skip to main content
10.1145/3274192.3274196acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Study of Hedonic Experience Related to UX Capture Techniques

Published: 22 October 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Aiming to meet users' expectations, the technological products need to be attractive to people, such as the sense of the immersion experienced when reading an enjoyable book, a challenge destination during a good game or a fascination with the unfolding of a drama. The main challenge to recover from this status is to overcome the obstacle, make interactive experiences memorable, satisfying, enjoyable and rewarding. In this context, techniques to evaluate the User eXperience (UX) are trying to identify different feelings. Several UX evaluation proposed in the literature can identify feelings. So, this study makes an analysis of the explicit emotions in the UX techniques with a method coming from psychology. The result was mapped on the Circumplex Model of Affect and correlated with the simplified model present in the Emocards technique. The studies make possible to identify the feelings captured by each UX technique, in this way, allowing the evaluators to choose the right technique for their needs.

References

[1]
Nigel Bevan, James Carter, and Susan Harker. 2015. ISO 9241-11 Revised: What Have We Learnt About Usability Since 1998?. In Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Evaluation, Masaaki Kurosu (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 143--151.
[2]
Margaret M. Bradley and Peter J. Lang. 1994. Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 25, 1 (1994), 49--59.
[3]
Pieter Desmet. 2000. Emotion through expression; designing mobile telephones with an emotional fit. Report of Modeling the Evaluation Structure of KANSEI 3 (2000), 103--110.
[4]
Pieter Desmet. 2005. Measuring Emotion: Development and Application of an Instrument to Measure Emotional Responses to Products. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Mark A. Blythe, Kees Overbeeke, Andrew F. Monk, and Peter C. Wright (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 111--123.
[5]
ISO DIS. 2010. ISO 9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (1 ed.). Standard. International Organization for Standardization.
[6]
Sarah E. Garcia and Laura M. Hammond. 2016. Capturing & Measuring Emotions in UX. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 777--785.
[7]
Marc Hassenzahl, Andreas Beu, and Michael Burmester. 2001. Engineering joy. IEEE Software 18, 1 (2001), 70--76.
[8]
Marc Hassenzahl, Michael Burmester, and Franz Koller. 2003. AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung, Gerd Szwillus and Jürgen Ziegler (Eds.). Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 187--196.
[9]
Marc Hassenzahl, Annika Wiklund-Engblom, Anette Bengs, Susanne Hägglund, and Sarah Diefenbach. 2015. Experience-Oriented and Product-Oriented Evaluation: Psychological Need Fulfillment, Positive Affect, and Product Perception. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 31, 8 (2015), 530--544.
[10]
Eija Kaasinen, Virpi Roto, Jaakko Hakulinen, Tomi Heimonen, Jussi P. P. Jokinen, Hannu Karvonen, Tuuli Keskinen, Hanna Koskinen, Yichen Lu, Pertti Saariluoma, Helena Tokkonen, and Markku Turunen. 2015. Defining user experience goals to guide the design of industrial systems. Behaviour & Information Technology 34, 10 (2015), 976--991. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1035335
[11]
A.H. Kronbauer and C.A.S. Santos. 2015. The analysis of contextual factors on the use of smartphones applications. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Ubiquitous Environments 1, 4 (5 2015).
[12]
Hsiao-Chun Lai and Rushani Wirasinghe. 2017. Applied Research for Advertising Products: Tactics for Effective Research. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1144--1151.
[13]
Reed Larson and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2014. The Experience Sampling Method. In Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 21--34.
[14]
Camila Loiola Brito Maia and Elizabeth Sucupira Furtado. 2014. Uma revisão sistemática sobre medição da experiência do usuário. In Proceedings of the 13th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC '14). Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Brazil, Article 46, 4 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2738055.2738122
[15]
Camila Loiola Brito Maia and Elizabeth S. Furtado. 2016. A Study About Psychophysiological Measures in User Experience Monitoring and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 9 pages.
[16]
John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2007. Technology as experience. The MIT Press.
[17]
G.S. Nadeera Meedin and Indika Perera. 2016. Poster: Crowdsourcing for User Experience(UX) Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services Companion (MobiSys '16 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 58--58.
[18]
Elisa D. Mekler and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. Momentary Pleasure or Lasting Meaning?: Distinguishing Eudaimonic and Hedonic User Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4509--4520.
[19]
Iram Mirza and Joshua Tabak. 2017. Designing for Delight. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 59, 3 pages.
[20]
Livia J. Müller, Elisa D. Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2016. Hedonic Enjoyment and Personal Expressiveness in Positive User Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3166--3172.
[21]
Luis Rivero and Tayana Conte. 2017. A Systematic Mapping Study on Research Contributions on UX Evaluation Technologies. In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC 2017). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 10 pages.
[22]
Claire Rowland, Elizabeth Goodman, Martin Charlier, Ann Light, and Alfred Lui. 2015. User Experience Design for the Internet of Things., 44 pages.
[23]
James A. Russell. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 6 (1980), 1161--1178.
[24]
James A. Russell, Anna Weiss, and Gerald A. Mendelsohn. 1989. Affect Grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, 3 (1989), 493--502.
[25]
J. Alfredo Sánchez, Ingrid Kirschning, Juan Carlos Palacio, and Yulia Ostróvskaya. 2005. Towards Mood-oriented Interfaces for Synchronous Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2005 Latin American Conference on Human-computer Interaction (CLIHC '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--7.
[26]
Hanna Stelmaszewska and Bob Fields. 2004. Conceptualising user hedonic experience, In Proceedings of ECCE-12 -- Living and Working with Technology. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 12, 12--15.
[27]
Heli Väätäjä, Tiina Koponen, and Virpi Roto. 2009. Developing Practical Tools for User Experience Evaluation: A Case from Mobile News Journalism. In European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Designing Beyond the Product --- Understanding Activity and User Experience in Ubiquitous Environments (ECCE '09). VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT, Finland, Finland, Article 23, 8 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1690508.1690539
[28]
Arnold P O S Vermeeren, Effie Lai-Chong Law, Virpi Roto, Marianna Obrist, Jettie Hoonhout, and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2010. User Experience Evaluation Methods: Current State and Development Needs. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 521--530.
[29]
David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 6 (06 1988), 1063--1070.
[30]
Gloria Willcox. 1982. The Feeling Wheel. Transactional Analysis Journal 12, 4 (oct 1982), 274--276.
[31]
Ip Kin Anthony Wong. 2013. Exploring customer equity and the role of service experience in the casino service encounter. International Journal of Hospitality Management 32, 1 (2013), 91--101.
[32]
Philippe Georges Zimmermann. 2008. Beyond Usability--Measuring Aspects of User Experience., 112 pages.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
IHC '18: Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
October 2018
488 pages
ISBN:9781450366014
DOI:10.1145/3274192
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 October 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Affect Grid
  2. Affective IM
  3. AttrakDiff
  4. ESM
  5. Emocards
  6. PANAS
  7. PrEMO
  8. SAM
  9. UX method
  10. User eXperience
  11. hedonic experience

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

IHC 2018

Acceptance Rates

IHC '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 42 of 166 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 331 of 973 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 06 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media