UXi Validation: How to Evaluate if Brand Values Can Be Experienced by Users

  • Felix van de Sand
  • Anna-Katharina Frison
  • Pamela Zotz
  • Andreas Riener
  • Katharina Holl
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


Based on the theoretical foundations, being a user or customer is the core of each experience, whether you call it brand or user experience. Hence, an iterative user-centered design approach appears to be a valuable instrument to ensure harmony among both experience constructs. Each project needs its individual process, requiring iterations and continuous adaptations to fit the needs of the brand and user group of concern. Norman and Verganti (2014) compare user-centered design to the process of a blindfolded person climbing a hill, scanning the environment until sensing the next higher position. The mountain peak is a metaphor for the ideal quality of a product, involving all possible UX aspects. The presented UXi strategy can be understood as additional assistance, besides common approaches like usability testing. It helps designers to get to the next higher peak of the mountain, including harmony between brand experience and user experience. This includes scanning the area to find out whether the current design strategy really is the best possible solution. In order to improve the harmony between brand experience and user experience, real users of a specific target group have to be involved in evaluating the current state of a product. This chapter describes how to validate whether brand experience and user experience are harmonious or not in order to assess if the user experience fits to the expected brand experience. Therefore, the UXi Need Footprint is the foundation for different evaluation approaches creating an evaluation strategy, which can be applied depending on the project case. These approaches are described by comparing the use cases of the three controversial mobile banking apps.


  1. Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2006). Marketing research: Methodological foundations. New York: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  2. Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Marketing research: Methodological foundations (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  3. De Chernatony, L. (2010). Creating powerful brands. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diefenbach, S., & Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Handbuch zur fun-ni toolbox. Essen: Folkwang Universität Der Künste.Google Scholar
  5. Diefenbach, S., & Hassenzahl, M. (2017). Psychologie in der nutzerzentrierten Produktgestaltung: Mensch-Technik-Interaktion-Erlebnis. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frison, A.-K., Zotz, P., & Riener, A. (2017). The level of harmony: A validation strategy for brand & user experience. Mensch Und Computer 2017-Tagungsband.Google Scholar
  7. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In Mensch & computer 2003 (pp. 187–196). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products—Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(8), 530–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jetter, H.-C. (2006). Die MCI im Wandel: User experience als die zentrale Herausforderung? In Mensch & computer (pp. 65–72).Google Scholar
  11. Jetter, C., & Gerken, J. (2007). A simplified model of user experience for practical application. In 2nd COST294-MAUSE (pp. 106–111).Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kroeber-Riel, W., & Gröppel-Klein, A. (2013). Konsumentenverhalten (10., überarbeitete, aktualisierte und ergänzte Auflage). München: Verlag Franz Vahlen.Google Scholar
  15. Kuß, A., Wildner, R., & Kreis, H. (2014). Marktforschung: Grundlagen der Datenerhebung und Datenanalyse (5., vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meschtscherjakov, A., Wilfinger, D., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). Mobile attachment causes and consequences for emotional bonding with mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2317–2326). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  17. Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78–96. Scholar
  18. Pettersson, I., Lachner, F., Frison, A.-K., Riener, A., & Butz, A. (2018). A Bermuda Triangle? (pp. 1–16). New York: ACM Press. Scholar
  19. Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11–31.Google Scholar
  20. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free press.Google Scholar
  21. Roto, V., Joutsela, M., & Nuutinen, M. (2016). Brand experience goals guiding the design of multiple touchpoints. In Experience design for multiple customer touchpoints workshop in conjunction with NordiCHI’ 16. October 23–27, 2016. Sweden: Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  22. Roto, V., Lu, Y., Nieminen, H., & Tutal, E. (2015). Designing for user and brand experience via company-wide experience goals. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2277–2282). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Roto, V., & Rautava, M. (2008). User experience elements and brand promise. In In conjunction with NordiCHI 2008 conference, Lund, Sweden (Vol. 8).Google Scholar
  24. Roto, V., Väätäjä, H., Law, E., & Powers, R. (2016). Experience design for multiple customer touchpoints. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (p. 146). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tuch, A. N., & Hornbæk, K. (2015). Does Herzberg’s notion of hygienes and motivators apply to user experience? ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(4), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tuch, A. N., Roth, S. P., Hornbæk, K., Opwis, K., & Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012). Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1596–1607. Scholar
  28. Xu, L., Lin, J., & Chan, H. C. (2012). The moderating effects of utilitarian and hedonic values on information technology continuance. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 19(2), 1–26. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix van de Sand
    • 1
  • Anna-Katharina Frison
    • 2
  • Pamela Zotz
    • 1
  • Andreas Riener
    • 2
  • Katharina Holl
    • 1
  1. 1.COBE GmbHMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Technische Hochschule IngolstadtIngolstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations