Evaluating User Experience
           And
User Engagement for Design
                      Jennefer Hart
                         PhD Year One

Supervisors: Professor Alistair Sutcliffe & Dr Antonella De Angeli



             Manchester Business School
                     July 2011
Research Contribution
  Extend (and Verify) User Experience Theories

  Explore the Nature of Interactivity

  Develop and Test New Research Methodologies

  Inform Design Practice

  Improve Product Design
Research Aims & Objectives
                               ➤  To Investigate Key Constructs
 Extend the Cognitive Models      (e.g., Interaction, Immersion, Flow,
            within                Presence, Aesthetics, Emotion &
      User Experience             Individual Dispositions).

      Develop Research         ➤  To Capture User Experiences (as
       Methodologies              they occur).

          Explore
   Prolonged Patterns of        ➤  To Capture UX Patterns (over a
        Interaction                prolonged time frame)



          Inform               ➤  To Inform Design Guidelines (by
          Design                  determining what interactive
         Guidelines               features elicit positive UX)
Research Questions
RQ1: What are the key constructs that contribute
     to user engagement and user experience?




RQ2: What design protocols or features lead to
       positive user experiences?




RQ3: What are the patterns of interaction over
             prolonged use?
Research Plan & Methodology

 STUDY 1                                    STUDY 2                   STUDY 3

  Quasi-                                   Controlled               Longitudinal
Experiment                                 Experiment                  Study



                                                                  Diary       X-Section
       Test                           Adapted           Applied   Study        Survey
      Method          Survey          Method            Method
                                                                      METHODS
                    METHODS                                           Retrospect
                                                                       Interview

             Observation       Interview
Research Plan (1)
Study One: Quasi Experiment
  Compare 3 different levels of interactive protocols
     Aesthetics & Usability
     Interaction & Engagement (Flow & Presence)
     Individual Aesthetic Disposition

  Develop Research Methodology
     Survey Instrument
     Observation – Critical Incidents
     Interval Mood Scales (iScale*)
     Video - Facial Expression



RSQ 1: What are the key constructs that contribute to user experience?

                                          *[Karapanos, Martens & Hassenzahl, 2009]
The National Gallery – Menu-based Interaction
The Google Art Project – Virtual Interaction
The Louvre – Interactive Animated Guide
Research Plan (2)
Study Two: Controlled Experiment
  Compare 2-3 different levels of interactive protocols
     Bespoke Technologies
     Same Content V Different Interactive Features (e.g. video, presence,
      virtual, etc)

  Research Methodology (from Study One)
       Tested Survey Instrument
       Observation – Critical Incidents
       Interval Mood Scales (iScale)
       Video – Facial Expression

  Focus on Key Design Features
     Interactive Guide (Presence)
     Virtual Environment (Flow & Engagement)


  RSQ 2: What design ‘features’ lead to positive user experiences?
Research Plan (3)
Study Three: Longitudinal Study
  Compare 2-3 different levels of interactive protocols
     Existing technologies (within same domain)
  Prolonged Time Frame
     Capturing patterns of prolonged user experiences
  Adapted Research Methodology
     Diary Based Study
     Experience Probes
     Adapted Mood Scales (iScale)
     Two Phased Survey
     Staged Interviews
     Selected Observation


   RSQ 3: What are the patterns of interaction over prolonged use?
Research Technologies: Personal Fitness Tools




    Classic Text Based Style          Video Based Interaction Style




Interactive Customization Facility   Active (Haptic) Interactive Style
Thank-you




      any questions?
References
  Hassenzahl, M. (2003) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In M.Blythe, C.
   Overbeeke, A. F Monk, & P C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
                   .           .
   Publishers, pp. 31-42.
  Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002) Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness, London: Rider.
  Hartmann, Sutcliffe, & De Angeli, (2008) Towards a Theory of User Judgement of Aesthetics and User Interface
   Quality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(4), 15-30.
  Hassenzahl, M. (2003) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In M.Blythe, C.
   Overbeeke, A. F Monk, & P C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
                   .           .
   Publishers, pp. 31-42.
  Hassenzahl, M. (2004) The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products, Dordrecht, Human
   Computer Interaction (19) 4, 319-349.
  Jordan, P W. (2002) Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors, CRC Press.
             .
  Karapanos, E, Martens, J, B., & Hassenzahl, M. (2009) Reconstructing Experiences through Sketching, ACM TOCHI.
  Law, E. L., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P O., & Kort, J. (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user
                                                            .
   experience: A survey approach, Proceedings: CHI 2009, Botson MA, pp. 710-728.
  Leong, T. W., Vetere, F. & Howard, S. (2005) The Serendipity Shuffle Proceedings of the 19th conference of the computer-
   interaction special group (CHISIG), Citizens online: considerations for today and the future, OZCHI 2005, Canberra,
   Australia.
  Nielson, J. (1993) Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.
  Norman, D. A. (2004) Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, New York: Basic Books.
  Shen, K. N., & Khalifa, M. (2008) Exploring Multidimensional Conceptualizations of Social Presence in the Context of
   Online Communities, Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(7), 722-748.
  Sutcliffe, (2010), Designing for User Engagement: Aesthetic and Attractive User Interfaces. Edited by Carroll, J.M,
   Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centred informatics, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, Chapter 1.
  Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S. & Ikar, D. (2000) What is beautiful is usable, Interacting with Computers, 13 (2), 127-145.
  Tractinscky and Zmiri, (2006) Exploring Attributes of Skins as Potential Antecedents of Emotion in HCI, In: Fishwick,
   P (ed.) Aesthetic Computing, MIT Press. Cambridge.
    ,
  Wright, P & McCarthy, J. (2009) Experience-Centered Design: Designers, Users, and Communities in Dialogue,
             .,
   Synthesis Lecturers on Human-centered Informatics, Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

Evaluating User Experience and User Engagement for Design

  • 1.
    Evaluating User Experience And User Engagement for Design Jennefer Hart PhD Year One Supervisors: Professor Alistair Sutcliffe & Dr Antonella De Angeli Manchester Business School July 2011
  • 2.
    Research Contribution   Extend(and Verify) User Experience Theories   Explore the Nature of Interactivity   Develop and Test New Research Methodologies   Inform Design Practice   Improve Product Design
  • 3.
    Research Aims &Objectives ➤  To Investigate Key Constructs Extend the Cognitive Models (e.g., Interaction, Immersion, Flow, within Presence, Aesthetics, Emotion & User Experience Individual Dispositions). Develop Research ➤  To Capture User Experiences (as Methodologies they occur). Explore Prolonged Patterns of ➤  To Capture UX Patterns (over a Interaction prolonged time frame) Inform ➤  To Inform Design Guidelines (by Design determining what interactive Guidelines features elicit positive UX)
  • 4.
    Research Questions RQ1: Whatare the key constructs that contribute to user engagement and user experience? RQ2: What design protocols or features lead to positive user experiences? RQ3: What are the patterns of interaction over prolonged use?
  • 5.
    Research Plan &Methodology STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 3 Quasi- Controlled Longitudinal Experiment Experiment Study Diary X-Section Test Adapted Applied Study Survey Method Survey Method Method METHODS METHODS Retrospect Interview Observation Interview
  • 6.
    Research Plan (1) StudyOne: Quasi Experiment   Compare 3 different levels of interactive protocols   Aesthetics & Usability   Interaction & Engagement (Flow & Presence)   Individual Aesthetic Disposition   Develop Research Methodology   Survey Instrument   Observation – Critical Incidents   Interval Mood Scales (iScale*)   Video - Facial Expression RSQ 1: What are the key constructs that contribute to user experience? *[Karapanos, Martens & Hassenzahl, 2009]
  • 7.
    The National Gallery– Menu-based Interaction
  • 8.
    The Google ArtProject – Virtual Interaction
  • 9.
    The Louvre –Interactive Animated Guide
  • 10.
    Research Plan (2) StudyTwo: Controlled Experiment   Compare 2-3 different levels of interactive protocols   Bespoke Technologies   Same Content V Different Interactive Features (e.g. video, presence, virtual, etc)   Research Methodology (from Study One)   Tested Survey Instrument   Observation – Critical Incidents   Interval Mood Scales (iScale)   Video – Facial Expression   Focus on Key Design Features   Interactive Guide (Presence)   Virtual Environment (Flow & Engagement) RSQ 2: What design ‘features’ lead to positive user experiences?
  • 11.
    Research Plan (3) StudyThree: Longitudinal Study   Compare 2-3 different levels of interactive protocols   Existing technologies (within same domain)   Prolonged Time Frame   Capturing patterns of prolonged user experiences   Adapted Research Methodology   Diary Based Study   Experience Probes   Adapted Mood Scales (iScale)   Two Phased Survey   Staged Interviews   Selected Observation RSQ 3: What are the patterns of interaction over prolonged use?
  • 12.
    Research Technologies: PersonalFitness Tools Classic Text Based Style Video Based Interaction Style Interactive Customization Facility Active (Haptic) Interactive Style
  • 13.
    Thank-you any questions?
  • 14.
    References   Hassenzahl, M.(2003) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In M.Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A. F Monk, & P C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic . . Publishers, pp. 31-42.   Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002) Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness, London: Rider.   Hartmann, Sutcliffe, & De Angeli, (2008) Towards a Theory of User Judgement of Aesthetics and User Interface Quality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(4), 15-30.   Hassenzahl, M. (2003) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In M.Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A. F Monk, & P C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic . . Publishers, pp. 31-42.   Hassenzahl, M. (2004) The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products, Dordrecht, Human Computer Interaction (19) 4, 319-349.   Jordan, P W. (2002) Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors, CRC Press. .   Karapanos, E, Martens, J, B., & Hassenzahl, M. (2009) Reconstructing Experiences through Sketching, ACM TOCHI.   Law, E. L., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P O., & Kort, J. (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user . experience: A survey approach, Proceedings: CHI 2009, Botson MA, pp. 710-728.   Leong, T. W., Vetere, F. & Howard, S. (2005) The Serendipity Shuffle Proceedings of the 19th conference of the computer- interaction special group (CHISIG), Citizens online: considerations for today and the future, OZCHI 2005, Canberra, Australia.   Nielson, J. (1993) Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.   Norman, D. A. (2004) Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, New York: Basic Books.   Shen, K. N., & Khalifa, M. (2008) Exploring Multidimensional Conceptualizations of Social Presence in the Context of Online Communities, Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(7), 722-748.   Sutcliffe, (2010), Designing for User Engagement: Aesthetic and Attractive User Interfaces. Edited by Carroll, J.M, Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centred informatics, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, Chapter 1.   Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S. & Ikar, D. (2000) What is beautiful is usable, Interacting with Computers, 13 (2), 127-145.   Tractinscky and Zmiri, (2006) Exploring Attributes of Skins as Potential Antecedents of Emotion in HCI, In: Fishwick, P (ed.) Aesthetic Computing, MIT Press. Cambridge. ,   Wright, P & McCarthy, J. (2009) Experience-Centered Design: Designers, Users, and Communities in Dialogue, ., Synthesis Lecturers on Human-centered Informatics, Morgan & Claypool Publishers.