From the Definition of User Experience to a Framework to Classify Its Applications in Design

Abstract

The concept of User Experience (UX) dates back to the 1990s, but a shared definition of UX is not available. As design integrates UX, different interpretations thereof can complicate the possibility to build upon previous literature and develop the field autonomously. Indeed, by analysing the literature, UX emerges as a cauldron of related and closely linked concepts. However, it is possible to find recurring attributes that emerge from those definitions, which are ascribable to two foci: the fundamental elements of the interaction (user, system, context) and typologies of experience (ergonomic, cognitive, and emotional). Those are used to build a framework. We have preliminarily investigated how UX is dealt with in design by mapping a sample of UX-related experimental articles published in design journals. We classified UX case studies based on the framework to individuate the UXs that emerge most frequently and the most studied ones in the design field. The two-focus framework allows the mapping of experiments involving UX in design, without highlighting specific favorable combinations. However, comprehensive studies dealing with all elements and UX typologies have not been found.

Towards the conceptual design of ML-enhanced products: the UX value framework and the CoMLUX design process

“…(2) We conclude typical UX values of ML-enhanced products. Prior work has summarized different types of UX in general settings (Berni and Borgianni, 2021) or based on a certain technology (Jenson, 2017). However, the unique UX values brought by ML have not been systematically clarified.…”

Fundamentals and issues of user experience in the process of designing consumer products

“…It is also worth noting that ‘comprehensiveness’ does not undergo the same classification criteria of the other classes. Berni & Borgianni (2021a) listed all the UX key components (user, system, context) and UX dimensions (affective, cognitive, ergonomic) targeted in each contribution to assess the comprehensiveness of UX in the studies. The following aspects have been considered for the identification of the key components. ‘User’: the paper focuses on users, their needs and expectations; it follows the UCD approach; it considers user knowledge, background and behaviour; it involves users in co-design sessions and evaluations; it is based on customisation or personalisation. ‘System’: the paper focuses on new product development processes; it describes product features, appearance and aesthetics; it is based on product assessment or product re-design. ‘Context’: the paper focuses on the cultural meaning and the circumstances taking places during an interaction; it considers the context as an environmental phenomenon and/or temporal aspect investigating UX over time.…”

“…It is also worth noting that 'comprehensiveness' does not undergo the same classification criteria of the other classes. Berni & Borgianni (2021a) listed all the UX key components (user, system, context) and UX dimensions (affective, cognitive, ergonomic) targeted in each contribution to assess the comprehensiveness of UX in the studies. The following aspects have been considered for the identification of the key components.…”

“…A considerable shortcoming is the frequent failure to analyse the holistic quality of UX (Satti et al 2019; Hussain, Mkpojiogu, & Husin 2021). In other words, scholars recognise the complexity and multifaceted nature of UX, but then they tend to focus on a few particular elements only (Berni & Borgianni 2021a). Such elements are identified but seldom studied comprehensively (Hussain, Mkpojiogu, & Husin 2021).…”

Retrospective Coding of the Ux Design Process for Ux Design Enhancement in Design Agencies

“…The third one contains models emphasizing the temporal dimensions of the experiences, such as before/during and after interaction, and/or short and long term (Forlizzi and Ford, 2000;Pohlmeyer et al, 2009;Von Saucken and Gomez, 2014). Models offering a synthetic view of UX from literature reviews constitute the fourth family (Berni and Borgianni, 2021;Ortiz Nicolás and Aurisicchio, 2011). Finally, the last family contains models centred on human (Bongard, 2013;Fokkinga et al, 2020;Peruzzini et al, 2017), from several points of view (psychologic, ergonomic, behavioural).…”