See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260414908

Developing Elements of User Experience for

Mobile Phones and Services: Survey, Interview,
and Observation Approaches
Article in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing July 2013
Impact Factor: 0.86 DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20316

CITATIONS

READS

12

351

5 authors, including:
Jaehyun Park
Incheon National University
19 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Jaehyun Park

Retrieved on: 20 June 2016

Developing Elements of User Experience for Mobile

Phones and Services: Survey, Interview, and
Observation Approaches
Jaehyun Park, Sung H. Han, Hyun K. Kim, Youngseok Cho, and Wonkyu Park
Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), San 31,
Hyoja, Pohang 790-784, Republic of Korea

Abstract
The term user experience (UX) encompasses the concepts of usability and affective engineering. However, UX has not been defined clearly. In this study, a literature survey, user interview and indirect
observation were conducted to develop definitions of UX and its elements. A literature survey investigated 127 articles that were considered to be helpful to define the concept of UX. An in-depth interview
targeted 14 hands-on workers in the Korean mobile phone industry. An indirect observation captured
daily experiences of eight end-users with mobile phones. This study collected various views on UX
from academia, industry, and end-users using these three approaches. As a result, this article proposes
definitions of UX and its elements: usability, affect, and user value. These results are expected to help
design products or services with greater levels of UX. C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: User experience; Survey; In-depth interview; Indirect observation; Mobile phones and
services

1. INTRODUCTION
User experience (UX) broadly describes all aspects of
interactions between a user and a product (Alben, 1996;
Arhippainen & Tahti, 2003; Forlizzi & Ford, 2000;
Kuniavsky, 2007; Marcus, 2006; McNamara &
Kirakowski, 2006). The concept of UX covers affect or
usability engineering (Alben, 1996; Hassenzahl & Roto,
2007). However, UX has not been defined clearly
(Law et al., 2008; Law & Van Schaik, 2010). UX concepts
Correspondence to: Sung H. Han, Department of Industrial
and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), San 31, Hyoja, Pohang
790-784, Republic of Korea. Phone: 82-54-279-2203; e-mail:
shan@postech.edu.
This article was published online on 20 October 2011. An
error was subsequently identified. This notice is included in
the online and print versions to indicate that both have been
corrected 13 June 2013.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20316

vary in terms of scope, objects, or elements considered. One concept focuses on temporality perspective
of UX (Karapanos, Zimmerman, Forlizzi, & Martens,
2009; Makela & Fulton Suri, 2001). Another focuses on
co-experience by considering the social aspects of UX
(Battarbee, 2003). Furthermore, academic researchers
and product developers apparently have different opinions of what UX means (Vaa nanen-Vainio-Mattila,
Roto, & Hassenzahl, 2008).
Attempts have been made to obtain a universal definition of UX. Hassenzahl and Tractinsky (2006) divided UX studies into three perspectives (beyond the
instrumental, emotion and affect, and experiential),
and finally defined UX as an outcome reflecting the
users internal state, the systems characteristics, and
the context of use. Law, Roto, Hassenzahl, Vermeeren,
and Kort (2009) conducted a survey to collect views
of UX researchers and practitioners from academia
and industry, and proposed UX as something individual that emerges from interacting with a product, system, service, or object. These studies may successfully

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 23 (4) 279293 (2013)

c 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.



279

User Experience Elements

derive UX definitions, which most researchers somewhat agree with, but they do not report what factors
contribute to UX. Elements or factors that contribute
to UX have rarely been systematically addressed in UX
research.
This study attempts to identity factors that may directly influence UX. This objective was achieved by
a combination of literature survey, in-depth interview, and indirect observation. The literature survey
mainly reflects views of academia researchers on UX.
In-depth interviews with practitioners reveal the perspective of developers of mobile phones or services,
who must meet the requirements of users. The indirect
observation with end-users helps to understand behaviors of real users. Finally, perspectives on UX from
these sources were used to define elements and subelements of UX. The literature survey comprehensively
covered major works about UX, while the in-depth
interview and indirect observation were each supplementary work to reveal any new ideas that were not
mentioned or covered in the literature. For that reason, a relatively small number of interviewees and users
participated in this study.
UX was investigated for mobile phones and services
in this study. We had several reasons for this choice.
First, numerous previous UX studies have been conducted for these products and services (Arhippainen
& Tahti, 2003; Hiltunen, Laukka, & Luomala, 2002;
Roto, 2006). In addition, most corporations in the
Korean mobile industry have established UX departments or groups. Thus, their employees are used to
improving UX of their products or services. Moreover,
mobile phones and services have come into wide use
so that a person who does not have a mobile phone is
rare. Accordingly, finding participants who are mobile
phone users is easy.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY
A literature survey consisted of three phases: (a) collecting, (b) screening, and (c) analyzing. A total of 247
articles were collected using keywords: user experience
(UX), usability, human-computer interaction (HCI),
user interface (UI), ease of use, usefulness, affective engineering, context of use, product/customer life cycle,
user centered design (UCD), customer value added,
technology acceptance model (TAM), and brand equity. Of these, 127 articles were selected, which were
considered relevant to definitions and elements of UX.
At this time, articles that did not include the keyword
280

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

UX directly but were considered to be valuable and

helpful to construct UX concept were also collected.

2.1. Basic Statistics

Basic statistics of the studies on UX were analyzed in
terms of sources, regions, research types, and publication years (Figure 1). Most of the articles were
proceedings (56) and journal papers (49); nine were
from magazines, six from books, four from reports,
and three from dissertations. The proceedings were
mainly from the ACM Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI) and the International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII);
17 and 10 articles were from each conference, respectively. Most of the collected studies were conducted
in North America (56) or Europe (47). Studies conducted in North America have various keywords such
as traditional usability, UCD, TAM, or brand equity.
In contrast, European studies frequently mention the
term UX. Most UX studies were conducted at universities (81 articles). For example, University of Art and
Design Helsinki (UIAH), University of Oulu, and Delft
University of Technology have each published five articles. The number of papers published by companies
(25) is the second highest. Among them, Nokia (9)
and IBM (6) accounted for the majority. Cooperation
between universities and companies (16 articles) was
the third most common source of UX research. Research on UX conceptualization increased drastically
after 2005 (Figure 1, bottom). Most articles published
before 2005 focused on usability, UCD, or TAM instead
of on UX.
Authors backgrounds were also analyzed, using information given in the articles. The backgrounds were
divided into six categories: (a) human factors, (b) design, (c) computer science, (d) psychology, (e) information systems, and (f) business (Table 1). Most
research in the psychology domain concerned TAM,
whereas most in the business domain concerned brand
equity.

2.2. UX Definitions in Relevant Studies

A variety of researchers have conducted studies to define UX. Karapanos et al. (2009) focused on temporality, that is, UX might vary over time. According
to the study, early experiences tend to relate to hedonic aspects of a product use, but prolonged experiences may be associated with subjective aspects,

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

User Experience Elements

Reports (4) Books (6)

Magazines (9)

Others (13)
Proc. (56)
Asia (11)

Dissertations (3)

University & Others (5)

Company
(16)

North
America
(56)

Company
(25)

Europe
(47)

Journals (49)

University
(81)

Sources

Regions

Research types

25
22
19

20

18

15
11

11

11

11

10
6

0
Before
2000

Figure 1

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Publication year

Basic statistics of user experience literatures (frequency means number of articles).

such as how a product is meaningful and significant

in ones life. Desmet and Hekkert (2007) introduced a
framework for product experience, including three distinct components: (a) aesthetic experience, (b) experience of meaning, and (c) emotional experience. Prior to
this, Hekkert (2006, p. 160) defined product experience
as the entire set of affects elicited by the interaction
between the user and a product, including the degree
to which all our senses are gratified (aesthetic experience), the meanings we attach to the product (experience of meaning) and the feelings and emotions
that are elicited (emotional experience). Hassenzahl
and Tractinsky (2006) defined UX to be a consequence
TABLE 1. Domains of the Authors
Domain

Persons

Human factors (e.g., HCI, industrial engineering)

Design (e.g., industrial design, interface design)
Computer science (e.g., software engineering)
Psychology (e.g., cognitive psychology)
Information systems (e.g., quality engineering)
Business (e.g., marketing, business management)
Others
Total

47
39
34
25
38
51
6
240

of the users internal state (e.g., predispositions and

expectations), the characteristics of the designed system (e.g., complexity and usability), and the context
within which the interaction occurs (e.g., organizational/social setting). Marcus (2006) stated that UX
design includes an enlarged scope of objectives for
products and services. According to him, experience
covers all stakeholder touch-points, such as the places
where a buyer, a customer, a staff member, a journalist, or an investor comes into contact with the product
or service, or its sponsoring company or organization.
Rust et al. (2004) recommended that corporate managers should focus on customer equity, which is the
sum of the lifetime values of the firms customers. The
customer equity is influenced by value equity (e.g.,
price, and convenience of the offering), brand equity
and relationship equity (e.g., friendship with salespeople). Arhippainen and Tahti (2003) emphasized the
particular context of use that social and cultural factors influence. For example, social factors include time
pressure, explicit, and implicit requirements, whereas
cultural factors include gender, fashion, and habits.
Makela and Fulton Suri (2001) regarded present experience to be a result of a motivated action in a certain
context. The users previous experiences and expectations affect the present experience, which leads to more

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

281

User Experience Elements

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

experiences and modified expectations. Besides, many

articles have derived definitions of UX with simple
phrases such as all aspects of users interaction with a
product (Alben, 1996; Kuniavsky, 2007; Marcus, 2006;
McNamara & Kirakowski, 2006).

2.3. Defining UX
Experience can be categorized into the previous, the
present, and the future experience in chronological order. Because the users previous experiences influence
the present experience, which leads in turn to more experiences in the future (Makela & Fulton Suri, 2001),
UX analysis can focus on the present experience. Another approach is to investigate UX in terms of an object

with which the user interacts. Experience, brand experience, or product experience may be alternatives to
UX. Product experience belongs to brand experience
in a broad sense, and brand experience can be regarded
as one type of experience (Law et al., 2009). However,
many studies conducted to define UX suggested that
UX might be generated when the user interacts with
a product. Table 2 shows UX definitions reported in
relevant studies. The scope of UX is discussed in detail
in Section 5. As the results of the literature survey, this
study sets bounds to UX as product experience. In addition, most researchers mentioned that abstract and
subjective values of users such as emotional attachment
can be another facet of UX, instead of existing concepts such as usability or affect (Karapanos et al., 2009;

TABLE 2. User Experience (UX) Definitions Reported in Relevant Studies

Reference
Alben (1996)
Arhippainen and
Tahti
(2003)

Battarbee (2003)
Desmet and
Hekkert (2007)
Forlizzi and Ford
(2000)

Keyword
Quality of
experience
UX

Objects That
the User Interacts With

Emphasis on
Temporality

Products

Products

Co-experience
Products, other users
Product
Products
experience
UX
Products (including services)

UX

Designed systems

UX

Products

UX

Makel
a and
Fulton Suri (2001)
McNamara and
Kirakowski (2006)
Marcus (2006)

UX

Products (including services,

systems), organizations
Products

UX

Products

UX

Products, services,
companies/organizations
Products, services, companies

Nielsen Norman
Group (online)
Roto (2006)
Rust et al. (2004)

UX
UX
Customer
equity

System (products, objects,

services, people, infrastructure)
Brand (including products,
services)

Introducing social factors, cultural

factors, context of use
Introducing co-experience
Considering experience of meaning

X
X

Hassenzahl and
Tractinsky (2006)
Karapanos et al.
(2009)
Kuniavsky (2007)

Notes About UX Concept

Developing a framework, including

cognition, subconsciousness, narrative,
and storytelling experience

Regarding functionality, usability, and

UX as independent aspect of usage
Regarding cultural model as important

X
1
2

Based on brand equity perspective

Notes: 1 : Temporal context refers to the period that the user can dedicate for the system given the context restrictions.
2
: Customer lifetime refers to the time during which the customer has a relationship with the company.
[Corrections were made in body of table after initial online publication.]

282

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

User Experience Elements

McNamara & Kirakowski, 2006). Moreover, temporality, which means that UX may vary over passage of
time, can be an important component of UX.

ion about the first hypothesis, service experience as

well as product experience belongs to UX, he or she
was also asked questions about his or her own definitions of product experience and service experience.

3. IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW
3.1. Organization

3.2. Backgrounds of Participants

An in-depth interview was conducted to target handson workers in the Korean mobile phone industry. Academic UX research tends to focus on UX theories and
frameworks, whereas the industrial UX development
seems more likely to emphasize practical attributes,
such as functionality (Vaa nanen-Vainio-Mattila et al.,
2008). An in-depth interview of hands-on workers
might help to bridge the gap between how the research
community and the product developers perceive the
UX concept.
The interview includes 12 questions related to definitions, scopes, and elements of UX (Table 3). The
interview questions were revised from publications
using survey or interview approaches (Law et al.,
2009; Marcus, Ashley, Knapheide, Lund, Rosenberg, &
Vredenburg, 2009). Each interviewee was asked to indicate the degree of agreement to hypotheses on a 15
scale (1: totally disagree, 2: partly disagree, 3: neither
agree nor disagree, 4: partly agree, 5: totally agree).
The interviewee was asked to give reasons why he or
she provided each opinion and to explain his or her
own definition about related concepts. For example,
when the interviewee was asked to provide their opin-

Fourteen hands-on workers participated in the indepth interview. The interviewees worked for eight
different companies, including those involved in cellphone manufacturing (Samsung, LG and Motorola
Korea), mobile telecommunication (SK Telecom, KT
and LG Telecom), and internet service (NHN and
Daum). The interviewees consisted of user interface
(UI) designers, UX designers, system or software developers, and managers of UI/UX departments. Each
had been employed in the position for an average of 6
years. Their backgrounds included industrial engineering (6 persons), design (4 persons), computer science
(1 person), and cognitive engineering (1 person). Three
interviewees had doctorates, nine had masters degrees,
and two had bachelors degrees.

3.3. Findings About UX

Interview results were analyzed in terms of service and
brand experience and UX elements. The analysis was
conducted based on average scores and interviewees
comments. If the average score is close to 1 or 5, most
interviewees are likely to strongly disagree or agree on

TABLE 3. Interview Questions and Quantified Results

Interview Questions (11 hypotheses and 1 open-ended question)
UX definitions and scopes (Q1)
Q1-1. Service experience as well as product experience belongs to UX
Q1-2. The user can gain UX without interacting with a product
Q1-3. A nonprofit product brings UX
Q1-4. UX occurs because of the users relationship with a corporation
Q1-5. UX exists before the actual use of a product
Q1-6. Promotional activities before a product launch bring UX
UX elements (Q2)
Q2-1. Usability of a product and users affect influence UX
Q2-2. The users subjective value toward a product influences UX
Q2-3. Information given by other users influences UX
Q2-4. Previous experience with similar products influences UX
Q2-5. Culture background of the user influences UX
Q2-6. The three most important factors influencing UX (open-ended)

Avg.

Std.

95 CI

4.79
3.21
4.86
4.21
4.14
3.79

0.43
1.42
0.36
0.89
1.03
1.37

4.565
2.473.96
4.675
3.754.68
3.604.68
3.074.50

4.79
4.50
3.93
4.79
4.86

0.43
0.65
1.00
0.43
0.36

4.565
4.164.84
3.414.45
4.565
4.675

Notes: Avg., Std., and 95 CI mean average, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

283

User Experience Elements

the hypothesis, respectively. However, comments reported by the interviewees were considered more important because interpretations of the average scores
did not have enough statistical evidence. The results
showed that most ideas of the UX concept developed
by the literature survey were confirmed by the detailed
comments.
First, most interviewees believed that service as well
as product experience are components of UX. Second,
UX seems to occur by users interactions with a corporation. However, most interviewees stated that a product or service mediates that relationship. This fact supports the hypothesis that UX should be bounded by
product or service experience. Third, they considered
that usability, affect, users subjective value, and previous experience are important. They were asked to select three important factors affecting UX (open-ended
question Q2-6). Among them, 12 of 14 interviewees
selected usability, 10 selected affect, 8 selected users
subjective value, and 8 selected previous experience.
As confirmed by the interview results, this study proposed usability, affect, and users subjective value as
main elements of UX, and users subjective value is
termed user value in the remaining section. Previous
experience is regarded to be outside the scope of UX
elements, because it may be related to measurement of
UX.

4. INDIRECT OBSERVATION
4.1. Method for Capturing Experiences
The aim of this indirect observation was to collect
mobile phone users behaviors and understand what
constitutes their experiences. Many observation approaches to capture experiences of the user have
been introduced so that a product can be best designed early in the product development life cycle.
Even though this study does not aim to design a
product or service, the observation seems to be appropriate to gain understanding of the daily experiences of users. Observation approaches are helpful to catch thoughts and feelings that participants
would probably not have in a controlled experiment.
Beyer and Holtzblatt (1998) introduced an organized
process of contextual inquiry consisting of one-onone observations and interviews. The experience sampling method (ESM) has also been widely used. In
this approach, participants are asked to stop at random times and make notes of their experience in real
284

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

time (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007;

Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983). In addition, log
files can be used to understand how users are experiencing products or services (Kuniavsky, 2003). However, these approaches involve a high level of experimenters or participants burden, or are expensive.
For these reasons, Karapanos et al. (2009) used the
day reconstruction method (DRM) to investigate rich
qualitative experiences of users and to articulate the
UX concept with several narrative terms. The DRM let
participants record their daily experiences once before
going to sleep (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz,
& Stone, 2004). In contrast, Swallow et al. (2005) used
the voice recording to capture mobile phone usage and
developed several dimensions explaining UX. But this
method has a drawback: It requires voice recorders,
which make an experiment costly.

4.2. Experimental Design

An indirect observation using DRM was conducted
to capture users behavior patterns, feelings, thoughts,
and episodes when the users interacted with their mobile phones. However, in a small pilot test using DRM,
we found that the users may feel burdened when they
recall mobile phone use accurately. Because they use
their mobile phones frequently, recalling all daily experiences at one time can be difficult. Thus, this study
used a hybrid approach based on DRM. All participants were asked to record their experiences three
times per day. Whenever they wrote about their experiences, they were asked to write a series of episodes.
Each episode included a brief name of the episode,
place, time, affair, and participants feelings elicited
by their experience. The observation was conducted
over 7 days for each participant, because this period is
long enough to capture their experiences (Kuniavsky,
2003).

4.3. Participants
To collect a variety of experience that is as wide as
possible, eight different user types were defined before
recruiting participants. First, characteristics of mobile
phone users were developed based on social, cultural,
and contextual factors that were considered to influence UX. User characteristics included age, gender, region, occupation, period of ownership, previous experiences with other brands of phones, and the type
of mobile phones that the user owned at the time

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

User Experience Elements

(e.g., bar type and folder type). Second, primary user

characteristics were selected by referring to a severity rating by HCI specialists. For example, period of
ownership was regarded as a primary characteristic,
because it is related to customer life cycle (CLC). According to Karapanos et al. (2009), UX changes over
time after the purchase of a product. Occupation and
gender were also considered as primary factors in this
step. Third, eight user types were developed by considering combinations of primary user characteristics (i.e., period of ownership, occupation, and gender). Taking into account that the average life cycle of
Korean mobile phone is about 1.5 years, the period
of ownership factor was classified into two categories:
within a week after purchase (short term UX) and 6
to 12 months after purchase (long-term UX). Occupation was categorized into two groups: student (e.g.,
high school and university student) and nonstudent
(e.g., office worker). Students usually do not have economic power that can differentiate users behavior
patterns such as the use of wireless data communication. For example, in Korea, people who are in a
low-income group cannot use the mobile internet frequently with their mobile phones, because the pricing
scheme used for mobile internet is usually a meter-rate
system based on the amount of data (Ahn, Lee, Lee,
& Kim, 2006). This study did not consider the types
of mobile phones that the participants own, because
the focus of the experiment was to extract a variety of
experiences.
Eight users participated in the indirect observation.
They were recruited using the personal database methods (Kuniavsky, 2003) so that each user represents
one of eight user types. This recruiting method can
help participants to feel a sense of trust and collaboration with researchers. This feeling is important in
a self-observation study, because participants share
information about their daily lives with researchers
(Hektner et al., 2007). The participants averaged 24.5
years old with a standard deviation of 3.25 years. Four
were male and four were female. Four were students,
three were office workers, and one was a housekeeper.
Three of them used full-touch phones, two used foldertype phones, two used slide-type phones, and one
used an unspecified type of phone. The participants
were assumed to have equal ability to recall important
events. Participants usages, perceptions, and behaviors
were also assumed not to be affected by their earlier
reports.

4.4. Identifying Subelements of UX

UX is an ambiguous and abstract construct. Nevertheless, it can be decomposed into a hierarchical structure
consisting of more concrete attributes (i.e., elements
and subelements). Usability, affect, and user value were
identified as three elements influencing UX as stated
earlier. Subelements, which mean attributes of each element, were identified by analyzing the results of the
literature survey and augmented by the observation
study. Although plentiful studies have identified subelements for usability and affect (Han & Hong, 2003;
Han et al., 2000), a few studies investigated subelements for user value from the users standpoint. Thus,
this study focused on identifying the subelements of
user value.
The identifying process consisted of three steps:
(a) developing an initial list, (b) mapping episodes
on the list, and (c) revising the list. First, an initial
subelement list was developed by referring to relevant
studies. For example, feelings of confidence, achievement, and friendship may be candidates for user value
(Savas, 2004). In this step, an initial list, including
21 subelement candidates was developed: customer
need, eagerness, fun, usefulness, expectation, attachment, identity, independence, confidence, novelty, relaxation, jealousy, challenge, sociability, control, security, trust, loyalty, addiction, cost, and customizability.
Candidates that were not relevant to user value or that
could be merged in to other candidates were eliminated
from the initial list. Then, all episodes collected from
the indirect observation were assigned to one or more
of the candidates in the list. A total of 216 episodes were
collected from the eight participants during the 7-day
period. For example, the following episode, which was
written by a female high school student, can be matched
to challenge.
The title of episode:Sending SMS (Short Message Service)
Beginning and end of time:5:05 am to 6:20 am
Place:In the subway
Affair:We, I and my old friend, texted each other for
nothing important.
Feelings related to this affair (including reasons for
the feeling):When I just purchased this mobile phone, it
was very inconvenient to text. So it was really slow. But,
now, I can text fast. It makes me feel good and happy.
I seem to be texting nonstop these days. Id better get
improving my SMS skill a little more.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

285

User Experience Elements

(Authors comment: In Korea, several methods are

used to input the Korean alphabet on mobile devices.
The methods depend on manufacturer, and differ from
each other in many ways. Accordingly, users who are
accustomed to a certain method for inputting the Korean alphabet often have trouble when first using another
method.)
If no candidate matches a certain episode, a new
concept would be generated in the third step. Four
concepts such as preciousness, possessiveness, fullness,
and killing time were added to the candidate list. Quantitative analysis, such as counting frequencies, was not
conducted, because results of the indirect observation
itself were considered supplementary data to augment
the initial subelement list. Finally, the candidates were
classified into five subelements (i.e., self-satisfaction,
pleasure, sociability, customer need, and attachment),
by considering causal or dominant/subordinate relationships among the candidates.

5. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF UX
5.1. Definition of UX
UX and its elements were defined, based on the results
of the literature survey, in-depth interview, and indirect observation. Experience is everything that happens
to us, from which we may obtain knowledge, feelings,
and skills. Forlizzi and Ford (2000) introduced experience, an experience, and experience as story.
First, experience is the constant stream that happens during moments of consciousness. Second, an
experience has a beginning and an end, and as a result changes the user, and sometimes, the context of
the experience. Third, experience as story represents
narratives that we use to condense and remember experiences and to communicate them in a variety of
situations to certain audiences. Forlizzi and Battarbee (2004) also proposed a concept of co-experience,
which creates meaning and emotion with other people
through product use. At any case, experience includes
all our routine activities, such as face-to-face relations
and religious activities, as well as brand, product, or
service experiences.
Brand experience is one type of experience, which is
a consequence of interactions between the user and a
certain brand. Brand experience includes interactions
with the corporation as well as with its branded products and services (Law et al., 2009). In fact, brand
is a broad and ambiguous concept. Farquhar, Han,
286

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

Herr, and Ijiri (1992) classified brand hierarchically

into three groups: (a) corporate brand, (b) family
brand, and (c) individual brand. Corporate brand uses
a companys name as a brand name (e.g., Apple and
Samsung). Family brand, also called umbrella brand,
involves several related products or services under one
brand name, while individual brand gives each product
or service a unique name. Factors that influence brand
experience may be brand loyalty, brand awareness, attitude to brand, brand ethics, and experiences with
products or services (Aaker, 1997; Keller & Lehmann,
2006; Krishnan & Hartline, 2001; Yoo & Donthu, 2001).
UX can be defined as an overarching experience that
consists of all aspects of users interaction with a product or service (Alben, 1996; Arhippainen & Tahti, 2003;
Forlizzi & Ford, 2000; Kuniavsky, 2007; Marcus, 2006;
McNamara & Kirakowski, 2006). Results of the indepth interview (hypothesis Q1-1) of this study and
Roto (2006) support the supposition that the user can
gain UX when he or she uses a certain service as well as a
product. In other words, UX means product or service
experience that composes brand experience (Figure 2).
Thus, this study limited the scope of UX to the product or service experience. The following sections show
elements of UX: usability, affect, and user value.

5.2. Elements of UX
Elements of UX are factors that influence UX significantly. This study suggests that usability, affect, and
user value are elements of UX. Usability and affect
have been widely studied since before the introduction of the concept of UX. The TAM theory included
ease of use. For example, Davis (1989) suggested that
perceived ease of use might actually be a causal antecedent to perceived usefulness. Nagamachi (1995)
introduced Kansei engineering, which has the goal of
implementing customers feelings and demands into
product function and design. In contrast, Han et al.
(2001) defined usability as the degree to which users
are satisfied with a product with respect to both its
performance and its image and impression. Han et al.
(2004) developed relationship models between product design and user satisfaction in terms of affective
engineering. However, the concept of UX is known to
be more extensive than simply usability or affect. Elements of UX should cover extensive situations, and not
be just a buzzword. Therefore, the incorporation of
user value differentiates our proposition from existing

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

User Experience Elements

Figure 2

User experience concept proposed in this study.

definitions of UX. Moreover, we propose subelements

and their definition of each UX element.

5.2.1. Usability
Usability was originally defined as the efficiency and effectiveness of the user interface (Hix & Hartson, 1993),
or the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction with
which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments (ISO 9241-11). Cakir (2000) tried
to improve usability of an everyday product using ISO
definition. In addition, relatively recent studies about
usability attempted to expand the theory of usability
so that the concept might include hedonic qualities as
well as pragmatic qualities. For example, Kwahk and
Han (2002) included image and impression values for
a usability concept. However, the present study focuses
mainly on performance aspects of a product or service
for the usability concept (Table 4).
Usability dimensions have been widely studied by
various researchers, since usability was first defined
by Bennet (1984) and Shackel (1984). Although ISO
(1993) defined three major dimensions, including (a)
effectiveness, (b) efficiency, and (c) satisfaction, other
dimensions, such as simplicity and learnability, were
also used to evaluate usability. For example, Han et al.

(2001) suggested performance dimensions of usability could be classified into three categories: (a) perception/cognition, (b) learning/memorization, and (c)
control/action. Strawderman and Koubek (2008) considered five usability dimensions to match service quality dimensions. Jin, Ji, Choi, and Cho (2009) also developed more than 20 usability dimensions to evaluate dishwashers, including consistency, familiarity, and
feedback. In this study, approximately 30 dimensions
related to usability were collected from the literature.
Seven subelements of usability were then determined
through integration and screening processes. Dimensions related to subjective satisfaction were excluded
from usability subelements, because these dimensions
are considered as affect or user value subelements.

5.2.2. Affect
Russel (2003, p. 148) defined core affect as a neurophysiological state consciously accessible as the simplest non-reflective feelings evident in moods and emotions. However, this concept may not be applicable to
UX, because core affect does not focus on an object
that the user interacts with. Accordingly, in this study,
affect is considered as an emotion that is a consequence
of interaction with a product or service (Table 5).

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

287

User Experience Elements

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

TABLE 4. Definitions of Sublements of Usability

Subelement
Simplicity
Modelessness
Directness
Accessibility
User control
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Effortlessness
Informativeness
Comprehensiveness
Explicitness
Visibility
Legibility/readability
Flexibility
Adaptability
Interoperability
Learnability
Memorability
Familiarity
Predictability
Intuitiveness
Consistency
User support
Easy installation
Error prevention
Forgiveness
Feedback
Helpfulness

Definition
way a product/service looks and works is simple, plain, and uncomplicated
Capability that allows the user to do whatever they want when necessary (e.g., easy to change
a mode of product or service)
Degree of users perception of directly controlling the user interface of a product/service
Degree to which a product/service is easy to approach or operate
Ability for the user to regulate, control, and operate the user interface of a product/service
Degree to which a product/service enables a task successfully without wasting time or energy
Accuracy and completeness with which specified users achieved specified goals in particular
environment
Ability of a product/service to require or involve no effort of the user
Degree to which a product/service is instructive and gives all the necessary information to the
user in a proper manner
Degree to which a product/service covers or includes extensive information that is needed or
relevant to the user
Users perception that the way a product/service looks and works is clear and accurate
Degree of users perception of clearly seeing objects on the user interface of a product/service
Degree of users perception of reading or understanding a word, line, or paragraph written in
the user interface of a product/service
Extent to which a product/service can accommodate changes to tasks and environments
beyond those first specified
Degree to which a product/service is changed easily to fit different users and/or conditions
Ability of two or more product/services are used or operated reciprocally
Time and effort required for the user to learn how to use a product/service
Degree to which a product/service is easy to remember
Extent to which the users knowledge and experience in other domains or real world can be
applied to interacting with a new product/service
Ability for the user to expect the effect of future actions based on past interaction experiences
Degree of users perception of understanding the way a product/service looks and works by
intuition
Similarity in the way a product/service looks and works and the input/output behavior arising
from similar situations or tasks
Ability for the user to operate a product/service easily through its entire life cycle
Ability for the user to install or initiate a new product/service easily
Ability to help the user preventing errors and taking corrective actions once an error has been
recognized
Ability for the user to cancel or undo their tasks on the assumption that the user may make a
mistake
Degree of presenting feedback information for the user input
Users perception that a product/service communicates in a helpful way

Note: The indented words mean components of each subelement outdented above.

Affect research on products has widely been conducted.

Picard (1995) applied the affect concept to computers.
Hong (2005) reported that affective satisfaction is influenced by product appearances and investigated affective satisfaction toward mobile phones. Desmet and
Hekkert (2007) suggested the concept of aesthetic experience considering a products capacity to delight one
or more of our sensory modalities. Horn and Salvendy
288

(2009) indicated that affect is significantly related to

willingness to purchase consumer products.
Subelements of affect consist of affective words represent customers feeling. To develop these affective
words, surveys have widely been conducted to investigate how people express their feelings, thoughts, or
impressions (Nagamachi, 1995; Han et al., 2000). Various studies have developed affective words, which are

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

User Experience Elements

TABLE 5. Definitions of Subelements of Affect

Sub-element

Definition

Delicacy
Simplicity
Texture
Luxuriousness
Color
Attractiveness

Degree to which a product/service is elaborate, or finely and skillfully made

The way a product/service looks and works is simple, plain, and uncomplicated
Degree to which a products texture or touch appeals to the users
Degree to which a product/service is luxurious or looks superior in quality and expense
Degree to which the color used in a product/service is likable, vivid, or colorful
Users perception that a product/service is pleasing, arousing, interest, and attractive

TABLE 6. Definitions of Subelements of User Value

Sub-elements

Definition

Self-satisfaction

Degree to which a product/service gives the user satisfaction with himself or herself or
achievements
Users perception of being the distinct personality of an individual (related terms: personality,
self-expression, unique)
Users perception of achieving something new and difficult which requires great effort and
determination (Related terms: Achievement)
Belief in oneself and ones abilities reflected by a product/service (related terms: pride, fullness)
Users feeling of being pleased or gratified by interacting with a product/service
Degree to which a product/service gives the user enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure
Degree to which a product/service provides the user new vigor and energy
Degree to which a product/service satisfies the users desire of being sociable
Degree to which a product/service set the stage where the user can feel, express, or share their
emotions socially
Degree to which a product/service provides the user values related to social issues, problems,
and reforms
Users perception of having a friendly relation with other people
Degree to which functions or appearances of a product/service satisfy the users needs
Users perception of having keen interest or intense desire
Users act or state of looking forward or anticipating
Degree to which a product/service has a beneficial, practical use
Degree to which a product/service is changed or built easily to fit personal specifications or
preferences
Ability for the user to attach subjective value to a product/service
Degree to which a product/service is novel, new, or unique (related term: curiosity)
Degree to which a product/service is valuable, precious to the user
Degree to which a product/service deserves of trust or confidence (related terms: belief, trust)

Identity
Challenge
Confidence
Pleasure
Fun
Refresh
Sociability
Social emotion
Social value
Friendship
Customer need
Eagerness
Expectation
Usefulness/Utility
Customizability
Attachment
Novelty
Preciousness
Trustworthiness

Note: The indented words mean components of each subelement outdented above.

expected to vary over product or service. In this study,

six subelements were identified by revising dimensions,
which were suggested by Hong (2005).
5.2.3. User Value
User value is a subjective value that the user attaches to a
product (Table 6). The value may be related to how the

user thinks the product is meaningful and significant

in his or her life. This element of UX is correlated with
symbolic association proposed by Crilly, Moultrie, and
Clarkson (2004). According to the study, symbolic association is determined by what the product is seen
to symbolize about its user, or the social-cultural context of use. For example, while a chair affords sitting,
a throne implies status and power. Clearly, individual

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

289

User Experience Elements

and cultural differences influence this cognitive context (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007). In fact, the values,
such as fun or usefulness, were regarded as important
before the emergence of the concept of UX. Igbaria,
Schiffman, and Wieckowski (1994) proposed perceived
fun might be important as much as perceived usefulness. Kahle (1983) retrieved list of value, which affect
users purchasing behavior: sense of belonging, selffulfillment, fun and enjoyment in life, warm relationships with others, being well-respected, excitement,
sense of accomplishment, security, and self-respect.
Although many studies were concerned about fun,
pleasure, or subjective value, a few attempted to identify
elements of user value. In this study, the initial subelement list from the literature survey was augmented by
analyzing episodes of the indirect observation. Then,
five subelements of user value were proposed using a
merging process (Section 4.4).

6. DISCUSSION ON THE UX
CONCEPT
UX can be defined as an overarching experience that
consists of all aspects of users interaction with a product or service. All existing theories about UCD, usability, affect engineering, and TAM are applicable to UX.
Moreover, even brand equity may also influence UX
(Arhippainen & Tahti, 2003). For that reason, gathering various views and specifying the scope of UX is important. With our survey, interview, and observation,
this study regards UX as product or service experience.
This study concludes that brand experience, not mediated by products or services, does not affect UX. For
example, a corporate advertisement to enhance its image can affect users and give users a kind of experience,
but it may not contribute to UX. We can call it just
brand experience.
Of course, many kinds of service experience contribute to UX, including product experience, even if
service may be conducted without physical interfaces.
However, the shapes or characteristics of user interfaces vary, sometimes drastically, in different products
or services. Thus, influential factors may differ among
services or products. Usability, affect, and user value,
which are proposed as important elements for UX of
mobile phones and services, may not be main factors
in other types of products. For example, for UX of
automobiles, safety, and fuel efficiency can be more

290

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

important factors than usability or affect. Bahn, Lee,

Nam, and Yun (2009) developed material, elasticity,
harmony, shape, and color as influential factors to evaluate a car crash pad. At a glance, those are quite different from elements and subelements of UX for mobile
phones and services.
In other words, the UX elements and their subelements developed in this study can only be applicable
to evaluate mobile phones and services. A prototype
implemented in the process of developing a new mobile product or service can be evaluated by investigating
how latent customers can be satisfied in terms of UX elements. Of course, the UX concept cannot account for
every phenomenon, but it gives us more information
that was not reported by existing theories, including
affect and usability engineering.
In addition, among the UX elements or subelements,
correlation or causation can exist. First, they are not
expected to be mutually exclusive of each other. The relationship among the constructs highly relies on how
they would be defined. Picard (1995) considered pleasure and joy, which are classified into user value in
this study, as an affective state. Besides, Han et al.
(2001) included image or impression as well as performance in usability.. In this way, although correlations
among constructs were not investigated systematically,
elements of UX can be correlated. For instance, simplicity belongs to both usability and affect in this
study. Second, UX elements and subelements may have
cause-effect relationships. The Rokeach Value Survey
(RVS) defined terminal values as desirable end-states
of existence, which included friendship, mature love,
self-respect, and happiness (Rokeach, 1973). Rokeachs
terminal values seem to be similar to user value defined in this study. We may naturally think that user
value is a consequence of usability or affect. This causeeffect relation may be examined in future work.

7. CONCLUSION
UX is concerned with experience that occurs when
a user interacts with a product or service. Many researchers and practitioners agree that UX includes all
aspects of users interaction, but experience without
product or service should be excluded. Using a literature survey, in-depth interview, and indirect observation, which represent academia, industry, and end-user
perspectives, respectively, this study developed three

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

User Experience Elements

main elements of UX (i.e., usability, affect, and user

value) and their subelements.
The literature survey played a key role in developing
the elements, while the results of the interview and observation were used as supplementary tools to augment
any new ideas to the initial concepts developed by the
literature survey. Nevertheless, the in-depth interview
has significantly contributed to confirm the elements
of UX and to set bounds to UX. The indirect observation has played an important part to elicit subelements
of user value.
The proposed hierarchical structure of UX is expected to contribute to the process of designing mobile
phones and services. In addition, more effort could also
be dedicated to developing measurement methods for
each element and subelement of UX. Afterward, the
measured structure might be tested by various techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in
future studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by Mid-career Researcher
Program through the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) (No. 20100000364).
References
Aaker, D. A. (1997). Should you take your brand to where
the action is? Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 135142.
Ahn, J., Lee, J., Lee, J. D., & Kim, T. Y. (2006). An analysis of
consumer preferences among wireless LAN and mobile
internet services. ETRI Journal, 28(2), 205214.
Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience: Defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions, 3(3),
1115.
Arhippainen, L., & Tahti, M. (2003). Empirical evaluation
of user experience in two adaptive mobile application
prototypes. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM
2003), Norrkoping, Sweden, 2734.
Bahn, S., Lee, C., Nam, C. S., & Yun, M. H. (2009). Incorporating affective customer needs for luxuriousness
into product design attributes. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 19(2), 105127.
Battarbee, K. (2003). Defining co-experience. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI 2003),
Pittsburgh, PA, 109113.

Bennet, J. (1984). Managing to meet usability requirements: Establishing and meeting software development goals. In J. Bennet, D. Case, J. Sandelin, & M.
Smith (Eds.), Visual display terminals: Usability issues
and Health Concerns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design:
Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Cakir, A. E. (2000). Improving the quality and usability
of everyday products: A case for report systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10(1),
321.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing
things: Consumer response to the visual domain in
product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547577.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems,
13(3), 319339.
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product
experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57
66.
Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y., Herr, P. M., & Ijiri, Y. (1992).
Strategies for leveraging master brands: How to bypass
the risks of direct extensions. Marketing Research, 4(3),
3243.
Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. Proceedings of Designing
Interactive Systems (DIS 2004), Cambridge, MA, 261
268.
Forlizzi, J., & Ford, S. (2000). The building blocks of
experience: an early framework for interaction designers. Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems (DIS
2000), 419423.
Han, S. H., & Hong, S. W. (2003). A systematic approach
for coupling user satisfaction with product design. Ergonomics, 46(1314), 14411461.
Han, S. H., Kim, K. J., Yun, M. H., Hong, S. W., & Kim, J.
(2004). Identifying mobile phone design features critical to user satisfaction. Human Factors and Ergonomics
in Manufacturing, 14(1), 1529.
Han, S. H., Yun, M. H., Kim, K. J., & Kwahk, J. (2000).
Evaluation of product usability: Development and validation of usability dimensions and design elements
based on empirical models. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(4), 477488.
Han, S. H., Yun, M. H., Kwahk, J., & Hong, S. W. (2001).
Usability of consumer electronic products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(34), 143
151.
Hassenzahl, M., & Roto, V. (2007). Being and doing: A
perspective on user experience and its measurement.
Interfaces, 72.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

291

User Experience Elements

Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User

experiencea research agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 9197.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in product design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157
172.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.
(2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the
quality of everyday Life. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Hiltunen, M., Laukka, M., & Luomala, J. (2002). Mobile user experience. Finland: IT Press, Helsinki,
Finland.
Hix, D., & Hartson, H. R. (1993). Developing user interfaces: Ensuring usability through product and process.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hong, S. W. (2005). A methodology for modelling and
analyzing users affective satisfaction toward consumer
electronic products. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pohang University of Science and Technology
(POSTECH), South Korea.
Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring consumer
perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfaction
and purchasability. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
manufacturing, 19(3), 223240.
Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S. J., & Wieckowski, T. J. (1994).
The respective roles of perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 13(6),
349361.
ISO 9241-11. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office
work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11:
Guidance on usability.
Jin, B. S., Ji, Y. G., Choi, K., & Cho, G. (2009). Development of a usability evaluation framework with
quality function deployment: From customer sensibility to product design. Human Factors and Ergonomics
in Manufacturing, 19(2), 177194.
Kahle, L.R. (1983). Attitudes and social adaptation: a
personsituation interaction approach. London: Pergamon Press.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz,
N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction
method. Science, 306. 17761780.
Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Martens, J.B. (2009). User experience over time: An initial framework. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009),
Boston, MA 729738.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing
Science, 25(6), 740759.

292

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

Krishnan, B., & Hartline, M. D. (2001). Brand equity:

Is it more important in services? Journal of Services
Marketing, 15(5), 328342.
Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience:
A practitioners guide to user research. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann,.
Kuniavsky, M. (2007). User experience and HCI. In A.
Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (2nd ed.). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kwahk, J., & Han, S. H. (2002). A methodology for evaluating the usability of audiovisual consumer electronic
products. Applied Ergonomics, 33(5), 419431.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling method. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, 15, 4156.
Law, E.L-C., Roto V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P. O.
S., & Kort J. (2009). Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. Proceedings of
the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI 2009), Boston, MA 719728.
Law, E.L-C., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., Kort, J., &
Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a shared definition of
user experience. CHI 08 extended abstracts on human
factors in computing systems, 23952398, New York:
ACM. Florence, Italy.
Law, E.L-C., & Van Schaik, P. (2010). Modelling user experience: An agenda for research and practice. Interacting
with Computers, 22(5), 313322.
Makela, A., & Fulton Suri, J. (2001). Supporting users
creativity: Design to induce pleasurable experiences.
Proceedings of International Conference on Affective
Human Factors Design, Singapore, 387394.
Marcus, A. (2006). Cross-cultural user-experience design.
The International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (CTS 2006), Las Vegas, NV.
Marcus, A., Ashley, J., Knapheide, C., Lund, A., Rosenberg, D., & Vredenburg, K. (2009). A survey of userexperience development at enterprise software companies. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on Human Centered Design: Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA 601610.
McNamara, N., & Kirakowski, J. (2006). Functionality,
usability, and user experience: Three areas of concern.
Interactions, 13(6), 2628.
Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product
development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(1), 1324.
Nielsen Norman Group. 2010. User experience:
Our definition. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from
http://www.nngroup.com/about/userexperience.html

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Park, Han, Kim, et al.

User Experience Elements

Picard, R. W. (1995). Affective computing. MIT Media Laboratory Technical Report No. 321 from
http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/95.picard.pdf
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New
York: Free Press.
Roto, V. (2006). Web browsing on mobile phones: Characteristics of user experience. (Doctoral dissertation).
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.
Russel, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological
construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1),
145172.
Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., & Lemon, K. N. (2004).
Customer-centered brand management. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 110118.
(2004). A perspective on person-product relaSavas, O.
tionship: Attachment and detachment. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. Van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and
emotion: The experience of everyday things. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Shackel, B. (1984). The concept of usability. In J. Bennet,
D. Case, J. Sandelin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Visual display

terminals: Usability issues and health concerns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Strawderman, L., & Koubek, R. (2008). Human factors
and usability in service quality measurement. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18(4), 454
463.
Swallow, D., Blythe, M., & Wright, P. (2005). Grounding experience: Relating theory and method to evaluate the user experience of smart phones, Proceedings
of the 2005 Annual Conference on European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics (EACE 2005), Chania,
Greece.
Vaa nanen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., & Hassenzahl, M.
(2008). Towards practical user experience evaluation
methods. Proceedings of the 5th COST294-MAUSE
Open Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful
User Experience Measurement (VUUM 2008), Reykjavik, Iceland.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 114.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

293