Multimodal Technologies and Interaction

Article Guided User Research Methods for Experience Design—A New Approach to Focus Groups and Cultural Probes

Anne Elisabeth Krueger 1,* , Kathrin Pollmann 1, Nora Fronemann 1 and Beatrice Foucault 2

1 Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany; [email protected] (K.P.); [email protected] (N.F.) 2 OrangeTM, 22300 Lannion, France; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]



Received: 29 May 2020; Accepted: 22 July 2020; Published: 26 July 2020


Abstract: Many companies are facing the task for radical innovations—totally new concepts and ideas for products and services, which are successful at the market. One major factor for success is a positive user experience. Thus, design teams need, and are challenged to integrate, an experience-centered perspective in their human-centered design processes. To support this, we propose adjusted versions of the well-established user research methods focus groups and cultural probes, in order to tailor them to the specific needs and focus of experience-based design, especially in the context of solving “wicked design problems”. The results are experience focus groups and experience probes, which augment the traditional methods with new structuring, materials, and tasks based on the three principles experience focus, creative visualization, and systematic guidance. We introduce and describe a two step-approach for applying these methods, as well as a case study that was conducted in cooperation with a company that illustrates how the methods can be applied to enable an experience-centered perspective on the topic of “families and digital life”. The case study demonstrates how the methods address the three principles they are based on. Post-study interviews with representatives of the company revealed valuable insights about their usefulness for practical user experience design.

Keywords: user experience; user research; experience focus groups; experience cultural probes; building ideas; design thinking; user-centered design; design for experience

1. Introduction With the proceeding digitalization, many companies need to reinvent themselves as well as their product and service portfolio in order to stay competitive in the market. Thus, they are facing the task of radical innovation—totally new concepts and ideas for products and services, which are successful in the market. One major factor for success is a positive user experience. It has been shown that users prefer products and services that promote positive experiences [1,2]. Positive experiences seem to foster long-term usage and product bonding [3]. It is assumed that users experience products and services along two different dimensions [4]: hedonic and pragmatic qualities. Hedonic qualities refer to affective components of a product or service, e.g., the enhancement of a person’s psychological wellbeing. Pragmatic qualities comprise the functionality and usability of the product or service. Thus, it is no longer sufficient for companies to develop just functional products and services that solve problems effectively and efficiently. Instead, it seems essential to design positive experiences for the user. Products and services should encourage an increase in well-being and happiness besides making life easier. However, many companies and their design teams rather work with a usability-mindset [5].

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43; doi:10.3390/mti4030043 www.mdpi.com/journal/mti Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 2 of 22

Those are challenged and in need for guidance and support in order to integrate hedonic aspects into their human-centered design processes [6]. Furthermore, creating radical innovations with a focus on hedonic qualities opens a variety of possible design paths for a users’ positive experience with a product or service. To address this multiplicity, open, wide, and rather undefined questions can be set as starting points for the human centered-design process, so-called ”wicked problems” [7]. To design products and services that can enable positive experiences, it is important to first establish a deep and rich understanding of the user group and the context of use. Thus, we promote a two-step approach for conducting user research for the “wicked problems”. As Morgan [8] puts it: “This strategy has the advantage of first identifying a range of experiences and perspectives, and then drawing from that pool to add more depth where needed.” Therefore, the first step is aimed at gathering controversial insights about the “wicked problem” from multiple users’ experiences. This is done to obtain an overview of potentials for positive experiences and implications for further in-depth user research. The results of the first step are used as a base for redefining, specifying, and narrowing down the user research questions and the definition of relevant user groups for the second step. The aim of the second step is then to develop a deep and rich understanding of specific user groups and their requirements regarding positive experiences. In addition, the second step is meant to gain insights about possible interdependencies, e.g., with context and time, which are relevant factors when designing for a positive user experience [9].

1.1. Existing User (Experience) Research Methods There are several traditional user research methods, e.g., interviews, focus groups, surveys [10], and contextual inquiries [11] (see Table1) that could be used for realizing the two described steps. However, these approaches often lack the focus on the hedonic aspects of the users’ experiences. Some attempts have been made to develop user research and design methods with a clear focus on the user experience. However, some of them presuppose the understanding of rather abstract psychological models (need cards [12], emotion granularity cards [13], and wellbeing determinant cards [14]) and scientific methods (UX Concept Exploration [3], the day reconstruction method [15]), which are often not commonly known in the companies’ design teams. The few methods, which do not require fundamental psychological understanding, are either only applicable for specific experience contexts (e.g., work environments) (experience categories, experience potential analysis [16–19]) or rather focus on the survey of individuals and do not allow for, e.g., controversial group discussions, such as the experience interview [20]. This, however, seems relevant in order to approach the inherent variety of a “wicked problem” (see step one above). Additionally, the stated methods merely build on the users’ verbal or written articulation of their experiences. Since mental models of users and designers about the users’ experiences can differ [21], and language can have multiple meanings, the resulting products and services may not be able to invoke a positive experience for the users. However, diary documentation (e.g., the day reconstruction method [15]) that could provide a survey of the long-term and contextual factors of the users experience’ for step two are merely based on the users’ written or verbal articulation and not, e.g., on the visual expression of their experiences. Thus, they are more likely prone to misunderstanding of mental models. Cultural probes [4] could contribute a creative drive for visualization here. However, they are missing guidance for a systematic survey of experiences. Instead, the results serve as a creative inspiration for designers. The generative co-creation [22] methods embrace this issue. However, they are missing a long-term survey approach and an explicit focus on hedonic aspects of the users’ experience. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 3 of 22

Table 1. Deficiencies of existing user research methods.

Method Description Deficiencies Traditional usability methods have their origin in social Traditional user research E.g., focus groups, interviews, surveys, ethnographic methods. sciences and/or classic usability-engineering and, thus, haven methods e.g., [10] not an inherent focus on the users’ experience. The contextual inquiries are traditionally designed to analyze Field interviews conducted with users, e.g., in their workplaces while they the users’, activities, tools, and flows at their workplace. The Contextual Inquiries [11] work. Thereby the user researchers are observing and inquiring into the primary focus is on understanding the processes and the users’ perspective. requirements by obtaining information that are not always conscious to the user. The need cards are based on the user experience model [23,24], which sets The need cards do not involve guidance on how to apply them, the fulfillment of basic human needs as base for a positive UX. The need e.g., in user experience research, except for just reading them. cards contain a brief description as well as typical feelings, visualizations Need Cards [12] Therefore, it is possible that, when need cards are solely used, and quotes for seven relevant psychological needs. The need cards are the needs may still appear abstract and theoretical, especially in created to provide orientation and inspiration when designing products design teams with a predominant usability mindset. that aim at evoking positive experiences in the user. The method consist of three phases: I. Concept briefing (users get to know The execution of UX concept exploration requires a the product or service concept), II. Field phase (users imagine the usage of UX Concept Exploration fundamental understanding of the psychological needs model the presented concept, evaluate and extend it regarding basic user needs), [3,25] for user experience. Furthermore, it requires UX experts for the III. Analysis workshop and expert evaluation regarding the fulfillment of evaluation of the resulting ideas and concepts. basic needs by the promoted concept. Narrative-Interview to prompt users about positive experiences and The experience interview is designed to prompt individual specific aspects regarding those. The Experience Interview can be users about their experiences. Thus, it does not allow for, e.g., Experience Interview [20] conducted in two ways: prompting the user openly about positive controversial group discussions as required for step 1 of our experiences in specific contexts; prompting the user about specific positive approach. Furthermore, it merely builds on the verbal or experiences in specific contexts. written articulation of the users’ experiences. Experience categories are a methodology aimed at understanding existing Experience Categories and creating new positive experiences. The categories describe aspects of The experience categories exist only for specific contexts [16,18,19] positive experiences for specific contexts, which can be, e.g., used in (e.g., work environments and kitchens). analysis workshops or as a starting points for ideation. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 4 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Method Description Deficiencies The experience potential analysis enables a creative process aimed at the Experience Potential The experience potential analysis exists only for specific identification of potentials for a positive user experience design. The Analysis [17] contexts (e.g., work environments and kitchens). method and its creative process is based on the experience categories [16]. The participants construct a short diary of the previous day. Thereby they The day re-construction are asked to divide this day into specific episodes (e.g., commuting to Merely builds on the users’ verbal or written articulation of method [15] work) and estimate their durations. Then, the participants are questioned their experiences. regarding specific aspects about their experience during the episode. The co-creation methods are missing systematic guidance for The participants are enabled to immerse in and express their experiences long-term surveys of experiences. Furthermore, the focus is not Co-creation Methods [15] during, e.g., a workshop session with the aid of visual materials. explicitly on the survey of hedonic aspects of the users’ experience. The cultural probes are missing merely a guidance for a Cultural probes enable the users to record their answers to a given Cultural Probes [26,27] systematic survey of experiences. Instead, the results serve research topic with artifacts such as postcards, cameras and diaries. rather as a creative inspiration for designers. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 5 of 22

As argued above, there is no existing user (experience) research method that fully addresses all of these aspects. Thus, there is a need to extend the existing methodological portfolio in user (experience) research with new (combinations) of methods, in order to enable a focus on hedonic aspects and experience-centered design. In summary, in order to be applicable for companies and to address both steps described above, user research methods have to address the following requirements:

1. Clear focus on user experience 2. Enable visual articulation of experiences 3. Provide guidance for practical application e.g., in companies’ design teams

1.2. Augmentation of Existing User Research Methods with Focus on Experience, Guidance, and Creative Expression To address the “wicked problems” within user experience research, we propose to build on existing, well-established user research methods (see Table1) and enrich them by including hedonic aspects of user experiences, providing systematic guidance for execution and enabling creative forms of expression. For gathering broad, potentially controversial insights and identify relevant questions for deeper examination (step one), we propose an extended version of focus groups: experience focus groups. The detailed investigation of these questions (step two) is realized by altering the method of cultural probes by introducing the experience probes. Focus groups, a well-known method for qualitative user research within classic human-centered design [8], embody group discussions with the aim to gather insights about the participants’ perception, opinions, and attitudes regarding a specific study topic. Thus, they enable for the relevant controversial, multi-perspective input from diverse users at the same time. However, traditional focus groups are not specifically designed to gather insights for experience design. Moreover, the abilities of the moderator are a relevant factor for the success of a traditional focus group. Advanced skills—in understanding group dynamics and steering them—are needed to allow every participant to articulate their personal experiences, requirements, and ideas. In addition, the amount of data acquired during focus groups can be enormous and, thus, requires an extensive and time-consuming data analysis. Thus, we propose extending the concept of the traditional focus group method with an explicit focus on the users’ experiences, guidance for the moderation, and the possibility for users to express their experiences visually. Classical cultural probes enable users to record their answers as “inspirational data” around a given research topic by documenting “beliefs and desires, their aesthetic preferences and cultural concerns” [26,27]—specific experiences, ideas, or interactions—with artifacts such as postcards, cameras, or diaries (in context) over a certain time. In doing so, cultural probes embody a rather creative approach to the given research topic and leave user and designer without explicit instructions for execution. The participants can decide themselves how often and how elaborately they want to reflect on and report their experiences. The method of culture probes itself offers neither guidance to explore the experiences in a systematic way, nor does it provide a clear focus on a specific study topic. Thus, the method results in inspirations for designers rather than structured insights as foundation for experience-based design. Therefore, we propose to extend the concept of cultural probes by augmenting it with a clear structure and tasks to explore hedonic aspects of the users’ experiences systematically.

1.3. Contribution of the Presented Work The present work explores how an adapted version of focus groups [8,28] and cultural probes [26,27] can be used in order to address “wicked problems” in user experience research. In this paper, we first describe how we suggest to adapt the two methods to include a clear focus on potentials for positive experiences, enable visual forms of expression and, at the same time, provide guidance for the user researchers with a predominant usability-mindset. We then describe a case study, which shows how the adapted methods can be used in practice. The case study was conducted as a cooperation between experienced user experience researchers and the user research and design team of a company. The aim Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 6 of 22 of the case study was to introduce the user experience mindset to the company by conducting the human-centered design process for future digital products and services for families. Finally, we reflect upon the use of the methods and propose directions for further research.

2. Materials and Methods In the following section we first describe three principles, which serve as a base to adapt existing user research methods in order to include a clear focus on potentials for positive experience, enable visual forms of expression and provide guidance for user researchers with a predominant usability mindset. Then we depict the two-step approach for user experience research including a flowchart of the single steps and its expected results. Furthermore, a detailed description of the experience focus groups and the experience probes is provided. Thereby, we describe how those methods address the three principles, provide a clear structure for the individual methods and give instructions how to analyze the data gathered.

2.1. Principles for Adaption of User Research Methods The adaptation of the two methods can be summarized under three different principles, which we already presented in earlier work [29,30]. Principle 1—(Positive) Experience Focus: An important aim of user experience research and design is to detect potentials for positive experience or to create positive experiences for the users during the interaction with interactive products and services. Thus, the design of the adapted methods should support the gathering and analysis of the participants’ (positive) experiences and the generation of first ideas for products and services regarding the predefined study topic based on that. Principle 2—Creative Visualization: The mental model of users and designers of an experience might differ [22] and verbalized words can have multiple meanings. Thus, it seems important to provide support for the users to express their experiences in visual ways, in order to make their experiences graspable for the design team and create objective reference points for discussions about them. To do so, the adapted methods should facilitate a creative mindset, e.g., with a warm-up to support the participants’ creative confidence [31,32] in order to install a trustful atmosphere, before the participants are guided to visually express their experiences, opinions and attitudes regarding the study topic. People often hesitate to visualize aspects facing a plain white sheet of paper. Thus, the methods provide, e.g., predefined materials such as templates and stickers or employ tasks, which can be conducted with Lego®-bricks. Thereby we build upon the approach of the Lego® Serious Play® method [33], which aims at building metaphors instead of naturalistic images of reality. All these visualizations techniques simplify the “thinking with the hands”, which as such can inspire new ideas. Moreover, the visualizations can be used as a base for further discussion, analysis and idea generation. Additionally, through the visualization the participants record their experiences directly, which reduces the effort of documenting for the user researchers. Principle 3—Systematic Guidance: Especially for design teams with little experience with user research and experience design or a technical or usability-focused background, it seems to be necessary to provide explicit guidance how to carry out the methods [6]. Thus, the methods should incorporate a predefined structuring with specific steps. Each step should include a specific task to answer a particular question or explore a particular aspect of the study topic. Thus, the challenge of defining goals and research questions in user research is broken down into manageable pieces. At the same time, it is assured that the design team does not forget any steps and, following the predefined structure of the method, automatically proceeds in a way that sets the required creative working atmosphere and systematically steers the users towards expressing their experiences. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 7 of 22

2.2. Two-Step Approach for “Wicked Problems” within User Experience Research To address “wicked problems” within user experience design we propose a two-step approach for Multimodaluser experience Technologies research and Interact. as described 2020, 4, 43 in Section1 and depicted in the flowchart in Figure1. 6 of 19

FigureFigure 1. 1. Two-stepTwo-step approach approach for user experience research to address “wicked problems”.

The adapted adapted methods—experience methods—experience focus focus groups groups (s (steptep 1a) 1a) and and the the experience experience probes probes (step (step 2a) 2a)— —areare described described in in individual individual Section Sections 2.2.1 2.2.1 and and 2.2.2. 2.2.2 The. The methodology methodology for for the the an analysisalysis of of both both methods methods (step 1b and step 2b) is quite similar and, therefore,therefore, representedrepresented inin SectionSection 2.2.32.2.3.. 2.2.1. Experience Focus Groups 2.2.1. Experience Focus Groups The experience focus group builds upon the basic idea of a traditional focus group and are adapted The experience focus group builds upon the basic idea of a traditional focus group and are with the aid of the principles in the following ways: adapted with the aid of the principles in the following ways: -- Principle 1 and Principle 3: The The experience experience focus focus groups groups extend extend the traditional method by dedicating the predefined predefined phases especially to us userer experience research. As such, the experience focusfocus groupgroup (see (see Table Table2) contains, 2) contai e.g.,ns, phasese.g., phases especially especially for the gathering for the ofgathering (positive) of experiences (positive) experiencesof the participants of the participants (phase 3) and (phase the generation3) and the generation of ideas for of positive ideas for experiences positive experiences as a base foras afollowing base for following experience experience design (phase design 5). (phase 5). -- Principle 2 2 and Principle 3: The The other other phases phases of of the the experience experience focus focus group group (1, (1, 2 2 and 4) are dedicated to to ensure ensure a a smooth introduction introduction to to a a creative mindset mindset and and the the topic topic of of investigation. Although we we propose propose a aspecific specific structuring structuring for for the the experience experience focus focus groups, groups, this thisstructuring structuring can becan tailored be tailored to individual to individual research research questions. questions. The The structure structure consists consists of of different different phases phases and relatedrelated tasks tasks that that can can partly partly be be rearranged rearranged if ifneeded. needed. Some Some phases phases can can be omitted be omitted if they if they do not do contributenot contribute to the to research the research question question at hand. at hand. Howe However,ver, it is strongly it is strongly recommended recommended to start to with start phaseswith phases 1 “Conducting 1 “Conducting Warm-Up” Warm-Up” and 2 and “Setting 2 “Setting Reference Reference Points”, Points”, in order in order to ensure to ensure the smooththe smooth introduction introduction to the to topic the topic and andmaterials. materials. Phases Phases 3, 4 and 3, 4 5 and can 5be can rearranged be rearranged or even or omittedeven omitted as required as required by the by topic the and topic research and research questions questions for the for experience the experience focus group focus groupat hand. at Eachhand. phase Each phaseof the of experience the experience focus focus group group consis consiststs of ofinteractive interactive tasks, tasks, which which enable enable visual expression of the users’ experiences experiences.. The The interactive interactive tasks can be carried out either by individual participants, smallsmall groupsgroups or or all all participants participants together. together Individual. Individual tasks tasks are are included included to assure to assure that thatall participants all participants can equallycan equally take parttake inpart the in discussion the discussion and contribute and contribute their experiencetheir experience and ideas. and ideas.The defined The defined structure structure with itswith specific its specific interactive interactive tasks tasks andthe and change the change between between individual individual and andshared shared work work of the participantsof the participants supports supports the moderator the moderator of the discussion of the withdiscussion time management with time managementand steering theand group steering dynamics. the group Furthermore, dynamics. while Furthermore, working on while the tasks, working participants on the already tasks, participantsdocumented already their results documented in a visual their form, results which in a allows visual theform, moderator which allows to concentrate the moderator fully onto concentratethe moderation fully of on the the experience moderation focus of the group expe andrience significantly focus group reduces and significantly the documentation reduces andthe documentationinterpretation time and ofinterpretation the generated time materials of the generated afterwards. materials afterwards. The structure of the experience focus group is disp displayedlayed in the following Table 2 2.. ItIt alsoalso definesdefines the goals,goals, aims,aims, and and duration duration of of each each specific specific phase. phase. Durations Durations are are estimations estimations for afor group a group size ofsize eight of participantseight participants and could and could vary dependingvary depending on participant on participant numbers. numbers.

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 8 of 22

Table 2. Structure of experience focus group including the different phases with their goals and aims as well as proposed durations.

Phase Goals and Aims Duration 1 Becoming acquainted with one another and the study topic; creation of a Conducting 15 min pleasant, trustful, and creative atmosphere. Warm Up Individual tasks that help the participants to reflect on their personal views 2 and current situation regarding the study topic. Thus, all further reflections on Setting 30 min potential positive experiences and product design aspects can be related to Reference Points one’s own current situation, making discussions more lively and graspable. 3 Individual or group tasks to identify user requirements for future solutions, Gathering 45 min especially potentials for additional positive experiences. User (Experience) Requirements 4 Concretion or defined restriction of the solution space by an impulse Inspiring regarding the content of the user experience research study topic (e.g., 30 min Experiential presentation of existing product or service solutions) as well as an active Impulses familiarization and experiencing of the presented content for the participants. 5 Individual or group tasks to develop ideas and visions for positive user Generating experience design or extend existing solutions for products and services 30 min Ideas and Concepts for positive Experiences (within the study topic) regarding positive experiences. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 9 of 22

2.2.2. Experience Probes The experience probes build upon the traditional method of cultural probes and adapt them with the aid of the principles in the following ways:

- Principle 1 and 3: Structuring the survey into defined phases for more guidance of the users. The single phases of the experience probes involve specific tasks as described above in order to analyze the participants’ (positive) experiences and ideas for positive experience design regarding the study topic gradually. The resulting user study with experience probes lasts about one week and is composed of three main steps:

Introduction workshop (creative mindset, Introduction to visual materials, interactive ◦ tasks and general structure) Fieldwork (individual/shared execution of interactive tasks) ◦ Wrap-up workshop (discussion and shared analysis of the users’ visualized answers ◦ and experiences)

During the fieldwork the participants work daily on the weekly task (phase 0). The other phases 1–7 are dedicated tasks for individual days and follow a predefined order (see Table3), which allows the participants to concentrate on specific aspects of their or others user experience’ regarding the research questions.

- Principle 2: The traditional method of cultural probes already incorporates creative tasks for the participants to express their beliefs, desires and concerns in a creative way. However, the installation of a trustful atmosphere to enable for visual expression of the users’ experiences is missing. If the participants do not feel confident with the creative tasks, it is likely that they produce only few results or none at all, which cannot be controlled for in a longitudinal cultural probe study. This shortcoming is therefore addressed by the experience probes by the Introduction Workshop and dedicated phases of the fieldwork to become familiar with the materials and the study topic.

The structure of the experience probes is displayed in the following Table3. It also defines the goals, aims and duration of each specific phase. Durations are estimations of the accumulated time needed for the task at hand. However, participants can time the fulfillment of the task themselves and also work on the same task at different times throughout one day. Participants are instructed to document their results with their smartphone using photos, voice recording, and videos. The results of the fieldwork-tasks are communicated daily to the user researchers via instant messenger or e-mail. This ensures that the participants are working daily on their tasks and the user researchers can uncover possible questions or insecurities of the participants about the execution of the experience probes. At the same time, it gives the participants the opportunity to obtain advice or help from the user researchers if needed.

2.2.3. Analysis of Gathered Data To analyze the raw data of the experience focus groups and the experience probes, an analysis workshop of about 3 h after the execution of each method is proposed. In preparation for the analysis-workshop, the user researchers should document their insights individually directly after the execution of the experience group or right after receiving the materials from the experience probes. This minimizes loss of knowledge, distortion of content and reframing of insights. During the documentation process, they should mainly refer to the materials generated by the participants during the execution of the methods. Therefore, the materials are placed on a table in the middle of a room so that the results are visible and tangible for their individual analysis. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 10 of 22

Table 3. Structure of experience probes including the different phases with their goals and aims as well as proposed durations.

Phase Goals and Aims Duration 0 Gathering Repeated (e.g., daily) individual or group task to identify user requirements for future 10 min User (Experience) Requirements solutions, including user needs and potentials for additional positive experiences. Encompassing task for the total duration 1 Individual task; set up of an informal, creative atmosphere; introduction to the study Conducting 10 min topic; identification of positive experiences. Warm Up 2 Individual task that allow the participants to familiarize with the study topic and the Defining status quo of the momentary behavior becomes transparent for the further work on 30 min Current Experiences the study topic during the cultural probes. 3 Individual task for the reflection of personal views regarding the study topic as Reflecting 30 min reference points for the further research process. Personal Views 4 Individual task for the reflection of personal views of other users as reference points Reflecting for further study process; gathering of additional insights about the users’ view on 30 min Peers Views and relation to the study topic. 5 Individual task; relevant psychological needs and potential positive experiences are Imagining gathered by describing a hypothetic situation or vision, which includes positive 30 min Positive Experiences aspects of the study topic. 6 Individual task; potential positive experiences and relevant needs are gathered Taking through user description of hypothetic situations or visions, which includes positive 30 min Experiential Perspectives aspects of the study topic. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 11 of 22

Then, the user researchers conduct an analysis workshop as a group. Thereby, the methods Download your Learnings and Find Themes [34] are applied. The workshop session should be led by an experienced moderator, who is also familiar with those methods. Each of the user researchers gets about ten minutes per research question to report about their personal insights. During those talks, the others are just listening and take notes about their insights from the input on sticky notes. After such an input session, the listeners place and cluster their sticky notes on a wall. The active-listening structure helps to merge the results of the individual analysis efficiently. After all talks, the user researchers stand in front of the wall with the overall results. There, they build clusters, trying to draw patterns and connections in order to answer the posed research questions for the experience probes following an inductive approach. The main insights of the methods should be summarized visually, e.g., in the form of posters that contain pictures, background details, and major insights about the individual participants. Those posters can serve as an input for the ideation session in order to make the results of the experience probes tangible and lively for the rest of the design team in the following ideation session, who did not take part in the execution and the first analysis of the experiences probes.

2.2.4. Case Study: A Practical Application and Evaluation of the Two-Step Approach The concrete application of the two-step approach of experience focus groups and experience probes has been demonstrated and evaluated in a case study. For this case study, the two-step approach was applied to generate experience-based innovative product and service ideas for the topic of “families and digital life”. The study design, methods, and results are described in detail in the next section.

3. Results A case study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of the adapted user research methods for design teams to enable an experience-centered perspective in their user research and design processes with respect to the three applied principles (positive experience focus, creative visualization, systematic guidance) and the two-step approach. The case study was conducted in cooperation with a telecommunication company who was looking to extend their product and service portfolio for families. This chapter describes the case study in detail. In Section 3.1, we first outline the concrete methods and task used in the two step-approach (experience focus groups followed by experience probes). In Section 3.2, we describe the results that were obtained from the two methods. Finally, Section 3.3 summarizes the evaluation of the two methods, discussing their feasibility and benefits from the telecommunication company’s point of view.

3.1. Case Study Design and Methods The case study was aimed at generating insights about the relevant users’ experience considering the topic “families and digital life”—a “wicked problem”—as a base for an innovation process of products and services that can enable positive experiences. The topic is “wicked” because:

- First, the term “family” is not predefined; it can have multiple meanings, e.g., depending on cultural context and social background; - second, the term ‘digital life’ is also a rather undefined, general expression, which is open to interpretations; - and third, there are multiple options to design positive experiences for “families and digital life” due to the nature of experiences and the need for radical innovations.

Thus, the proposed two-step approach for user experience research involving experience focus groups (step 1) and experience probes (step 2) was applied for the “wicked problem” (see Figure2). Thereby, the user researchers of the telecommunication company were coached in an iterative feedback-process to design and conduct the methods by themselves, in order to be able to assess how well the three principles were realized in the proposed methods. After the execution of step 1 the gathered Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 12 of 22 insights were consolidated and analyzed and served as anchor points to formulate specific user research questions of the experience probes (step 2). The insights of both methods constituted the base for a subsequent ideation process for radical innovative products and services that might enable positive experiences. The subsequent ideation process was conducted as cooperation between our design team Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 10 of 19 and the telecommunication company and is not part of the presented work due do privacy issues.

Figure 2. Topic-specific two-step approach for user experience research. Figure 2. Topic-specific two-step approach for user experience research. For the experience focus groups and the experience probes participants were recruited via the participantThereby, database the user of researchers the Fraunhofer of the Institute telecommunication for Industrial company Engineering were IAO.coached An ethicalin an iterative review feedback-processand approval was to not design required and cond for theuct studythe methods in accordance by themselves, with local in order legislation to be able and to institutional assess how wellrequirements. the three Atprinciples the beginning were realized of the user in studies,the proposed participants methods. were After informed the execution about the of purpose step 1 andthe gatheredduration insights of the study, were the consolidated anonymity and of informationanalyzed an processing,d served as anchor and the points applicable to formulate data protection specific userregulations, research as questions well as the of possibility the experience to refuse probes or terminate (step 2). participationThe insights atof anyboth time. methods Participants constituted then providedthe base for their a subsequent informed consent ideation before process taking for partradi incal the innovative user studies. products and services that might enable positive experiences. The subsequent ideation process was conducted as cooperation between our3.1.1. design Step 1:team Experience and the Focustelecommunication Groups for the company “Wicked and Problem”: is not part “Families of the andpresented Digital work Life” due do privacyAim: issues. For the case study the experience focus groups were specified and conducted with the followingFor the aims: experience focus groups and the experience probes participants were recruited via the participant database of the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO. An ethical review and- approvalto derive potentialwas not required positives for experiences the study within in accordance the merging with field local of legislation the two topics and “families institutional and requirements.digital life” At and the clusterbeginning them; of the user studies, participants were informed about the purpose and- toduration understand of the the study, different the perspectives anonymity onof theinformation terms “family” processing, and “digital and the life” applicable as well as theirdata protectioninfluence regulations, on possible as positivewell as experiences;the possibility and to refuse or terminate participation at any time. Participants- gather firstthen ideas provided and conceptstheir informed for the cons experienceent before design taking of productspart in the and user services studies. as inspiration for the following ideation process 3.1.1. Step 1: Experience Focus Groups for the “Wicked Problem”: “Families and Digital Life” Participants: Two experience focus groups with 11 participants in total were conducted—experience focusAim: group For 1 (two the females,case study two the males, experience age range: focus 28–51 groups years) andwere experience specified focusand groupconducted 2 (five with females, the followingtwo males, aims: age range: 26–55 years). All participants frequently used digital devices. They all had -an Internetto derive connection potential atpositives home. Sixexperiences participants within preferably the merging used field their of smartphone, the two topics two “families participants and preferablydigital used life” their and personalcluster them; computer, two participants equally used their smartphone and personal -computer to understand and one participant the different preferred perspectives to use heron the tablet. terms Gathering “family” information, and “digital watching life” as well and readingas their the newsinfluence as well on possible as communication positive experiences; issues were and the main reasons for the use of the digital devices. We- recruitedgather first participants ideas and that concepts had in generalfor the experience a positive attitude design towardsof products technical and services devices. as To inspiration assess that we usedfor the items following of the Affinity ideation for process Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale [35]. In order to integrate different perspectives on “families”, one participant out of either one of the following family configurations Participants: Two experience focus groups with 11 participants in total were conducted— was recruited: “evolution stages of a traditional family” (couple, becoming parents, having children, experience focus group 1 (two females, two males, age range: 28–51 years) and experience focus children moving out/in again, becoming grandparents) and “broader family concepts” (couple without group 2 (five females, two males, age range: 26–55 years). All participants frequently used digital children, single parents, multigenerational home, shared apartment (WG)). devices. They all had an Internet connection at home. Six participants preferably used their Topic-specific structure, tasks and materials: The topic-specific experience focus groups are smartphone, two participants preferably used their personal computer, two participants equally used displayed in Table4. Within Table4, for each phase of the method, specific tasks and associated their smartphone and personal computer and one participant preferred to use her tablet. Gathering materials are named. information, watching and reading the news as well as communication issues were the main reasons for the use of the digital devices. We recruited participants that had in general a positive attitude towards technical devices. To assess that we used items of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale [35]. In order to integrate different perspectives on “families”, one participant out of either one of the following family configurations was recruited: “evolution stages of a traditional family” (couple, becoming parents, having children, children moving out/in again, becoming grandparents)

Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 11 of 19 MultimodalMultimodal Technologies Technologies and and Interact. Interact. 2020 20202020, ,4, 4,4 ,43, 4343 11 11 11 of ofof 19 1919 and “broader family concepts” (couple without children, single parents, multigenerational home, andand “broader“broader familyfamily concepts”concepts” (couple (couple(couple without withoutwithout children, children,children, single singlesingle parents, parents,parents, multigenerational multigenerationalmultigenerational home, home,home, shared apartment (WG)). sharedshared apartment apartment (WG)). (WG)). Topic-specific structure, tasks and materials: The topic-specific experience focus groups are Topic-specificTopic-specific structure,structure, taskstasks andand materials:materials: TheThe topic-specifictopic-specific experienceexperience focusfocus groupsgroups areare displayed in Table 4. Within Table 4, for each phase of the method, specific tasks and associated displayeddisplayed inin TableTable 4.4. WithinWithin TableTable 4,4, forfor eacheach phphasease ofof thethe method,method, specificspecific taskstasks andand associatedassociated materials are named. Multimodalmaterialsmaterials Technol. are are Interact. named. named.2020 , 4, 43 13 of 22 Table 4. Phases of topic-specific experience focus groups. TableTable 4. 4. Phases Phases of of topic-specific topic-specific experience experience focus focus groups. groups. Table 4. Phases of topic-specific experience focus groups. Phase Tasks and Materials Example Raw Data PhasePhase TasksTasks and and Materials Materials ExampleExample Raw Raw Data Data Phase Tasks and Materials Example Raw Data Task 2—Intuitive Gesture TaskTask 2 2—IntuitiveIntuitive Gesture Gesture Task 1—Evolution Game: As a warm-up, participants were Task 2—IntuitiveTask 2—Intuitive Gesture Gesture TaskTask 1 1 1——Evolution—EvolutionEvolution Game: Game: Game: As As Asa a warm warm a warm-up,-up,-up,-up, participants participantsparticipants participants were werewere engaged— in playful and activating interaction situations with wereengagedengaged engaged in in playful playful in playfuland and activating activating and activating interaction interaction interaction situations situations with with oneengaged another in that playful also andincludes activating physical interaction activity. situations In this with situationsoneone another another with that that also onealso includes anotherincludes physical thatphysical also activity. activity. includes In In this physicalthis particularone another experience that also focus includes group, physical this was activity. realized In bythis a activity.particularparticular Inexperience experience this particular focus focus gr gr experienceoup,oup, this this was was focus realized realized group, by by a a this gameparticular called experienceEvolution. In focus this grgame,oup, participantsthis was realized walk byaround a wasgamegame realized called called Evolution Evolution by a game. .In In this this called game, game,Evolution participants participants. In thiswalk walk game, around around thegame room, called acting Evolution out a certain. In this life game, stage participants (baby, school walk kid, around participantsthethe room, room, acting acting walk out out arounda a certain certain the life life room,stage stage (baby, acting(baby, school school out a kid, certainkid, parent,the room, grandparents). acting out a Everyone certain life starts stage as (baby, a ‘baby’. school When kid, lifeparent,parent, stage grandparents). grandparents). (baby, school Everyone Everyone kid, parent, starts starts as grandparents). as a a ‘baby’. ‘baby’. When When meetingEveryone another starts ‘baby’, as a ‘baby’. they play When rock, meetingpaper and scissors another—the meetingmeeting another another ‘baby’, ‘baby’, they they play play rock, rock,rock, paper paperpaper and andand scissors scissorsscissors——thethethe winner‘baby’, proceeds they play to rock,the next paper level and and scissors now acts—the out winner a ‘school winnerwinner proceeds proceeds to to the the next next level level and and now now acts acts out out a a ‘school ‘school winner proceeds to the next level and now acts out a ‘school kid’.proceedskid’. TheThe goalgoal to the isis toto next winwin level oftenoften andenoughenough now toto acts arrivearrive out atat athethe ‘school lastlast stagestage kid’. 11 kid’. The goal is to win often enough to arrive at the last stage “family is…always fun” 1 11 ‘grandparent’.The goal is to While win oftenthe game enough could to be arrive played at with the any last stage “family“family“family is…always is…alwaysis…always fun” fun”fun” ‘grandparent’.‘grandparent’.‘grandparent’. While WhileWhile the thethe game gamegame could couldcould be bebe played playedplayed with withwith any anyany “family is ... always fun” evolutionary‘grandparent’. stages, While the the‘life gamestages’ could were chosen be played to not with only any evolutionaryevolutionaryevolutionary stages, stages,stages, the thethe ‘life ‘life‘life stages’ stages’stages’ were werewere chosen chosenchosen to toto not notnot only onlyonly activateevolutionary participants, stages, but the also ‘life already stages’ prepare were them chosen for tothe not activateactivateactivate participants, participants,participants, but butbut also alsoalso already alreadyalready prepare prepareprepare them themthem for forfor the thethe topiconly of activate the study. participants, but also already prepare them topictopictopic of ofof the thethe study. study.study. for the topic of the study.

Task 2—Intuitive Gesture: Each participant was asked to TaskTask 2 2——IntuitiveIntuitiveIntuitive Gesture: Gesture:Gesture: Each EachEach participant participant was was asked asked to to makeTask 2a—Intuitive —gesture to express Gesture: what Each family participant means for washer, asked to makemake a a gesture gesture to to express express what what family family means means for for her, her, accompaniedmakemake aa gesture by anto to expressexplaining express what what statement. family family means means for her, for her, accompaniedaccompanied by by an an explaining explaining statement. statement. accompaniedaccompanied by by an an explaining explaining statement. statement.

Materials: Game rules MMaterials:aterials:aterials: Game GameGame rules rulesrules Materials: Game rules “ family“ family is ... is…beingbeing tight together” together” ““ “family familyfamily is…being is…beingis…being tight tighttight together” together”together” Task 1—Stakeholdermap Task 1—StakeholdermapTaskTask 1 1——StakeholdermapStakeholdermap

The reference points were set with two individual tasks Thethat reference were then points shared were with set with the two group. individual tasks that TheThe reference reference points points were were set set with with two two individual individual tasks tasks that that wereThe thenreference shared points with werethe group. set with two individual tasks that werewere then then shared shared with with the the group. group. Taskwere 1 —Stakeholderthen shared with Map: the group. As a first task, participants

Taskwere 1— askedStakeholder to construct Map: As a stakeholder a first task, participants map that showedwere TaskTask 1 1——StakeholderStakeholder Map: Map: As As a a first first task, task, participants participants were were askedall persons to— construct they a understand stakeholder asmap their that family; showed including all persons a askedasked to to construct construct a a stakeholder stakeholder map map that that showed showed all all persons persons ThisThis participantparticipant indicatedindicated thethe closestclosest theyshortasked understand description to construct as their ofa stakeholder their family; relationship including map that a and showedshort age. description all persons ThisThis participant participant indicated indicated the closest the closest theytheythey understand understandunderstand as asas their theirtheir family; family;family; including includingincluding a a ashort shortshort description descriptiondescription “family“—connection to his flat mates (who ofParticipants their relationship could and also age. vary Participants the distance could between also vary the the “family““family““family““family“—connection——connectionconnectionconnection to toto his hishis to flat hisflatflat mates mates flatmates mates (who (who(who ofof their their relationship relationship and and age. age. Pa Participantsrticipantsrticipants could couldcould also alsoalso vary varyvary the thethe were not relatives). distancerepresentation between ofthe themselves representation and of each themselves family and member, each werewere(who not not wererelatives). relatives). not relatives). 2 distancedistance between between the the representation representation of of themselves themselves and and each each familyby placing member, stickers by placing on a templatestickers on accordingly. a template 2 familyfamilyfamily member, member,member, by byby placing placingplacing stickers stickersstickers on onon a a atemplate templatetemplate Task 2—Family Animal 22 2 accordingly. Task 2—FamilyTask 2— AnimalFamily Animal accordingly.accordingly. Task 2—Family Animal Taskaccordingly. 2—Family Animal: To uncover important aspects of

Taskthe concept2—Family of Animal: family, To participants uncover important were asked aspects to buildof the a TaskTask 2 2——FamilyFamily Animal: Animal: To To uncover uncover® important important aspects aspects of of the the conceptfictitious— of family, animal participants with Lego webricksre asked that to build represents a fictitious the conceptconcept of of family, family, participants participants we werere asked asked to to build build a a fictitious fictitious animalcharacteristicsconcept with of family,Lego® of bricks theirparticipants familythat represents we thatre asked matters the to characteristics build most ato fictitious them. animalanimal with with Lego® Lego® bricks bricks that that represents represents the the characteristics characteristics ofanimal their family with Lego®that matters bricks most that representsto them. the characteristics Materials:ofof their their family familyTemplate that that matters matters and stickersmost most to to them. forthem. the stakeholder map,

Lego ® bricks Materials: Template and stickers for the stakeholder map, ® MMaterials:aterials:aterials: Template TemplateTemplate and andand stickers stickersstickers for forfor the thethe stakeholder stakeholderstakeholder map, map,map, Lego®Lego modelmodel representing representing a participant’s a Lego® bricks Lego®Lego® model model representing representing a a participant’s participant’s Lego®Lego® bricks bricks familyparticipant’s as an animal: family Most as important an animal: Most familyfamilyfamily as asas an anan animal: animal:animal: Most MostMost important importantimportant characteristicimportant of characteristic family: “Many of different family: characteristiccharacteristiccharacteristic of ofof family: family:family: “Many “Many“Many different differentdifferent people“Many forming different a unity people through forming me”. a unity peoplepeople forming forming a a unity unity through through me”. me”. through me”.

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 14 of 22

Table 4. Cont. Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 12 of 19 PhaseMultimodal Technologies and Interact. Tasks 2020 and, 4, 43 Materials Example Raw Data 12 of 19 Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 TaskTask 11—Shared—Shared (family) (family) Experiences Experiences 12 of 19 Task 1—Shared (family) Experiences

Task 1 Shared (family) Experiences The user (experience) requirements were explored from two — The user (experience) requirements were explored from differentThe user angles, (experience) representing requirements the two wereconcepts explored that shall from two two different angles, representing the two concepts that ultimatelydifferent beangles, combined representing in an in teractivethe two concepts product thator service shall as Theshall user ultimately (experience) be combinedrequirements in were an interactive explored from product two or theultimately goal of this be casecombined study: in family an in teractiveand use ofproduct digital orproducts. service as differentservice asangles, the goalrepresenting of this casethe two study: concepts family that and shall use of the goal of this case study: family and use of digital products. ultimatelydigital products. be combined in an interactive product or service as

Taskthe 1goal—Shared of this familycase study: experiences: family and In a use silent of digitalbrainstorming products.

participants Task 1 ——SharedShared collected family family experiences experiences: experiences: that In bind a Insilent them a silent brainstorming together SharedShared Family Family Experience Experience from the from Silent the withTaskparticipantsbrainstorming their 1— Sharedfamily. collected familyThe participants experiences experiences experiences: collected were that In thenabind silent experiences shared them brainstorming together with thatthe group,with theirclustered family. on Thea poster experiences and discussed were then with shared the focus with on the Brainstorming,SharedSilent Family Brainstorming, clustered Experience on afrom clustered poster. the Silent on a participantsbind them collected together experiences with their that family. bind The them experiences together elaboratinggroup, clustered on why on these a poster experiences and discussed are perceived with the as focus on Brainstorming,poster. clustered on a poster. 3 withwere their then family. shared The with experiences the group, were clustered then shared on with a poster the Shared Family Experience from the Silent positive.elaborating on why these experiences are perceived as Task 2—Digital Experiences 3 3 group,and discussed clustered on with a poster the focus and discussed on elaborating with the on focus why on Brainstorming, clustered on a poster. positive. Task 2—DigitalTask 2—Digital Experiences Experiences 3 Taskelaboratingthese 2— experiencesDigital on experiences:why these are perceived experiences In a silent as brainstorming,are positive. perceived as participantspositive.Task 2 ——Digital Digital wrote experiences: down experiences: experiences In a In silenta they silent brainstorming, frequently brainstorming, have Task 2—Digital Experiences withTaskparticipants digital 2—Digital devices wrote wrote experiences: and down down member experiences experiencesIn sa ofsilent their they brainstorming, family. theyfrequently frequentlyThey havethen with digital devices and members of their family. They then putparticipantshave these with experiences digitalwrote down deviceson a experiencesdigital and journey members they map frequently— ofa their poster have family. that outlineswithputThey these digital thenthe experiences 24 devices put h of these a fulland on experiencesday. member a digital Thus,s journeyofthe their on experiences a family. digitalmap— Theya journeycould poster then be that map—a poster that outlines the 24 h of a full day. Thus, relatedputoutlines these to specificthe experiences 24 h time of a fullpointson a day. digital during Thus, journey a the day. experiences mapAgain,— athe poster could that be experiencesrelatedthe experiences to specificwere discussed couldtime points be among related during the to group.a day. specific Again, time the points outlines the 24 h of a full day. Thus, the experiences could be experiencesduring a day. were Again, discussed the among experiences the group. were discussed related to specific time points during a day. Again, the Materials: among thePost-its, group. digital journey map poster experiences were discussed among the group. Materials: Post-its, digital journey map poster Digital Journey Map including all experiences

withDigital digital Journey devices Map throughout including the all day.experiences Materials:Materials: Post-its, Post-its, digital digital journey journey map poster map poster Digital Journey Map including all with digital devices throughout the day. Digitalexperiences JourneyTask— MapVision with incl digital Familyudingdevices Lifeall experiences withthroughout digitalTask devices— theVision throughout day. Family the Life day. Task—VisionTask—Vision Family Family Life Life

Task—Vision family life 2050: In groups of three, participants wereTask instructed—Vision familyto build life a model2050: In of groups their (positive) of three, visionparticipants of familywere lifeinstructed in the year to build 2050 aus modeling Lego® of their bricks. (positive) These vision models of TaskTask——VisionVision family family life life 2050: 2050: In groups In groups of three, of three, participants 4 canfamily point life towards in the potentialsyear 2050 usof ingpositive Lego® experience bricks. These in future models wereparticipants instructed were to build instructed a model toof buildtheir (positive) a model vision of their of 4 productscan point and towards services potentials for families. of positive experience in future family(positive) life in vision the year of 2050 family using life Lego® in the bricks. year 2050 These using models products and services for families. 4 canLego point® bricks. towards These potentials models of positive can point experience towards in future Lego® model depicting one group’s vision: 4 Material: Lego® bricks productspotentials and of services positive for experience families. in future products andincreasedLego® model distance depicting between one family group’s members vision: is Material: Lego® bricks bridgedincreased by technology:distance between miniaturized family membersand fast is services for families. Lego® model® depicting one group’s vision: Material: Lego® bricks communicationbridgedLego bymodel technology: devices; depicting larger miniaturized screens one group’s forand fast increased distance between family members is ® videocommunicationvision: calls; 4D increased device devices; to distance cook larger and screens betweenseason for Material: Lego bricks bridged by technology: miniaturized and fast mealsvideofamily together; calls; members 4D communication device is to bridged cook androbot by season for “lazy communication devices; larger screens for communicators”mealstechnology: together; communication miniaturized androbot fast for “lazy video calls; 4D device to cook and season communicators”communication devices; larger screens mealsfor together; video calls; communication 4D device torobot cook for and“lazy 3.1.2. Step 2: Experience Probes for the “Wicked Problem”—“Familiescommunicators”season and meals Digital together; Life” communication 3.1.2. Step 2: Experience Probes for the “Wicked Problem”—“Familiesrobot for and “lazy Digital communicators” Life” Aim: The experience probes were designed and conducted with three families with the aim to 3.1.2. Step 2: Experience Probes for the “Wicked Problem”—“Families and Digital Life” understandAim: Thethe influence experience of childrenprobes were of different designed age and groups conducted on the perceptionwith three familiesof positive with experiences the aim to 3.1.2.withinunderstand StepAim: the 2: user ExperienceThe the researchexperience influence Probes topic ofprobes children “families for thewere of “Wicked and designeddifferent digital Problem”—“Families age andlife”. groups co Thereby,nducted on the thewith perception focus and three Digitalwas families ofset positive Life”on thewith occurrence experiences the aim to understandwithin the user the influenceresearch topic of children “families of different and digital age life”. groups Thereby, on the theperception focus was of setpositive on the experiences occurrence of Aim:such (positive) The experience experiences, probes time were dependency designed and, their conducted frequency with in threedaily familieslife, and with connection the aim to to withinof such the (positive) user research experiences, topic “families time dependency and digital ,life”. their Thereby, frequency the in focus daily was life, set and on the connection occurrence to understanddomestic space. the influence Another of aim children was ofto diunderstandfferent age common groups on grounds the perception and differences of positive regarding experiences the ofdomestic such (positive) space. Another experiences, aim was time to dependency understand, commontheir frequency grounds in anddaily differences life, and connectionregarding theto withinviews the of userthe different research family topic “families members and with digital respect life”. to the Thereby, research the topic. focus was set on the occurrence of domesticviewsParticipants: of thespace. different AnotherAll three family aim families members was to reported understand with respect a positive common to the attitude research grounds to topic.wards and differences digital life regarding and digital the such (positive) experiences, time dependency, their frequency in daily life, and connection to domestic devicesviewsParticipants: ofin the general different inAll a family threescreening membersfamilies questionnaire. reported with respect a Furthermore,positive to the research attitude the topic. recruitmenttowards digital was lifebased and on digital the space. Another aim was to understand common grounds and differences regarding the views of the insightsdevicesParticipants: of in the general experience All in threea focusscreening families groups—the questionnaire. reported age aof positive theFurthermore, children attitude within the to recruitmentwards a family digital constellation: was life based and digitalon the different family members with respect to the research topic. devicesinsights inof generalthe experience in a screening focus groups—the questionnaire. age of Furthermore, the children withinthe recruitment a family constellation: was based on the - Primary school: two adults (female 40 years, male 44 years) three children (6, 9, and 11 years) insights of the experience focus groups—the age of the children within a family constellation: - (twoPrimary of them school: in primary two adults school). (female 40 years, male 44 years) three children (6, 9, and 11 years) - - MiddlePrimary(two of school: themschool: intwo primarytwo adults adults school).(female (female 40 years,40 years, male male 46 years),44 years) two three children children (9 and (6, 12 9, years) and 11 (one years) of - them(twoMiddle inof high themschool: school). in twoprimary adults school). (female 40 years, male 46 years), two children (9 and 12 years) (one of - Middlethem in school: high school). two adults (female 40 years, male 46 years), two children (9 and 12 years) (one of them in high school).

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 15 of 22

Participants: All three families reported a positive attitude towards digital life and digital devices in general in a screening questionnaire. Furthermore, the recruitment was based on the insights of the experience focus groups—the age of the children within a family constellation:

- Primary school: two adults (female 40 years, male 44 years) three children (6, 9, and 11 years) (two of them in primary school). - Middle school: two adults (female 40 years, male 46 years), two children (9 and 12 years) (one of Multimodalthem Technologies in high and school). Interact. 2020, 4, 43 13 of 19 Multimodal- High Technologies school and and Interact. university: 2020, 4, 43two adults (female 50, male 51 years), two children (16 and 13 22of years)19 - High school and university: two adults (female 50, male 51 years), two children (16 and 22 years) (either working or in university). - High(either school working and university: or in university). two adults (female 50, male 51 years), two children (16 and 22 years) (either working or in university). TopicTopic specificspecific structures,structures, tasks tasks and and materials: materials: Within Within this work,this work, we put we the put focus the on thefocus description on the descriptionofTopic the fieldworkspecific of the structures,fieldwork (see Table (see5tasks) as Table thisand involves5) materials: as this involves the Within interactive the this interactive taskswork, based wetasks put on based thethe principlesonfocus the principleson ofthe our descriptionofapproach our approach of andthe fieldwork leave and leave out (see the out descriptionTable the description 5) as this of the involves of briefingthe briefing the and interactive and closing closing tasks workshop. workshop. based on Table theTable5 principles displays 5 displays the of ourthephases phasesapproach of theof theand topic-specific topic-specific leave out the experience experience description probes: probes: of the Phase briefingPhase 0 describes 0 anddescribes closing a daily a dailyworkshop. task, task, which which Table is carried is5 displayscarried out out on a theon phasesdaily a daily basis of basisthe during topic-specific during the the field field experience phase. phase. Phases Phasesprobes: 1–6 1–6 arePhase are additional 0additional describes tasks tasksa daily and and conductedtask, conducted which on is on dayscarried days 1–6 out1–6 of theof on theafield daily field phase, basis phase, respectively.during respectively. the field To To accountphase. account Phases for for age-related 1–6age-rela are additionalted diff differenceserences tasks regarding regardingand conducted the the ability ability on to daysreflect to reflect 1–6 on of andon theand fieldexpress express phase, oneself, oneself,respectively. some some tasks Totaskswere account were slightly slightlyfor age-rela adapted adaptedted for differences childrenfor children (see regarding (see Table Table5). the 5). ability to reflect on and express oneself, some tasks were slightly adapted for children (see Table 5). TableTable 5. 5. PhasesPhases of of the the topic-specific topic-specific experience experience probes. probes.

Phase PhaseTable Tasks Tasks5. and Phases Materials and of Materials the topic-specific experience probes. Example Example Raw Raw Data Data Phase Tasks and Materials OngoingOngoing Example task —Familytask Raw—Family Data Heatmap Heatmap Family Heatmap: Group task for the whole Ongoing task—Family Heatmap Family Heatmap:family to Group be completed task for the each whole day family throughout to be Familycompleted Heatmap:the each week. Group day Thethroughout task family for the the memberswhole week. family The were familyto be asked to completedmembers eachtrack were day theirasked throughout individual to track the their usageweek. individual The of digital family usage devices of as membersdigital were deviceswell asked as as their wellto track as shared their their shared usage,individual usage, which usage which they of they perceive digitalperceive devices asas significantassignificant well as their experiences. experiences. shared usage, which they 0 perceiveOur aim as significant Ourwas to aim get was experiences.an overview to get an over overview shared experiences over shared 0 0 Ouras aim a family wasexperiences to and get individualan overview as a experiences family over shared and regarding individual experiences the

as adomestic family andexperiences space. individual regarding experiences the regarding domestic the space. The family indicated their floor plan of the house. domestic space. The family indicated their floor plan of On this day the main family activities were in the Materials:Materials: Poster with Poster stickers with (icons stickers for activities (icons for The familythe indicated house. On their this floor day plan the of main the house. family kitchen and living room, the daughter was Materials:and devices, Posteractivities colors with stickersand symbols (icons per for personactivities and day). On this dayactivities the main were family in the activities kitchen were and in livingthe extensively using her electronic devices also in her and devices,and colors devices, and symbols colors per and person symbols and day). per person kitchen room,and living the room, daughter the daughter was extensively was and day). extensivelyown usingroom. using her her electronic electronic devices devices alsoalso in her her own room.own room.Task—Experience Snapshot Experience Snapshots: Individual task to take a picture Experience Snapshots: Individual task to take a TaskTask—Experience—Experience Snapshot Snapshot Experienceof the first Snapshots: and last personIndividu theal participanttask to take saw, a picture favorite of thetechnical first andpicture device, last person favorite of the the first place participant and and last most saw, person beautiful favorite the technicalmoment device, participantof the favorite day (adults, saw,placefavorite children).and most technical beautiful device, Our aim favoritewas to set place up an and informal, most creative beautiful atmosphere; moment of 1 moment of the day (adults, children). Ourand aim an was introductionthe to set day up (adults, an of informal, the study children). creative topic. Furthermore, atmosphere; we 1 wanted toOur identify aim waspositive to set experiences. up an informal, creative and1 an introduction of the study topic. Furthermore, we wanted to identifyatmosphere; positive and experiences. an introduction of the study Materials:topic. Personal Furthermore, smartphone we camera wanted (adults, to identify

Materials:children). Personalpositive smartphone experiences. camera (adults, “A sunny day” favorite moment of one participant. children). Materials: Personal smartphone camera “A sunny“A day” sunnyTask favorite— day”Digital moment favorite Experience of moment one (adult) participant. of one (adults, children). participant. Task—Digital Experience (adult)

Digital Experience: Individual task; document digital Digitaldevices Experience: used and Individu the frequeal task;ncy throughoutdocument digital the day. devices- usedwith and the theaid freque of an timelinency throughout (adults) the day.

- - withdraw the aida picture of an timeline(children) (adults) The timeline shows the usage of digital devices - Ourdraw aim awas picture for each (children) participant to measure the own 2 Thethroughout timeline shows the day. the usage“It also of enabled digital devices the Ourusage aim was of digital for each devices participant and get to a measure deeper understanding the own participants to reflect their own behavior,” 2 of their own digital behavior. throughout the day. “It also enabled the usage of digital devices and get a deeper understanding participantsmentioned to areflect participant. their own behavior,” of their own digital behavior. Materials: Timeline template with a legend to track their mentioned a participant.

Materials:usage of Timeline digital devicestemplate (a withdults). a legendPiece of to paper track and their Task—Digital Experience (child) usagecolored of digital pens devices (children). (adults). Piece of paper and colored pens (children). Task—Digital Experience (child)

MultimodalMultimodal Technologies Technologies and and Interact. Interact. 2020 2020, ,4 4, ,43 43 13 13 ofof 1919

-- HighHigh school school and and university: university: two two adults adults (female (female 50, 50, male male 51 51 years), years), two two children children (16 (16 and and 22 22 years) years) (either(either working working or or in in university). university). TopicTopic specificspecific structures,structures, taskstasks andand materials:materials: WithinWithin thisthis work,work, wewe putput thethe focusfocus onon thethe descriptiondescription of of the the fieldwork fieldwork (see (see Table Table 5) 5) as as this this involves involves the the interactive interactive tasks tasks based based on on the the principles principles ofof our our approach approach and and leave leave out out the the description description of of the the briefing briefing and and closing closing workshop. workshop. Table Table 5 5 displays displays thethe phases phases of of the the topic-specific topic-specific experience experience probes: probes: Phase Phase 0 0 describes describes a a daily daily task, task, which which is is carried carried out out onon a a daily daily basis basis during during the the field field phase. phase. Phases Phases 1–6 1–6 are are additional additional tasks tasks and and conducted conducted on on days days 1–6 1–6 of of thethe field field phase, phase, respectively. respectively. To To account account for for age-rela age-relatedted differences differences regarding regarding the the ability ability to to reflect reflect on on andand express express oneself, oneself, some some tasks tasks were were slightly slightly adapted adapted for for children children (see (see Table Table 5). 5).

TableTable 5. 5. Phases Phases of of the the topic-specific topic-specific experience experience probes. probes.

PhasePhase Tasks Tasks and and Materials Materials Example Example Raw Raw Data Data OngoingOngoing task task——FamilyFamily Heatmap Heatmap

FamilyFamily Heatmap: Heatmap: Group Group task task for for the the whole whole family family to to be be completedcompleted each each day day throughout throughout the the week. week. The The family family membersmembers were were asked asked to to track track their their individual individual usage usage of of digitaldigital devices devices as as well well as as their their shared shared usage, usage, which which they they perceiveperceive as as significant significant experiences. experiences. 00 OurOur aim aim was was to to get get an an overview overview over over shared shared experiences experiences asas a a family family and and individual individual experiences experiences regarding regarding the the domesticdomestic space. space. TheThe family family indicated indicated their their floor floor plan plan of of the the house. house. Materials:Materials: Poster Poster with with stickers stickers (icons (icons for for activities activities OnOn this this day day the the main main family family activities activities were were in in the the andand devices, devices, colors colors and and symbols symbols per per person person and and day). day). kitchenkitchen and and living living room, room, the the daughter daughter was was extensivelyextensively using using her her electronic electronic devices devices also also in in her her ownown room. room. TaskTask——ExperienceExperience Snapshot Snapshot ExperienceExperience Snapshots: Snapshots: Individu Individualal task task to to take take a a picture picture ofof the the first first and and last last person person the the participant participant saw, saw, favorite favorite technicaltechnical device, device, favorite favorite place place and and most most beautiful beautiful momentmoment of of the the day day (adults, (adults, children). children). OurOur aim aim was was to to set set up up an an informal, informal, creative creative atmosphere; atmosphere; Multimodal11 Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 16 of 22 andand an an introduction introduction of of the the study study topic. topic. Furthermore, Furthermore, we we wantedwanted to to identify identify positive positive experiences. experiences.

Materials:Materials: Personal Personal smartphone smartphone camera camera (adults, (adults,Table 5. Cont.

children).children). Phase Tasks and Materials“A“A sunny sunny day” day” Examplefavorite favorite moment moment Raw Data of of one one participant. participant. Task—DigitalTaskTask——DigitalDigital Experience Experience Experience (adult) (adult) (adult)

DigitalDigital Experience: Experience: Individu Individualal task; task; document document digital digital devicesdevices used used and and the the freque frequencyncy throughout throughout the the day. day. Digital Experience: Individual task; document - - withwithdigital the the aid aid devices of of an an timeline timeline used and (adults) (adults) the frequency

- - drawdrawthroughout a a picture picture (children) the(children) day. TheThe Thetimeline timeline timeline shows shows shows the the usage usage the of usageof digital digital of devices devices digital OurOur aim aim -was was for forwith each each the participant participant aid of an to to timeline measure measure (adults)the the own own 22 throughoutthroughoutdevices the the throughout day. day. “It “It also also the enabled enabled day. “Itthe the also usageusage of of digital digital devices devices and and get get a a deeper deeper understanding understanding - draw a picture (children) participantsparticipantsenabled to to the reflect reflect participants their their own own tobehavior,” behavior,” reflect their ofof their their own own digital digital behavior. behavior. 2 Our aim was for each participant to measure thementionedmentionedown behavior,” a a participant. participant. mentioned a participant.

own usage of digital devices and get a deeper Materials:Materials: Timeline Timeline template template with with a a legend legend to to track track their their understanding of their own digital behavior. usageusage of of digital digital devices devices (a (adults).dults). Piece Piece of of paper paper and and Task—DigitalTask Digital Experience Experience (child) (child) coloredcolored pens pens (children). (children). Task——Digital Experience (child) Materials: Timeline template with a legend to track their usage of digital devices (adults). Piece of paper and colored pens (children).

Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 Drawing of one child showing 14 theof 19 devices used during the day. Even

Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 Drawing of onedevices, child showing such as the the devices heating used system, 14 of 19 during the day.were Even mentioned. devices, such as the heating system,Drawing wereTask— ofmentioned. one Personalchild showing view the of devices technologies’ used during therole day. in Even life devices, such as the heating system, were mentioned.

Personal Role of technology:Personal Role “Which of technology: role does “Which role does technology play intechnology your life?” play in your life?” IndividualPersonal task, Role participantsIndividual of technology: were task, “Which asked participants to role reflect does weretheir asked to personaltechnology digital play(daily)reflect in yourlife. their life?” personal digital (daily) life. 3 Individual3 task, participants were asked to reflect their Our personalaim was digitalthe reflectionOur (daily) aim wasoflife. personal the reflection views on of the personal views on 3 study topic. the study topic. Our aim was the reflection of personal views on the Lego® model Legodisplaying® model the own displaying perception the of own ® Materials:study topic.Small bagMaterials: of Lego Small bricks bag of Lego® bricks technology used.perception Digital de ofvices technology are understood used. Digitalas helpfulLego devices® modeldevices to displaying organize are understood the the family own perception life, as helpful of Materials: Small bag of Lego® bricks therefore,technology it isdevices easier used. to Digital to keep organize a de goodvicesthe overview are family understood life, as (symbolizedhelpful devices bytherefore, the telescope).to organize it is easier the family to keep life, a good Tasktherefore,—Peersoverview it isview easier of (symbolized technologies’to keep a good role by overview the in life telescope). (symbolized by the telescope). Role of Technology for Peers: “How do other family Task—Peers view of technologies’ role in Task—Peers view of technologies’ role in life members interact/Role behave of Technologywith technology?” for Peers: “How do other life IndividualRole of task, Technology participantsfamily for members Peers: were “Howasked interact doto reflect other/ behave familyhow with othermembers family members interact/technology?” usebehave their with digital technology?” devices. Our Individualaim was to task, reflect participants the own perception were asked of tothe reflect how 4 Individual task, participants were asked to behaviorother with family digital membersreflect devices how use of othertheir other digital family family devices. membersmembers. use their ThroughOur aim the changewas digitalto reflectof pers devices. thepective own theperception own perception of the 4 4 shouldbehavior be broadened. withOur digital aim devices was to of reflect other family the own members. perception of Through the change of perspective the own perception the behavior with digital devices of otherLego family® model displaying how an adult perceived Materials:should Lego be broadened.® bricks members. Through the change of perspectivetheir teenage child-self-isolated through their the own perception should be broadened.smartphoneLego® model usage.Lego displaying® model how displaying an adult how perceived an adult Materials: Lego® bricks their teenageTaskperceived— Takingchild-self-isolated theirTime teenageOff (adult through) their ® Materials: Lego bricks smartphonechild-self-isolated usage. through their Taking Time Off: Individual task to write and draw smartphoneTask—Taking usage. Time Off (adult) (adults) or draw (children) a story about a family day trip.Taking Time Off: Individual task to write and draw (adults) or draw (children) a story about a family day Our trip.aim was to gather potential positive experiences 5 through the description of a hypothetic situation or vision,Our which aim was includes to gather positive potential aspects positive of the experiencesstudy 5 topic.through the description of a hypothetic situation or vision, which includes positive aspects of the study Description of a family day trip. Interesting result, Materials:topic. Piece of paper and colored pens the participant was wishing for no digital devices duringDescription the day. Insteadof a family they day wanted trip. Interestingto spend time result, Materials: Piece of paper and colored pens togetherthe participant visiting a museum was wishin or goingg for no on digital a long devices hike. duringTask— theIf youday. were Instead child they again… wanted (adult) to spend time Taking Experiential Perspectives: together visiting a museum or going on a long hike. “If you were a child again—how would look your room Task—If you were child again… (adult) today?”—drawTaking Experiential your desired Perspectives: room (adult) “When“If youI grow were up…”—draw a child again—how or build woulda Lego® look model your room (child)today?”—draw your desired room (adult) 6 “When I grow up…”—draw or build a Lego® model Our (child)aim was to experience the topic from the 6 perspective of a different family member. Our aim was to experience the topic from the Materials:perspective Piece of apaper different and coloredfamily member. pens (adults), piece Drawing of an adult showing how the desired kids’ of paper and colored pens, Lego® (children). room would look like. Only an Internet radio is Materials: Piece of paper and colored pens (adults), piecementioned Drawing everything of an adult else show is analogue.ing how the desired kids’ of paper and colored pens, Lego® (children). room would look like. Only an Internet radio is mentioned everything else is analogue. Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 14 of 19

Multimodal Technologies and Interact. 2020, 4, 43 Drawing of one child showing the devices 14 used of 19 during the day. Even devices, such as the heating Drawingsystem, of onewere child mentioned. showing the devices used during the day. Even devices, such as the heating system, were mentioned.

Personal Role of technology: “Which role does technology play in your life?” PersonalIndividual Role of task, technology: participants “Which were role asked does to reflect their technologypersonal play digital in your (daily) life?” life. 3 Individual task, participants were asked to reflect their personalOur aim digital was (daily) the reflection life. of personal views on the 3 study topic. Our aim was the reflection of personal views on the Lego® model displaying the own perception of studyMaterials: topic. Small bag of Lego® bricks technology used. Digital devices are understood as Legohelpful® model devices displaying to organize the own the perception family life, of Materials: Small bag of Lego® bricks technologytherefore, used. it is Digital easier tode keepvices aare good understood overview as helpful(symbolized devices to by organize the telescope). the family life, therefore,Task it —is easierPeers viewto keep of technologies’a good overview role in life Role of Technology for Peers: “How do other family (symbolized by the telescope). members interact/ behave with technology?” Task—Peers view of technologies’ role in life RoleIndividual of Technology task, forparticipants Peers: “How were do asked other to family reflect how membersother familyinteract/ members behave withuse their technology?” digital devices. Our aim was to reflect the own perception of the 4 Individual task, participants were asked to reflect how Multimodalotherbehavior family Technol. memberswith Interact. digital use2020 devices their, 4, 43digital of other devices. family members. 17 of 22 OurThrough aim was theto reflect change the of own pers pectiveperception the ofown the perception 4 behaviorshould with be broadened.digital devices of other family members. Through the change of perspective the own perceptionTable 5. Cont.Lego® model displaying how an adult perceived Materials: Lego® bricks should be broadened. their teenage child-self-isolated through their Phase Tasks and Materials Example Raw Data Legosmartphone® model displaying usage. how an adult perceived Materials: Lego® bricks their teenageTask child-self-isolatedTask—Taking—Taking Time Time through Off Off(adult) (adult their) smartphone usage. Taking Time Off: Individual task to write and draw Task—Taking Time Off (adult) (adults) or Takingdraw (children) Time O ffa :story Individual about a family task to day write and Takingtrip. Time Off:draw Individual (adults) task or drawto write (children) and draw a story about a (adults) or drawfamily (children) day a trip. story about a family day Our aim was to gather potential positive experiences 5 trip. through theOur description aim was of to a hypothetic gather potential situation positive or 5 Ourvision, aim was which toexperiences gather includes potential positive through positive aspects the experiences description of the study of a 5 throughtopic. the descriptionhypothetic of a situation hypothetic or situation vision, whichor includes vision, which includespositive positive aspects aspects of the of study the study topic. DescriptionDescription of a family of aday family trip. Interesting day trip. result, topic.Materials: Piece of paper and colored pens the participantInteresting was result,wishing the for participant no digital devices was Materials: Piece of paper and colored pensDescriptionduringwishing the of aday. family forInstead day no digitaltrip.they Interestingwanted devices to spendresult, during time Materials: Piece of paper and colored pens the participanttogetherthe visiting day.was wishin Instead a museumg for they noor wantedgoingdigital on devices toa long spend hike. during theTasktime day.— Instead togetherIf you werethey visiting wantedchild again… a museumto spend (adult) time or Taking Experiential Perspectives: together visitinggoing a on museum a long or hike. going on a long hike. “If you were a child again—how would look your room Task—TaskIf —Ifyou were you werechild again… child again (adult)... (adult) Takingtoday?”—draw ExperientialTaking yourPerspectives: Experiential desired room Perspectives: (adult) “If you“When were I growa“If child you up…”—draw again—how were a child orwould build again—how look a Lego® your modelroom would look today?”—draw(child) your yourroom desired today?”—draw room (adult) your desired room 6 “When I grow (adult)up…”—draw or build a Lego® model ® (child)Our aim was“When to experience I grow upthe ...topic”—draw from the or build a Lego 6 perspectivemodel of a different (child) family member. Our aim6 was to experience the topic from the perspectiveMaterials: of PieceOura different aimof paper was family and to member. experience colored pens the (adults), topic frompiece theDrawing of an adult showing how the desired kids’ of paper andperspective colored pens, of aLego diff®erent (children). family member. room would look like. Only an Internet radio is Materials: Piece of paper and colored pens (adults), piece Drawingmentioned ofDrawing an adulteverything show of an ingelse adult how is analogue. showing the desired how kids’ the of paper and coloredMaterials: pens, PieceLego®of (children). paper and colored pensroom woulddesired look like. kids’ Only room an Internet would radio look like.is (adults), piece of paper and colored pens,mentioned everything else is analogue. ® Only an Internet radio is mentioned Lego (children). everything else is analogue.

3.2. Case Study Results

3.2.1. Step 1: Results of Topic-Specific Experience Focus Groups Example data gathered for the single phases of the conducted experience focus groups are displayed in Table4. Example experiences clusters drawn from the experience focus groups are commitment, reassurance, transmission and sharing. Regarding first ideas and concepts for the experiences design as well as the influence factors on the perception of positive experiences within the given “wicked problem“, the insights yielded that positive “family“ experiences and their perception within the context of digital life are strongly dependent on the involvement of children as well as their respective age. These insights served as a starting point for the concept and the formulation of the specific tasks for the experience probes.

3.2.2. Step 2: Results of Topic-Specific Experience Probes Example data gathered for the single phases of the conducted experience probes are displayed in Table5. The insights gathered and drawn from those datasets served as base for the extension and refinement of the clustered positive experiences of the experience focus groups. Especially, insights considering the multi-perspective view on the same “digital family” experiences have to be pointed out here. Adults and children perceive the digital family life quite differently, which needs to be reconsidered, when designing products and services for families. For example, the younger children who took part in the study grew up with digital devices as an essential part of their home and leisure activities. They take them for granted and integrate them in their daily lives more naturally than the older children or parents, which also influences the perception of positive experiences with digital Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 18 of 22 environments and devices. The insights were summarized in three family posters, which served as input for the subsequent ideation session. The results of the ideation session were three concepts for products and services within the topic of “families and digital life“:

- Positive Experience—Reassurance: Product to enhance the feeling of connection and trust in family relationships. - Positive Experience—Sharing: Shared family moments: Product to enable shared experiences for families. - Positive Experience—Sharing: Shared family decision: Service to enhance decisions within families, which every family member perceives as positive.

3.3. Case Study Evaluation: Practical Application of Experience Focus Groups and Experience Probes In order to gather first insights about the feasibility, potential benefits, as well as opportunities of improvement of the experience focus groups and experience probes for corporate design team, we chose a formative approach of evaluation. Thus, we conducted semi-structured interviews with two members (interviewee 1, female, 42 years; interviewee 2, female, 38 years) of the user research and design team of the company. The interviews were conducted in English via a video-conference tool with the interviewee, the interviewer, and a note-taker. The interviewees were inquired about their perceptions regarding:

- The feasibility and efficiency of the two adapted methods within the context of user experience research; and - the usefulness of the methodological approach based on the three principles to find radical innovative ideas for products and services.

Regarding the new approach to user research methods, they stated that the enhanced methods with their provided guidance and materials were very helpful and effective regarding the gathering of valuable insights: “It’s a good way to go beyond the formal level of the participants to approach the real values and emotions.” (interviewee 1). Within that respect, they were excited about the openness of the participants regarding the study topic and their personal experiences. Moreover, they found that all participants were more actively involved than in their usual focus groups and, thus, the group dynamic was rather positive. Furthermore, they thought, that it was a “more progressive approach“—not asking users directly what they need, but instead let them visualize their opinions and views, which yielded richer and more unbiased insights. Furthermore, they stated that it was good that the user research methods were conducted in close cooperation with us because they think that just the rather abstract description of the structure of the methods would be not sufficient to achieve the same results as in the given case study. Additionally, they found, that the approach was good to find innovative and disruptive ideas for positive family experiences, which are now used for the company’s new product and service portfolio. The family posters displaying the analyzed results are still displayed in the corridors of the researchers’ offices. They are used as inspiration and to go deeper during the creation of ideas in ideation sessions. The results of the conducted user research methods served also as a base for the creation of a reference set of categories considering “families and digital life”. A category consists of several positive experiences for “families and digital life” (examples: commitment, reassurance, transmission, sharing, pleasure, etc.). The reference set itself serves as a model for the user experience design team as well as the marketing team to develop, adjust, and communicate existing and future products and services for families. Within that respect it can, e.g., be applied during user experience research to identify relevant user experience requirements, in the conception phase for ideation processes or for the evaluation and comparison of concepts or existing products and services. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 19 of 22

4. Discussion In this paper, we proposed adjusted versions of the well-established user research methods focus groups and cultural probes, in order to tailor them to the specific needs and focus of experience-based design, especially in the context of solving “wicked design problems”. The results are experience focus groups and experience probes, which augment the traditional methods with new structuring, materials and tasks based on the three principles experience focus, creative visualization, and systematic guidance. We presented a detailed description of a two step-approach for applying these methods as well as a case study that was conducted in cooperation with a telecommunication company and illustrates how the methods were applied to enable an experience-centered perspective on the topic of “families and digital life”. The case study demonstrated how the methods make use of the three principles experience focus, creative visualization, and systematic guidance in order to enable the experience-focused design of new products or services, and provides an overview of their potential benefits for experience design. Post-study interviews with representatives of the company revealed valuable insights about their usefulness for practical user experience design. The case study shows that the experience focus groups and experience probes promote an experience perspective in user research and design processes. Based on the interviews with company representatives, it can also be concluded that they can support the transition from a usability-focused mindset of the design team to a more hedonic, experience-focused perspective in a corporate environment. The members of the corporate user research and design team stated that the methods were very efficient and helpful to get the participants to talk openly about their emotional experiences in their personal family life. They also highlighted how the methods supported the active, creative involvement of the participants in the design process, which was very different from their experience with previous user research processes. In addition, they reported that the two-step approach enabled them to efficiently gather valuable insights about potential positive experiences for the “wicked problem”, which constitute the base for at least three relevant product and service concepts for the company. Furthermore, the insights of the methods founded the basis of a reference set of categories of positive experiences for families, which is similar to the experience categories proposed by Zeiner et al. [16,18]. This reference set is now frequently used by the company’s design and marketing teams for further experience-based product and service innovation. In addition, the family posters—the visualized insights of the experience probes—are still displayed in the company and serve as input to enable an experience-centered perspective when designing products and services. Although the case study and interviews with the company’s design team revealed many benefits of applying experience focus groups and experience probes, there are also some limitations to the two methods. The presented case study can only be regarded as a first step towards user research methods, which deliberately focus on the promotion of experience-based, hedonic product, and service innovation. Thus far, the three principles have only been applied to these two methods and evaluated in a single case study. Furthermore, we gathered just first formative feedback about the feasibility of the two-step approach in corporate environments. To truly demonstrate their general value for experience- and hedonic-focused design, the principles will have to be applied to different user research methods and used in a number of studies. Still, as the case study was employed as a qualitative evaluation and proof-of-concept [36], it yielded rich insights about the applicability of the three principles to enhance existing user research methods and how we might adjust methods on behalf of them for other “wicked problems” in the future. For instance, we learned in our coaching and feedback loop with the company’s design team that designing the tasks for the method phases and conducting the two-step approach can sometimes be challenging—especially when employing the methods for the first time. Thus, for future application of the methods, the aspect of the principle systematic guidance should be even more stressed, in order to enable an independent study execution. Therefore, we plan to enhance the description of the methods with more concrete instructions for actions, preformulated tasks, and templates that just need to be adapted for the respective Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 20 of 22 study topic. Additionally, hints for the moderation and coordination of the methods as proposed in [10,11,22], and their clear step-by-step instruction seem to be useful. Especially details on how to proceed during the preparation of both methods could ease their applicability for other “wicked problems”. In order to do so, we plan to conduct more case studies focusing on two different aspects. On the one hand, we want to extract and formalize insights as well as best practices—regarding the design, the preparation and the conduction of the two-step approach. On the other hand—to further proof the validity of the methods—we want to compare the application of the original and the enhanced methods for one “wicked problem”. For all this future work, we plan to gather feedback not only from the respective design team but also directly from the users, the participants of the method. This enables valuable insights on the users’ experience of the execution and their perception of the two-step approach considering participation and outcome. Thus, to achieve a more diverse viewpoint on the applicability of the methods for real-world “wicked problems”. Additionally, one might argue that the interviews could be prone to social bias. The authors of this work acted in a double-role: They coached the design team to conduct the methods and were also the interviewers who conducted the method evaluation. However, we can discard this concern, since the company still makes use of the results and the methods, without the support of the coaching team. This shows that the application of the two-step approach is a valuable and sustainable addition to the user research methods of the company’s design team, leading to relevant experience-based product and service innovations. We regard the application of the second principle creative visualization as a necessity to enhance existing user research methods. However, this might exclude special user groups—especially participants with visual impairments. Right now, this is a limitation for the application of the methods. Respectively, future work should be done on how to enable user groups with special needs to express their experiences in a creative and, for the researchers, unambiguous way. The application of tangible Lego®-bricks for visualization might be the first step in the right direction. In summary,the augmentation of existing methods with the three principles seems to be a promising approach to enable an experience-centered perspective in user research and design. For future work, we plan to apply the generic principles to other user (experience) research methods, such as UX concept exploration [3] and interview methods. Furthermore, we will also evaluate whether the order of the two steps is mandatory to address “wicked problems” and which other combinations of methods could be used to promote the experience-centered design of innovative products and services.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: A.E.K., K.P., and N.F.; investigation: A.E.K., K.P., N.F., and B.F.; methodology: A.E.K., K.P., and N.F.; project administration: A.E.K.; writing—original draft: A.E.K., K.P., N.F., and B.F.; writing—review and editing: A.E.K., K.P., N.F., and B.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Orange™ for the real-world “wicked problem” and the possibility to conduct a case study as part of a bilateral project between Orange™ and the Fraunhofer Institute. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Kahneman, D. Others objective happiness. Well Found. Hedonic Psychol. 1999, 3, 1–23. 2. Spath, D.; Peissner, M.; Sproll, S. Methods from neuroscience for measuring user experience in work environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 10), Miami, FL, USA, 17–20 July 2010; USA Publishing: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2010. 3. Fronemann, N.; Peissner, M. User Experience Concept Exploration: User Needs as a source for innovation. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Fun, Fast, Foundational-NordiCHI ’14, Helsinki, Finland, 26–30 October 2014; ACM Press: Helsinki, Finland, 2014; pp. 727–736. 4. Hassenzahl, M. The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience. UX Manif. 2007, 10–14. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/2880396/The_hedonic_pragmatic_model_of_user_experience (accessed on 23 July 2020). Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 21 of 22

5. Laib, M.; Burmester, M.; Ficano, C.; Fronemann, N.; Kolb, B.; Krüger, A.; Quesseleit, M.-L.; Schippert, K.; Shinkarenko, M. User Experience bei Softwareanbietern. In Mensch & Computer 2015 Proceedings; De Gruyter Oldenbourg: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 93–102. 6. Krüger, A.E.; Fronemann, N.; Peissner, M. Das kreative Potential der Ingenieure–menschzentrierte Ingenieurskunst. In Proceedings of the Stuttgarter Symposium für Produktentwicklung (SSP 2015) Entwicklung smarter Produkte für die Zukunft, Stuttgart, Germany, 19 June 2015; pp. 1–10. 7. Rittel, H.W.; Webber, M.M. Wicked problems. Man-Made. Futur. 1974, 26, 272–280. 8. Morgan, D.L. Focus groups. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1996, 22, 129–152. [CrossRef] 9. Kujala, S.; Minge, M.; Pohlmeyer, A.; Vogel, M. Temporal Aspects of User Experience: Models and Methods Beyond a Single Use Situation. 2012. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Temporal-aspects- of-user-experience%3A-Models-and-a-Kujala-Minge/b05d0fd4166dea4ed59407552180ef4663ef3be5 (accessed on 23 July 2020). 10. Rubin, J.; Chisnell, D.; Spool, J. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-470-38608-8. 11. Holtzblatt, K.; Wendell, J.B.; Wood, S. Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design; The Morgan Kaufmann series in interactive technologies; Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-12-354051-5. 12. Diefenbach, S.; Hassenzahl, M. Psychologie in der nutzerzentrierten Produktgestaltung; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. 13. Yoon, J.; Desmet, P.M.; Pohlmeyer, A.E. Embodied typology of positive emotions: The development of a tool to facilitate emotional granularity in design. In Proceedings of the IASDR 2013: Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research “Consilience and Innovation in Design”, Tokyo, Japan, 26–30 August 2013; International Association of Societies of Design Research: Regensburg, Germany, 2013. 14. Rafael, C.; Dorian, P. Wellbeing Determinant Cards. Posit. Comput. 2015. Available online: http: //www.positivecomputing.org/p/were-pleased-to-share-some-of-tools-and.html (accessed on 23 July 2020). 15. Kahneman, D.; Krueger, A.B.; Schkade, D.A.; Schwarz, N.; Stone, A.A. A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science 2004, 306, 1776–1780. [CrossRef][PubMed] 16. Zeiner, K.M.; Laib, M.; Schippert, K.; Burmester, M. Identifying Experience Categories to Design for Positive Experiences with Technology at Work. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; pp. 3013–3020. 17. Laib, M.; Burmester, M.; Zeiner, K. Erlebnispotentialanalyse-Mit Systematik zu positiven Erlebnissen. In Mensch & Computer - 2017 Usability Prof.; Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.: Regensburg, Germany, 2017. 18. Zeiner, K.M.; Henschel, J.; Schippert, K.; Haasler, K.; Laib, M.; Burmester, M. Experience Categories in Specific Contexts–Creating Positive Experiences in Smart Kitchens. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability; Springer International Publishing AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 306–324. 19. Burmester, M.; Zeiner, K.; Schippert, K.; Platz, A. Creating positive experiences with digital companions. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–6. 20. Zeiner, K.M.; Laib, M.; Schippert, K.; Burmester, M. Das Erlebnisinterview–Methode zum Verständnis positiver Erlebnisse: Praktische Einführung und Diskussion von Implikationen zur UX-Gestaltungspraxis. In UP 2016; Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. & German UPA e.V.: Aachen, Germany, 2016. 21. Norman, D. The Design of Everyday Things Revised and Expanded Edition; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-0-465-07299-6. 22. Sanders, L.; Stappers, P.J. Convivial Design Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design; BIS: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; ISBN 978-90-6369-284-1. 23. Hassenzahl, M. User experience (UX): Towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In Proceedings of the IHM, Metz, France, 2–5 September 2008; Volume 8, pp. 11–15. 24. Hassenzahl, M. Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Synth. Lect. Hum. Centered Inform. 2010, 3, 1–95. [CrossRef] Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 43 22 of 22

25. Janssen, D.; Pollmann, K.; Fronemann, N.; Blank, D. Enabling SMEs to Conduct User Research: Experience with and Adaption of UX Concept Exploration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 445–456. 26. Gaver, B.; Dunne, T.; Pacenti, E. Design: Cultural probes. Interactions 1999, 10, 21–29. [CrossRef] 27. Gaver, W.W.; Boucher, A.; Pennington, S.; Walker, B. Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interact 2004, 11, 53–56. [CrossRef] 28. Kitzinger, J. Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995, 311, 299–302. [CrossRef][PubMed] 29. Krüger, A.E.; Peissner, M.; Fronemann, N.; Pollmann, K. BUILDING IDEAS: Guided Design for Experience. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 115:1–115:6. 30. Krüger, A.E.; Kurowski, S.; Pollmann, K.; Fronemann, N.; Peissner, M. Needs profile: Sensitising Approach for User Experience Research. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction-OZCHI ’17, Brisbane, Australia, 28 November–1 December 2017; ACM Press: Brisbane, Australia, 2017; pp. 41–48. 31. Kelley, T.; Kelley, D. Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential within Us All; William Collins: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-0-00-751797-8. 32. Plattner, H.; Meinel, C.; Weinberg, U. Design-Thinking; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. 33. Kristiansen, P.; Rasmussen, R. Building a Better Business. Using the Lego Serious Play Method; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-118-83245-5. 34. IDEO. Commercial the Field Guide to Human-Centered Design; Design Kit, 2015; Available online: https: //www.designkit.org/resources/1 (accessed on 23 July 2020). 35. Franke, T.; Attig, C.; Wessel, D. Assessing Affinity for Technology Interaction–The Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. Unpublished manuscript. 2017. 36. Myers, M.D. Qualitative Research in Business and Management; Sage Publications Limited: New York, NY, USA, 2019.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).