A Survey of User Experience of Two Wheeler Users in Long-Term Interactions

  • Fei-Hui HuangEmail author
  • Shu-Renn Lin
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


Taiwan is an island nation with the highest density of scooter-riding populations in the world. We want to understand the factors that influence the acceptance of long-term use in light of the user experience (UXs). This is to further understand the potential needs of scooter riders and provide suggestions in product/service design for increasing user willingness to accommodate e-scooters. An online survey design is used to recruit scooter commuters, aged over 18 years. One hundred and ninety individuals (80 male and 110 female) participated in the study. The results indicated that scooter design and usage can evoke positive emotions. The hedonic quality may positively influences user’s willingness to recommend a scooter product. However, a number of factors including pragmatic quality and individual differences of gender and age have been found to influence scooter usage. This study discusses research results and applications to provide practical references for related research and product/service design.


User experience User acceptance Hedonic quality Pragmatic quality Two wheeler product 


  1. 1.
    Lund H, Clark WW (2008) Sustainable energy and transportation systems introduction and overview. Util Policy 16(2):59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    MOTC (Ministry of Transportation and Communications). An survey of the daily use of vehicles. file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/105%E5%B9%B4%E6%91%98%E8%A6%81%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ERSO (European Road Safety Observatory). Power two wheelers 2015. European Commission. Accessed 15 Oct 2017
  4. 4.
    National Police Agency, Ministry of the Interior Republic of China (Taiwan). Accessed 27 Mar 2018
  5. 5.
    Taiwanese National Development Council, Population Projections for Republic of China (Taiwan). Accessed 25 June 2017
  6. 6.
    Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd G, Beale R (1993) Human-computer interaction, pp 325–334. Prentice-Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baber C (2015) Evaluation of human work. 4th edn, pp 359–382. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO FDIS 9241-210 (2009) International organization for standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrie H, Bevan N (2009) The evaluation of accessibility, usability, and user experienceGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis JR (2014) Usability: lessons learned… and yet to be learned. Int J Hum Comput Interact 30(9):663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whiteside J, Wixon D (1987) Interacting thought: cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction, pp 353–365. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rhea DK (1992) A new perspective on design: focusing on customer experience. Des Manage Rev 3(4):40–48Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borsci S, Kuljis J, Barnett J, Pecchia L (2014) Beyond the user preferences: aligning the prototype design to the users’ expectations. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 26:16–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience—a research agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee S, Koubek RJ (2012) Users’ perceptions of usability and aesthetics as criteria of pre- and post-use preferences. Eur J Ind Eng 6:87–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 31:530–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassenzahl M (2004) The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Hum Comput Interact 19(4):319–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassenzahl M (2008) User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: 20th international proceedings on conference on interaction homme-machine, pp 11–15. ACM, September 2008Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nemani S, Allan V (2003) Agents and the algebra of emotion. In: 2nd international proceedings on conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 1076–1077. ACM, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, July 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technologies. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bevan N (2008) UX, usability and ISO standards. In: CHI 2008 Workshop on user experience evaluation methods in product development, pp 1–5, April 2008Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartneck C (2002) Integrating the OCC model of emotions in embodied characters. In: Workshop on virtual conversational characters, pp 39–48, November 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oriental Institute of TechnologyPan-ChiaoTaiwan, R.O.C.

Personalised recommendations