Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of Experience Versus User Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality of Experience

Part of the book series: T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services ((TLABS))

Abstract

The current chapter discusses the concepts Quality of Experience and User Experience. As Quality of Experience is introduced in the previous chapter, this chapter starts with an introduction to the User Experience concept at the level of theory and practice. First its origins, definitions, and key attributes are discussed. This is followed by an overview of methods and approaches to evaluate User Experience in practice. Thereupon, we discuss both concepts in comparison. While a number of similarities are identified, these are exceeded by the number of differences, which are situated at the theoretical-conceptual level and the methodological-practical level. It is concluded that User Experience is the more mature concept, both at the level of theory and practice. Thus the literature within the User Experience domain can be of great value for the Quality of Experience-community, especially if the latter intends to really put the recently proposed more holistic definition of Quality of Experience into practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The multidisciplinary field of HCI is around 30 years old and can be considered as ‘an amalgam’ of several fields, such as computer science, sociology, communication, human factors and ergonomics, engineering [17].

  2. 2.

    Not only from QoS and Usability, but also from other concepts such as Customer Experience and User Acceptance.

  3. 3.

    See also Chap. 6, in which the evolution from QoS to QoE is discussed in detail and in which a comparison of both concepts is made.

  4. 4.

    Note that in the years after the introduction of the QoE concept in the literature, similarly, a lot of research presented under the ‘QoE flag’, was actually much closer to traditional QoS research.

  5. 5.

    Note that Bevan referred to a draft version of the ISO 9241-210, which was already available in 2008.

  6. 6.

    Note that in [37], the positive nature of UX is not explicitly discussed, but rather the first three key characteristics mentioned above. However, it is implied to some extent through the emphasis on emotions and affect.

  7. 7.

    The valence of valuable experiences can be positive or negative (cf. Sect. 2.1) hence valuable experiences can be linked to both, positive and/or negative emotions.

  8. 8.

    Note, that psychological needs do not match biological-physiological needs such as hunger or thirst. The most salient needs in the context of human-computer-interaction have been identified as the needs for stimulation, relatedness, competence, and popularity [41]. Examples of other psychological needs are e.g., autonomy and security.

  9. 9.

    Hassenzahl et al. [41] adopted the terminology of Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction [45] to describe the different characters of pragmatic and hedonic qualities. In this theory, ‘hygiene factors’ and ‘motivators’ are distinguished: Hygiene factors (i.e., job context factors such as the environmental conditions) can in the best case just prevent dissatisfaction with the job, but cannot lead to satisfaction. However, their absence will results in dissatisfaction. The absence of motivators (job content factors, such as acknowledgment) on the other hand does not result in dissatisfaction, but their presence will facilitate satisfaction and motivation.

  10. 10.

    Including amongst others psychology, product design, social sciences, and anthropology.

  11. 11.

    On the UX community-driven platform http://www.allaboutux.org, an interesting repository of UX evaluation methods (with a short description) can be found.

  12. 12.

    For instance, rooted in social sciences (sociology, anthropology, economics, etc.) and behavioral sciences (psychology, cognitive sciences, etc.).

  13. 13.

    See e.g., the work of Kilkki [71] and Reichl et al. [72].

  14. 14.

    For a thorough introduction to the literature on Customer Experience, see e.g. Palmer [73].

  15. 15.

    Obrist et al. [74] conducted a survey on the theoretical roots of UX, which indicated 56 different theoretical perspectives stemming from nine disciplines. These activities illustrate not only the inherent multi-disciplinarity of the research field, but also its ongoing efforts to get a deeper understanding of UX beyond the somewhat agreed key attributes explained before.

References

  1. Pine JB, Gilmore JH (1999) The experience economy: work is theatre and every business a stage. Havard, Boston

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schatz R, Reichl P (2011) Quality of experience: just another Buzzword? In: Proceedings of Euroview 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Agboma F, Liotta A (2008) QoE-aware QoS management. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on advances in mobile computing and multimedia (MoMM ’08), pp 111–116

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson GM, Sasse MA (2004) From doing to being: getting closer to the user experience. Interact Comput 16(4):697–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jumisko-Pyykkö S (2011) User-centered quality of experience and its evaluation methods for mobile television. Doctoral thesis, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere

    Google Scholar 

  7. De Moor K (2012) Are engineers from Mars and users from Venus? Bridging gaps in quality of experience research: experiences from and reflections on an interdisciplinary journey. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Ghent University, Gent

    Google Scholar 

  8. ITU-T Recommendation E.800 (2008) Terms and Definitions Related to Quality of Service and Network Performance Including Dependability. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  9. ISO 9241–11 (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11: guidance on usability. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fiedler M, Kilkki K, Reichl P (2009) From quality of service to quality of experience. Executive summary of dagstuhl seminar 09192

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hornbæk K (2006) Current practice in measuring usability: challenges to usability studies and research. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(2):79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sauro J, Kindlund E (2005) A method to standardize usability metrics into a single score. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’05), pp 401–409

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nielsen J, Levy J (1994) Measuring usability: preference versus performance. Commun ACM 37(4):66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Möller S (2006) Messung und Vorhersage der Effizienz bei der Interaktion mit Sprachdialogdiensten [Measurement and prediction of interaction efficiency with spoken dialogue systems]. In: Langer S, Scholl W (eds) Fortschritte der Akustik-DAGA 2006, pp 463–464

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frøkjær E, Hertzum M, Hornbæk K (2000) Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated?. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’00), pp 345–352

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hornbæk K, Law EL (2007) Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’07), pp 617–626

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lazar J, Feng JH, Hochheiser H (2010) Research methods in human-computer interaction. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hassenzahl M (2008) User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the association francophone d’interaction homme-machine (IHM ’08), pp 11–15

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shackel B (2009) Human-computer interaction–Whence and whither? Interact Comput 21(5–6):353–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kahneman D (1999) Objective happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds) Well-being: foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation Press, New York, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kaptelinin V, Nardi B, Bødker S, Carroll J, Hollan J, Hutchins E, Winograd T (2003) Post-cognitivist HCI: second-wave theories. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’03), pp 692–693

    Google Scholar 

  23. Picard RW (1997) Affective computing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Norman DA, Miller J, Henderson A (1995) What you see, some of what’s in the future, and how we go about doing it: HI at apple computer. In: Proceedings of the conference companion on human factors in computing systems (CHI 1995), p 155

    Google Scholar 

  26. Law EL, Roto V, Hassenzahl M, Vermeeren APOS, Kort J (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2009), pp 719–728

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hassenzahl M, Platz A, Burmester M, Lehner K (2000) Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing (CHI 2000), pp 201–208

    Google Scholar 

  28. Forlizzi J, Ford S (2000) The building blocks of experience: an early framework for interaction designers. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS 2000), pp 419–423

    Google Scholar 

  29. Arhippainen L (2003) Capturing user experience for product design. Paper presented at the 26th information systems research seminar (IRIS26), Porvo, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  30. Desmet P, Hekkert P (2007) Framework of product experience. Int J Des 1(1):57–66

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jordan p (2000) Designing pleasurable products. An introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Forlizzi J, 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), pp 261–268

    Google Scholar 

  34. ISO 9241–210 (2010) Ergonomics of human system interaction-part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). International organization for standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bevan N (2009) What is the difference between the purpose of usability and user experience evaluation methods. Paper presented at the workshop user experience evaluation methods in product development (UXEM’09). Retrieved from http://www.nigelbevan.com/papers/What_is_the_difference_between_usability_and_user_experience_evaluation_methods.pdf

  36. Hassenzahl M (2010) Experience design: technology for all the right reasons. Princeton, Morgan & Claypool

    Google Scholar 

  37. Roto V, Law EL, Vermeeren A, Hoonhout J (eds) (2011) User experience white paper: bringing clarity to the concept of user experience, result of dagstuhl seminar 10373

    Google Scholar 

  38. Landauer TK (1995) The trouble with computers. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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 (CHI 2011), pp 2689–2698

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dewey J (1980) Art as experience (first printed in 1934). Perigee Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Göritz AS (2010) Needs, affect, and interactive products–Facets of user experience. Interact Comput 22(5):353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol 89:325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hassenzahl M, Burmester M, Koller F (2003) AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität [AttracDiff: a questionnaire to measure perceived hedonic and pragmatic quality]. In: Ziegler J, Szwillus G (eds) Mensch & Computer 2003. Interaktion in Bewegung. Teubner, Stuttgart, pp 187–196

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Hassenzahl M (2003) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe M, Overbeeke C, Monk AF, Wright PC (eds) Funology: from Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 287–302

    Google Scholar 

  45. Herzberg F (1968) One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Bus Rev 46(1):53–62

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Hassenzahl M, Roto V (2007) Being and doing: a perspective on User Experience and its measurement. Interfaces 72:10–12

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bargas-Avila J, Hornbæk K (2012) Foci and blind spots in user experience research. ACM interact 19(6):24–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Card S, Moran T, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  49. Brooke J (1996) SUS-A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan P, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B, McClelland I (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 189–194

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bradley MM, Lang PJ (1994) Measuring emotion: the self-assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 25(1):49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hassenzahl M, Trautmann T (2001) Analysis of web sites with the repertory grid technique. In: Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems. Extended abstracts (CHI 2001), pp 167–168

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Huisman G, Van hout M (2008) The development of a graphical emotion measurement instrument using caricatured expressions: the LEMtool. In: Proceedings of the workshop emotion in HCI–Designing for people, pp 5–7

    Google Scholar 

  54. Desmet P (2004) Measuring emotions: development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In: Blythe M, Overbeeke C, Monk AF, Wright PC (eds) Funology: from usability to enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 111–123

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schleicher R, Trösterer S (2009) The ’joy-of-use’-button: recording pleasant moments while using a PC. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 international conference on human-computer interaction: Part II (INTERACT ’09), pp 630–633

    Google Scholar 

  56. Burmester M, Mast M, Jäger K, Homans H (2010) Valence method for formative evaluation of user experience. In: Proceedings of designing interactive systems conference (DIS ’10), pp 364–367

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kujala S, Roto V, Vaananen-Vainio-Mattila K, Karapanos E, Sinnela A (2011) UX curve: a method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interact Comput 23(5):473–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Karapanos E, Hassenzahl M, Martens J-B (2008) User experience over time. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’ 2008), pp 3561–3566

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kujala S, Roto V, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Sinnelä A (2011) Identifying hedonic factors in long-term user experience. In Proceedings of DPPI-11: designing pleasurable products and interfaces, pp 137–144

    Google Scholar 

  60. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff M, Hassenzahl M, Platz A (2006) Dynamics of user experience: how the perceived quality of mobile phones changes over time. In: NordiCHI workshop. User experience–Towards a unified View, pp 74–78

    Google Scholar 

  61. Karapanos E, Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Martens J-B (2009) User experience over time: an initial frame-work, In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2009), pp 729–738

    Google Scholar 

  62. Minge M (2011) Dynamische Aspekte des Nutzungserlebens der Interaktion mit technischen Systemen [Dynamic aspects of user experience of interaction with technical systems]. Doctoral thesis, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin. Retrieved from http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2011/3290/pdf/minge_michael.pdf

  63. Partala T, Kallinen A (2012) Understanding the most satisfying and unsatisfying user experiences: emotions, psychological needs, and context. Interact Comput 24(1):25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Csikszentmihalyi M, Larson R (1987) Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. J Nerv Ment Dis 175(9):526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Intille SS, Rondoni J, Kukla C, Anacona I, Bao L (2003) A context-aware experience sampling tool. In: Proceedings of CHI ’03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ’03), pp 972–973

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bolger N, Davis A, Rafaeli E (2003) Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annu Rev Psychol 54:579–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1998) Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wechsung I, Jepsen K, Burkhardt F, Köhler A, Schleicher R (2012) View from a distance: comparing online and retrospective UX-evaluations. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services companion (MobileHCI ’12), pp 113–118

    Google Scholar 

  69. Schleicher R, Sahami A, Rohs M, Kratz S, Schmidt A (2011) WorldCupinion: experiences with an android app for real-time opinion sharing during Soccer World Cup Games. Int J Mob Hum Comput Interact 3(4):18–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis A (eds) (2012) Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience–output version of the dagstuhl seminar 12181. European network on quality of experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003), Lausanne, Version 1.1

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kilkki K (2008) Quality of experience in communications ecosystems. J Univers Comput Sci 14(5):615–624

    Google Scholar 

  72. Reichl P, Tuffin B, Maillé P (2012) Economics of quality of experience. In: Hadjiantonis AM, Stiller B (eds) Telecommunication Economics. Springer, Berlin, pp 158–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Palmer A (2010) Customer experience management: a critical review of an emerging idea. J Serv Mark 24(3):196–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Obrist M, Roto V, Vermeeren A, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Law EL-C, Kuutti K (2012) Search of theoretical foundations for UX research and practice. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts (CHI EA ’12), pp 1979–1984

    Google Scholar 

  75. Möller S, Engelbrecht K-P, 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 the first international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX’09), pp 7–12

    Google Scholar 

  76. Geerts D, De Moor K, Ketyko I, Jacobs A, Van den Bergh J, Joseph W, Martens L, De Marez L (2010) Linking an integrated framework with appropriate methods for measuring QoE. In: Proceedings of quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 2010 second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, pp 158–163

    Google Scholar 

  77. Law E, van Schaik P (2010) Modelling user experience: an agenda for research and practice (editorial). Interact Comput 22:313–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Brooks P, Hestnes B (2010) User measures of quality of experience: why being objective and quantitative is important. IEEE Netw 24(2):8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Rothauser EH, Chapman WD, Guttman N, Nordby KS, Silbiger HR, Urbanek GE, Weinstock M (1969) IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 17(3):225–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Gardlo B (2012) Quality of experience evaluation methodology via crowdsourcing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Zilina, Zilina

    Google Scholar 

  81. Hoßfeld T, Seufert M, Hirth M, Zinner T, Phuoc T-G, Schatz R (2011) Quantification of YouTube QoE via crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on multimedia (ISM)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Staelens N, Moens S, Van den Broeck W, Mariën I, Vermeulen B, Lambert P, Van de Walle R, Demeester P (2011) Assessing quality of experience of IPTV and video on demand services in real-life environments. IEEE Trans Broadcasting 56(4):458–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. De Moor K, Ketyko I, Joseph W, Deryckere T, De Marez L, Martens L, Verleye G (2010) Proposed framework for evaluating quality of experience in a mobile, testbed-oriented living lab setting. Mob Netw Appl 15(3):378–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Schatz R, Egger S (2011) Vienna surfing: assessing mobile broadband quality in the field. In: Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCOMM workshop on measurements up the stack, pp 19–24

    Google Scholar 

  85. Laghari K, Gupta R, Arndt S, Antons J-N, Schleicher R, Möller S, Falk TH (2013) Neurophysiological experimental facility for quality of experience (QoE) assessment. In: Proceedings of the first IFIP/IEEE international workshop on quality of experience centric management (QCMan)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Arndt S, Antons JN, Schleicher R, Moller S, Curio G (2012) Perception of low-quality videos analyzed by means of electroencephalography. In: Proceedings of 4th international IEEE workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp 284–289

    Google Scholar 

  87. Reiter U, De Moor K (2012) Content categorization based on implicit and explicit user feedback: combining self-reports with EEG emotional state analysis. In: Proceedings of 4th international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp 266–271

    Google Scholar 

  88. Hoßfeld T, Strohmeier D, Raake A, Schatz R (2013) Pippi Longstocking calculus for temporal stimuli pattern on YouTube QoE: \(1+ 1= 3 1 \bullet 4 \ne 4 \bullet 1\). In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on mobile video, pp 37–42

    Google Scholar 

  89. Guse D, Möller S (2012) Long-term impact of varying multimedia service performance on quality ratings in a multiservice scenario. In: Proceedings of fortschritte der Akustik–DAGA 2013: Plenarvortrag und Fachbeitrag d. 39. Dtsch. Jahrestg. f. Akust. DEGA

    Google Scholar 

  90. Borowiak A, Reiter U, Svensson UP (2012) Evaluation of audio quality require-ments over extended periods of time using long duration audiovisual content. In: Proceedings of the 13th Pacific-Rim conference on advances in multimedia information processing (PCM’12), 10–20

    Google Scholar 

  91. 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: Proceedings of 4th international IEEE workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp 242–247

    Google Scholar 

  92. Möller S, Bang C, Tamme T, Vaalgamaa M, Weiss B (2011) From single-call to multi-call quality: a study on long-term quality integration in audio-visual speech communication. Proc Interspeech 2011:1485–1488

    Google Scholar 

  93. Hosfeld T, Biedermann S, Schatz R, Platzer A, Egger S, Fiedler M (2011) The memory effect and its implications on Web QoE modeling. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international teletraffic congress (ITC), pp 103–110

    Google Scholar 

  94. Strohmeier D, Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Kunze K (2010) Open profiling of quality: a mixed method approach to understanding multimodal quality perception. Advances in multimedia, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  95. Strohmeier D, Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Kunze K, Bici MO (2011) The extended-OPQ method for user-centered quality of experience evaluation: a study for mobile 3D video broadcasting over DVB-H. EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing, 2011

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Katrien De Moor’s work was carried out during the tenure of an ERCIM “Alain Bensoussan” Fellowship Programme and received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 246016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Quality and Usability Lab, Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU, Berlin, Germany

    Ina Wechsung

  2. Department of Telematics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Katrien De Moor

  3. iMinds-MICT, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Katrien De Moor

Authors
  1. Ina Wechsung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrien De Moor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ina Wechsung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Quality and Usability Lab Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Möller

  2. Assessment of IP-based Applications Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander Raake

Appendix to Chapter 3

Appendix to Chapter 3

 

Quality of Experience

User Experience

Origins

Telecommunications

HCI

Driving force

Primarily technology-driven, technology-centered

Primarily human-driven, human-centered

Theoretical basis

Limited (more emphasis on practical applications)

Strong and diverse theoretical basis

Disciplinary nature of the research field

Multidisciplinary, increasingly also in practice

Multidisciplinary from the beginning, in theory and practice

Main focus

Evaluate (technical) quality perception, gather input to guide optimization of technical parameters at different layers

Evaluate and understand the User Experience / process of experiencing, gather input for designing and creating products and services that enable users to have valuable, pleasurable experiences, enable the fulfillment of be-goals

Main research ‘objects’

Multimedia communication systems

Products, services, and artifacts that a person can interact with through a user interface

Perspective on use

Use of application or service

Encounter with a system (active or passive), anticipated use

Measurement and instrumentation

Standardized measurement and relatively rigid instrumentation (recommendations), predominantly operationalised in terms of MOS ratings

Not translated into standards and official recommendations, large range of methods and tools originating from wide range of disciplines

Research designs

Predominantly quantitative, increasingly also mixed-methods approaches

Both quanti- and qualitative, with strong emphasis on qualitative research

Research environment

Mostly controlled, laboratory research, but growing interest in field and online studies

Laboratory, field and online studies

Research aims

Quantifying, modeling

Understanding, modeling

Main focus

By definition: both pragmatic, utilitarian and hedonic aspects, in (measurement) practice: emphasis on the former

In theory and practice: both instrumental and non-instrumental aspect, strong emphasis on the latter (hedonic dimensions)

Research approach

Isolation of specific factors

Holistic approach

Temporal perspective

Growing emphasis on temporal QoE features and influencing factors, very little empirical work on how QoE changes over longer time

Different time spans of UX are considered, in theory and practice

Business perspective

Importance of and interest in monetary dimension (user as customer), willingness to pay

Little direct attention to monetary dimension

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wechsung, I., De Moor, K. (2014). Quality of Experience Versus User Experience. In: Möller, S., Raake, A. (eds) Quality of Experience. T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02680-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02681-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation