Developing Elements of User Experience for Mobile

Phones and Services: Survey, Interview, and

Observation Approaches
Jaehyun Park, Sung H. Han, Hyun K. Kim, Youngseok Cho, and Wonkyu Park
Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), San 31,
Hyoja, Pohang 790-784, Republic of Korea

Abstract
The term user experience (UX) encompasses the concepts of usability and affective engineering. How-
ever, UX has not been defined clearly. In this study, a literature survey, user interview and indirect
observation were conducted to develop definitions of UX and its elements. A literature survey investi-
gated 127 articles that were considered to be helpful to define the concept of UX. An in-depth interview
targeted 14 hands-on workers in the Korean mobile phone industry. An indirect observation captured
daily experiences of eight end-users with mobile phones. This study collected various views on UX
from academia, industry, and end-users using these three approaches. As a result, this article proposes
definitions of UX and its elements: usability, affect, and user value. These results are expected to help
design products or services with greater levels of UX. C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: User experience; Survey; In-depth interview; Indirect observation; Mobile phones and
services

1. INTRODUCTION 2009; Mäkelä & Fulton Suri, 2001). Another focuses on

User experience (UX) broadly describes all aspects of
interactions between a user and a product (Alben, 1996;
Arhippainen & Tähti, 2003; Forlizzi & Ford, 2000;
Kuniavsky, 2007; Marcus, 2006; McNamara &
Kirakowski, 2006). The concept of UX covers affect or
usability engineering (Alben, 1996; Hassenzahl & Roto,
2007). However, “UX” has not been defined clearly
(Law et al., 2008; Law & Van Schaik, 2010). UX concepts
vary in terms of scope, objects, or elements consid-
ered. One concept focuses on temporality perspective
of UX (Karapanos, Zimmerman, Forlizzi, & Martens,
Correspondence to: Sung H. Han, Department of Industrial
and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Sci-
ence and Technology (POSTECH), San 31, Hyoja, Pohang
790-784, Republic of Korea. Phone: 82-54-279-2203; e-mail:
shan@postech.edu.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20316
co-experience by considering the social aspects of UX
(Battarbee, 2003). Furthermore, academic researchers
and product developers apparently have different opin-
ions of what UX means (Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila,
Roto, & Hassenzahl, 2008).
Attempts have been made to obtain a universal def-
inition of UX. Hassenzahl and Tractinsky (2006) di-
vided UX studies into three perspectives (beyond the
instrumental, emotion and affect, and experiential),
and finally defined UX as an outcome reflecting the
user’s internal state, the system’s characteristics, and
the context of use. Law, Roto, Hassenzahl, Vermeeren,
and Kort (2009) conducted a survey to collect views of
UX researchers and practitioners from academia and
industry, and proposed UX as something individual
that emerges from interacting with a product, system,
service, or object. These studies may successfully de-
rive UX definitions, which most researchers somewhat
agree with, but they do not report what factors con-
tribute to UX. Elements or factors that contribute to

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 00 (0) 1–15 (2011) 
c 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1
User Experience Elements Park, Han, Kim, et al.

UX have rarely been systematically addressed in UX 2.1. Basic Statistics

research.
Basic statistics of the studies on UX were analyzed in
This study attempts to identity factors that may di-
terms of sources, regions, research types, and pub-
rectly influence UX. This objective was achieved by
lication years (Figure 1). Most of the articles were
a combination of literature survey, in-depth inter-
proceedings (56) and journal papers (49); nine were
view, and indirect observation. The literature survey
from magazines, six from books, four from reports,
mainly reflects views of academia researchers on UX.
and three from dissertations. The proceedings were
In-depth interviews with practitioners reveal the per-
mainly from the ACM Conference on Human Factors
spective of developers of mobile phones or services,
in Computing Systems (CHI) and the International
who must meet the requirements of users. The indirect
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII);
observation with end-users helps to understand be-
17 and 10 articles were from each conference, respec-
haviors of real users. Finally, perspectives on UX from
tively. Most of the collected studies were conducted
these sources were used to define elements and subele-
in North America (56) or Europe (47). Studies con-
ments of UX. The literature survey comprehensively
ducted in North America have various keywords such
covered major works about UX, while the in-depth
as traditional usability, UCD, TAM, or brand equity.
interview and indirect observation were each supple-
In contrast, European studies frequently mention the
mentary work to reveal any new ideas that were not
term UX. Most UX studies were conducted at univer-
mentioned or covered in the literature. For that rea-
sities (81 articles). For example, University of Art and
son, a relatively small number of interviewees and users
Design Helsinki (UIAH), University of Oulu, and Delft
participated in this study.
University of Technology have each published five ar-
UX was investigated for mobile phones and services
ticles. The number of papers published by companies
in this study. We had several reasons for this choice.
(25) is the second highest. Among them, Nokia (9)
First, numerous previous UX studies have been con-
and IBM (6) accounted for the majority. Cooperation
ducted for these products and services (Arhippainen
between universities and companies (16 articles) was
& Tähti, 2003; Hiltunen, Laukka, & Luomala, 2002;
the third most common source of UX research. Re-
Roto, 2006). In addition, most corporations in the
search on UX conceptualization increased drastically
Korean mobile industry have established UX depart-
after 2005 (Figure 1, bottom). Most articles published
ments or groups. Thus, their employees are used to
before 2005 focused on usability, UCD, or TAM instead
improving UX of their products or services. Moreover,
of on UX.
mobile phones and services have come into wide use
Authors’ backgrounds were also analyzed, using in-
so that a person who does not have a mobile phone is
formation given in the articles. The backgrounds were
rare. Accordingly, finding participants who are mobile
divided into six categories: (a) human factors, (b) de-
phone users is easy.
sign, (c) computer science, (d) psychology, (e) in-
formation systems, and (f) business (Table 1). Most
research in the psychology domain concerned TAM,
2. LITERATURE SURVEY whereas most in the business domain concerned brand
A literature survey consisted of three phases: (a) col- equity.
lecting, (b) screening, and (c) analyzing. A total of 247
articles were collected using keywords: user experience
(UX), usability, human-computer interaction (HCI), 2.2. UX Definitions in Relevant Studies
user interface (UI), ease of use, usefulness, affective en-
gineering, context of use, product/customer life cycle, A variety of researchers have conducted studies to de-
user centered design (UCD), customer value added, fine UX. Karapanos et al. (2009) focused on tempo-
technology acceptance model (TAM), and brand eq- rality, that is, UX might vary over time. According
uity. Of these, 127 articles were selected, which were to the study, early experiences tend to relate to he-
considered relevant to definitions and elements of UX. donic aspects of a product use, but prolonged ex-
At this time, articles that did not include the keyword periences may be associated with subjective aspects,
“UX” directly but were considered to be valuable and such as how a product is meaningful and significant
helpful to construct UX concept were also collected. in one’s life. Desmet and Hekkert (2007) introduced a

2 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Park, Han, Kim, et al. User Experience Elements

University & Others (5)

Reports (4) Books (6) Others (13)
Company
North
Magazines (9) Proc. (56) America (16) University
Dissertations (3) Asia (11) (56) (81)

Company
Europe (25)
Journals (49) (47)

Sources Regions Research types

25
22

20 19
18

15
11 11 11 11
10
7
6 6
5
5

0
Before 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2000
Publication year
Figure 1 Basic statistics of user experience literatures (frequency means number of articles).

framework for product experience, including three dis-
tinct components: (a) aesthetic experience, (b) experi-
ence of meaning, and (c) emotional experience. Prior to
this, Hekkert (2006, p. 160) defined product experience
as “the entire set of affects elicited by the interaction
between the user and a product, including the degree
to which all our senses are gratified (aesthetic expe-
rience), the meanings we attach to the product (ex-
perience of meaning) and the feelings and emotions
that are elicited (emotional experience).” Hassenzahl
and Tractinsky (2006) defined UX to be a consequence
of the user’s internal state (e.g., predispositions and
TABLE 1. Domains of the Authors
Domain
Human factors (e.g., HCI, industrial engineering)
Design (e.g., industrial design, interface design)
Computer science (e.g., software engineering)
Psychology (e.g., cognitive psychology)
Information systems (e.g., quality engineering)
Business (e.g., marketing, business management)
Others
Total
expectations), the characteristics of the designed sys-
tem (e.g., complexity and usability), and the context
within which the interaction occurs (e.g., organiza-
tional/social setting). Marcus (2006) stated that UX
design includes an enlarged scope of objectives for
products and services. According to him, experience
covers all stakeholder touch-points, such as the places
where a buyer, a customer, a staff member, a journal-
ist, or an investor comes into contact with the product
or service, or its sponsoring company or organization.
Rust et al. (2004) recommended that corporate man-
agers should focus on customer equity, which is the
sum of the lifetime values of the firm’s customers. The
customer equity is influenced by value equity (e.g.,
price, and convenience of the offering), brand equity
Persons
and relationship equity (e.g., friendship with salespeo-
ple). Arhippainen and Tähti (2003) emphasized the
47 particular context of use that social and cultural fac-
39 tors influence. For example, social factors include time
34 pressure, explicit, and implicit requirements, whereas
25 cultural factors include gender, fashion, and habits.
38 Mäkelä and Fulton Suri (2001) regarded present expe-
51 rience to be a result of a motivated action in a certain
6
context. The user’s previous experiences and expecta-
240
tions affect the present experience, which leads to more

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 3
User Experience Elements Park, Han, Kim, et al.

experiences and modified expectations. Besides, many
articles have derived definitions of UX with simple
phrases such as “all aspects of users’ interaction with a
product” (Alben, 1996; Kuniavsky, 2007; Marcus, 2006;
McNamara & Kirakowski, 2006).
2.3. Defining UX
Experience can be categorized into the previous, the
present, and the future experience in chronological or-
der. Because the user’s previous experiences influence
the present experience, which leads in turn to more ex-
periences in the future (Mäkelä & Fulton Suri, 2001),
UX analysis can focus on the present experience. An-
other approach is to investigate UX in terms of an object
with which the user interacts. Experience, brand expe-
rience, or product experience may be alternatives to
UX. Product experience belongs to brand experience
in a broad sense, and brand experience can be regarded
as one type of experience (Law et al., 2009). However,
many studies conducted to define UX suggested that
UX might be generated when the user interacts with
a product. Table 2 shows UX definitions reported in
relevant studies. The scope of UX is discussed in detail
in Section 5. As the results of the literature survey, this
study sets bounds to UX as product experience. In ad-
dition, most researchers mentioned that abstract and
subjective values of users such as emotional attachment
can be another facet of UX, instead of existing con-
cepts such as usability or affect (Karapanos et al., 2009;

TABLE 2. User Experience (UX) Definitions Reported in Relevant Studies

Objects That Emphasis on

Reference Keyword the User Interacts With Temporality Notes About UX Concept

Alben (1996) Quality of Products X

experience
Arhippainen and UX Products X Introducing social factors, cultural
Tähti (2003) factors, context of use
Battarbee (2003) Co-experience Products, other users X Introducing co-experience
Desmet and Product Products X Considering experience of meaning
Hekkert (2007) experience
Forlizzi and Ford UX Products (including services) X Developing a framework, including
(2000) cognition, subconsciousness, narrative,
and storytelling experience
Hassenzahl and UX Designed systems X
Tractinsky (2006)
Karapanos et al. UX Products O
(2009)
Kuniavsky (2007) UX Products (including services, X
UX systems), organizations
Mäkelä and UX Products O
Fulton Suri (2001)
McNamara and UX Products X Regarding functionality, usability, and
Kirakowski UX UX as independent aspect of usage
(2006)
Marcus (2006) UX Products, services, Regarding cultural model as important
companies/organizations
Nielsen Norman UX Products, services, companies X
Group (online)
Roto (2006) UX System (products, objects,
services, people, infrastructure) 1
Rust et al. (2004) Customer Brand (including products,
equity services) 2 Based on brand equity perspective

Notes: 1 : Temporal context refers to the period that the user can dedicate for the system given the context restrictions.
2
: Customer lifetime refers to the time during which the customer has a relationship with the company.

4 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Park, Han, Kim, et al. User Experience Elements

McNamara & Kirakowski, 2006). Moreover, temporal-
ity, which means that UX may vary over passage of
time, can be an important component of UX.
3. IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW
3.1. Organization
ion about the first hypothesis, “service experience as
well as product experience belongs to UX,” he or she
was also asked questions about his or her own defini-
tions of product experience and service experience.
3.2. Backgrounds of Participants

An in-depth interview was conducted to target hands-
on workers in the Korean mobile phone industry. Aca-
demic UX research tends to focus on UX theories and
frameworks, whereas the industrial UX development
seems more likely to emphasize practical attributes,
such as functionality (Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila et al.,
2008). An in-depth interview of hands-on workers
might help to bridge the gap between how the research
community and the product developers perceive the
UX concept.
The interview includes 12 questions related to def-
initions, scopes, and elements of UX (Table 3). The
interview questions were revised from publications
using survey or interview approaches (Law et al.,
2009; Marcus, Ashley, Knapheide, Lund, Rosenberg, &
Vredenburg, 2009). Each interviewee was asked to in-
dicate the degree of agreement to hypotheses on a 1–5
scale (1: totally disagree, 2: partly disagree, 3: neither
agree nor disagree, 4: partly agree, 5: totally agree).
The interviewee was asked to give reasons why he or
she provided each opinion and to explain his or her
own definition about related concepts. For example,
when the interviewee was asked to provide their opin-
Fourteen hands-on workers participated in the in-
depth interview. The interviewees worked for eight
different companies, including those involved in cell-
phone manufacturing (Samsung, LG and Motorola
Korea), mobile telecommunication (SK Telecom, KT
and LG Telecom), and internet service (NHN and
Daum). The interviewees consisted of user interface
(UI) designers, UX designers, system or software de-
velopers, and managers of UI/UX departments. Each
had been employed in the position for an average of 6
years. Their backgrounds included industrial engineer-
ing (6 persons), design (4 persons), computer science
(1 person), and cognitive engineering (1 person). Three
interviewees had doctorates, nine had master’s degrees,
and two had bachelor’s degrees.
3.3. Findings About UX
Interview results were analyzed in terms of service and
brand experience and UX elements. The analysis was
conducted based on average scores and interviewees’
comments. If the average score is close to 1 or 5, most
interviewees are likely to strongly disagree or agree on

TABLE 3. Interview Questions and Quantified Results

Interview Questions (11 hypotheses and 1 open-ended question) Avg. Std. 95 CI

UX definitions and scopes (Q1)

Q1-1. Service experience as well as product experience belongs to UX 4.79 0.43 4.56–5
Q1-2. The user can gain UX without interacting with a product 3.21 1.42 2.47–3.96
Q1-3. A nonprofit product brings UX 4.86 0.36 4.67–5
Q1-4. UX occurs because of the user’s relationship with a corporation 4.21 0.89 3.75–4.68
Q1-5. UX exists before the actual use of a product 4.14 1.03 3.60–4.68
Q1-6. Promotional activities before a product launch bring UX 3.79 1.37 3.07–4.50
UX elements (Q2)
Q2-1. Usability of a product and user’s affect influence UX 4.79 0.43 4.56–5
Q2-2. The user’s subjective value toward a product influences UX 4.50 0.65 4.16–4.84
Q2-3. Information given by other users influences UX 3.93 1.00 3.41–4.45
Q2-4. Previous experience with similar products influences UX 4.79 0.43 4.56–5
Q2-5. Culture background of the user influences UX 4.86 0.36 4.67–5
Q2-6. The three most important factors influencing UX (open-ended) — — —

Notes: ∗ Avg., Std., and 95 CI mean average, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 5
User Experience Elements
the hypothesis, respectively. However, comments re-
ported by the interviewees were considered more im-
portant because interpretations of the average scores
did not have enough statistical evidence. The results
showed that most ideas of the UX concept developed
by the literature survey were confirmed by the detailed
comments.
First, most interviewees believed that service as well
as product experience are components of UX. Second,
UX seems to occur by user’s interactions with a corpo-
ration. However, most interviewees stated that a prod-
uct or service mediates that relationship. This fact sup-
ports the hypothesis that UX should be bounded by
product or service experience. Third, they considered
that usability, affect, user’s subjective value, and previ-
ous experience are important. They were asked to se-
lect three important factors affecting UX (open-ended
question Q2-6). Among them, 12 of 14 interviewees
selected usability, 10 selected affect, 8 selected user’s
subjective value, and 8 selected previous experience.
As confirmed by the interview results, this study pro-
posed usability, affect, and user’s subjective value as
main elements of UX, and user’s subjective value is
termed user value in the remaining section. Previous
experience is regarded to be outside the scope of UX
elements, because it may be related to measurement of
UX.
4. INDIRECT OBSERVATION
4.1. Method for Capturing Experiences
The aim of this indirect observation was to collect
mobile phone users’ behaviors and understand what
constitutes their experiences. Many observation ap-
proaches to capture experiences of the user have
been introduced so that a product can be best de-
signed early in the product development life cycle.
Even though this study does not aim to design a
product or service, the observation seems to be ap-
propriate to gain understanding of the daily expe-
riences of users. Observation approaches are help-
ful to catch thoughts and feelings that participants
would probably not have in a controlled experiment.
Beyer and Holtzblatt (1998) introduced an organized
process of contextual inquiry consisting of one-on-
one observations and interviews. The experience sam-
pling method (ESM) has also been widely used. In
this approach, participants are asked to stop at ran-
dom times and make notes of their experience in real
6 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
Park, Han, Kim, et al.
time (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007;
Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983). In addition, log
files can be used to understand how users are expe-
riencing products or services (Kuniavsky, 2003). How-
ever, these approaches involve a high level of exper-
imenters’ or participants’ burden, or are expensive.
For these reasons, Karapanos et al. (2009) used the
day reconstruction method (DRM) to investigate rich
qualitative experiences of users and to articulate the
UX concept with several narrative terms. The DRM let
participants record their daily experiences once before
going to sleep (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz,
& Stone, 2004). In contrast, Swallow et al. (2005) used
the voice recording to capture mobile phone usage and
developed several dimensions explaining UX. But this
method has a drawback: It requires voice recorders,
which make an experiment costly.
4.2. Experimental Design
An indirect observation using DRM was conducted
to capture users’ behavior patterns, feelings, thoughts,
and episodes when the users interacted with their mo-
bile phones. However, in a small pilot test using DRM,
we found that the users may feel burdened when they
recall mobile phone use accurately. Because they use
their mobile phones frequently, recalling all daily ex-
periences at one time can be difficult. Thus, this study
used a hybrid approach based on DRM. All partic-
ipants were asked to record their experiences three
times per day. Whenever they wrote about their ex-
periences, they were asked to write a series of episodes.
Each episode included a brief name of the episode,
place, time, affair, and participant’s feelings elicited
by their experience. The observation was conducted
over 7 days for each participant, because this period is
long enough to capture their experiences (Kuniavsky,
2003).
4.3. Participants
To collect a variety of experience that is as wide as
possible, eight different user types were defined before
recruiting participants. First, characteristics of mobile
phone users were developed based on social, cultural,
and contextual factors that were considered to influ-
ence UX. User characteristics included age, gender, re-
gion, occupation, period of ownership, previous ex-
periences with other brands of phones, and the type
of mobile phones that the user owned at the time
DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Park, Han, Kim, et al. User Experience Elements

(e.g., bar type and folder type). Second, primary user 4.4. Identifying Subelements of UX
characteristics were selected by referring to a sever-
UX is an ambiguous and abstract construct. Neverthe-
ity rating by HCI specialists. For example, period of
less, it can be decomposed into a hierarchical structure
ownership was regarded as a primary characteristic,
consisting of more concrete attributes (i.e., elements
because it is related to customer life cycle (CLC). Ac-
and subelements). Usability, affect, and user value were
cording to Karapanos et al. (2009), UX changes over
identified as three elements influencing UX as stated
time after the purchase of a product. Occupation and
earlier. Subelements, which mean attributes of each el-
gender were also considered as primary factors in this
ement, were identified by analyzing the results of the
step. Third, eight user types were developed by con-
literature survey and augmented by the observation
sidering combinations of primary user characteris-
study. Although plentiful studies have identified sub-
tics (i.e., period of ownership, occupation, and gen-
elements for usability and affect (Han & Hong, 2003;
der). Taking into account that the average life cycle of
Han et al., 2000), a few studies investigated subele-
Korean mobile phone is about 1.5 years, the period
ments for user value from the user’s standpoint. Thus,
of ownership factor was classified into two categories:
this study focused on identifying the subelements of
within a week after purchase (short term UX) and 6
user value.
to 12 months after purchase (long-term UX). Occu-
The identifying process consisted of three steps:
pation was categorized into two groups: student (e.g.,
(a) developing an initial list, (b) mapping episodes
high school and university student) and nonstudent
on the list, and (c) revising the list. First, an initial
(e.g., office worker). Students usually do not have eco-
subelement list was developed by referring to relevant
nomic power that can differentiate users’ behavior
studies. For example, feelings of confidence, achieve-
patterns such as the use of wireless data communi-
ment, and friendship may be candidates for user value
cation. For example, in Korea, people who are in a
(Savas, 2004). In this step, an initial list, including
low-income group cannot use the mobile internet fre-
21 subelement candidates was developed: customer
quently with their mobile phones, because the pricing
need, eagerness, fun, usefulness, expectation, attach-
scheme used for mobile internet is usually a meter-rate
ment, identity, independence, confidence, novelty, re-
system based on the amount of data (Ahn, Lee, Lee,
laxation, jealousy, challenge, sociability, control, secu-
& Kim, 2006). This study did not consider the types
rity, trust, loyalty, addiction, cost, and customizability.
of mobile phones that the participants own, because
Candidates that were not relevant to user value or that
the focus of the experiment was to extract a variety of
could be merged in to other candidates were eliminated
experiences.
from the initial list. Then, all episodes collected from
Eight users participated in the indirect observation.
the indirect observation were assigned to one or more
They were recruited using the personal database meth-
of the candidates in the list. A total of 216 episodes were
ods (Kuniavsky, 2003) so that each user represents
collected from the eight participants during the 7-day
one of eight user types. This recruiting method can
period. For example, the following episode, which was
help participants to feel a sense of trust and collabo-
written by a female high school student, can be matched
ration with researchers. This feeling is important in
to “challenge.”
a self-observation study, because participants share
The title of episode:Sending SMS (Short Message Ser-
information about their daily lives with researchers
vice)
(Hektner et al., 2007). The participants averaged 24.5
Beginning and end of time:5:05 am to 6:20 am
years old with a standard deviation of 3.25 years. Four
Place:In the subway
were male and four were female. Four were students,
Affair:We, I and my old friend, texted each other for
three were office workers, and one was a housekeeper.
nothing important.
Three of them used full-touch phones, two used folder-
Feelings related to this affair (including reasons for
type phones, two used slide-type phones, and one
the feeling):When I just purchased this mobile phone, it
used an unspecified type of phone. The participants
was very inconvenient to text. So it was really slow. But,
were assumed to have equal ability to recall important
now, I can text fast. It makes me feel good and happy.
events. Participants’ usages, perceptions, and behaviors
I seem to be texting nonstop these days. I’d better get
were also assumed not to be affected by their earlier
improving my SMS skill a little more.
reports.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 7
User Experience Elements
(Author’s comment: In Korea, several methods are
used to input the Korean alphabet on mobile devices.
The methods depend on manufacturer, and differ from
each other in many ways. Accordingly, users who are
accustomed to a certain method for inputting the Ko-
rean alphabet often have trouble when first using another
method.)
If no candidate matches a certain episode, a new
concept would be generated in the third step. Four
concepts such as preciousness, possessiveness, fullness,
and killing time were added to the candidate list. Quan-
titative analysis, such as counting frequencies, was not
conducted, because results of the indirect observation
itself were considered supplementary data to augment
the initial subelement list. Finally, the candidates were
classified into five subelements (i.e., self-satisfaction,
pleasure, sociability, customer need, and attachment),
by considering causal or dominant/subordinate rela-
tionships among the candidates.
5. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF UX
5.1. Definition of UX
UX and its elements were defined, based on the results
of the literature survey, in-depth interview, and indi-
rect observation. Experience is everything that happens
to us, from which we may obtain knowledge, feelings,
and skills. Forlizzi and Ford (2000) introduced “ex-
perience,” “an experience,” and “experience as story.”
First, “experience” is the constant stream that hap-
pens during moments of consciousness. Second, “an
experience” has a beginning and an end, and as a re-
sult changes the user, and sometimes, the context of
the experience. Third, “experience as story” represents
narratives that we use to condense and remember ex-
periences and to communicate them in a variety of
situations to certain audiences. Forlizzi and Battar-
bee (2004) also proposed a concept of “co-experience,”
which creates meaning and emotion with other people
through product use. At any case, experience includes
all our routine activities, such as face-to-face relations
and religious activities, as well as brand, product, or
service experiences.
Brand experience is one type of experience, which is
a consequence of interactions between the user and a
certain brand. Brand experience includes interactions
with the corporation as well as with its branded prod-
ucts and services (Law et al., 2009). In fact, “brand”
is a broad and ambiguous concept. Farquhar, Han,
8 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
Park, Han, Kim, et al.
Herr, and Ijiri (1992) classified brand hierarchically
into three groups: (a) corporate brand, (b) family
brand, and (c) individual brand. Corporate brand uses
a company’s name as a brand name (e.g., Apple and
Samsung). Family brand, also called umbrella brand,
involves several related products or services under one
brand name, while individual brand gives each product
or service a unique name. Factors that influence brand
experience may be brand loyalty, brand awareness, at-
titude to brand, brand ethics, and experiences with
products or services (Aaker, 1997; Keller & Lehmann,
2006; Krishnan & Hartline, 2001; Yoo & Donthu, 2001).
UX can be defined as an overarching experience that
consists of all aspects of users’ interaction with a prod-
uct or service (Alben, 1996; Arhippainen & Tähti, 2003;
Forlizzi & Ford, 2000; Kuniavsky, 2007; Marcus, 2006;
McNamara & Kirakowski, 2006). Results of the in-
depth interview (hypothesis Q1-1) of this study and
Roto (2006) support the supposition that the user can
gain UX when he or she uses a certain service as well as a
product. In other words, UX means product or service
experience that composes brand experience (Figure 2).
Thus, this study limited the scope of UX to the prod-
uct or service experience. The following sections show
elements of UX: usability, affect, and user value.
5.2. Elements of UX
Elements of UX are factors that influence UX signif-
icantly. This study suggests that usability, affect, and
user value are elements of UX. Usability and affect
have been widely studied since before the introduc-
tion of the concept of UX. The TAM theory included
“ease of use.” For example, Davis (1989) suggested that
perceived ease of use might actually be a causal an-
tecedent to perceived usefulness. Nagamachi (1995)
introduced Kansei engineering, which has the goal of
implementing customers’ feelings and demands into
product function and design. In contrast, Han et al.
(2001) defined usability as the degree to which users
are satisfied with a product with respect to both its
performance and its image and impression. Han et al.
(2004) developed relationship models between prod-
uct design and user satisfaction in terms of affective
engineering. However, the concept of UX is known to
be more extensive than simply usability or affect. Ele-
ments of UX should cover extensive situations, and not
be just a “buzzword.” Therefore, the incorporation of
user value differentiates our proposition from existing
DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Park, Han, Kim, et al.
Figure 2 User experience concept proposed in this study.
definitions of UX. Moreover, we propose subelements
and their definition of each UX element.
5.2.1. Usability
Usability was originally defined as the efficiency and ef-
fectiveness of the user interface (Hix & Hartson, 1993),
or the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction with
which specified users can achieve specified goals in par-
ticular environments (ISO 9241-11). Cakir (2000) tried
to improve usability of an everyday product using ISO
definition. In addition, relatively recent studies about
usability attempted to expand the theory of usability
so that the concept might include hedonic qualities as
well as pragmatic qualities. For example, Kwahk and
Han (2002) included image and impression values for
a usability concept. However, the present study focuses
mainly on performance aspects of a product or service
for the usability concept (Table 4).
Usability dimensions have been widely studied by
various researchers, since usability was first defined
by Bennet (1984) and Shackel (1984). Although ISO
(1993) defined three major dimensions, including (a)
effectiveness, (b) efficiency, and (c) satisfaction, other
dimensions, such as simplicity and learnability, were
also used to evaluate usability. For example, Han et al.
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
User Experience Elements
(2001) suggested performance dimensions of usabil-
ity could be classified into three categories: (a) per-
ception/cognition, (b) learning/memorization, and (c)
control/action. Strawderman and Koubek (2008) con-
sidered five usability dimensions to match service qual-
ity dimensions. Jin, Ji, Choi, and Cho (2009) also de-
veloped more than 20 usability dimensions to evalu-
ate dishwashers, including consistency, familiarity, and
feedback. In this study, approximately 30 dimensions
related to usability were collected from the literature.
Seven subelements of usability were then determined
through integration and screening processes. Dimen-
sions related to subjective satisfaction were excluded
from usability subelements, because these dimensions
are considered as affect or user value subelements.
5.2.2. Affect
Russel (2003, p. 148) defined core affect as “a neu-
rophysiological state consciously accessible as the sim-
plest non-reflective feelings evident in moods and emo-
tions.” However, this concept may not be applicable to
UX, because core affect does not focus on an object
that the user interacts with. Accordingly, in this study,
affect is considered as an emotion that is a consequence
of interaction with a product or service (Table 5).
DOI: 10.1002/hfm 9
User Experience Elements Park, Han, Kim, et al.

TABLE 4. Definitions of Sublements of Usability

Subelement∗ Definition

Simplicity way a product/service looks and works is simple, plain, and uncomplicated
Modelessness Capability that allows the user to do whatever they want when necessary (e.g., easy to change
a mode of product or service)
Directness Degree of user’s perception of directly controlling the user interface of a product/service
Accessibility Degree to which a product/service is easy to approach or operate
User control Ability for the user to regulate, control, and operate the user interface of a product/service
Efficiency Degree to which a product/service enables a task successfully without wasting time or energy
Effectiveness Accuracy and completeness with which specified users achieved specified goals in particular
environment
Effortlessness Ability of a product/service to require or involve no effort of the user
Informativeness Degree to which a product/service is instructive and gives all the necessary information to the
user in a proper manner
Comprehensiveness Degree to which a product/service covers or includes extensive information that is needed or
relevant to the user
Explicitness User’s perception that the way a product/service looks and works is clear and accurate
Visibility Degree of user’s perception of clearly seeing objects on the user interface of a product/service
Legibility/readability Degree of user’s perception of reading or understanding a word, line, or paragraph written in
the user interface of a product/service
Flexibility Extent to which a product/service can accommodate changes to tasks and environments
beyond those first specified
Adaptability Degree to which a product/service is changed easily to fit different users and/or conditions
Interoperability Ability of two or more product/services are used or operated reciprocally
Learnability Time and effort required for the user to learn how to use a product/service
Memorability Degree to which a product/service is easy to remember
Familiarity Extent to which the user’s knowledge and experience in other domains or real world can be
applied to interacting with a new product/service
Predictability Ability for the user to expect the effect of future actions based on past interaction experiences
Intuitiveness Degree of user’s perception of understanding the way a product/service looks and works by
intuition
Consistency Similarity in the way a product/service looks and works and the input/output behavior arising
from similar situations or tasks
User support Ability for the user to operate a product/service easily through its entire life cycle
Easy installation Ability for the user to install or initiate a new product/service easily
Error prevention Ability to help the user preventing errors and taking corrective actions once an error has been
recognized
Forgiveness Ability for the user to cancel or undo their tasks on the assumption that the user may make a
mistake
Feedback Degree of presenting feedback information for the user input
Helpfulness User’s perception that a product/service communicates in a helpful way

Note:∗ The indented words mean components of each subelement outdented above.

Affect research on products has widely been conducted.
Picard (1995) applied the affect concept to computers.
Hong (2005) reported that affective satisfaction is in-
fluenced by product appearances and investigated af-
fective satisfaction toward mobile phones. Desmet and
Hekkert (2007) suggested the concept of aesthetic ex-
perience considering a product’s capacity to delight one
or more of our sensory modalities. Horn and Salvendy
(2009) indicated that affect is significantly related to
willingness to purchase consumer products.
Subelements of affect consist of affective words rep-
resent customer’s feeling. To develop these affective
words, surveys have widely been conducted to inves-
tigate how people express their feelings, thoughts, or
impressions (Nagamachi, 1995; Han et al., 2000). Var-
ious studies have developed affective words, which are

10 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Park, Han, Kim, et al. User Experience Elements

TABLE 5. Definitions of Subelements of Affect

Sub-element Definition

Delicacy Degree to which a product/service is elaborate, or finely and skillfully made

Simplicity The way a product/service looks and works is simple, plain, and uncomplicated
Texture Degree to which a product’s texture or touch appeals to the users
Luxuriousness Degree to which a product/service is luxurious or looks superior in quality and expense
Color Degree to which the color used in a product/service is likable, vivid, or colorful
Attractiveness User’s perception that a product/service is pleasing, arousing, interest, and attractive

TABLE 6. Definitions of Subelements of User Value

Sub-elements∗ Definition

Self-satisfaction Degree to which a product/service gives the user satisfaction with himself or herself or
achievements
Identity User’s perception of being the distinct personality of an individual (related terms: personality,
self-expression, unique)
Challenge User’s perception of achieving something new and difficult which requires great effort and
determination (Related terms: Achievement)
Confidence Belief in oneself and one’s abilities reflected by a product/service (related terms: pride, fullness)
Pleasure User’s feeling of being pleased or gratified by interacting with a product/service
Fun Degree to which a product/service gives the user enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure
Refresh Degree to which a product/service provides the user new vigor and energy
Sociability Degree to which a product/service satisfies the user’s desire of being sociable
Social emotion Degree to which a product/service set the stage where the user can feel, express, or share their
emotions socially
Social value Degree to which a product/service provides the user values related to social issues, problems,
and reforms
Friendship User’s perception of having a friendly relation with other people
Customer need Degree to which functions or appearances of a product/service satisfy the user’s needs
Eagerness User’s perception of having keen interest or intense desire
Expectation User’s act or state of looking forward or anticipating
Usefulness/Utility Degree to which a product/service has a beneficial, practical use
Customizability Degree to which a product/service is changed or built easily to fit personal specifications or
preferences
Attachment Ability for the user to attach subjective value to a product/service
Novelty Degree to which a product/service is novel, new, or unique (related term: curiosity)
Preciousness Degree to which a product/service is valuable, precious to the user
Trustworthiness Degree to which a product/service deserves of trust or confidence (related terms: belief, trust)

Note: ∗ The indented words mean components of each subelement outdented above.

expected to vary over product or service. In this study,
six subelements were identified by revising dimensions,
which were suggested by Hong (2005).
5.2.3. User Value
User value is a subjective value that the user attaches to a
product (Table 6). The value may be related to how the
user thinks the product is meaningful and significant
in his or her life. This element of UX is correlated with
symbolic association proposed by Crilly, Moultrie, and
Clarkson (2004). According to the study, symbolic as-
sociation is determined by what the product is seen
to symbolize about its user, or the social-cultural con-
text of use. For example, while a chair affords sitting,
a throne implies status and power. Clearly, individual

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 11
User Experience Elements
and cultural differences influence this cognitive con-
text (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007). In fact, the values,
such as fun or usefulness, were regarded as important
before the emergence of the concept of UX. Igbaria,
Schiffman, and Wieckowski (1994) proposed perceived
fun might be important as much as perceived useful-
ness. Kahle (1983) retrieved “list of value,” which affect
users’ purchasing behavior: sense of belonging, self-
fulfillment, fun and enjoyment in life, warm relation-
ships with others, being well-respected, excitement,
sense of accomplishment, security, and self-respect.
Although many studies were concerned about fun,
pleasure, or subjective value, a few attempted to identify
elements of user value. In this study, the initial subele-
ment list from the literature survey was augmented by
analyzing episodes of the indirect observation. Then,
five subelements of user value were proposed using a
merging process (Section 4.4).
6. DISCUSSION ON THE UX
CONCEPT
UX can be defined as an overarching experience that
consists of all aspects of users’ interaction with a prod-
uct or service. All existing theories about UCD, usabil-
ity, affect engineering, and TAM are applicable to UX.
Moreover, even brand equity may also influence UX
(Arhippainen & Tähti, 2003). For that reason, gather-
ing various views and specifying the scope of UX is im-
portant. With our survey, interview, and observation,
this study regards UX as product or service experience.
This study concludes that brand experience, not me-
diated by products or services, does not affect UX. For
example, a corporate advertisement to enhance its im-
age can affect users and give users a kind of experience,
but it may not contribute to UX. We can call it just
“brand experience.”
Of course, many kinds of service experience con-
tribute to UX, including product experience, even if
service may be conducted without physical interfaces.
However, the shapes or characteristics of user inter-
faces vary, sometimes drastically, in different products
or services. Thus, influential factors may differ among
services or products. Usability, affect, and user value,
which are proposed as important elements for UX of
mobile phones and services, may not be main factors
in other types of products. For example, for UX of
automobiles, safety, and fuel efficiency can be more
12 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
Park, Han, Kim, et al.
important factors than usability or affect. Bahn, Lee,
Nam, and Yun (2009) developed material, elasticity,
harmony, shape, and color as influential factors to eval-
uate a car crash pad. At a glance, those are quite differ-
ent from elements and subelements of UX for mobile
phones and services.
In other words, the UX elements and their subele-
ments developed in this study can only be applicable
to evaluate mobile phones and services. A prototype
implemented in the process of developing a new mo-
bile product or service can be evaluated by investigating
how latent customers can be satisfied in terms of UX el-
ements. Of course, the UX concept cannot account for
every phenomenon, but it gives us more information
that was not reported by existing theories, including
affect and usability engineering.
In addition, among the UX elements or subelements,
correlation or causation can exist. First, they are not
expected to be mutually exclusive of each other. The re-
lationship among the constructs highly relies on how
they would be defined. Picard (1995) considered plea-
sure and joy, which are classified into user value in
this study, as an affective state. Besides, Han et al.
(2001) included image or impression as well as perfor-
mance in “usability.”. In this way, although correlations
among constructs were not investigated systematically,
elements of UX can be correlated. For instance, sim-
plicity belongs to both “usability” and “affect” in this
study. Second, UX elements and subelements may have
cause-effect relationships. The Rokeach Value Survey
(RVS) defined terminal values as desirable end-states
of existence, which included friendship, mature love,
self-respect, and happiness (Rokeach, 1973). Rokeach’s
terminal values seem to be similar to “user value” de-
fined in this study. We may naturally think that user
value is a consequence of usability or affect. This cause-
effect relation may be examined in future work.
7. CONCLUSION
UX is concerned with experience that occurs when
a user interacts with a product or service. Many re-
searchers and practitioners agree that UX includes all
aspects of users’ interaction, but experience without
product or service should be excluded. Using a litera-
ture survey, in-depth interview, and indirect observa-
tion, which represent academia, industry, and end-user
perspectives, respectively, this study developed three
DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Park, Han, Kim, et al.
main elements of UX (i.e., usability, affect, and user
value) and their subelements.
The literature survey played a key role in developing
the elements, while the results of the interview and ob-
servation were used as supplementary tools to augment
any new ideas to the initial concepts developed by the
literature survey. Nevertheless, the in-depth interview
has significantly contributed to confirm the elements
of UX and to set bounds to UX. The indirect observa-
tion has played an important part to elicit subelements
of user value.
The proposed hierarchical structure of UX is ex-
pected to contribute to the process of designing mobile
phones and services. In addition, more effort could also
be dedicated to developing measurement methods for
each element and subelement of UX. Afterward, the
measured structure might be tested by various tech-
niques such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in
future studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by Mid-career Researcher
Program through the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Ed-
ucation, Science and Technology (MEST) (No. 2010-
0000364).
References
Aaker, D. A. (1997). Should you take your brand to where
the action is? Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 135–142.
Ahn, J., Lee, J., Lee, J. D., & Kim, T. Y. (2006). An analysis of
consumer preferences among wireless LAN and mobile
internet services. ETRI Journal, 28(2), 205–214.
Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience: Defining the cri-
teria for effective interaction design. Interactions, 3(3),
11–15.
Arhippainen, L., & Tähti, M. (2003). Empirical evaluation
of user experience in two adaptive mobile application
prototypes. Proceedings of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM
2003), Norrköping, Sweden, 27–34.
Bahn, S., Lee, C., Nam, C. S., & Yun, M. H. (2009). In-
corporating affective customer needs for luxuriousness
into product design attributes. Human Factors and Er-
gonomics in Manufacturing, 19(2), 105–127.
Battarbee, K. (2003). Defining co-experience. Proceed-
ings of the 2003 International Conference on Design-
ing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI 2003),
Pittsburgh, PA, 109–113.
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
User Experience Elements
Bennet, J. (1984). Managing to meet usability require-
ments: Establishing and meeting software develop-
ment goals. In J. Bennet, D. Case, J. Sandelin, & M.
Smith (Eds.), Visual display terminals: Usability issues
and Health Concerns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design:
Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Cakir, A. E. (2000). Improving the quality and usability
of everyday products: A case for report systems. Hu-
man Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10(1),
3–21.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing
things: Consumer response to the visual domain in
product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use, and user acceptance of information technol-
ogy. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems,
13(3), 319–339.
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product
experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–
66.
Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y., Herr, P. M., & Ijiri, Y. (1992).
Strategies for leveraging master brands: How to bypass
the risks of direct extensions. Marketing Research, 4(3),
32–43.
Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding expe-
rience in interactive systems. Proceedings of Designing
Interactive Systems (DIS 2004), Cambridge, MA, 261–
268.
Forlizzi, J., & Ford, S. (2000). The building blocks of
experience: an early framework for interaction design-
ers. Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems (DIS
2000), 419–423.
Han, S. H., & Hong, S. W. (2003). A systematic approach
for coupling user satisfaction with product design. Er-
gonomics, 46(13–14), 1441–1461.
Han, S. H., Kim, K. J., Yun, M. H., Hong, S. W., & Kim, J.
(2004). Identifying mobile phone design features criti-
cal to user satisfaction. Human Factors and Ergonomics
in Manufacturing, 14(1), 15–29.
Han, S. H., Yun, M. H., Kim, K. J., & Kwahk, J. (2000).
Evaluation of product usability: Development and val-
idation of usability dimensions and design elements
based on empirical models. International Journal of In-
dustrial Ergonomics, 26(4), 477–488.
Han, S. H., Yun, M. H., Kwahk, J., & Hong, S. W. (2001).
Usability of consumer electronic products. Interna-
tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(3–4), 143–
151.
Hassenzahl, M., & Roto, V. (2007). Being and doing: A
perspective on user experience and its measurement.
Interfaces, 72.
DOI: 10.1002/hfm 13
User Experience Elements
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User
experience—a research agenda. Behaviour and Infor-
mation Technology, 25(2), 91–97.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of plea-
sure in product design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157–
172.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.
(2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the
quality of everyday Life. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Hiltunen, M., Laukka, M., & Luomala, J. (2002). Mo-
bile user experience. Finland: IT Press, Helsinki,
Finland.
Hix, D., & Hartson, H. R. (1993). Developing user inter-
faces: Ensuring usability through product and process.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hong, S. W. (2005). A methodology for modelling and
analyzing user’s affective satisfaction toward consumer
electronic products. (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Pohang University of Science and Technology
(POSTECH), South Korea.
Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring consumer
perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfaction
and purchasability. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
manufacturing, 19(3), 223–240.
Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S. J., & Wieckowski, T. J. (1994).
The respective roles of perceived usefulness and per-
ceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer tech-
nology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 13(6),
349–361.
ISO 9241-11. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office
work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11:
Guidance on usability.
Jin, B. S., Ji, Y. G., Choi, K., & Cho, G. (2009). De-
velopment of a usability evaluation framework with
quality function deployment: From customer sensibil-
ity to product design. Human Factors and Ergonomics
in Manufacturing, 19(2), 177–194.
Kahle, L.R. (1983). Attitudes and social adaptation: a
person–situation interaction approach. London: Perg-
amon Press.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz,
N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for char-
acterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction
method. Science, 306. 1776–1780.
Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Martens, J.-
B. (2009). User experience over time: An initial frame-
work. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009),
Boston, MA 729–738.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and brand-
ing: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing
Science, 25(6), 740–759.
14 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
Park, Han, Kim, et al.
Krishnan, B., & Hartline, M. D. (2001). Brand equity:
Is it more important in services? Journal of Services
Marketing, 15(5), 328–342.
Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience:
A practitioner’s guide to user research. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann,.
Kuniavsky, M. (2007). User experience and HCI. In A.
Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer in-
teraction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technolo-
gies, and emerging applications (2nd ed.). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kwahk, J., & Han, S. H. (2002). A methodology for eval-
uating the usability of audiovisual consumer electronic
products. Applied Ergonomics, 33(5), 419–431.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experi-
ence sampling method. New Directions for Methodol-
ogy of Social and Behavioral Science, 15, 41–56.
Law, E.L-C., Roto V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P. O.
S., & Kort J. (2009). Understanding, scoping and defin-
ing user experience: a survey approach. Proceedings of
the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI 2009), Boston, MA 719–728.
Law, E.L-C., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., Kort, J., &
Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a shared definition of
user experience. CHI ’08 extended abstracts on human
factors in computing systems, 2395–2398, New York:
ACM. Florence, Italy.
Law, E.L-C., & Van Schaik, P. (2010). Modelling user expe-
rience: An agenda for research and practice. Interacting
with Computers, 22(5), 313–322.
Mäkelä, A., & Fulton Suri, J. (2001). Supporting users’
creativity: Design to induce pleasurable experiences.
Proceedings of International Conference on Affective
Human Factors Design, Singapore, 387–394.
Marcus, A. (2006). Cross-cultural user-experience design.
The International Symposium on Collaborative Tech-
nologies and Systems (CTS 2006), Las Vegas, NV.
Marcus, A., Ashley, J., Knapheide, C., Lund, A., Rosen-
berg, D., & Vredenburg, K. (2009). A survey of user-
experience development at enterprise software compa-
nies. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on Human Centered Design: Held as Part of HCI Inter-
national 2009, San Diego, CA 601–610.
McNamara, N., & Kirakowski, J. (2006). Functionality,
usability, and user experience: Three areas of concern.
Interactions, 13(6), 26–28.
Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: A new er-
gonomic consumer-oriented technology for product
development. International Journal of Industrial Er-
gonomics, 15(1), 13–24.
Nielsen Norman Group. 2010. User experience:
Our definition. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from
http://www.nngroup.com/about/userexperience.html
DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Park, Han, Kim, et al.
Picard, R. W. (1995). Affective computing. MIT Me-
dia Laboratory Technical Report No. 321 from
http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/95.picard.pdf
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New
York: Free Press.
Roto, V. (2006). Web browsing on mobile phones: Char-
acteristics of user experience. (Doctoral dissertation).
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.
Russel, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological
construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1),
145–172.
Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., & Lemon, K. N. (2004).
Customer-centered brand management. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 82(9), 110–118.
Savas, Ö. (2004). A perspective on person-product rela-
tionship: Attachment and detachment. In D. McDon-
agh, P. Hekkert, J. Van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and
emotion: The experience of everyday things. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Shackel, B. (1984). The concept of usability. In J. Bennet,
D. Case, J. Sandelin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Visual display
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
User Experience Elements
terminals: Usability issues and health concerns. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Strawderman, L., & Koubek, R. (2008). Human factors
and usability in service quality measurement. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18(4), 454–
463.
Swallow, D., Blythe, M., & Wright, P. (2005). Ground-
ing experience: Relating theory and method to evalu-
ate the user experience of smart phones, Proceedings
of the 2005 Annual Conference on European Associ-
ation of Cognitive Ergonomics (EACE 2005), Chania,
Greece.
Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., & Hassenzahl, M.
(2008). Towards practical user experience evaluation
methods. Proceedings of the 5th COST294-MAUSE
Open Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful
User Experience Measurement (VUUM 2008), Reyk-
javik, Iceland.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.
DOI: 10.1002/hfm 15