Measuring Anticipated and Episodic UX of Tasks in Social Networks
Source abstract
Abstract
Today, social networks are crucial commodities that allow people to share different contents and opinions. In addition to participation, the information shared within social networks makes them attractive, but success is also accompanied by a positive User eXperience (UX). Social networks must offer useful and well-designed user-tools, i.e., sets of widgets that allow interaction among users. To satisfy this requirement, Episodic User eXperience (EUX) yields reactions of users after having interacted with an artifact. Anticipated User eXperience (AUX) grants the designers the capacity to recollect users’ aspirations, assumptions, and needs in the initial development phase of an artifact. In this work, we collect UX perceived in both periods to contrast user expectations and experiences offered on social networks, in order to find elements that could improve the design of user-tools. We arrange a test where participants (N=20) designed prototypes on paper to solve tasks and then did the same tasks on online social networks. Both stages are assessed with the help of AttrakDiff, and then we analyze the results through t-tests. The results we obtained suggest that users are inclined towards pragmatic aspects of their user-tools expectations.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovative Human-Technology Interaction · Knowledge Management and Sharing · Impact of Technology on Adolescents
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Computer Science Department, CINVESTAV-IPN, Mexico City 07360, Mexico
Funding
Fondo SEP-CINVESTAV de Apoyo a la Investigación (Call 2018)
References (83)
Show source-provided references
1. Carta, S., Podda, A.S., Recupero, D.R., Saia, R., and Usai, G. (2020). Popularity Prediction of Instagram Posts. Information, 11.10.20944/preprints202008.0676.v1 ↗
2. Social Media Use During Social Distancing10.1089/cyber.2020.29181.bkw ↗
3. Preventing problematic internet use during the COVID-19 pandemic: Consensus guidance
4. Chen, L.S., and Chang, P.C. (2010, January 17–19). Identifying crucial website quality factors of virtual communities. Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong, China.
5. Menvielle, L., Audrain-Pontevia, A.F., and Menvielle, W. (2017). Evaluation Frameworks for Health Virtual Communities. The Digitization of Healthcare: New Challenges and Opportunities, Palgrave Macmillan UK.10.1057/978-1-349-95173-4 ↗
6. Virtual community informatics: A review and research agenda
7. Designing and Evaluating Online Communities: Research Speaks to Emerging Practice10.1504/IJWBC.2004.004795 ↗
8. Proactive Engagement of Opinion Leaders and Organization Advocates on Social Networking Sites10.1080/1553118X.2016.1144605 ↗
9. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x ↗
10. Chen, V.H.H., and Duh, H.B.L. (2009, January 29–31). Investigating User Experience of Online Communities: The Influence of Community Type. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1109/CSE.2009.367 ↗
11. Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Socialbilty, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1108/imds.2000.100.9.459.3 ↗
12. Consumers’ motivation to interact in virtual food communities—The importance of self-presentation and learning10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.06.015 ↗
13. Why Do People Tag?: Motivations for Photo Tagging10.1145/1785414.1785450 ↗
14. Determinants of Continuance Intention of Facebook Usage Among Library and Information Science Female Undergraduates in Selected Nigerian Universities10.4018/IJEA.2017070104 ↗
15. Understanding online community user participation: A social influence perspective10.1108/10662241111104884 ↗
16. Yuizono, T., Ogata, H., Hoppe, U., and Vassileva, J. (2016). Cooperation Isn’t Just About Doing the Same Thing—Using Personality for a Cooperation-Recommender-System in Online Social Networks, Springer. Collaboration and Technology.10.1007/978-3-319-44799-5 ↗
17. Morin, J.H., Ralyté, J., and Snene, M. (2010). Value Co-creation and Customer-Driven Innovation in Social Networking Systems, Springer. Exploring Services Science.10.1007/978-3-642-14319-9 ↗
18. Consumer participation in virtual communities: The role of personal values and personality10.1080/13527266.2012.736086 ↗
19. McCormick, T.J. (2010). A success-Oriented Framework to Enable Co-Created E-Services, The George Washington University.
20. Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P., Wang, X., Chang, K., Li, X., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Terveen, L., and Rashid, A.M. (2005). Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun., 10.10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00273.x ↗
21. Grudin, J. (1988, January 26–28). Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces. Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’88, Portland, OR, USA.10.1145/62266.62273 ↗
22. Talin (2019, October 14). Why Google+ Failed. Available online: https://onezero.medium.com/why-google-failed-4b9db05b973b.
23. The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience
24. Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., and Lehner, K. (2000, January 1–6). Hedonic and Ergonomic Quality Aspects Determine a Software’s Appeal. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’00, The Hague, The Netherlands.10.1145/332040.332432 ↗
25. ISO (2010). Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction-Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems, International Organization for Standardization. Technical Report.
26. User experience: A concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.048 ↗
27. Hoonhout, J., Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., and Vermeeren, A. (2011). 10373 Abstracts Collection—Demarcating User eXperience. Proceedings of the Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience, Schloss Dagstuhl—Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany. Number 10373 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings.
28. Measuring the dynamics of remembered experience over time. Modelling user experience—An agenda for research and practice10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.003 ↗
29. UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience. Feminism and HCI: New Perspectives10.1016/j.intcom.2011.06.005 ↗
30. Identification of UX dimensions for incident reporting systems with mobile applications in urban contexts: A longitudinal study10.1007/s10111-016-0383-1 ↗
31. Yogasara, T., Popovic, V., Kraal, B.J., and Chamorro-Koc, M. (November, January 31). General characteristics of anticipated user experience (AUX) with interactive products. Proceedings of the IASDR2011: The 4th World Conference on Design Research: Diversity and Unity, Delft, The Netherlands.
32. Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., and Minocha, S. (2005). User Interface Design and Evaluation, Morgan Kaufman.
33. Bargas-Avila, J.A., and Hornbæk, K. (2011, January 7–12). Old Wine in New Bottles or Novel Challenges: A Critical Analysis of Empirical Studies of User Experience. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1145/1978942.1979336 ↗
34. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Martens, J.B. (2009, January 4–9). User Experience over Time: An Initial Framework. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’09, Boston, MA, USA.10.1145/1518701.1518814 ↗
35. Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J., and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2010, January 16–20). User Experience Evaluation Methods: Current State and Development Needs. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, NordiCHI ’10, Reykjavik, Iceland.10.1145/1868914.1868973 ↗
36. Sánchez-Adame, L.M., Mendoza, S., González-Beltrán, B.A., Rodríguez, J., and Meneses Viveros, A. (2018, January 3–6). AUX and UX Evaluation of User Tools in Social Networks. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI), Santiago, Chile.10.1109/WI.2018.0-101 ↗
37. Sánchez-Adame, L.M., Mendoza, S., González-Beltrán, B.A., Rodríguez, J., and Viveros, A.M. (2018, January 5–7). UX Evaluation Over Time: User Tools in Social Networks. Proceedings of the 2018 15th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control (CCE), Mexico City, Mexico.10.1109/ICEEE.2018.8533950 ↗
38. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., and Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. Mensch & Computer, Springer.10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19 ↗
39. Aladwan, A., Kelly, R.M., Baker, S., and Velloso, E. (2019, January 4–9). A Tale of Two Perspectives: A Conceptual Framework of User Expectations and Experiences of Instructional Fitness Apps. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.10.1145/3290605.3300624 ↗
40. Moser, C., Chisik, Y., and Tscheligi, M. (2014, January 18–22). Around the World in 8 Workshops: Investigating Anticipated Player Experiences of Children. Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-human Interaction in Play, CHI PLAY ’14, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1145/2658537.2658702 ↗
41. Augmented interaction with physical books in an Ambient Intelligence learning environment10.1007/s11042-011-0976-x ↗
42. Zhang, E., Culbertson, G., Shen, S., and Jung, M. (2018, January 21–26). Utilizing Narrative Grounding to Design Storytelling Games for Creative Foreign Language Production. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/3173574.3173771 ↗
43. Kukka, H., Pakanen, M., Badri, M., and Ojala, T. (March, January 25). Immersive Street-level Social Media in the 3D Virtual City: Anticipated User Experience and Conceptual Development. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW ’17, Portland, OR, USA.10.1145/2998181.2998341 ↗
44. Wurhofer, D., Krischkowsky, A., Obrist, M., Karapanos, E., Niforatos, E., and Tscheligi, M. (2015, January 1–3). Everyday Commuting: Prediction, Actual Experience and Recall of Anger and Frustration in the Car. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI ’15, Nottingham, UK.10.1145/2799250.2799251 ↗
45. Marcus, A. (2015). Measuring Negative User Experience. Design, User Experience, and Usability: Users and Interactions, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-20898-5 ↗
46. Agent and multi-agent applications to support distributed communities of practice: A short review10.1007/s10458-011-9170-9 ↗
47. A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 ↗
48. Fui-Hoon Nah, F., and Tan, C.H. (2015). An Interactive Assessment Instrument to Improve the Process for Mobile Service Application Innovation. HCI in Business, Springer International Publishing.
49. Strohmann, T., Höper, L., and Robra-Bissantz, S. (2019, January 8–11). Design Guidelines for Creating a Convincing User Experience with Virtual In-vehicle Assistants. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA.10.24251/HICSS.2019.580 ↗
50. Mobile App to Support Teaching in Distance Mode at Fiji National University: Design and Evaluation10.4018/IJVPLE.2018010102 ↗
51. Encouraging Participation in Virtual Communities10.1145/1216016.1216023 ↗
52. Online communities: Satisfaction and continued use intention
53. Hummel, J., and Lechner, U. (2002, January 10). Social profiles of virtual communities. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA.
54. A Life-cycle Perspective on Online Community Success10.1145/1459352.1459356 ↗
55. Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success10.1080/01449290110084683 ↗
56. What can you Learn from a Low-Fidelity Prototype?10.1177/154193128903300405 ↗
57. High-Fidelity or Low-Fidelity, Paper or Computer? Choosing Attributes when Testing Web Prototypes10.1177/154193120204600513 ↗
58. Maulsby, D., Greenberg, S., and Mander, R. (1993, January 24–29). Prototyping an Intelligent Agent Through Wizard of Oz. Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’93, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.10.1145/169059.169215 ↗
59. Davis, R.C., Saponas, T.S., Shilman, M., and Landay, J.A. (2007, January 7–10). SketchWizard: Wizard of Oz Prototyping of Pen-based User Interfaces. Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’07, Newport, RI, USA.10.1145/1294211.1294233 ↗
60. Morville, P. (2005). Experience Design Unplugged. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Web Program, ACM.10.1145/1187335.1187347 ↗
61. Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., and Barbosa, S.D.J. (2007). Multi-fidelity Prototyping of User Interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2007, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-74796-3 ↗
62. D-LABS (2019, October 14). Medium-Fidelity-Prototyping. Available online: https://www.d-labs.com/en/services-and-methods/medium-fidelity-prototyping.html.
63. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 ↗
64. Hernández-Sampieri, R., and Torres, C.P.M. (2018). Metodología de la Investigación, McGraw-Hill Interamericana.
65. Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, New Age International.
66. Isleifsdottir, J., and Larusdottir, M. (2008, January 18). Measuring the User Experience of a Task Oriented Software. Proceedings of the international Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement, Reykjavik, Iceland.
67. Observed Differences between Lab and Online Tests Using the AttrakDiff Semantic Differential Scale
68. The Inference of Perceived Usability From Beauty10.1080/07370024.2010.500139 ↗
69. Braun, P. (2020). Attrakdiff, I feel so I am ? Measuring affects tested by digital sensors. Digital Klee Esquisses Pédagogiques. Enquête sur le futur de la forme. Présent Composé (Rennes), Les Presses du Réel (Dijon).
70. Martins, N., and Brandão, D. (2021). Quality Perception with Attrakdiff Method: A Study in Higher Education. Advances in Design and Digital Communication, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-61671-7 ↗
71. User preferences for multi-device context-aware feedback in a digital coaching system10.1007/s12193-013-0125-0 ↗
72. Díaz-Oreiro, I., López, G., Quesada, L., and Guerrero, L.A. (2019). Standardized Questionnaires for User Experience Evaluation: A Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings, 31.10.3390/proceedings2019031014 ↗
73. Lallemand, C., and Koenig, V. (2020, January 25–29). Measuring the Contextual Dimension of User Experience: Development of the User Experience Context Scale (UXCS). Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society, NordiCHI ’20, Tallinn, Estonia.10.1145/3419249.3420156 ↗
74. Isomursu, P., Virkkula, M., Niemelä, K., Juntunen, J., and Kumpuoja, J. (October, January 28). Modified AttrakDiff in UX Evaluation of a Mobile Prototype. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, AVI ’20, Salerno, Italy.
75. Walsh, T., Varsaluoma, J., Kujala, S., Nurkka, P., Petrie, H., and Power, C. (2014, January 4–6). Axe UX: Exploring Long-term User Experience with iScale and AttrakDiff. Proceedings of the 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Media Business, Management, Content & Services, AcademicMindTrek ’14, Tampere, Finland.10.1145/2676467.2676480 ↗
76. Streitz, N., and Stephanidis, C. (2013). Attractiveness of an Interactive Public Art Installation, Springer. Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions.10.1007/978-3-642-39351-8 ↗
77. Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., and Hochheiser, H. (2017). Chapter 3—Experimental design. Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction, Morgan Kaufmann. [2nd ed.].10.1016/B978-0-12-805390-4.00003-0 ↗
78. Sauro, J. (2016). Measuring the Quality of the Website User Experience, University of Denver.
79. Bevan, N., Liu, Z., Barnes, C., Hassenzahl, M., and Wei, W. (2016, January 7–12). Comparison of Kansei Engineering and AttrakDiff to Evaluate Kitchen Products. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’16, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1145/2851581.2892407 ↗
80. Merz, B., Tuch, A.N., and Opwis, K. (2016, January 7–12). Perceived User Experience of Animated Transitions in Mobile User Interfaces. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’16, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1145/2851581.2892489 ↗
81. Aula, A., Khan, R.M., and Guan, Z. (2010, January 10–15). How Does Search Behavior Change as Search Becomes More Difficult?. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’10, Atlanta, GA, USA.10.1145/1753326.1753333 ↗
82. Chin, J., and Fu, W.T. (2010, January 10–15). Interactive Effects of Age and Interface Differences on Search Strategies and Performance. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’10, Atlanta, GA, USA.10.1145/1753326.1753387 ↗
83. Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., and Hochheiser, H. (2017). Chapter 4—Statistical analysis. Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction, Morgan Kaufmann. [2nd ed.].10.1016/B978-0-12-805390-4.00004-2 ↗