Comparing User Experience in Interactions with Different Types of Digital Products

  • Lemeng Xu
  • Dede Ma
  • Pengyi ZhangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10920)


User experience varies when using different types of digital products. Previous research has studied the relationship between product properties, user behaviors, and emotional experiences. In this research, we conducted a diary study of 29 students over two weeks to examine users’ emotional experiences of mobile apps, PC software, and terminal devices in relation to product features, interaction results, and users’ feedback. Results show that: (1) Users were less “disappointed” when they interact with mobile apps. (2) Users were often “surprised” when using a terminal device. (3) Users mentioned “aesthetics” more with mobile devices than with terminal devices. (4) Users cared more about task complexity and chose to overcome the problem they have met when using a personal computer. These results provide an exploratory understanding of the relationships between product types and other factors and could be useful to cross-platform designers. The results also suggest that user expectation might have an impact when measuring user experience, and this needs further investigation.


Emotional experience Digital products Diary study 



This research is supported partially by the NSFC Grant #71603012. We thank the participants for their time and valuable inputs to this study.


  1. 1.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2, 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desmet, P., Hekkert, P.: Framework of product experience. Int. J. Des. 1(1) (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Creusen, M.E., Schoormans, J.P.: Product appearance and consumer choice. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 22(1), 63–81 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jordan, P.W., Persson, S.: Exploring users’ product constructs: how people think about different types of product. CoDesign 3(Suppl. 1), 97–106 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alben, L.: Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions 3(3), 11–15 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P., Kort, J.: Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deaton, M.: The elements of user experience: user-centered design for the web. Interactions 10(5), 49–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roto, V., Law, E., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Hoonhout, J.: User experience white paper - bringing clarity to the concept of user experience. In: Result from Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience, 15–18 September 2010Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J.B.: User experience over time: an initial framework. In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 729–738. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuniavsky, M.: Smart Things: Ubiquitous Computing User Experience Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Burlington (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.I.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frijda, N.H., Kuipers, P., Ter Schure, E.: Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 57(2), 212 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nagamachi, M.: Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented technology for product development. Appl. Ergon. 33(3), 289–294 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schütte, S.: Engineering emotional values in product design: Kansei engineering in development. Institute of Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S., Ikar, D.: What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput. 13(2), 127–145 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pham, M.T.: Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. J. Consum. Res. 25(2), 144–159 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., van Wieringen, P.C.: Most advanced, yet acceptable: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. Br. J. Psychol. (London, England: 1953) 94(1), 111–124 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang, J.H., Lin, Y.R., Chuang, S.T.: Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: a perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. Electron. Libr. 25(25), 586–599 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park, N., Roman, R., Lee, S., Chung, J.E.: User acceptance of a digital library system in developing countries: an application of the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 29(3), 196–209 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., Tsapatsoulis, N., Votsis, G., Kollias, S., Fellenz, W., Taylor, J.G.: Emotion recognition in human-computer interaction. IEEE Sig. Process. Mag. 18, 32–80 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olsson, T.: Layers of user expectations of future technologies: an early framework. In: CHI 2014 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations