We're happy to announce our upcoming workshop on User Experience in
conjunction with NordiCHI'06.
Here below please find the detailed information or visit our website:
Please contact me if you have any question concerning the workshop.
User Experience - Towards a unified view
(The Second COST294-MAUSE International Open Workshop)
One full day/ /workshop will be held in conjunction with the
international conference on human-computer interaction, NordiCHI 2006
**Date: October 14, 2006 (Saturday)
Location: NordiCHI'06 conference venue, Oslo, Norway.
* Expected Number, Balance and Selection of Participants*:
25: academic researchers and practitioners in Human-Computer Interaction
(HCI) and Software Engineering (SE)
The primary selection criterion is the quality of position papers, which
§ contribute to a deeper understanding of User Experience (UX),
especially its determinants and their relationships with existing HCI
§ stimulate participants to reflect on UX issues from inter-disciplinary
§ lay a ground for integrating existing schools of thought on UX
§ offer innovative and plausible methods to evaluate and measure UX
§ augment the scope of UX on the social level
*Workshop Themes and Goals*: */Theorizing, Qualifying and Quantifying UX/*
The conception of usability has been evolving, along with the emerging
IT landscape and the ever-blurring boundary of the field of HCI.
Specifically, the so-called user experience (UX) movement is gaining
ground. The tenet of UX can be well captured by McCarthy and Wright's
"Today we don't just use technology, we live with it. Much more deeply
then ever before we are aware that interacting with technology involves
us emotionally, intellectually and sensually. So people who design, use,
and evaluate interactive systems need to be able to understand and
analyze people's felt experience with technology"
UX is a broadly defined term, including attainment of behavioural goals,
satisfaction of non-instrumental (or hedonic) needs, and acquisition of
positive feeling and well-being. Neither a universal definition of UX
nor a cohesive theory of experience yet exists that can inform the HCI
community how to practically design for and evaluate UX.
Traditional usability is characterized as task-oriented and
performance-based. The three canonical usability metrics -
/effectiveness/, /efficiency/ and /satisfaction/ - basically address the
instrumental and non-instrumental aspects of technology use.
/Satisfaction/ is a composite term, amalgamating a cluster of "felt
experience" , and is measured in a coarse-grained manner. The current
UX research efforts attempt to reduce the composite /satisfaction/ into
elemental attributes - fun, pride, pleasure, surprise, intimacy, joy, to
name just a few - and thrive to *understand, define* and *quantify* such
Hassenzahl and Tractinsky  describe the trend of work on UX, evolving
from being programmatic in the 90s, conceptual in early 2000 to
empirical in mid-2000. Apparently, the HCI community, to a large extent,
has been convinced about the utility and necessity of looking into UX
issues. In attempting to understand UX several approaches focusing on
different aspects have been developed. Examples are:
§ Focus on emotions and affect (e.g. , )
§ Focus on the Experiential (e.g., , )
§ Focus on non-instrumental (hedonic) needs (e.g. )
§ Focus on aesthetics (e.g. )
But even those approaches understand interactive products as primarily
used for individual problem-solving. However, as software becomes more
and more "social" UX has to address concomitant issues as well. Counter
to the common understanding that experience is personal and private, it
can be co-constructed and shared in social interaction [1,2], resulting
in so-called "co-experience". The challenge is how to define, theorize,
qualify and quantify co-experience, which is clearly /not/ the sum of
individual user experience. In a digital social network, confounding
issues of context awareness, tele-presence and synchronization can
aggravate the difficulty of such a challenge.
Furthermore, recent research on quality models of user interfaces 
indicates that a mesh of so-called /non-functional/ quality factors
(e.g. security, privacy/trust, consistency, accessibility) determines
user acceptance. As they are closely coupled, addressing them in
parallel may invoke *tradeoffs* (e.g. ). It may be helpful to relate
quality attributes from distinct fields of human factors, usability and
software engineering to explore overlaps and similarities.
Theoretically UX is currently incoherent, methodologically UX is not yet
mature either. Some critics even argue that non-instrumental needs are
too fuzzy, elusive and idiosyncratic to operationalize (i.e. they are
simply dismissed as intractable) and that experience and emotion are too
ephemeral and complex to measure. Proponents of UX are more optimistic.
First, within UX there seems a shared understanding that UX needs to
clarify and operationalize constructs to be taken seriously within the
context of SE or user-centred design. Second, at least some approaches
to UX believe that with a proper definition come valid and reliable
The later requires the integration of the many facets of UX into a more
unified view. We reached a point, where the pressing question is no
longer whether we need UX or not. We need it and we must work on a
shared understanding of what UX is and how it can be addressed by
design, engineering and research.
The goals of the present workshop are:
§ To critically review theoretical frameworks for deepening our
understanding of UX
§ To explore means of how non-instrumental needs, affective requirements
and experiential expectations can be translated into product quality
§ To examine potential and pitfalls of traditional and alternative
evaluation methodologies for measuring UX
Specifically, we address the aforementioned challenges with the
following research questions:
§ Are UX elements tractable, quantifiable and measurable? Are we looking
for more qualitative measures? How valid and reliable are existing UX
§ What implications can we draw from UX research on the design and
evaluation of social software?
§ How does UX influence tradeoffs within software design? How does UX
relate to existing quality approaches in Software Engineering?
Position papers addressing the above arguments, aims, research questions
or related ideas are invited. Theoretical expositions, empirical
studies, case studies and experiential reports will be considered. Of
particular interest is to envision the role of UX in emerging
technologies with expected impact of 5-10 years and beyond.
Position papers should be submitted to: [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
July 15. 2006: Deadline for submission of position paper
August 8. 2006: Authors of accepted position papers notified
August 14. 2006: Early registration deadline
Position papers may be from four to six pages long and should be
formatted according to the ACM SIGCHI format:
SIGCHI Publications format (word file)
SIGCHI Publications format (pdf version)
SIGCHI Publications format (LaTeX files)
SIGCHI Publications format (Open Office)
Position papers should preferably be submitted as .rtf or .pdf files.
All submitted papers will be reviewed by at least two program committee
members. It is expected that at least one of the authors of each
accepted position paper registers for the workshop.
*Outcomes of the Workshop*:
§ Online/printed proceedings of the accepted position papers;
§ Special issue in a refereed HCI journal;
§ Joint research proposals
UI designers, usability researchers and practitioners, HCI students
*Description of Activities Planned*:
i. /Presentation/: Top 10 quality position papers (~ 3.0 hours)
ii. /Panel discussion/: A panel of UX experts will engage the floor
audience in debating some controversial topics in UX (~ 1.5 hour)
iii. /Research proposal drafting/: Participants will be divided into a
few small groups to identify most significant research questions in UX
that can be investigated in a large-scale research project (~ 1.0 hours)
iv. /Integration : /Participants will be divided into a few small groups
to identify ways to a more integrated approach to UX (~ 1.0 hours)
v. /Group reporting/: Group leaders will report to the plenary their
outcomes (~ 0.5 hour)
/Effie L-C. Law/, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich),
[log in to unmask]
/Ebba T. Hvannberg, /University of Iceland, Iceland
[log in to unmask]
/Marc Hassenzah/l, Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany,
[log in to unmask]
§ /Mark Blythe/, University of York, UK
§ /Gilbert Cockton/, University of Sunderland, UK
§ /Antonella De Angeli/, University of Manchester, UK
§ /Asbjørn Følstad, /SINTEF, Norway/,/
§ /Kasper Hornbæk, /University of Copenhagen, Denmark
§ /Andrew Monk, /University of York, UK//
§ /Mark Springett/, Middlesex University, UK
§ /Chris Stary,/ University of Linz, Austria
§ /Noam Tractinsky/, Ben Gurion University, Negev, Israel
§ /Arnold/ /P.O.S. Vermeeren, /TU Delft, the Netherlands//
 Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience. /Interactions, 3/, 11-15
 Battarbee, K. (2003). Defining co-experience. /Proceedings of
DPPI'03/, June 23-26, Pittsburgh, USA.
 Cranor, L.F., & Garfinkel, S. (2005). /Security and usability/.
 Desmet, P. M. A., Overbeeke, C. J., & Tax, S. J. E. T. (2001).
Designing products with added emotional value: development and
application of an approach for research through design. /The Design
Journal, 4,/ 32-47.
 Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in
interactive systems. /Proceedings of DIS2004/, August 104, Cambridge,
 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
/(pp. 31-42). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
 Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience - a
research agenda. /Behaviour and Information Technology, 25/(2), 91-97
 McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. C. (2004). Technology as Experience. MIT
 Norman, D. (2004). /Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday
things./ New York: Basic Books.
 Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities:
determining and measuring success. Behaviour and Information Technology,
 Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful
is usable. /Interacting with Computers, 13/, 127-145
 Vanderdonckt, J., Law, E. L-C., & Hvannberg, E.T. (2005).
/Proceedings of the First COST294 International Workshop on User
Interface Quality Models/. In conjunction with INTERACT 2005, 12-13^th
Sept 2005, Rome, Italy.
To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
mailto:[log in to unmask]
For further details of CHI lists see http://sigchi.org/listserv