User Experience - A Research Agenda
User Experience - A Research Agenda
User Experience - A Research Agenda
To cite this article: Marc Hassenzahl & Noam Tractinsky (2006): User experience - a research agenda, Behaviour &
Information Technology, 25:2, 91-97
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 25, No. 2, March-April 2006, 91 – 97
Over the last decade, ‘user experience’ (UX) became a buzzword in the field of human –
computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. As technology matured, interactive
products became not only more useful and usable, but also fashionable, fascinating things to
desire. Driven by the impression that a narrow focus on interactive products as tools does not
Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:19 23 April 2013
capture the variety and emerging aspects of technology use, practitioners and researchers
alike, seem to readily embrace the notion of UX as a viable alternative to traditional HCI.
And, indeed, the term promises change and a fresh look, without being too specific about its
definite meaning. The present introduction to the special issue on ‘Empirical studies of the
user experience’ attempts to give a provisional answer to the question of what is meant by ‘the
user experience’. It provides a cursory sketch of UX and how we think UX research will look
like in the future. It is not so much meant as a forecast of the future, but as a proposal – a
stimulus for further UX research.
quantitative – impedes theoretical advancement and addressed? Is there a ‘research agenda’ for UX? In the
restricts our understanding of UX as concept and its remainder of this editorial, we attempt to provide a cursory
further development. sketch of how we think UX research will look like in the
The present special issue on ‘Empirical studies of the user future. Our view is not meant to be an accurate forecast.
experience’ is meant as a contribution to the limited body Rather, we intend it to be a proposal – a stimulus for
of empirical work on UX. Our objective was to collect a further UX research.
series of original, high-quality empirical papers on various A glance at the literature on UX, such as the ‘Design and
(mainly positive) aspects that go beyond the purely Emotion’ conferences (e.g. McDonagh et al. 2003), the
cognitive and task-oriented. This request was well received ‘Funology’ workshops and publications (Blythe 2003,
by the community. All in all, 28 manuscripts were Blythe et al. 2004), Helander and Tham’s (2003) special
submitted for review. Thirty-nine expert reviewers assessed issue on ‘Hedonomics’, the emerging literature on ‘Aes-
the manuscripts. Our emphasis as editors was not only on thetics’ (e.g. Tractinsky in press), or the work of Pat Jordan
the quality of the papers, but also on the diversity of the (e.g. Jordan 2000) and – recently – Don Norman (2004a),
resulting collection. We set out to demonstrate the richness reveals three major perspectives. One thread predominantly
of UX research, the diversity of topics, approaches and deals with addressing human needs beyond the instru-
results. mental; a second thread stresses affective and emotional
The final issue contains seven papers. Kil-Soo Suh and aspects of the interaction; and a third thread deals with the
Sunjhe Chang (this issue) demonstrate how a technology nature of experience. Let us briefly discuss each perspective
Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:19 23 April 2013
(i.e. virtual reality) leads to a particular experience (i.e. (see Hassenzahl in press, for a further overview) and the
telepresence), which mediates knowledge, attitudes, pur- most interesting related research questions.
chase intentions and perceptions of product risk. In the
paper ‘Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds
2. Beyond the instrumental
to make a good first impression!’ (this issue), Gitte
Lindgaard, Gary Fernandez, Cathy Dudek and Judy Since its early days, HCI research focused almost exclu-
Brown show how fast impressions of the visual appeal of sively on the achievement of behavioural goals in work
a website are formed and how stable they are. Mark Blythe, settings. The task became the pivotal point of user-centred
Josephine Reid, Peter Wright and Erik Geelhoed (this analysis and evaluation techniques (e.g. usability testing).
issue) take an interdisciplinary approach to the empirical To ensure the interactive product’s instrumental value
study of UX. Their analysis of Riot!, a location-sensitive became the major endeavour of the field.
interactive play, not only gives interesting insights into the However, this narrow focus on the instrumental was
mechanics, problems and benefits of such a new technol- repeatedly challenged. In an early attempt to define UX,
ogy, it also reveals the way different conceptual and Alben (1996), for example, identified beauty (i.e. aesthetics)
methodological approaches lead to different perspectives, as an important quality aspect of technology (see Hassen-
which strongly benefit from each other. This article also zahl 2004b, Lavie and Tractinsky 2004). Beauty clearly
demonstrates the potential mismatch between designers’ goes beyond the instrumental. It becomes important
intentions and users’ actual experiences. A group of papers because of its intrinsic value (Postrel 2002), which echoes
emphasises methods and tools: Regan Mandryk, Kori the fact that beauty satisfies a general human need (Maslow
Inkpen and Thomas Calvert (this issue) focus on using 1954). Beauty is an end rather than a means.
physiological measures to study the UX with entertainment Gaver and Martin (2000) argued for the importance of a
technologies. With ‘affectemes and allaffects’, Lesley whole range of specific non-instrumental needs, such as
Axelrod and Kate Hone (this issue) suggest and test a surprise, diversion, or intimacy, to be addressed by
novel approach to coding emotional expression during technology. These ideas begin to disseminate into HCI
experiences with technology. Ann Light (this issue) focuses research practice, as demonstrated by faMiliar (Mandic
on interviewing techniques to gather insights into the and Kerne 2005), an addition to email, which visualizes
experiential. Finally, Marian Petre, Shaily Minocha and ‘rhythms in social engagements’ (p. 1617). It builds on
Dave Roberts (this issue) transfer UX to the field and intimacy as a core construct (see also Vetere et al. 2005).
demonstrate how a more holistic understanding of quality Drawing upon the concept of emotional usability (Logan
in the context of business-to-consumer extends or alters et al. 1994), Hassenzahl (2003) argued that future HCI
established tools and techniques. must be concerned about the pragmatic aspects of
We hope the present issue will encourage scientists and interactive products (i.e. its fit to behavioural goals) as
practitioners to engage in empirical UX research and by well as about hedonic aspect, such as stimulation (i.e.
that to advance our understanding of UX. It is meant as personal growth, an increase of knowledge and skills),
another starting point for rich research practices. But what identification (i.e. self-expression, interaction with relevant
are promising topics to study beyond those already others) and evocation (i.e. self-maintenance, memories).
User experience – a research agenda 93
This multidimensional model explicitly links product computing takes a ‘computer’ perspective. It predomi-
attributes with needs and values. A product’s novelty and nantly deals with questions such as how computers can
the challenges it provides, for example, contribute to its sense user affect, adapt to it, or even express its own
hedonic quality, which is relevant because it promises affective response (see Picard and Klein 2002, Hudlicka
fulfilment of an underlying human need – a need for being 2003). In addition, humans interacting with technology are
stimulated, to perfect one’s skills and knowledge, to grow. depicted as having mostly negative emotions. Conse-
Such means-end chains (e.g. Gutman 1997) provide insights quently, affective computing deals with mechanisms that
into the ‘meaning’ of products and by that, a better detect and undo negative emotions – a substitute for human
understanding of how to address those meanings by design. and social care and friendship, close to an automated
Albeit different in detail, all of these approaches have a version of anger management. For example, Interacting
common goal: to enrich current models of product quality with Computers’ Special Issue on Affective Computing
with non-instrumental aspects to create a more complete, (Cockton 2002) is dominated by illustrations of how
holistic HCI. interactive systems can aid irritated users, manage their
What are the challenges of this perspective for future frustrations or prevent other negative emotions. In this
research? Above all, non-instrumental needs must be better paradigm, the researchers envision computerised toys that
understood, defined and operationalised. How do they are ‘capable of soothing a crying child or of perhaps
translate into product quality? Which product attributes artificially preventing strong feelings of loneliness, sadness,
are linked to which needs? Based on a better understanding, frustration, and a host of other strong, negative emotions’
Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:19 23 April 2013
their interplay and importance can be studied. Perhaps the (Picard and Klein 2002, p. 23).
most intriguing question is how the overall quality or the Although UX research shares Affective Computing’s
‘goodness’ of an interactive product is formed, given recognition of affect and emotions, it is rather concerned
pragmatic and hedonic aspects and underlying needs with affective consequences on the human side than with
(Hassenzahl 2004b, Norman 2004b). Are instrumental technology, which is able to have affect (see Hollnagel 2003,
and non-instrumental quality perceptions related to each for a critique of Affective Computing). UX takes a ‘human’
other, as for example demonstrated for beauty and perspective. It is interested in understanding the role of affect
usability by Tractinsky et al. (2000), or independent of as an antecedent, a consequence and a mediator of technology
each other, as shown by Hassenzahl (2002) for hedonic and use. In addition, it is rather focused on positive emotions. To
pragmatic quality aspects? Are needs equally important, do prevent frustration and dissatisfaction had always been a core
they form a hierarchy (as suggested by Jordan 2000) or objective even of the most cognitively driven perspective on
rather a particular, context-dependent prioritisation (Shel- HCI. What is new in UX research is a focus on positive
don et al. 2001), which may change with specific usage emotional outcomes such as joy, fun and pride.
situations, personal tastes or both? Can we create dynamic A design example that actually seeks to foster positive
quality models, which are able to prescribe an adequate emotional experiences is Gustbowl (van der Hoog et al.
weighting of quality aspects (and the related needs) for a 2004), a communication tool designed to connect children
given product and context of use? How do we design for and parents. Analyses revealed children – parent commu-
particular needs? And finally: What is the impact of nication to be predominantly emotional and built on
embedding non-instrumental needs into products in terms affective rituals. Both aspects are not supported by the
of acceptance, valuation and choice? Tractinsky and Zmiri occasional phone-call, which makes the communication
(in press), for example, showed the choice of personalised sometimes awkward and slightly unpleasant, although
user interfaces (‘skins’) to be driven by aesthetic and children and parents want the contact. Gustbowl is an
symbolic considerations. Is this finding generalisable or actual bowl, maybe placed in the hallway, which transmits
does it depend on product ‘genre’ (e.g. ‘leisure’ versus pictures of things thrown into it to its counterpart. The
‘work’) and usage situation (e.g. ‘social’ versus ‘time other bowl acknowledges receipt with a wobble and an
pressure’)? image of the sender bowl’s content. Gustbowl exploits the
ritual of coming home. A father may have the habit of
depositing his keys, without much thinking, into the bowl
3. Emotion and affect
when coming home. A daughter living apart would receive
Current research emphasises the importance of the affective a slight wobble and a picture of the keys reminding her of
system for a wide range of central processes, such as human home, without the need for an explicit act of communica-
decision-making (e.g. Loewenstein and Lerner 2003) or tion. Gustbowl enables the sending of affective messages in
subjective wellbeing (Suh et al. 1996). The ‘Affective an implicit, unobtrusive, effortless and continuous way,
Computing’ project was one of the pioneering attempts to which blends into day-to-day life.
address affect by HCI (Picard 1997). It called attention to A second example for an affective requirement addressed
the importance of affect and emotions. However, affective by a technology comes from Millard et al.’s (1999)
94 M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky
motivational user interface for call-centre software. Call- concerns emotions as design goals. Is it possible to design
centre agents expressed the need to have an instant emotions? Or are emotions too ephemeral (see Hassenzahl
overview of the quality of interaction they had so far with 2004a)? In other words, if emotions are a product of many
their customers. Negative interactions tend to get more different situational aspects, designers may not have the
weight in retrospective assessments. Thus, a single negative ability to exert the amount of control needed for creating
interaction can have a significant negative impact on an particular emotions. Using an interactive product may not
agent’s wellbeing, with no regard whether in fact the be comparable to watching a movie in a cinema or visiting a
majority of interactions had been positive. A common way theme park. Thus, designers may settle for establishing the
to avoid this type of bias is the use of diaries. Based on this context for an emotion rather than the emotion itself. And
general idea, Millard and colleagues designed moodies, a further: What are the effects of addressing affect and
function that allowed collecting an electronic token for creating affective responses on judgements (e.g. liking,
each call, which represents the quality of the interaction willingness-to-pay) and behaviour (e.g. money or time
with the customer. This collection enables an agent to spent on product, performance). For example, is it possible
produce an instant, unbiased image of the overall quality of to trace the way beauty creates emotions and, more
customer interaction during his shift. generally, the way those emotions influence judgement
Desmet et al. (2001) demonstrated, how affect could and decision-making, both immediately (Lindgaard et al.
become a design goal. They tried to fit a mobile phone to this issue) and reflectively?
the user’s preferred affective response. While all users –
Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:19 23 April 2013
products?
Another question arises from the ‘experience as stream of
self-talk’ – perspective. How is this stream transformed The current strong interest in UX, which encompasses
into retrospective summary assessments (e.g. Ariely and both practice and research, is not accidental. Many
Carmon 2003)? Such assessments represent an experience. interactive products found their way into our daily lives.
They have an impact on future experiences. Moreover, they State-of-the-art machinery (graphics, sound, networks,
form the basis for communicating about experiences. miniaturisation, etc.) allows for more than mere function-
Hassenzahl and Sandweg (2004), for example, showed ality. At the same time, the growing and changing base of
summary assessments of software’s usability to depend users shifts the parameters of demand for interactive
heavily on problems encountered at the end of a usage products. The UX perspective takes this shift seriously.
episode. This end-effect highlights the difference between an Its focus on aspects beyond the functional, on the positive,
experience and retrospective judgements about experiences the experiential and emotional is no coincidence. It is
(see Kahneman 1999, for a thorough discussion of this idea driven by commercial vendors, who are sensitive to the
in the context of wellbeing). Judgements about experiences changes in business climate, by designers who appreciate
and the experiences themselves are related, but not new design opportunities, and by a scientific community
identical. that shows renewed interest in the affective system and its
interplay with cognition.
Especially the focus on the positive aspects of technol-
5. Summary and conclusion
ogy use mirrors a trend in psychology, where Seligman
So, what is UX? We took a brief look at three prominent and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) argued for a new millennium
perspectives. Each perspective contributes a facet to our psychology to be positive, i.e. to deal with human
understanding of users’ interactions with technology, while strengths and the promotion of wellbeing rather than
sharing some ideas and arguments with the other perspec- with human weaknesses and healing alone (see also
tives (see figure 1). Kahneman et al. 1999). UX in the sense of a positive
Thus, none of these perspectives fully captures UX. UX HCI would, thus, focus on how to create outstanding
is about technology that fulfils more than just instrumental quality experiences rather than merely preventing usability
needs in a way that acknowledges its use as a subjective, problems. Again, this will question another implicit
situated, complex and dynamic encounter. UX is a assumption of traditional HCI, one that equates high
consequence of a user’s internal state (predispositions, quality with the absence of problems. This may be
expectations, needs, motivation, mood, etc.), the character- analogous to the notion that absence of illness equals
istics of the designed system (e.g. complexity, purpose, health. But just as there is much more to wellbeing than
usability, functionality, etc.) and the context (or the the absence of malady, so must there be more to UX than
environment) within which the interaction occurs (e.g. the absence of problems. From our perspective, one of
organisational/social setting, meaningfulness of the activ- HCI’s main objectives in the future is to contribute to our
ity, voluntariness of use, etc.). Obviously, this creates quality of life by designing for pleasure rather than for
innumerable design and experience opportunities. absence of pain. UX is all about this idea.
96 M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky
ALBEN, L., 1996, Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective IGBARIA, M., SCHIFFMAN, S.J. and WIECKOWSKI, T.J., 1994, The respective roles
interaction design. Interactions, 3, pp. 11 – 15. of perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of micro-
ARIELY, D. and CARMON, Z., 2003, Summary assessment of experiences: the computer technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 13, pp. 349 – 61.
whole is different from the sum of its parts. In Time and decision. JORDAN, P., 2000, Designing pleasurable products. An introduction to the new
Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice, human factors (London, New York: Taylor & Francis).
G. Loewenstein, D. Read and R.F. Baumeister (Eds), pp. 323 – 49 KAHNEMAN, D., 1999, Objective happiness. In Well-being: The foundations
(New York: Russel Sage). of hedonic quality, D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (Eds),
BLYTHE, M., HASSENZAHL, M. and WRIGHT, P.C. (Eds), 2004, More pp. 3 – 25 (New York: Sage).
Funology [Special Section]. Interactions, 11, 36 – 77. KAHNEMAN, D., DIENER, E. and SCHWARZ, N. (Eds), 1999, Well-being: The
BLYTHE, M., OVERBEEKE, C., MONK, A.F. and WRIGHT, P.C. (Eds), 2003, foundation of hedonic psychology (New York: Sage).
Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (Dordrecht: Kluwer). KIM, J. and MOON, J.Y., 1998, Designing towards emotional usability in
BOVEN, L.V. and GILOVICH, T.D., 2003, To do or to have? That is the question. customer interfaces – trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, pp. 1193 – 202. Interacting with Computers, 10, pp. 1 – 29.
CARROLL, J.M. and THOMAS, J.C., 1988, Fun. SIGCHI Bulletin, 19, pp. 21 – 4. LAVIE, T. and TRACTINSKY, N., 2004, Assessing dimensions of perceived
COCKTON, G. (Ed.), 2002, From doing to being: bringing emotion into visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human – Computer
interaction [Special Issue]. Interacting with Computers, 14. Studies, 60, pp. 269 – 98.
DAVIS, F.D., BAGOZZI, R.P. and WARSHAW, P.R., 1992, Extrinsic and LOEWENSTEIN, G. and LERNER, J.S., 2003, The role of affect in decision making.
Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of In Handbook of affective science, R.J. Davidson, K.R. Scherer and H.H.
Applied Social Psychology, 22, pp. 1111 – 32. Goldsmith (Eds), pp. 619 – 42 (New York: Oxford University Press).
DESMET, P.M.A. and HEKKERT, P., 2002, The basis of product emotions. In LOGAN, R.J., AUGAITIS, S. and RENK, T., 1994, Design of simplified
Pleasure with products: beyond usability, W. Green and P. Jordan (Eds), television remote controls: a case for behavioral and emotional usability.
pp. 60 – 8 (London: Taylor & Francis). In Proceedings of the 38th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
DESMET, P.M.A., OVERBEEKE, C.J. and TAX, S.J.E.T., 2001, Designing Meeting (Santa Monica: HFES), pp. 365 – 9.
products with added emotional value: development and application of an MANDIC, M. and KERNE, A., 2005, Using intimacy, chronology and
approach for research through design. The Design Journal, 4, pp. 32 – 47. zooming to visualize rhythms in email experience. In Proceedings of the
FORLIZZI, J. and BATTARBEE, K., 2004, Understanding experience in CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing. Extended
interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing abstracts (New York: ACM), pp. 1617 – 20.
Interactive Systems (DIS 04): processes, practices, methods, and MASLOW, A.H., 1954, Motivation and personality (New York: Harper).
techniques (New York: ACM), p. 261. MCDONAGH, D., HEKKERT, P., VAN ERP, J. and GYI, D. (Eds), 2003, Design
GAVER, W.W. and MARTIN, H., 2000, Alternatives. Exploring Information and Emotion: The Experience of Everyday Things (London: Taylor &
Appliances through Conceptual Design Proposals. In Proceedings of the Francis).
CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing (New York: MILLARD, N., HOLE, L. and CROWLE, S., 1999, Smiling through: motivation
ACM), pp. 209 – 16. at the user interface. In Proceedings of the HCI International’99, Volume
GUTMAN, J., 1997, Means-end chains as goal hierarchies. Psychology and 2 (pp. 824 – 8) (Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Marketing, 14, pp. 545 – 60. NORMAN, D., 2004a, Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday
HASSENZAHL, M., 2002, The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product things (New York: Basic Books).
appealingness. International Journal of Human – Computer Interaction, NORMAN, D., 2004b, Introduction to this special section on beauty,
13, pp. 479 – 97. goodness, and usability. Human Computer Interaction, 19, pp. 311 – 18.
HASSENZAHL, M., 2003, The thing and I: understanding the relationship OVERBEEKE, C.J., DJAJADININGRAT, J.P., HUMMELS, C.C.M. and WENSVEEN,
between user and product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, S.A.G., 2002, Beauty in Usability: Forget about ease of use! In Pleasure
M. Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A.F. Monk and P.C. Wright (Eds), pp. 31 – 42 with products: Beyond usability, W. Green and P. Jordan (Eds), pp. 9 – 18
(Dordrecht: Kluwer). (London: Taylor & Francis).
User experience – a research agenda 97
PICARD, R., 1997, Affective computing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). TRACTINSKY, N., KATZ, A.S. and IKAR, D., 2000, What is beautiful is usable.
PICARD, R. and KLEIN, J., 2002, Computers that recognise and respond to Interacting with Computers, 13, pp. 127 – 45.
user emotion: theoretical and practical implications. Interacting with VAN DER HOOG, W., STAPPERS, P.J. and KELLER, I., 2004, Connecting
Computers, 14, pp. 141 – 69. mothers and sons: a design using routine affective rituals. Interactions,
POSTREL, V., 2002, The substance of style (New York: Harper Collins). 11, pp. 68 – 9.
SELIGMAN, M.E.P. and CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M., 2000, Positive Psychology: VETERE, F., GIBBS, M.A., KJELDSKOV, J., HOWARD, S., MUELLER, F., PEDELL,
An Introduction. American Psychologist, 55, pp. 5 – 14. S., MECOLES, K. and BUNYAN, M., 2005, Mediating intimacy: designing
SHELDON, K.M., ELLIOT, A.J., KIM, Y. and KASSER, T., 2001, What is technologies to support strong-tie relationships. Proceedings of the CHI
satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing (New York: ACM),
needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, pp. 325 – 39. pp. 471 – 80.
SINGH, S.N. and DALAL, N.P., 1999, Web home pages as advertisements. WHITESIDE, J. and WIXON, D., 1987, The dialectic of usability engineering.
Communications of the ACM, 42, pp. 91 – 8. In INTERACT 87 – 2nd IFIP International Conference on Human –
SUH, E., DIENER, E. and FUJITA, F., 1996, Events and subjective well-being: Computer Interaction. September 1 – 4, 1987, Stuttgart, Germany,
Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 17 – 20.
70, pp. 1091 – 102. WRIGHT, P.C., McARTHY, J. and MEEKISON, L., 2003, Making sense of
TRACTINSKY, N., in press, Aesthetics in Information Technology: Motiva- experience. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, M. Blythe,
tion and Future Research Directions. In Human – Computer Interaction C. Overbeeke, A.F. Monk and P.C. Wright (Eds.), pp. 43 – 53
in Management Information Systems: Foundations, P. Zhang and (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
D. Galletta (Eds) (M.E. Sharpe). ZHANG, P. and LI, N., 2004, Love at first sight or sustained effect? The role
TRACTINSKY, N. and ZMIRI, D., in press, Exploring attributes of skins of perceived affective quality on user’s cognitive reactions to information
as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI. In Aesthetic computing, technology. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference
P. Fishwick (Ed.) (Cambridge: MIT Press). on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 283 – 95.
Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:19 23 April 2013