effort is a system
that follows the public transport in real-time and gives estimates about arrival times on the
bus stop (FG “Home”, FG “Public” and CARDS). Services that aimed primarily at efficacy
rather than to reduce effort were for example a touch-screen table in the office environment
that enables simultaneous handling of different documents by different people (FG “Office”)
or a bathroom mirror that turns non-reflective when it is the time to stop making up and leave
(CARDS). Efficacy does not only apply to users but also to the systems. An example of a
smart services whose purpose is to increase efficiency is a system that allows devices with
batteries to release power back to the network automatically if needed to optimise the power
distribution (FG “Home”). Many of the services described autonomous intelligent systems
that were able to make decisions based on observation of the user or other information
either from the environment or digital sources.

43. 43
Control
Control refers to the need to have control over oneself and one’s life, and over the
technologies one is using. Having control means that the person is able to make decisions
about the object of control. Orderliness and organisation are lower-level needs that are a
way of satisfying the higher-level need for control.
As the second important need control was identified in 37 of 75 ideas as a strong need
and in 11 as a weak need. Many of the control-related service ideas were systems that
through intelligence and automation enable users to have control over their lives such as a
refrigerator that recognises the food inside and suggests recipes utilising the ingredients in the
fridge, giving priority to the ones that will be the first to go bad (FG “Home”). However, in
the discussions the focus group participants stressed the importance of having control over
the intelligent systems. The lower-level needs for orderliness and organisation manifested
in the service ideas as solutions for cleaning such as self-cleaning windows (FG “Home”)
and as services that enable the users to be more organised such as an intelligent work-shift
list (FG “Office”).
Independence
This need refers to independent living and it is closely related to reducing effort and having
control over one’s life. Here independence is understood as the ability to get along without
other people’s help. This becomes relevant mostly with disabled and elderly people who
can benefit from technologies enabling them to be autonomous.
The focus group participants were not disabled themselves and did not create ideas from
that perspective primarily. I gathered here ideas that were meant to ease the users’ lives but
that could also benefit disabled or elderly people. Doors and lights that react automatically
to the user’s moves (FG “Home”) and voice and gesture interaction with electronics (FGs
“Home” and “Office”) are typical examples of services that reduce effort for any user but
that can especially benefit disabled or elderly people. 28 out of 75 ideas had a strong
connection with the need for independence and 5 had a weak or secondary connection.
There was some discussion among the participants about solutions for assisted living.
One participant had been working in an assisted living facility for disabled and she saw
great potentials in intelligent services supporting these people’s lives. Also participants
who were sceptical towards smart services were favourable towards the possibilities they
offer for disabled and elderly. The ideas where the purpose of the technology was clearly
to assist the user with an experienced deficiency were almost uniquely related to memory

44. 44
aids. There were surprisingly many (8) ideas that were for that purpose such as flower pots
that remind the user of the need to water (FG “Home”) and only two ideas that were related
to other experienced deficiencies which were lack of the sense of time and direction.
Knowledge
Here knowledge is seen as a need to get information. The information can consist of
simple data such as the opening hours of the swimming pool or free seats at the film theatre
(FG “Public”) or it can be more complex like in the case of an interactive touch screen
table that can be used for reading the digital newspaper (FG “Home”). There were 23 ideas
out of 75 that supported knowledge acquisition primarily and 5 ideas where knowledge
acquisition was a secondary need or one among other needs. Often the need for getting
information was related to mobile or otherwise changing context which indicates a need
for dynamic and context-aware systems in getting information. Many of the services
that the participants talked about in all focus groups provided information from distant
sources through network technologies and by various kinds of devices. This indicates that
the participants see connectivity to information as an important benefit of smart devices
and services.
Pleasure / fun
This category describes needs for stimulation and enjoyment. Pleasure is to be understood
as pleasant experiences and feeling of comfort when fun relates to joyfulness and positive
excitement. Services that cater to these needs belong mostly to the area of entertainment
but I have included here all services that enhance comfort. 22 ideas out of 75 answered
to the need for pleasure and fun directly and 5 indirectly. Very few of them contained
elements of actual fun. One of these was a Monopoly 2.0 game which would be projected to
the environment and would enable also remote participation (CARDS). Most of the ideas
were meant to increase comfort or create pleasant sensory experiences such as a toilet
air freshener that automatically reacts to smell (FG “Home”), a noise cancellation system
for blocking background noises at an open office (FG “Office”) or a bedroom that wakes
up gently so that the mood is good and it is not cold outside the bed (CARDS). Aesthetics
belong also to the category of pleasure and fun. The only service idea related to aesthetics
was an interior decoration service for the office which enables changing the environment
according to personal preferences, utilising intelligent materials such as wallpapers that can
change appearance (FG “Office”).