Ordinary User Experiences at Work

Abstract

We investigate professional greenhouse growers' user experience (UX) when using climatemanagement systems in their daily work. We build on the literature on UX, in particular UX at work, and extend it to ordinary UX at work. In a ten-day diary study, we collected data with a general UX instrument (AttrakDiff), a domain-specific instrument, and interviews. We find that AttrakDiff is valid at work; its threefactor structure of pragmatic quality, hedonic identification quality, and hedonic stimulation quality is recognizable in the growers' responses. In this paper, UX at work is understood as interactions among technology, tasks, structure, and actors. Our data support the recent proposal for the ordinariness of UX at work. We find that during continued use UX at work is middle-of-the-scale, remains largely constant over time, and varies little across use situations. For example, the largest slope of the four AttrakDiff constructs when regressed over the ten days was as small as 0.04. The findings contrast existing assumptions and findings in UX research, which is mainly about extraordinary and positive experiences. In this way, the present study contributes to UX research by calling attention to the mundane, unremarkable, and ordinary user experiences at work.

Measuring UX at Work: A Diary Study of Healthcare Workers Ordinary Experiences with mHealth Apps

“…As mentioned in section 3.1, the effect of HQI on ATT was about twice times compared to HQS, and it was not substantially different compared to PQ. The strong effect of HQI on ATT is in contrast with a previous study of UX at work (Clemmensen, Hertzum and Abdelnour-Nocera, 2020), which reports PQ had the stronger effect on ATT. Although authors hypothesised that PQ would have a stronger effect on ATT, they identified that the three AttrakDiff factors had similar effects on ATT (Schrepp, Held and Laugwitz, 2006).…”

“…However, despite the availability of numerous mHealth apps, their uptake among healthcare workers (HCWs) after download remains limited (Medhanyie et al, 2015). This is primarily due to poor user experience (UX), along with the challenge of integrating the app into HCWs' every-day working situations (Kujala et al, 2011;Clemmensen, Hertzum and Abdelnour-Nocera, 2020). User exp in the workplace, also known as UX at work, plays a critical role in determining the success of individuals' everyday use of work-place systems (Lu and Roto, 2016).…”

“…To achieve optimal effectiveness, mHealth apps must seamlessly fit into users' work-flows without disrupting their work (Farao et al, 2020). Understanding the everyday working situation of HCWs and involving them in the design process are key factors in creating apps that integrate well into their routines (Clemmensen, Hertzum and Abdelnour-Nocera, 2020). It is crucial to comprehend the psychological phenomena, including UX, that mediate between the digital workplace and the well-being and productivity of HCWs.…”

“…It examines both pragmatic aspects, such as the product's effectiveness and efficiency, and the hedonic qualities, which tough on the pleasure derived from product use, such as identification and stimulation (Hassenzahl, 2001;Hassenzahl, Kekez and Burmester, no date). However, while existing studies have applied AttrakDiff in varied settings (Neubert et al, 2018;Clemmensen, Hertzum and Abdelnour-Nocera, 2020), a distinct gap is evident: the specific experiences of HCWs in their workplace environment remain under-explored. This study aims to bridge the research gap by conducting a diary study that focuses on measuring the UX of HCWs utilising mHealth apps.…”

Everyday automation experience: a research agenda

“…In a sense, everyday automation is thus a strong driver for putting into practice the visions of "ubiquitous computing" [58,73], the "disappearing computer" [66], as well as ambient intelligence [10]. The ambient nature of automated systems and their interwovenness in mundane, repetitive routines also supports the ordinariness of the involved user experience [11,40]. Modern building management systems are a good example for underlying automation that frees users from complexity, but that can also be intransparent [1].…”