journal article·2022-07-01Open access

User Experience Quantification Model from Online User Reviews

Jamil Hussain, Zahra Azhar, Hafiz Farooq Ahmad, Muhammad Afzal, Mukhlis Raza, Sungyoung Lee

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 13

Abstract

Due to the advancement in information technology and the boom of micro-blogging platforms, a growing number of online reviews are posted daily on product distributed platforms in the form of spontaneous and insightful user feedback, and these can be used as a significant data source to understand user experience (UX) and satisfaction. However, despite the vast amount of online reviews, the existing literature focuses on online ratings and ignores the real textual context in reviews. We proposed a three-step UX quantification model from online reviews to understand customer satisfaction using the effect-based Kano model. First, the relevant online reviews are selected using various filter mechanisms. Second, UX dimensions (UXDs) are extracted using a proposed method called UX word embedding Latent Dirichlet allocation (UXWE-LDA) and sentiment orientation using a transformer-based pipeline. Then, the casual relationships are identified for the extracted UXDs. Third, the UXDs are mapped on the customer satisfaction model (effect-based Kano) to understand the user perspective about the system, product, or services. Finally, the different parts of the proposed quantification model are evaluated to examine the performance of this method. We present different results of the proposed method in terms of accuracy, topic coherence (TC), Topic-wise performance, and expert-based evaluation for the proposed framework validation. For review quality filters, we achieved 98.49% accuracy for the spam detection classifier and 95% accuracy for the relatedness detection classifier. The results show that the proposed method for the topic extractor module always gives a higher TC value than other models such as WE-LDA and LDA. Regarding topic-wise performance measures, UXWE-LDA achieves a 3% improvement on average compared to LDA due to the incorporation of semantic domain knowledge. We also compute the Jaccard coefficient similarity between the extracted dimensions using UXWE-LDA and UX experts-based analysis for checking the mutual agreement, which is 0.3, 0.5, and 0.4, respectively. Based on the Kano model, the presented study has potential implications concerning issues and knowing the product’s strengths and weaknesses in product design.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Digital Marketing and Social Media · Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining · Complex Network Analysis Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Data Science, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea

Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA

Computer Science Department, College of Computer Sciences and Information Technology (CCSIT), King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia

Department of Software, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea

Department of Faculty of Computing, Riphah International University, Islamabad 46000, Pakistan

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Seocheon-dong, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si 17104, Korea

Funding

Ministry of Science and ICT, Korea · Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion · Grand Information Technology Research Center support program · Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP)

References (47)

Show source-provided references
1. Quasi-ADS-B Based UAV Conflict Detection and Resolution to Manned Aircraft
2. A framework for user experience, needs and affordances10.1016/j.destud.2013.10.001 ↗
3. Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P., and Kort, J. (2009, January 4–9). Understanding, Scoping and Defining User Experience: A Survey Approach. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA.10.1145/1518701.1518813 ↗
4. Hassenzahl, M. (2008, January 2–5). User Experience (UX): Towards an Experiential Perspective on Product Quality. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine, Metz, France.10.1145/1512714.1512717 ↗
5. (2018). Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts (Standard No. ISO 9241-11: 2018).
6. Modelling user experience—An agenda for research and practice10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.006 ↗
7. Hussain, J., Khan, W.A., Hur, T., Bilal, H.S.M., Bang, J., Hassan, A.U., Afzal, M., and Lee, S. (2018). A Multimodal Deep Log-Based User Experience (UX) Platform for UX Evaluation. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18051622 ↗
8. Engineering design using game-enhanced CAD: The potential to augment the user experience with game elements10.1016/j.cad.2012.08.001 ↗
9. Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006 ↗
10. EnSWF: Effective features extraction and selection in conjunction with ensemble learning methods for document sentiment classification10.1007/s10489-019-01425-4 ↗
11. Exploiting user experience from online customer reviews for product design10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.006 ↗
12. Mining meaning from online ratings and reviews: Tourist satisfaction analysis using latent dirichlet allocation10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.009 ↗
13. Modeling customer satisfaction from unstructured data using a Bayesian approach10.1016/j.dss.2016.06.010 ↗
14. Modelling customer satisfaction from online reviews using ensemble neural network and effect-based Kano model10.1080/00207543.2019.1574989 ↗
15. Exploring Tourist Dining Preferences Based on Restaurant Reviews10.1177/0047287517744672 ↗
16. A Data-Driven Approach to Product Usage Context Identification From Online Customer Reviews10.1115/1.4044523 ↗
17. A framework for capturing the relationship between usability and software architecture10.1002/spip.171 ↗
18. Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated model10.1007/s11219-006-7600-8 ↗
19. Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 ↗
20. Using text mining to measure mobile banking service quality10.1108/IMDS-09-2020-0545 ↗
21. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, M., Hassenzahl, M., and Platz, A. (2006, January 14–18). Dynamics of user experience: How the perceived quality of mobile phones changes over time. Proceedings of the User Experience-Towards a Unified View, Workshop at the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Oslo, Norway.
22. Unveiling Usability and UX Relationships for Different Gender, Users Habits and Contexts of Use
23. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., and Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: A questionnaire to measure perceived hedonic and pragmatic quality. Mensch & Computer, Springer.
24. Construction of a Benchmark for the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ)
25. Mining Marketing Meaning from Online Chatter: Strategic Brand Analysis of Big Data Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation10.1509/jmr.12.0106 ↗
26. A data-driven approach to guest experiences and satisfaction in sharing10.1080/10548408.2019.1570420 ↗
27. Bengio, Y., Schuurmans, D., Lafferty, J., Williams, C., and Culotta, A. (2009). Reading Tea Leaves: How Humans Interpret Topic Models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Curran Associates, Inc.
28. Mimno, D., Wallach, H.M., Talley, E., Leenders, M., and McCallum, A. (2011, January 27–31). Optimizing Semantic Coherence in Topic Models. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Edinburgh, UK.
29. Mining coherent topics in documents using word embeddings and large-scale text data10.1016/j.engappai.2017.06.024 ↗
30. Estimating aggregate consumer preferences from online product reviews10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.09.001 ↗
31. How to delight your customers10.1108/10610429610119469 ↗
32. Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2011). Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination. arXiv.
33. Ktrain: A Low-Code Library for Augmented Machine Learning
34. Hussain, J., and Lee, S. (2016). Review-Based User Experience (UX) Modeling, The Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineers.
35. Loria, S. (2022, March 10). Textblob Documentation. Release 0.15. 2018. Volume 2, p. 269. Available online: https://textblob.readthedocs.io/en/dev.
36. Hamilton, W.L., Clark, K., Leskovec, J., and Jurafsky, D. (2016, January 1–5). Inducing domain-specific sentiment lexicons from unlabeled corpora. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Austin, TX, USA.10.18653/v1/D16-1057 ↗
37. Pennington, J., Socher, R., and Manning, C.D. (2014, January 25–29). GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Doha, Qatar.10.3115/v1/D14-1162 ↗
38. Shi, T., Kang, K., Choo, J., and Reddy, C.K. (2018, January 23–27). Short-Text Topic Modeling via Non-Negative Matrix Factorization Enriched with Local Word-Context Correlations. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, Lyon France.10.1145/3178876.3186009 ↗
39. Viegas, F., Canuto, S., Gomes, C., Luiz, W., Rosa, T., Ribas, S., Rocha, L., and Gonçalves, M.A. (2019, January 11–15). CluWords: Exploiting Semantic Word Clustering Representation for Enhanced Topic Modeling. Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Melbourne, Australia.
40. Rong, X. (2014). Word2vec Parameter Learning Explained. arXiv.
41. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002 ↗
42. Holzinger, A. (2008). Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. HCI and Usability for Education and Work, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9 ↗
43. Kraemer, H.C. (2015). Kappa coefficient. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, Wiley.10.1002/9781118445112.stat00365 ↗
44. Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., and Funtowicz, M. (2020, January 16–20). Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Online.10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.6 ↗
45. Chen, Z., and Liu, B. (2014, January 24–27). Mining Topics in Documents: Standing on the Shoulders of Big Data. Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/2623330.2623622 ↗
46. Niwattanakul, S., Singthongchai, J., Naenudorn, E., and Wanapu, S. (2013, January 13–15). Using of Jaccard coefficient for keywords similarity. Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong.
47. McAuley, J., and Leskovec, J. (2013, January 12–16). Hidden Factors and Hidden Topics: Understanding Rating Dimensions with Review Text. Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Hong Kong.10.1145/2507157.2507163 ↗