Emotions Logging in Automated Usability Tests for Mobile Devices

  • Jackson Feijó FilhoEmail author
  • Wilson Prata
  • Thiago Valle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9186)


This work proposes the use of a system to perform emotions logging in automated usability tests for mobile devices. Our goal is to efficiently, easily and cost-effectively assess the users’ affective state by evaluating their expressive reactions during a mobile software usability evaluation process. These reactions are collected using the front camera on mobile devices. The analysis of three different emotions - happiness, surprise and anger– and two “emotional events” – spontaneous smile and gazing away from screen –performed through server software. This automated test generates a graphical log report, timing (a) current application page (b) user events e.g. tap (c) emotions levels e.g. level of happiness and finally (d) emotional events e.g. smiling or looking away from screen.


Facial Expression Mobile Device Automate Test Blood Volume Pulse Mobile Software 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Lettner, F., Clemens H.: Automated and unsupervised user interaction logging as basis for usability evaluation of mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing & Multimedia, pp. 118–127. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Lera, E., Garreta-Domingo, M.: Ten emotion heuristics: guidelines for assessing the user’s affective dimension easily and cost-effectively. In: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI… but not as We Know It, vol. 2, pp. 163–166. British Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spillers, F.: Emotion as a Cognitive Artifact and the Design Implications for Products that are Perceived as Pleasurable. Accessed 18 Feb 2007
  4. 4.
    Madrigal, D., McClain, B.: Usability for mobile devices, September 2010.
  5. 5.
    Oztoprak, A., Erbug, C.: Field versus laboratory usability testing: a first comparison. Technical report, Department of Industrial Design - Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Picard, R.W., Daily, S.B.: Evaluating affective interactions: alternatives to asking what users feel. Presented at CHI 2005 Workshop ‘Evaluating Affective Interfaces’ (Portland, OR), 2–7 April 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson, R.E.: Social impacts of computing: codes of professional ethics. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 10(2), 453–469 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harty, Julian: Finding usability bugs with automated tests. Commun. ACM 54(2), 44–49 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madrigal, D., McClain, B.: Usability for mobile devices, September 2010.
  10. 10.
    Hertzum, M.: User testing in industry: a case study of laboratory, workshop, and field tests. In: Proceedings of the 5th ERCIM Workshop on ‘User Interfaces for All’ (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaikkonen, A., Kallio, T., Kekäläinen, A., Kankainen, A., Cankar, M.: Usability testing of mobile applications: a comparison between laboratory and field testing. J. Usability Stud. 1, 4–16 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Staiano, J., Menéndez, M., Battocchi, A., De Angeli, A., Sebe, N.: UX Mate: from facial expressions to UX evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS 2012), pp. 741–750. (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jackson Feijó Filho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wilson Prata
    • 1
  • Thiago Valle
    • 1
  1. 1.Nokia Technology InstituteManausBrazil

Personalised recommendations