PosiTec – How to Adopt a Positive, Need-Based Design Approach

  • Kathrin PollmannEmail author
  • Nora Fronemann
  • Anne Elisabeth Krüger
  • Matthias Peissner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10920)


In User Experience (UX) design many approaches emphasize that a positive UX can be promoted by addressing basic human needs. However, in practice UX design needs are scarcely considered. We believe that this is due to a lack of adequate methods and guidelines and present a methodological toolkit to support designers in adopting a need-cantered design approach. The toolkit is a collection of innovative user research methods, combined in a guided process to make sure that user needs are taken into account in all steps of the human-centered design process. We propose Experience Interviews as a basis to extract and further interpret the user needs of the target group. The interpretation is realized with the Needs Profile method and fed into an ideation brainstorming. First design solutions of this brainstorming are evaluated and further developed using the co-creation tool UX Concept Exploration. The concrete application of the proposed methods is illustrated based on the example of designing a technical product to promote positive aging of older adults.


User Experience Need-based design User needs Experience Interviews Needs profiles User Experience Concept Exploration Positive aging 


  1. 1.
    ISO: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Beuth, Berlin (2010). 13.180; 35.180 (ISO 9241-210)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fronemann, N., Peissner, M.: User experience concept exploration. User needs as a source for innovation. In: Roto, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, Helsinki, Finland, 26–30 October 2014, pp. 727–736. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hassenzahl, M.: 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, pp. 11–15. ACM, New York (2008).
  4. 4.
    Zeiner, K.M., Laib, M., Schippert, K., Burmester, M.: Identifying experience categories to design for positive experiences with technology at work. In: CHI 2016. Extended Abstracts (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krüger, A.E., Kurowski, S., Pollmann, K., Fronemann, N., Peissner, M.: Needs profiles - sensitising approach for user experience research. In: OzChi, Brisbane, Australia (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, I., Papert, S.: Constructionism: Research Reports and Essays, 1985–1990. Ablex Pub. Corp, Norwood (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krüger, A.E., Peissner, M., Fronemann, N., Pollmann, K.: Building Ideas. In: Björk, S., Eriksson, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. NordiCHI, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 1–6. ACM, New York (2016).
  9. 9.
    Sanders, L., Stappers, P.J.: Convivial Design Toolbox. Generative Research for the Front End of Design. BIS, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krüger, A.E., Fronemann, N., Peissner, M.: Das kreative Potential der Ingenieure. menschzentrierte Ingenieurskunst. In: Binz, H., Bertsche, B., Bauer, W., Roth, D. (eds.) Stuttgarter Symposium für Produktentwicklung (SSP). Entwicklung smarter Produkte für die Zukunft, Stuttgart, p. 40 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferreira, B., Silva, W., Oliveira, E., Conte, T.: Designing personas with empathy map. In: The 27th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 6–8 July 2015, pp. 501–505. KSI Research Inc. and Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School (2015).
  12. 12.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Clark, T., Smith, A.: Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Key Findings and Advance Tables, Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241 (2015). Accessed 11 Aug 2016Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mynatt, E.D., Rogers, W.A.: Developing technology to support the functional independence of older adults. Ageing Int. 27, 24–41 (2001). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fredrickson, B.L.: The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. (2001). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy, B.R., Slade, M.D., Kunkel, S.R., Kasl, S.V.: Longevity increased by positive self-perceptions of aging. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83(2), 261 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fronemann, N., Pollmann, K., Weisener, A., Peissner, M.: Happily ever after. In: Björk, S., Eriksson, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. NordiCHI, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 1–6. ACM, New York (2016).
  18. 18.
    Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Tiwari, L., Newell, A.F.: Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 3, 131–140 (2004). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J., Stroback, J., Kurtz, C.: The ELDer project. Social and emotional factors in the design of eldercare technologies. In: Thomas, J.C., Scholtz, J.C. (eds.) CUU 2000 Conference Proceedings, pp. 72–79. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, (2000).
  20. 20.
    World Health Organization: Health statistics and information systems. Definition of an older or elderly personGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAdams, D.P.: The person: an introduction to the science of personality psychology, 5th edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathrin Pollmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nora Fronemann
    • 2
  • Anne Elisabeth Krüger
    • 2
  • Matthias Peissner
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Human Factors and Technology Management IATUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAOStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations