Evaluation of User Experience Goal Fulfillment: Case Remote Operator Station

  • Hannu Karvonen
  • Hanna Koskinen
  • Helena Tokkonen
  • Jaakko Hakulinen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8526)


In this paper, the results of a user experience (UX) goal evaluation study are reported. The study was carried out as a part of a research and development project of a novel remote operator station (ROS) for container gantry crane operation in port yards. The objectives of the study were both to compare the UXs of two different user interface concepts and to give feedback on how well the UX goals experience of safe operation, sense of control, and feeling of presence are fulfilled with the developed ROS prototype. According to the results, the experience of safe operation and feeling of presence were not supported with the current version of the system. However, there was much better support for the fulfilment of the sense of control UX goal in the results. Methodologically, further work is needed in adapting the utilized Usability Case method to suit UX goal evaluation better.


remote operation user experience user experience goal evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karvonen, H., Koskinen, H., Haggrén, J.: Defining User Experience Goals for Future Concepts. A Case Study. In: Proc. NordiCHI2012 UX Goals Workshop, pp. 14–19 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koskinen, H., Karvonen, H., Tokkonen, H.: User Experience Targets as Design Drivers: A Case Study on the Development of a Remote Crane Operation Station. In: Proc. ECCE 2013, article no. 25 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hassenzahl, M.: Experience Design – Technology for All the Right Reasons. Morgan & Claypool (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liinasuo, M., Norros, L.: Usability Case - Integrating Usability Evaluations in Design. In: COST294-MAUSE Workshop, pp. 11–13 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Savioja, P., Liinasuo, M., Koskinen, H.: User experience: Does it matter in complex systems? Cognition, Technology & Work (2013) (online first)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karvonen, H., Koskinen, H., Haggrén, J.: Enhancing the User Experience of the Crane Operator: Comparing Work Demands in Two Operational Settings. In: Proc. ECCE 2012, pp. 37–44 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Savioja, P., Norros, L.: Systems Usability Framework for Evaluating Tools in Safety-Critical Work. Cognition, Technology and Work 15(3), 1–21 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bainbridge, L., Sanderson, P.: Verbal Protocol Analysis. In: Wilson, J., Corlett, E.N. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology, pp. 159–184. Taylor & Francis (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norros, L., Liinasuo, M., Savioja, P., Aaltonen, I.: Cope Technology enabled capacity for first responder. COPE project deliverable D2.3 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bishop, P., Bloomfield, R.: A Methodology for Safety Case Development. In: Redmill, F., Anderson, T. (eds.) Industrial Perspectives of Safety-Critical Systems, pp. 194–203. Springer, London (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannu Karvonen
    • 1
  • Hanna Koskinen
    • 1
  • Helena Tokkonen
    • 2
  • Jaakko Hakulinen
    • 3
  1. 1.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandFinland
  2. 2.University of JyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.University of TampereFinland

Personalised recommendations