User experience concept exploration: user needs as a source for innovation

ABSTRACT

We present a novel method for user-driven innovation: the User Experience Concept Exploration. The method relies on a User Experience (UX) framework which assumes that a positive UX can be created by fulfilling basic human needs. Users are actively involved in the ideation and design process to support the generation of innovative product features that address individual needs and actual contexts of use. After introducing the UX Concept Exploration and its theoretical underpinnings, the paper describes an empirical study evaluating the effectiveness of the method. The results show that the method is able to assess the most promising user-generated product features and combine them into a new concept which can enhance the positive user experience of a product.

References

1. Bradley, M. M. and Lang, P. J. 1994. Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. In Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, A. Arntz and M. van den Hout, Eds. Volume 25, 49--59.
2. Chen, C.-Y., Forlizzi, J. and Jennings, P. 2006. ComSlipper: An Expressive Design to Support Awareness and Availability. In Proceedings of CHI 2006, 369--374.
3. Crawford, J. R. and Henry, J. D. 2004. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. In British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 245--265.
4. den Uyl, M. and van Kuilenburg, H. 2005. The FaceReader: Online facial expression recognition. In Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2005, 589--590.
5. Dumas, J., Sorce, J., and Virzi, R. 1995. Expert Reviews: How Many Experts is Enough? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 39, 4, 228--232.
6. Ekman, P. and Rosenberg, E., Eds. 1997. What the Face Reveals: Basic and Applied Studies of Spontaneous Expression Using the Facial Action Coding System (Facs). Oxford University Press.
7. Forlizzi, J. 2007. The Product Ecology. International Journal of Design, Vol. 2 No. 1, 11--20.
8. Forlizzi, J. and Battarbee, K. 2004. Understanding experience in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems. processes, practices, methods, and techniques. DIS '04. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261--268.
9. Fraunhofer IAO. UXellence^® User Needs Questionnaire (UNeeQ). Available in German and English at http://www.hci.iao.fraunhofer.de/de/leistungsangebot/usability-ux/ux-engineering1.html.
10. Gaver, B. and Martin, H. 2000. Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. CHI '00. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 209--216.
11. Hassenzahl, M. 2003. The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In Funology. From usability to enjoyment, M. A. Blythe, Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, 31--42.
12. Hassenzahl, M. 2007. The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience. In Towards a UX Manifesto. COST294-MAUSE affiliated workshop, 10--14.
13. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., and Koller, F. 2003. AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In Mensch & Computer 2003. Interaktion in Bewegung. Mensch & Computer 2003. Teubner, Stuttgart, Germany, 187--196.
14. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., and Göritz, A. 2010. Needs, affect, and interactive products -- Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers 22, 5, 353--362.
15. Tokkonen, H. and Saariluoma, P. 2013. How User Experience is Understood? In Science and Information Conference 2013, 791--795.
16. ISO/TC 159/SC 4 (2010). ISO 9241-210:2010 Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.
17. Laschke, M., Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., and Tippkämper, M. 2011. With a little help from a friend: a shower calendar to save water. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (Extended Abstracts Volume). CHI EA '11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 633--646.
18. Reiss, S. 2004. Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation The Theory of 16 Basic Desires. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 3, 179--193.
19. Reynolds, T. J. and Gutman, J. 1988. Laddering theory method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research Feb/March, 28, 1, 11--31.
20. Roto, V., Law, E. L.-C., Vermeeren, A., and Hoonhout, J. 2011. User Experience White Paper - Bringing clarity to the concept of user experience.
21. Sheldon, K. M., Kim, Y., Elliot, A. J., and Kasser, T. 2001. What Is Satisfying About Satisfying Events? Testing 10 Candidate Psychological Needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80, 2, 325--339.
22. Sproll, S., Peissner, M., and Sturm, C. 2010. From product concept to user experience: exploring UX potentials at early product stages. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Extending Boundaries. NordiCHI '10. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 473--482.
23. Wright, P. and Mccarthy, J. 2010. Experience-centered design. Designers, users, and communities in dialogue. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA, USA.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Interaction design

    • Interaction design process and methods

      • User centered design