Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality-of-user-experience: a position paper

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Quality and User Experience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

So far, research on quality-of-experience (QoE) has mostly been carried out in the area of multimedia communications, and user experience (UX) has addressed hedonic and pragmatic usage aspects of interactive applications. In the case of QoE, the meaningfulness of the application to the user and the forces driving the use have been largely neglected, while in the UX field, respective research has been carried out but hardly been incorporated in a model combined with the pragmatic and hedonic aspects. In this article, we take a step further approaching a comprehensive view of QoE and UX by adding eudaimonic aspects, such as meaningfulness and purpose-of-use, and by introducing the multidimensional construct of quality-of-user-experience (QUX). As meaning can be expected to play a major role in cyber-physical system (CPS) applications, we provide a characterization of CPS applications considering the professional/industrial and consumer/private domains, and analyze a number of characteristics that are relevant for users and their experience. In three exemplary scenarios, we illustrate the application of our concept and propose respective, not yet validated, QUX-models. Finally, we address related research challenges .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At this point, we refer to the “QoE Vadis?” Dagstuhl Manifesto [16] that gives recommendations such as a “QoE by design” approach as well as interdisciplinary research and stronger collaboration with the industry.

References

  1. Alur R (2015) Principles of cyber-physical systems. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bargas-Avila JA, Hornbæk K (2011) Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2689–2698

  3. Barnard L, Yi JS, Jacko JA, Sears A (2007) Capturing the effects of context on human performance in mobile computing systems. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 11(2):81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Aaker JL, Garbinsky EN (2013) Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. J Posit Psychol 8(6):505–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Belk RW (1975) Situational variables and consumer behavior. J Consum Res 2:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Biswas-Diener R, Kashdan TB, King LA (2009) Two traditions of happiness research, not two distinct types of happiness. J Posit Psychol 4(3):208–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bradley NA, Dunlop MD (2005) Toward a multidisciplinary model of context to support context-aware computing. Hum Comput Interact 20(4):403–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carroll JM (2004) Beyond fun. Interactions 11(5):38–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen H (2017) Applications of cyber-physical system: a literature review. J Ind Integr Manag 2(3):1750012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Dey A (2001) Understanding and using context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 5(1):4–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dey N, Ashour AS, Shi F, Fong SJ, Tavares JMRS (2018) Medical cyber-physical systems: a survey. J Med Syst 42(4):74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-0921-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Diefenbach S, Kolb N, Hassenzahl M (2014) The ‘hedonic’ in human-computer interaction: history, contributions, and future research directions. In: Proceedings of conference on designing interactive systems. ACM, pp 305–314

  14. Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8(1):19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Endsley MR (2011) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Fiedler M, Möller S, Reichl P, Xie M (2018) QoE Vadis? (Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 16472). Dagstuhl Manifestos 7(1):30–51. https://doi.org/10.4230/DagMan.7.1.30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fischer G (2017) Exploring richer ecologies between designers and users. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–29

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fröhlich P, Egger S, Schatz R, Mühlegger M, Masuch K, Gardlo B (2012) QoE in 10 seconds: are short video clip lengths sufficient for quality of experience assessment? In: 2012 Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, pp 242–247

  19. Gagné M, Deci EL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. J Organ Behav 26(4):331–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gallagher MW, Lopez SJ, Preacher KJ (2009) The hierarchical structure of well-being. J Pers 77(4):1025–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Glavas A, Kelley K (2014) The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus Ethics Q 24(2):165–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hammer F, Egger-Lampl S, Möller S (2017) Position paper: quality-of-experience of cyber-physical system applications. In: Proceedings of international conference on conference on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX 2017). Erfurt, Germany

  23. Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Göritz A (2010) Needs, affect, and interactive products—facets of user experience. Interact Comput 22:353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Diefenbach S, Laschke M, Len E, Kim J (2013) Designing moments of meaning and pleasure: experience design and happiness. Int J Des 7(3):21–31

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience: a research agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25(2):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hassenzahl M, Wiklund-Engblom A, Bengs A, Hägglund S, Diefenbach S (2015) Experience-oriented and product-oriented evaluation: psychological need fulfillment, positive affect, and product perception. Int J Hum Comput Interact 31(8):530–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Huta V, Ryan RM (2010) Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J Happiness Stud 11(6):735–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huta V, Waterman AS (2014) Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. J Happiness Stud 15(6):1425–1456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jacko JA (ed) (2012) Human computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  30. Judge TA (2009) Core self-evaluations and work success. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18(1):58–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Vainio T (2010) Framing the context of use for mobile HCI. Int J Mob Hum Comput Interact 2(4):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kahneman D (1999) Well-being: foundations of hedonic psychology, chap. Objective happiness. Russell Sage Foundation Press, New York, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  34. Khaitan SK, McCalley JD (2015) Design techniques and applications of cyberphysical systems: a survey. IEEE Syst J 9(2):350–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Law ELC (2011) The measurability and predictability of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems

  36. Law ELC, van Schaik P, Roto V (2014) Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement. Int J Hum Comput Stud 72(6):526–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis, A (eds) (2013) Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience, European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003 Qualinet). Version 1.2. Novi Sad

  38. Lee E (2008) Cyber physical systems: design challenges. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2008-8, University of California at Berkeley

  39. Lin T, Rivano H, Mouël FL (2017) A survey of smart parking solutions. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 18(12):3229–3253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Macedonia M, Hammer F, Weichselbaum O (2018) Guided embodiment and potential applications of tutor systems in language instruction and rehabilitation. Front Psychol (to appear)

  41. Maruping L, Bala H, Venkatesh V, Brown S (2017) Going beyond intention: integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68(3):623–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McCarthy J, Wright P (2004) Technology as experience. Interactions 11(5):42–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mekler ED, Hornbæk K (2016) Momentary pleasure or lasting meaning?: Distinguishing eudaimonic and hedonic user experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 4509–4520

  45. Mijović P, Milovanović M, Minović M, Mačužić I, Ković V, Gligorijević I (2015) Towards creation of implicit HCI model for prediction and prevention of operators error. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 341–352

  46. Möller S, Engelbrecht KP, Kühnel C, Wechsung I, Weiss B (2009) A taxonomy of quality of service and quality of experience of multimodal human-machine interaction. In: Proceedings of international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX)

  47. Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Elsevier, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Norman D (2013) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Norman D (2017) Technology forces us to do things we’re bad at. Time to change how design is done. https://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_forces_us.html

  50. Norman DA, Draper SW (eds) (1986) User-centered system design. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oliver MB, Raney AA (2011) Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: differentiating hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. J Commun 61:984–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T (1994) Human-computer interaction: concepts and design. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  53. Preece J, Sharp H, Rogers Y (2015) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  54. Raake A, Egger S (2014) Quality and quality of experience. In: Moller S, Raake A (eds) Quality of experience. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Rajkumar RR, Lee I, Sha L, Stankovic J (2010) Cyber-physical systems: the next computing revolution. In: Proceedings of the 47th design automation conference, DAC ’10. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 731–736

  56. Reichl P, Egger S, Möller S, Kilkki K, Fiedler M, Hossfeld T, Tsiaras C, Asrese A (2015) Towards a comprehensive framework for QoE and user behavior modelling. In: 2015 Seventh international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE

  57. Reiss S, Havercamp SM (1998) Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation: factor structure of the reiss profiles. Psychol Assess 10(2):97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Roda C (ed) (2011) Human attention in digital environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A (2010) On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Res Organ Behav 30:91–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Roto V, Law E, Vermeeren A, Hoonhout J (2011) User experience white paper: bringing clarity to the concept of user experience. In: Dagstuhl seminar on user experience-2010, Dagstuhl

  62. Rubio S, Díaz E, Martín J, Puente JM (2004) Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl Psychol 53(1):61–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ryan R, Deci E (2001) On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol 52:141–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ryan RM, Huta V, Deci EL (2013) Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. In: The exploration of happiness. Springer, Berlin, pp 117–139

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(2):325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Shi J, Wan J, Yan H, Suo H (2011) A survey of cyber-physical systems. In: International conference on wireless communications and signal processing (WCSP)

  68. Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis F, Davis M (2003) User acceptance of information technology—toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Vermeeren AP, Law ELC, Roto V, Obrist M, Hoonhout J, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2010) User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries. ACM, pp 521–530

  70. Villani V, Pini F, Leali F, Secchi C (2018) Survey on human robot collaboration in industrial settings: safety, intuitive interfaces and applications. Mechatronics (in press)

  71. Waterman A (1993) Two conceptions of happiness: contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:678–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Weiss B, Guse D, Möller S, Raake A, Borowiak A, Reiter U (2014) Temporal development of quality of experience. In: Quality of experience. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–147

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Wirth W, Hofer M, Schramm H (2012) Beyond pleasure: exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Hum Commun Res 38:406–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of this work have been supported by the COMET-K2 Center for Symbiotic Mechatronics of the Linz Center of Mechatronics (LCM) funded by the Austrian federal government and the federal state of Upper Austria, by the EU-funded H2020 ECSEL project SILENSE (ID 737487), and by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency funded project MMAssist II (FFG:858623).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Linz Center of Mechatronics GmbH (LCM), Altenberger Straße 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

    Florian Hammer

  2. AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Donau-City Straße 1, 1220, Vienna, Austria

    Sebastian Egger-Lampl

  3. Quality and Usability Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Möller

Authors
  1. Florian Hammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Egger-Lampl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Möller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Hammer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hammer, F., Egger-Lampl, S. & Möller, S. Quality-of-user-experience: a position paper. Qual User Exp 3, 9 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-018-0022-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-018-0022-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation