Identifying Hedonic Factors in Long-Term User Experience

Sari Kujala1, Virpi Roto1,2, Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila1, Arto Sinnelä1 1Tampere University of Technology, P.O.Box 589, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland 2Nokia Research Center, P.O.Box 407, 00045 Nokia Group, Finland [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT According to Karapanos et al. [13], when users make product goodness judgments the pragmatic aspects of the user experience User experience (UX) arises from the user’s interaction with a (i.e. utility and usability) seem to be dominant only for the initial product and its pragmatic and hedonic (pleasure) qualities. Until experiences with a product; thus the relevance of the hedonic recently, UX evaluation has focused mainly on examining short- aspects (particularly what a product expresses about its owner) term experiences. However, as the user-product relationship increases over time. evolves over time, the hedonic aspects of UX eventually seem to Therefore, it is interesting to study long-term user experience – gain more weight over the pragmatic aspects. To this end, we have how the user's experience and relationship evolve over time from developed a UX Curve method for evaluating long-term user the early learning and enthusiasm about a product through to it experience, particularly the hedonic quality. In this paper, we simply becoming a part of daily life. While momentary present a study in which the UX Curve was used to retrospectively experiences can be seen to influence the overall product evaluate the UX of Facebook and mobile phones. The results show experience [2], the user's overall evaluation of UX is not merely a that compared to a questionnaire, the UX Curve method is more simple sum of the individual experiences [9]. effective for identifying the hedonic aspects of UX. This method can be used by practitioners and researchers who want to Retrospective evaluations of long-term user experiences are based understand evolving UX and to design better products. This on memories of the user and they can be vulnerable to biases [18]. straightforward method is especially suited for industrial contexts However, both Norman [18] and Karapanos et al. [16] argue that where resources are limited. these memories will be reported to others and guide the future behavior of the individual. The word of mouth that users pass on Categories and Subject Descriptors about the product to others is related to company success [20], H.5.2: User interfaces, User-centered design. while future consumer behaviors such as repurchase intentions are directly linked to customer loyalty [1]. Therefore, the users’ General Terms reconstructed memories of use are very relevant to the Human Factors manufacturer. Based on Vermeeren et al.’s [24] data, most of the current UX Keywords methods focus on single behavioral episodes and short-term User experience, long-term user experience, delight, mobile evaluations. There are only a few published user studies with long- phone, Facebook. term UX as the primary focus [15, 25]. Longitudinal user studies 1. INTRODUCTION are rare because they are expensive and impractical especially in User experience (UX) refers to the user’s perceptions and product development contexts. Long-term UX evaluation methods responses in regard to their interaction with a system or product that are easier to apply are therefore needed. [11]. As Hassenzahl and Tractinsky [8] describe, user experience In addition to the lack of methods for measuring long-term UX, goes beyond the task-oriented approach of traditional HCI and there are few methods for evaluating hedonic aspects of user focuses on hedonic aspects such as fun and pleasure. These experience. Yet, the hedonic aspects seem to be the most relevant hedonic aspects of user experience satisfy universal human needs in the long run. Semantic differential questionnaires [5] are but do not necessarily have utility value. The hedonic aspects sometimes used to evaluate hedonic aspects but they produce only create delight, which has been found to increase customer loyalty numeric results of how interesting, costly, exciting, exclusive etc. more than satisfaction alone does [1]. the product feels. These quantitative results do not explain the reasons behind the ratings, which would provide developers direct input on how to improve their designs. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for Our aim was to understand how qualitative data on hedonic personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are aspects of user experience changing over time can be identified in not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that industrial contexts. There have been a few attempts to develop a copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy method for evaluating long-term user experience without the otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, investment and delay of a multi-month field study. In a similar requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. vein, we have developed a retrospective user experience Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, June 22–25, 2011, evaluation method – called the UX Curve – that can be used to Milan, Italy. Copyright 2011 ACM 1-58113-000-0/00/0010…$10.00. qualitatively investigate user experience and to provide feedback on product features and qualities for design purposes. First, users Retrospective recall of personally meaningful experiences is more are allowed to express their experiences freely before they are lightweight than a longitudinal field study for both the respondent asked to consider their experiences from different points of view and the researcher. The problem of retrospective studies is that the representative of various dimensions of UX: attractiveness, ease of human memory produces biases in any recollections. However, as use, utility, and degree of usage. The users are asked to recall and Shiffman et al. [23] point out, retrospective impressions are very express significant reasons for changes in their experience while relevant to a person and can have a greater effect on later drawing a curve on a timeline. These reasons reveal meaningful behavior, since they represent the information they use to make issues that can be addressed in the further design iterations of the subsequent decisions. products under study. One example of a retrospective UX evaluation method is We tested the UX Curve method with 40 users to evaluate the user CORPUS developed by Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff et al. [25]. experience of two different types of communication tool: CORPUS is an interview technique used for reconstructing Facebook and mobile phones. We describe the reasons found for changes in UX over a period of more than one year. However, it changing UX over time and compare the results of the UX Curve provides only rough descriptions of the trends of user experience to the results of a questionnaire. and few reasons explaining the causes of any changes. 2. RELATED RESEARCH Karapanos et al. [14, 16] developed iScale, a (not publicly available) online survey tool to minimize retrospective bias by This section presents related work from two main areas: namely assisting users to recall their experiences with a product by hedonic product quality and evaluating long-term usage. “sketching” a curve over time. The goal of the study [16] was to 2.1 Hedonic Product Quality compare the effectiveness of two versions of iScale and free recall Hassenzahl [5] describes hedonic quality as being related to the without any form of sketching. The study shows that sketching users' self, in contrast to pragmatic quality which is related to the increases the amount and the richness of the recalled information. users' need to achieve goals. Hedonic quality comprises quality However, the study did not include qualitative or interpersonal dimensions that have no obvious relation to the task the user wants analysis of the results. Thus, how the remembered experiences to accomplish with the system but instead are related to non- relate to the assessment of the product is still an open question. instrumental qualities such as, esthetics, innovativeness and Although memories are rarely accurate they nevertheless seem to originality [3]. Further, Hassenzahl [4, 5] subdivides hedonic be very meaningful to humans and they do affect product success. attributes into stimulation, identification and evocation. A product As shown in the psychological studies [e.g. 19], individual provides stimulation by its challenging and novel character, experiences have less relevance to humans than the retrospective identification by expressing one's self and personal values to memories. In this study, we use the UX Curve method to evaluate relevant others, and evocation by one's formation of memories [4, long-term user experiences of Facebook and mobile phones and 5]. analyze the amount and quality of UX information gained from Experimental research shows that both pragmatic and hedonic their hedonic qualities. The results are also compared to findings qualities contribute to the appeal of a product [4, 6]. Schrepp et al. elicited by a questionnaire. [22] show that both qualities also have an impact on the attractiveness of business management software that is used for 3. METHOD work purposes. The relative weights of the pragmatic and the To test whether the UX Curve method is useful in revealing long- hedonic quality in forming an overall evaluation of a product are term hedonic experiences 40 users were asked to describe their dependent on the users' motivational orientations and the context experiences by means of the UX Curve method and a of evaluation [7]. questionnaire. The effectiveness of the questionnaire and of the UX Curve method in revealing hedonic experiences was then However, the results of Chitturi et al. [1] show that the importance compared. of hedonic quality increases in the long run. Their experiments with both imagined experience scenarios and real usage 3.1 Participants experience of car owners show that delighting customers with Twenty Facebook users and twenty mobile phone users from hedonic quality improves customer loyalty – as measured by word Finland participated in the study. These product categories were of mouth and repurchase intentions –more than utilitarian quality chosen as they represent two different purposes of use: Facebook does. is a hedonic service including social aspects, games, and other Our interest in this paper was to explore whether the UX Curve amusements and it is used mainly during free time. A mobile method could provide feedback on the experience of hedonic phone is more pragmatically oriented and used both for work- quality in particular and its changes over several months of use. related utility reasons and for free-time hedonic reasons. The 21 female and 19 male users were recruited through notices in 2.2 Approaches to Long-Term UX Evaluation a newspaper, Facebook groups and some also from the Nokia There are two primary ways to evaluate long-term user customer database. Their mean age was 36.0 years (SD=10.6) and experience: repeated evaluation of UX over a period of time in a they had been using Facebook or their mobile phones for periods longitudinal field study; or retrospective evaluation by asking ranging from 3 to 12 months (mean 9.0 months, SD=2.6). users to recall their long-term experience. Karapanos et al. [15] used the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) to repeatedly 3.2 Procedure evaluate the experiences of iPhone users over five weeks. DRM is The individual session with each participant consisted of an initial a retrospective diary method, in which participants are asked to background questionnaire, the curve-drawing session using the reconstruct their experiences daily. However, even these kinds of UX Curve method, and a final questionnaire. longitudinal studies are very rare because of their expensive and laborious nature [14]. The users participated individually in the 1.5 hour sessions. After being welcomed, the participants filled in an initial questionnaire before the curve-drawing session started. First, the researcher The participants were told that the horizontal axis represents the asked participants to recall the moment when they began using time dimension from the beginning of the use to the current Facebook or the mobile phone. The researcher handed out the first moment and that the vertical axis represents the intensity of their empty template (Figure 1) for the general UX curve and advised experience. They were also told that the horizontal zero line in the participants to draw a curve describing how their relationship middle of the graph divides it into a positive upper part and a towards Facebook or the phone had changed from the first time negative lower part. The vertical axis was labeled accordingly they used it until today. with + and – signs. After drawing the general curve and freely expressing their The first UX Curve template was about the participant’s general experiences, each participant was asked to draw four other curves relationship and user experience with Facebook or the phone. The from different UX perspectives. We asked the participants to mark four consecutive templates addressed specific dimensions of UX: the reasons at their approximate locations on the curve, but they attractiveness, ease of use, utility, and degree of usage. The first also explained their marking orally and were allowed to describe general curve presented did not have any heading, but the other the reasons to the researcher as well. curves were presented with headings, as follows: Attractiveness: At the end of the evaluation sessions, participants filled in the final “The product is attractive and interesting in your own eyes and questionnaire. The researcher asked them for feedback on the those of your friends.”; Ease of use: “The product is easy and curve drawing method and rewarded them with two movie tickets. effortless to use” (as in Figure 1); Utility: “The product has an important function for you.”; Degree of usage: “Degree of usage over time.” The degree of usage curve graph did not have a negative area since this aspect obviously cannot be negative. For the Facebook users "the product" was changed to "Facebook" in the curve templates. We chose these four UX dimensions because we believed they form a representative set of central UX dimensions which users can reflect upon [cf. 3, 6, 17]. ‘Attractiveness’ was selected to represent overall appeal and non-instrumental qualities (esthetics, symbolic and motivational aspects), although these were not specified to the users. Our assumption was that users may have not understood the variety of abstract non-instrumental qualities and there would have been too many curves to be drawn. 3.3.3 Final questionnaire At the end of the session, participants were asked to fill in a two- page questionnaire giving their overall evaluation of Facebook or their phone. The questionnaire included the following questions about meeting expectations: “Did the product/service meet your expectations?” – loyalty: “How likely it is that you will continue to purchase products/the usage of the services from the same manufacturer?” [20] – willingness to recommend: “If your friend was planning to purchase a similar kind of a product, how likely is it that you would recommend this product to him/her?” (adapted from [20]) – and importance: “How important is this product/service to you?” We also asked for reasons for their answers, along with asking open-ended questions about surprising, best, and worst qualities of the product or service. 3.4 Data Analysis The curve drawing sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. The reasons explaining the curve trend changes mentioned during the interview and written down in the curve template were picked out from the text document and content-analyzed. First, open

coding was used to identify themes in the data without ready Figure 1. An example of a UX curve template. categories. Second, the identified set of phenomena was categorized using the user experience model by Hassenzahl [3, 4]. 3.3 Materials The model categorizes user experience issues into pragmatic 3.3.1 Initial questionnaire (utility and usability) and hedonic or non-instrumental. Utility We collected background information about the participants with means that the product provides relevant functionality for an initial two-page questionnaire. In addition to the basic performing tasks and manipulating environment and usability demographic data, we asked questions about their Facebook or refers to the ways to access this functionality easily and efficiently mobile phone usage. [4]. The hedonic categories adapted from Hassenzahl [3, 4] were stimulation, identification, beauty and evocation (see the 3.3.2 UX Curve templates definitions in 2.1). The UX Curve templates included an empty two-dimensional The analysis was performed by one of the authors and then graph area along with lines for writing on and briefly describing checked by one of the other authors. The first themes identified by the reasons for the changes in the curve. open coding fit very well with Hassenzahl's categories [3, 4] and the two evaluators agreed with the categorization. Only a few reasons needed to be categorized as "miscellaneous" as they did not fit the categories and seemed to describe more practical issues or the change of the user-product relationship over time. In addition, for Facebook, many reasons mentioned were related to sociability and privacy and not directly related to instrumental needs, so they were used as additional hedonic categories. In addition to the qualitative analysis, the curve drawings were categorized according to their trends. First, we tested 10 categories to classify all the curve trends, for example U-form curve, improving negative, improving positive, and changeable, but we found them difficult to utilize. We therefore simplified the categorization and focused on the curves’ three primary trends: improving, deteriorating, or stable. Figure 2. An example of a general UX curve drawn by a The categorization was performed on the basis of whether the mobile phone user, with annotated reasons for changes. starting point of the curve was higher or lower compared to the end point. For example, the curve in Figure 2 was categorized as improving as its starting point was lower than its ending point, even though the curve deteriorates in the middle. If the starting and ending points were at the same level, the curve was categorized as stable. The hand drawn curves were moved to Excel by using 11 coordinate points per curve. The coordinate points were then used to calculate the means of curves. The relationships between the curve types and the key questionnaire results were investigated by statistical analysis. As the size of the sample was small, we used the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. 4. RESULTS A total of 200 curves were collected, including 40 general UX curves and 40 for each of the four specific UX dimensions: General, Attractiveness, Ease of Use, Utility and Usage volumes. Figure 3. The mean Attractiveness curves of the improving This paper mostly focuses on the Attractiveness curve which and deteriorating curves of the Facebook users (The x axis elicited the highest number of hedonic reasons for evolving user shows the timeframe of 3-12 months). experience.

4.1 Trends of the curves Figure 2 shows an example of a general UX curve drawn by a mobile phone user. The curve shows a typical beginning ‘improving through learning’ in trend, and the reasons for the changes. The users marked the main reasons for the changes on the curve or below it and then explained the experiences more verbally. Figures 3 and 4 show the mean Attractiveness curves categorized according to the curve form and the application. (The means of the curve types were calculated as described in 3.4. The stable curves were left out of the figures as there were only five of them.) The improving attractiveness of Facebook continued over time, whilst the improving attractiveness of mobile phones was faster in the beginning of use but became steady soon after. The reasons for the differences are illuminated by the users' explanations of the reasons for the changes in long-term user experience, as reported Figure 4. The mean Attractiveness curves of the improving in the next section. and deteriorating curves of the mobile phone users (The x axis shows the timeframe of 3-12 months).

4.2 Reasons for the Changing UX The negative stimulation-related reasons included lack of interest All in all, the Facebook users reported 466 reasons for the in Facebook and decreasing amount of content provided by changing user experience, 297 positive and 169 negative. The friends. mobile phone users reported 574 reasons of which 351 were The sociability-related reasons mainly included communicating positive and 223 negative. with friends and hearing from old friends. One of the users As the Attractiveness curve focuses on hedonic issues, it also explained, for example, that "I can share social nonsense". elicited the highest number of hedonic reasons among both the Sociability-related negative reasons were few, but included factors Facebook and mobile phone users; however the General curve also such as dividing one’s friends into two groups (those who use disclosed hedonic reasons, as can be seen in Table 1. Facebook and those who do not) and taking time away from being with family. Table 1. The number of reported pragmatic and hedonic The less common reasons, which were not included in Figure 6, reasons for changing user experience were positive reasons related to identification; these were Curve type Facebook users Mobile phone users mentioned by eight users. For example, the users mentioned that Pragm. Hed. Pragm. Hed. they liked joining Facebook groups that support their own ideas and to express their thoughts through the service. In addition, General 32 62 94 36 privacy issues were reported by five users. These included both Attractiveness 25 80 52 88 insecurity about the visibility of their own material and unclear terms of intellectual property. Two users mentioned that Facebook Ease of use 89 3 108 5 is too American and one was irritated by the advertisements. Utility 50 46 95 5 Usage volumes 40 40 82 9 Mean 47.0 46.2 86.2 28.6

Facebook is used mainly for hedonic reasons, so Facebook users expressed more hedonic reasons for changes than the mobile phone users did. The overall proportion of hedonic reasons mentioned was 49.6% for Facebook users and 26.0% for the mobile phone users. Figures 5 and 6 show the pragmatic reasons and the most common hedonic reasons mentioned as changing the Attractiveness curve over time. Figure 5 shows that the mobile phone users mentioned the most hedonic reasons related to identification and beauty. The identification-related reasons were mainly about social identification including the phone’s attractiveness in the eyes of other people and superiority over someone else’s phone. 13 out of 20 users mentioned how good the phone looked in the eyes of Figure 5. The relative proportions of the four most common others, how they showed the phone to others, or how their friend reasons for changes in the Attractiveness curve, as mentioned had the same model. A negative reason mentioned by ten users by mobile phone users. was the availability of new and better phone models, a factor affecting identification. The beauty-related reasons referred, naturally, to design and visual appearance. For example, it was mentioned that "the moving background picture is a brilliant and charming property". As a drawback, four users mentioned that wearing out caused the looks of the phone to deteriorate over time. The next most common reasons, not included in Figure 5, were the charm of novelty mentioned by ten mobile phone users and aesthetics and pleasure of interaction mentioned by ten mobile phone users. On the negative side, familiarisation, losing the charm of novelty, or the availability of new and better phone models were mentioned by 18 users. Figure 6 shows that the most common hedonic reasons improving the user experience of Facebook were related to stimulation and sociability. The stimulation-related reasons referred to many aspects of which the most common ones were interesting content including social information, photographs, applications and games, curiosity and interest in the service and its undiscovered Figure 6. The relative proportions of the four most common functions. For example, a user described how "It increases reasons for changes in the Attractiveness curves, as mentioned attractiveness that I know there are aspects that I don't know yet". by Facebook users. 4.3 Comparing the results of the UX Curve compared to the 15 mentioned in the questionnaire. The reason may be that 7 users had already mentioned privacy issues in the method and the questionnaire General curve. Figures 7 and 8 show the relative proportions of the users' response categories when they were asked to name the three best 4.4 The role of hedonic reasons in the long- and three worst product qualities in the final questionnaire. It can be seen that the qualities mentioned in the questionnaire resemble term UX those mentioned while drawing the Attractiveness curve (Figures In addition to number of hedonic reasons, it is interesting to know 5 and 6). how these reported hedonic qualities affect long-term user behavior. The responses of mobile phone users revealed that the improving trend of Attractiveness is related to user satisfaction and recommending to friends (see Table 2). On the other hand, the other curve types (general, ease of use, and utility) did not have the same statistical relation. This suggests that the hedonic reasons play an important role in user satisfaction and customer loyalty. Table 2. The effect of the trend of the attractiveness curve on user satisfaction and recommendation (scale 1-7, 1= highly unlikely, 7=highly likely)

Question Trend Mean p Improving 6.2 Is this a good product for you? .022 Deteriorating 4.7

Do you think that the product Improving 6.2 .017 has met your expectations? Deteriorating 4.1

If your friend was planning to Figure 7. The relative proportions of the three best and worst Improving 6.3 product qualities, as named by mobile phone users in the purchase a similar kind of a questionnaire. product, how likely is it that .022 you would recommend this Deteriorating 4.3 product to him/her?

All except one of the Facebook users were very satisfied and thus, their answers could not be analyzed to identify the most relevant reasons behind user satisfaction and recommending. 4.5 Factors influencing the long-term UX Figure 9 summarizes the competing factors influencing improving and deteriorating long-term UX of Facebook and the mobile phones. This is done by combining the reasons for changes mentioned in the UX curves. Learning to use the product was naturally an important factor that improved UX over time. As a person learns to use a product, it becomes more pleasant to use and the functions can be utilized more effectively. The other factors behind improving UX were related to hedonic quality, such as beauty of mobile phones or stimulation in Facebook. New content, services and applications Figure 8. The relative proportions of the three best and worst seem to be ways to avoid the level of interest going down after the product qualities, as named by Facebook users in the initial excitement. questionnaire. The deficiencies in pragmatic qualities such as technical faults and long-term usability problems seem to be common reasons for Remarkably, when participants were directly asked to prioritize deteriorating UX. Good usability is also a precondition to learning, the most important qualities, they seemed to focus on issues that which helps users to utilize the functions and enjoy using the are practical or otherwise easy to rationalize, but when drawing product. The physical wearing out of mobile phones reduces their the Attractiveness curve, they disclosed both pragmatic and beauty and social status value. hedonic issues. The mobile phone users focused on pragmatic Finally, losing the charm of novelty and comparison with newer issues in the questionnaire but also brought up hedonic issues products will force the UX down. Users did not compare mobile related to beauty and aesthetics in interaction when drawing the phones only with newer products, they also compared their phone Attractiveness curve. with those owned by their friends and family members. Users One difference between the curve drawing and the questionnaire were proud if they found their own phone to be better than was that the Attractiveness curve revealed only five privacy issues someone else’s. 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS esthetics in interaction, stimulation and social status improved the In this study, we investigated the usefulness of the UX Curve attractiveness of the products over time. method in identifying factors influencing long-term user Facebook differs from mobile phones in that it evolves over time experience and in particular, the hedonic aspects of user as new content, services, applications and games are provided. experience. The practical goal of the method is to gather user This is visible in our results where the attractiveness of Facebook feedback for design purposes. The UX Curve method was tested was constantly improving while the attractiveness of the phones with 40 users to evaluate the user experience of two different types became steady over time. Based on the feedback provided in this of product: Facebook and mobile phone. study, designers could improve Facebook by developing inspiring The results show that the UX Curve, and in particular the new applications, supporting social presence and different forms Attractiveness curve, is effective in providing concrete user of content as well as improving users' control of their privacy. feedback and revealing the number of hedonic aspects of user The mobile phones were functionally richer products compared to experience changing over time. When the validity of a method is Facebook and learning to use these functions took longer in the evaluated, the first and the most important criterion is that the beginning. After the user became familiar with all the method should predict real-world behavior. Our results show good functionality and new mobile phones models became available, validity in that respect as the improving trend of the Attractiveness the mobile phones became unavoidably less exciting and their curve had a statistically significant association with users' attractiveness decreased. On the basis of our results, new services, satisfaction, their met expectations, and their willingness to applications and content could maintain the attractiveness of the recommend the product to others. Furthermore, those users willing phones. to recommend the product had also told positive stories to their The UX Curve method, and particularly the Attractiveness curve, friends. Revealing the factors that drive recommendation and promisingly discloses qualitative information about the hedonic loyalty is important to companies as the return on investment of aspects of long-term user experience that participants do not often user experience work comes via a loyal and growing customer bring out in evaluations. In addition, the identified UX trends can base. be used for comparing products and predicting their users’ loyalty. When we asked the participants to list the best and worst qualities The method is also reasonably easy compared to longitudinal of Facebook or their mobile phone in a traditional questionnaire, methods like the Day Reconstruction Method [12] and thus, it is they focused on pragmatic and rational issues. When the more practical in product development contexts. One UX Curve participants were asked to draw the Attractiveness curve and session took about 1.5 hours instead of the months DRM can take. explain the reasons for changes, most of the reasons given were The session could be even shorter, as our session included two hedonic ones. This is an important finding, since methods capable questionnaires and five different curve types. In future, designers of revealing the hedonic qualities are needed for designing could select fewer curve types based on the particular product type pleasure aspect of user experience. and what is relevant to it. One could ask why the UX Curve better supports users describing Effective user experience evaluation and analysis tools are needed the hedonic aspects of their user experience when compared to a in industry especially, but also in academia. The UX Curve is a questionnaire. One possible explanation is that while drawing the promising method to reveal long-term aspects of user experience, curve they are not being directly asked about the qualities of the information about the memories of the most meaningful emotional product and their prioritization and as such they are instead experiences and their reasons. Other methods are needed to focusing on recalling their experiences. It may also be more provide data on more exact user interface details. In our future socially acceptable to simply describe hedonic experiences rather work, we will look at the possibilities of utilizing software tools than prioritize them as more important than pragmatic ones. Thus, such as iScale [14, 16] and automatic semantic analysis in making users may find it easier to rationalize and describe the pragmatic the UX Curve study applicable in different UX evaluation cases. issues when directly asked in a questionnaire [cf. 10]. This explanation is also supported by Richins' [21] findings that for social desirability reasons, status or prestige issues are not 6. REFERENCES mentioned in self-reports. 1. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V. Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of The users remembered more experiences with the UX Curve Marketing, 2008, 72, 48-63. compared to the interviewing technique of CORPUS [25]. The number of individual experiences described per user was 26 in a 2. Forlizzi, J. and Battarbee, K., Understanding experience in 1.5 hour session (including two questionnaires) compared to 3.4 interactive systems. Proceedings of Designing interactive experiences in a 45 minute session with CORPUS. Otherwise, the systems conference, 2004, 261-268. results of the two methods were similar. The trends of the usability 3. Hassenzahl, M. The effect of perceived hedonic quality on curves were improving in both studies. Other curves (utility, product appealingness. International Journal of Human- stimulation, beauty, and identity) had more stable or deteriorating Computer Interaction, 2001, 13, 4, 481-499. trends in CORPUS than in the UX Curve, but also the periods of use were longer. 4. Hassenzahl, M. The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In Funology: From In addition to revealing hedonic issues, the benefit of the UX Usability to Enjoyment, Blythe, M., C. Overbeeke, C. Monk, Curve method is that it reveals how user experience evolves over A.F. and Wright, P.C, (Eds), 2003, 32-42. time and shows the various relevant competing forces involved. Pragmatic issues are related to necessities and if a product does 5. Hassenzahl, M. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and not meet the expectations related to pragmatic quality, the usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction, attractiveness will deteriorate over time. However, most of the 19, 2004, 329-349. issues influencing the long-term user experience are related to the hedonic quality. Issues related to pleasure, such as beauty, 6. Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., Lehner, K., Hedonic 16. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. Martens, J.-B., and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. Measuring the dynamics of remembered experience over time. In: Turner, T., Szwillus, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the CHI Interacting with Computers, 2010, 22, 5, 328-335. Conference, 2000, ACM, pp. 201-208. 17. Mahlke, S., Aesthetic and Symbolic Qualities as Antecedents 7. Hassenzahl, M., Schöbel, M., Trautmann, T. How of Overall Judgments of Interactive Products, in People and motivational orientation influences the evaluation and choice Computers XX - Engage, Proceedings of HCI '06. 2006, of hedonic and pragmatic interactive products: The role of Springer: London. regulatory focus. Interacting with Computers, 20, 2008, 473- 18. Norman, D.A. Memory is more important than actuality. 479. Interactions, 2009. March + April: p. 24-26. 8. Hassenzahl, M.,Tractinsky, N. User experience - a research 19. Oishi, S. and Sullivan, H.W. The predictive value of daily vs. agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2006, 25, 2, retrospective well-being judgments in relationship stability. 91-97. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2006, 42, 4, 460- 9. Hassenzahl, M., Ullrich, D. To do or not to do: Differences in 470. user experience and retrospective judgements depending on 20. Reichheld, F.F. The one number you need to grow. Harvard the presence of absence of instrumental goals. Interacting with Business Review, 2003, 81 (12): p. 46-54. Computers, 2007, 19, 429-437. 21. Richins, M. Valuing things: The public and private meanings 10. Hsee, C. Elastic justification: how tempting but task-irrelevant of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, December factors influence decisions. Organizational behavior and 1994, 21, 504-521. Human Decision Processes, 62, 3, 1995, 330-337. 22. Schrepp, M., Held, T., Laugwitz, B. The influence of hedonic 11. ISO FDIS 9241-210 Human-centred design process for quality on the attractiveness of user interfaces of business interactive systems. International Organisation for management software. Interacting with Computers, 2006, 18, Standardisation, 2009. 1055-1069. 12. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N., 23. Shiffman, S., Stone, A.A., Hufford, M.R. Ecological Stone, A.A. A survey method for characterizing daily life momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 2004, Psychology, 2007, 4, 1-32. 306, 1776-1780. 24. Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Law, W.L.-C., Roto, V. Obrist, M., 13. Karapanos, E., Hassenzahl, M., Marten, J.-B. User experience Hoonhaut, J., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., User experience over time. In CHI’08 extended abstracts, 2008, ACM, pp. evaluation methods: Current state and development needs. In 3561-3566. Proceedings of the NordiCHI conference, 2010, pp. 521-530. 14. Karapanos, E., Martens, J.-B., Hassenzahl, M., Reconstructing 25. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, M., Hassenzahl, M., and Platz, experiences through sketching. arXiv pre-print available at A., Dynamics of user experience: How the perceived quality http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5343 of mobile phones changes over time, in User Experience - 15. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J, Martens, J-B., User Towards a unified view, Workshop at the 4th Nordic experience over time: An initial framework, in CHI '09 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2006, pp. 74-78. Proceedings, 2009, ACM, pp. 729-738.