1 Introduction

In the past, computer use was confined to the organizational environment and the performance of well-defined tasks. Nowadays, the omnipresent technology scene through ubiquitous and pervasive technologies has brought new forms of interaction. These interactions have become spontaneous and natural, in the sense of being infiltrated into the physical landscape. According to this new panorama, the concept of “enactive system” may be more appropriate to the current technological scenario. According to Kaipainen et al. [12], enactive systems are defined as computational systems made up of human and technological processes dynamically linked, i.e., forming loops of feedback using sensors and data analysis, allowing a perfect interaction between the human and the computer. This work is part of a project that explores the social nature of the mutual influences of interaction between people in the enactive cycle, we name socio-enactive systems [2]. Considering the new forms of interaction provided by this type of system, we argue that evaluation methods, especially those related to predefined tasks, are not enough for the current technological contexts. Invisibility of technology, the lack of conscious actions and the inclusion of technology in the user’s natural environments, create potential challenges, above all, for the evaluation of the user experience in those environments.

Despite the increased interest in User Experience (UX) assessment [24], few studies are directly related to the evaluation of UX with children [1, 22, 23]. In view of the increased use of technology by this audience, whether spontaneous or “invisible”, in this study we investigated the user experience of children aged 7 to 12 years old, who are treated at Sobrapar Hospital (Brazilian Society for Research and Assistance for Craniofacial Rehabilitation), interacting with socio-enactive artefacts. Two workshops were carried out in the study, with 6 children in each one, accompanied by their parents and some hospital professionals. The first workshop had as main objective to introduce the SOBRAPets (plush animals with some type of technology coupled) to the context of the hospital. One of the plush artefacts called Chico (a monkey) has the function of measuring the intensity of the hugs (hugmeter), through a pressure sensor. The intention was to convey affection through the hug. The other animals: an owl (corujita) with a camera coupled and communication via wifi with Chico, has the function of photographing hugs with greater intensity. The pictures taken are arranged in a display. The second workshop is an extension of the first, also held in Sobrapar aimed at introducing other Pets in communication (through the speech, also indicating the next steps of the activity) and among the children, encouraging the affection through the hug and the socialization.

Considering that positive emotions affect the interaction as a whole [8, 14], the evaluation with the children was done using the emoti-SAM [11] a pictographic instrument that uses emoticons to collect affective responses. The emoti-SAM consists of 15 emoticons, in three dimensions: pleasure, arousal, and dominance. In addition to the emoti-SAM, children were asked to draw about their experience in the workshop, considering that drawings have been used in several areas to capture feelings [5], besides being easily produced by children who are not proficient at writing and are usually accepted by children [15]. The parents/guardians and educational psychologists who also participated in the workshops, evaluated their experience through the AttrakDiff [10] that seeks to capture hedonic, pragmatic and attractiveness qualities of the experience.

For the second workshop, in addition to the emoti-SAM, an interview based on the Laddering technique [19] adapted to the children’s context was applied. In both workshops, aspects of ubiquitous, pervasive computing were present, and therefore, the socio-enactive aspects, through the use of the body during the interaction, and the change of the environment through these mutual dynamics.

The results showed that the use of the technology through the SOBRAPets positively affects the UX. One of the factors we believe to have led to the capture of experience is that in both scenarios participants were asked to take the experience as a whole into account, not focusing on a device alone. The triangulation of data through the use of three methods proved to be effective for evaluation in the situated scenarios.

In this paper, we describe in detail both the study scenarios, the methodology including the description of UX evaluation methods used, as well as the analysis and main results. The rest of this article is divided: Sect. 2 describes the workshops used in the experiments. Section 3 shows the methods and the results obtained. In Sect. 4 a discussion is made on the results obtained. Finally Sect. 5 presents the conclusions and future work.

2 The Workshops

The workshops were hosted by SOBRAPAR - Brazilian Society for Research and Assistance in Craniofacial Rehabilitation, the first workshop was held on June 18, 2018, in the hospital auditorium, in the morning, for approximately two hours. Six children, aged 7 to 12 years old, participated with the parents or guardians of each child and health professionals.

The purpose of the workshop was to present the SOBRAPets (stuffed animals incorporated with some type of technology) in the context of the hospital. The children who attended the workshop are treated at the hospital. In a room, previously prepared, several Pets were arranged, some with embedded technology and others not. Among those with technology were Chico and Corujita (See Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Chico and Corujita

Full size image

Chico is a plush monkey that has the function of measuring the intensity of the hugs (hugmeter), through a sensor; when embraced with little intensity, a sound message is emitted, requesting a stronger hug. Corujita is an owl-shaped plush animal with a small camera to take pictures of some activities, for example, when a strong hug in Chico is detected. With this situation, Corujita is notified and, in 4 s, takes a photo of what is watching. The photos are arranged on the TV screen, with an interface composed of the intensity of the hug and the last 17 pictures taken. In addition to the stuffed animals, hats representing different animals were distributed. Each child chose one of the hats to attend the workshop.

To contextualize and create a playful environment for the children, a story was told of how the SOBRAPets arrived at the hospital.

The workshop consisted of 4 steps:

  • Welcome: Contextualization of the project and what would be the proposal of the workshop. At this stage, the children’s parents and other participants signed the terms of consent and assent required to carry out the project.

  • Discovery: There was the delivery of caps (representing animals), the narrative of the introductory story, all the children were invited to embrace the SOBRAPets. This activity was intended to familiarize the children with the SOBRAPets and to satisfy their curiosity regarding the Pet that contained the technological devices.

  • Experimentation: Chico (who has the device that measures the intensity of the hug) was passing from child to child, arranged in a circle. So, they were invited to hug Chico if they wanted to. Depending on the intensity of the hug, a photo was taken by Corujita (Pet that contained a camera).

  • Reflection: At this point, the children were asked informally if they liked the activity, and if they liked the SOBRAPets.

Finally, there was the evaluation of the UX; in this workshop, three methods were used to evaluate the UX. AttrakDiff was used to evaluate the UX of the companions and health professionals present in the workshop, although they did not participate directly in the dynamics, we considered that they were participants in a certain way. The UX of the children was evaluated with emoti-SAM and by drawings made by the children.

The second workshop took place on October 8, 2018, at 7:30 am, in the Multimedia Room/Auditorium of SOBRAPAR. This date coincided with the children’s week (October 8–11), which somewhat favored the activity.

The dynamics of the workshop involved a narrative for liberating the Teddy (Bear) that was hidden in a box. For this, in each round the Chico (monkey) was passed between the children, and when the force of the hugs given to the Pet reached the maximum level, an emoji was displayed on the TV screen and lights on the Christmas tree lit a level of lamps. The child who was with Chico was supposed to perform a task, asked by Chico himself (e.g. hug your friend at left). The dynamics continue until all children have performed a task and all lamp levels have been lit. At this point, the Teddy was released from the box and the children received the reward, which would be the gifts under the tree.

The workshop started with the environment assembly and configuration of the technological artefacts and systems. After the assembly of the environment, there was the reception of the participants; at this stage, the researchers presented themselves and distributed the terms with consents necessary for the workshop. Then the children and companions had explained the dynamics of the workshop; the children were asked to sit in a circle shape on a carpet arranged in the room. One of the researchers explained the dynamics of the activity. At the end of the workshop, the UX evaluation of the children was carried out; a sheet of paper requesting responses from the children about what they liked the most in the workshop. In addition to the evaluation through the drawings, the Laddering interview was conducted.

3 Methods Used in the Evaluations

AttrakDiff

AttrakDiff, possibly one of the best-known user experience assessment methods [10], consists of a measuring instrument in the form of semantic differentials. It is composed of 28 items distributed in seven pairs whose poles are opposing adjectives (e.g., “Isolating - Connective” “Confused - Clear”, “Good - Bad”). Each pair of adjectives is ordered in a scale of intensity (Fig. 1). Each of the average values of a group of items creates value for pragmatic quality (PQ), hedonic quality (HQ) and attractiveness (ATT). The Pragmatic Quality Scale (PQ) has seven items each with bipolar “bases” that measure the pragmatic qualities of the product. This includes “bases” such as Technical - Human and Complicated - Simple. HQI has anchors like Alienating- Integrating and Cheap - Premium. HQS has anchors like Unimaginative - Creative. The Attraction Scale (ATT) with anchors like Ugly - Attractive and Bad - Good. The anchors are presented on a scale, ranging from −3 to +3, where zero represents the neutral value.

Emoti-SAM

The Emoti-SAM consists of 15 emoticons, representing the three dimensions: pleasure, arousal, and dominance. Each line represents a dimension with 5 emoticons that vary in a scale of 5 points, going from the most positive to the most negative - or the opposite, for the dominance dimension. In the dimension of pleasure, the most positive option is the happy face with the thumb up, while the more negative portrays a rabid face with the thumb down. In the excitement dimension, the most positive choice portrays a happy face with hearts and bulbs around representing excitement and inspiration; the most negative response brings a face with closed eyes, simulating someone sleeping or bored. In the dimension of the dominance, the representation sought to translate the sense of dominance in the sense of ease and mastery of the subject (Emoticon representing intelligence, with graduation hat) or difficulty of use (Confused Emoticon) [11].

Laddering

The technique of ladder interviews has its origin in the theory of means and ends proposed by Gutman [18]. This theory is based on the premise that people choose products because they have appropriate attributes, these would be the means. Means would be the way they would achieve the goals that would be the ends. In other words, the choice of products by users depends on how they perceive the attributes as more likely to achieve the desired consequences, which represent individual values. Thus, in general, the means-to-purpose theory consists of Attributes (A), Consequences (C) and Values (V) [18]. Concrete attributes are the perceptible aspects of a product, for example, size and color. Abstruse attributes are the intangible characteristics of a product, such as style. The attributes remain invariant while the consequences are dependent on the individual judgment of the user, they are due to the interaction. Finally, the values refer to personal values rather than the characteristics of the product, for example, “Why it is important to treat people well”. The consequences are classified as Functional Consequences (FC) and Psychosocial (PSC), and Values are Instrumental Values (IV) and End Values (TV). The functional consequences are related to the use of a product or service, for example, “Because of the bad animals talk”. The psychosocial ones go beyond the use and are related to the social or psychological level. For example, “Why pets teach me something.” Instrumental or terminal values to the individual benefits of the interaction [18]. The Laddering technique [19] uses this theory. The basic feature of a ladder interview is that the discussion begins with concrete features of the product and evolves to a more abstract level. In this way, the topic of conversation evolves naturally. This in-depth interview technique is based on repeating the question, “Why is this important to you?”

One of the motivations for using Laddering in UX evaluations is because the technique is based on the values, Cockton [4]. In addition, Laddering is a method that corresponds well to the ISO conception of User eXperience. We consider that the UX has a subjective nature and, therefore, corroborates with the methodology of the technique Laddering that seeks to analyze experiences of people based on self-reports and, therefore, loaded with frank perceptions about the evaluations.

When using the Laddering technique, we try to understand if the presence of the plush in the routine of the children who attend the hospital conveys some kind of affection. In addition, we seek to understand if the technique can capture aspects of the children’s experience with the workshop. The interview questions were: 1. Did you like the Workshop (Activity)? 2. What did you like most? 2.1. Why did you like it? 3. Did you like animals? 3.1 Why did you like them?

Drawing

One of the methods used to evaluate the experience with children is their drawing [22]. This method is suitable for young children because when drawing, children are relaxed and generally do not consider it a task or a duty, but a fun. Children’s drawings incorporate a variety of information about the child and their experience [17]. Xu et al. [23] argue that children’s drawings are reliable, especially by the fun factor. The same authors argue that the use of drawings in evaluating technologies for children is effective because they can produce drawings even if they are not able to write proficiently. They can also capture some of the user experiences in a way that cannot be easily expressed in words.

In this context, the drawing is examined by “things” that convey understandings of a situation. As a child-centered assessment tool, they can be advantageous as they are: attractive and universal activities, easily produced by children, in addition to diminishing the insecurity of verbal communication as pointed by Xu et al. [23].

Drawings have been used in several contexts and can be used as research methods [7]. Children learn very early to express themselves through drawings, even before writing. Drawings can be used to clarify ideas as well as to encourage discussion. However, drawing alone is not enough as a research method, it must be complemented [9, 16]. However, we believe that drawings can be used to capture the experiences of children, because of the subjectivity of the experience and the spontaneity of the drawings. In addition, we consider that emotional factors are essential to the experience as well as its evaluation. Authors Kearney and Hyle [13] have identified some benefits in using drawings to investigate emotional aspects. 1. Drawings reveal emotional aspects that would not be included in communication in words; 2. Focus on the participant and consequently on individual aspects; 3. The lack of limitation in the drawings provides freedom of expression to the participants; 4. The use of drawings is suitable for data triangulation when used in addition to other research tools.

4 Results

In this section we present the methodologies and the results of the methods used to evaluate the UX in this work.

4.1 AttrakDiff Procedure and Results

The AttrakDiff was used to evaluate the UX of the participants of Workshop 1. The method used here was adapted, the adaptation consisted of the reduction of pairs of words considered inappropriate to the context and the translation into the Portuguese language. In addition, the mode of application was changed to pen and paper, so that people would respond soon after the workshop so that the impressions were not lost. Then the data collected was inserted into the online tool for generating graphical results (http://attrakdiff.de/). This questionnaire has already been used successfully in [3].

AttrakDiff Results

AttrakDiff works with pairs of words in a seven-level semantic differential. Having the center point with a score of 0, the values positioned to the right are scored as 1, 2, and 3, and the values punctuated to the left as −1, −2, and −3.

The results are presented through the Word Pairs Diagram (Fig. 2 located to the left of the figure) and the Results Portfolio (located to the right of the figure). Regarding the User Experience, the Word Pairs Diagram demonstrates that the line formed by the bonding of the blue dots is located significantly to the right, which indicates an excellent experience. The graph shows for the Hedonic Quality - identity (HQ-I), in the items (separates me, brings me closer), all the voters chose “bring me Closer”; this shows that the workshop had high hedonic qualities. The users’ perception about attractiveness (ATT), presented all the items positioned to the right of the line with highlight to the adjectives (good - bad) all considered the experience as good. In general, it was considered quite attractive.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Word pairs diagrams and AttrakDiff results portfolio

Full size image

The Results Portfolio (located to the right of this figure) shows the positioning of the mean values of the dimensions: Pragmatic Quality, and Hedonic Quality. The representation of Hedonic Quality values is done vertically, and those of Pragmatic Quality horizontally. The workshop experience was evaluated as desired. In terms of pragmatic quality, the experience was evaluated positively. As far as hedonic quality is concerned, the results show that users are significantly stimulated by the novelty of the product.

4.2 Emoti-SAM Procedure and Results

The evaluation with the emoti-SAM was performed after the workshops. The emoticons were printed on paper and were arranged in a wooden box with places for each emoticon. Participants were invited to choose one or more “face” or emoticon that represented their overall experience with the workshop, to put it in a closed box.

Emoti-SAM Results

Workshop 1: The figures entered in the closed box were counted manually, all the children who participated in the workshop chose an emoticon (Fig. 3 left image).

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Emoti-SAM results

Full size image

We collected 6 emoticons, one of which belongs to the pleasure dimension, with the second most positive response, the smiling face. In the excitement dimension, an emoticon was selected, this being the most positive response, i.e. the face with drawings of hearts and bulbs around. For the dimension of the domain an emoticon, similarly the most positive response, the face with graduation hat. In addition, a smiley emoticon, which belongs to the dimensions of pleasure and dominance was chosen. All collected emoticons are positive; these results suggest that the children had a pleasant experience, which provoked affective responses notably positive.

Workshop 2: Similarly to the previous workshop, we asked each child to choose an emoticon that most represented their experience with the workshop. However, more than one emoticon per child was chosen, this demonstrates the excitement of the children during their choice. In this workshop 19 emoticons were collected of which six belong to the pleasure dimension, with the most positive response and two emoticons that is the second most positive face. Nevertheless, an emoticon that represents sleep or fatigue was also found. In the excitation dimension, four emoticons were chosen, the latter being the most positive response and a happy face, the second face being more positive. For the dimension of the dominance, four emoticons were chosen, these being the most positive answers. In the same way, we can say that the workshop aroused positive emotional reactions in children (Fig. 3 right image).

4.3 Drawings Procedures and Results

In the first workshop, a paper sheet organized in two parts was delivered to the children; in one part we suggested that the children draw themselves and in the other half draw what they liked in the workshop.

In the room where the workshop took place, there was a table, in which colored pencils and the forms (sheet with white space for drawing) were available. The children could draw and they seemed willing and interested in the drawings.

In the second workshop, the children were invited to draw what they liked most in the workshop. It was delivered a blank sheet with the words “Draw what you liked in the workshop”.

Drawing Results

The first step in the analysis of the drawings was to interpret participants’ responses and identify trends and categories. To evaluate the results, the drawings were quantified and analyzed by the authors. Aspects such as color, repetition, textual representation and self-representation were analyzed.

Regarding the choice of colors, it can reveal the mood and personality of the children [6]. For example, the drawings made by the children participating in the workshop had a great concentration of colors, suggesting that the children were concentrated and excited.

The evaluation of the drawings can also be made through the repetition of forms and details, these can point to meanings. In the workshops, the plush was portrayed by six children. This indicates that they were important elements in the workshops. Farokhi et al. [6] stated that the drawings of young children are secondary, while the slightly older children the theme becomes more important. When a single symbol or theme appears repeatedly in a single drawing, it deserves attention, and there are cases where there are hidden meanings behind them. This is because Unconscious thoughts, feelings, and actions are the source root of symbols and themes [6].

In addition, to analyzing children’s drawings, it is important to consider the first impression that the drawing brings. The first feeling emphasized by the image should be saved for the final analysis. Sometimes there is the possibility that the first impression felt means that it was in close contact with the unconscious world [6]. Instead of focusing on finding symbols, it is a necessity to look at the image as a whole. The integrated whole is greater than the sum total of its parts. This is called the “pre-eminence of the whole.”

With regard to free design, the individual interests and needs of the child can be understood by the chosen themes. For example, in our work, we aimed to analyze the children’s UX in the workshop. For this we asked the children to draw what they liked the most in the workshop, at no time was imposed or suggested what the children should draw.

In the first workshop, the children were asked to draw themselves and what they liked the most in the workshop. All the children made drawings, the drawings were quantified and analyzed. In total, three designs by Chico and Ted, this shows that they were important to children during the workshop.

Other elements were also found, such as sun, clouds, and rainbows. Concerning the request that the children should draw themselves, four of the six children designed themselves without the use of the characterization made by the hats¿ delivered at the beginning of the workshop. Two children were drawn with this characterization. Two children were designed completely as the pet to which they wore the cap, this fact may suggest that the children strongly identified with the characterization. In the second workshop, it was suggested that the children draw what they liked best in the workshop. Four of the six children designed Chico, Ted was represented 3 times. The gifts under the tree were drawn three times, and the tree three times too. Two children designed themselves, one of them was designed in the workshop, with the Christmas tree, presents, and panettones; the self-representation of the children may be related to acceptance of their own appearance. Some children wrote “Merry Christmas” texts in their drawings, this may be due to the theme of the workshop, or the time when it was done. Five children wrote their own names on the sheet they drew. Some examples of children’s drawings are in the Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Collected drawings

Full size image

4.4 Laddering Methodology and Results

The interviews were conducted after the workshops. Each child was interviewed by an individual researcher in the same workshop environment as an informal and relaxed atmosphere. The researchers were instructed not to press and try to avoid biases. If the children did not wish to respond they would not be obliged.

The questions were directed to the workshop, with questions such as “did You like the Sobrapets (Pelucias)” and “Why did you like them”, in order to achieve levels of subjectivity relevant to the experience. Interviews lasted an average of 3 min per child. The interviews were carried out using the pen and paper method, the researchers who participated in the workshops asked the questionnaire questions individually to each child. The data were then independently analyzed by the authors for the purpose of identifying the elements (Attributes, Consequences, and Values).

Laddering Results

The analysis of interview data involves a qualitative and quantitative approach. Qualitative analyses are performed through the transcription of the elements (Attributes, Consequences, and Values). At this stage, the elements cited by the interviewees are coded. These elements emerge from the interviews, are categorized, and must have been cited by more than one user. Cross-referencing of qualitative data allows the collection of quantitative data.

Workshop 1: Six children answered, the first question in the interview is a direct question: Did you like the workshop? All the children answered “YES” to the question, some children answered in addition to the “Yes” or “No” answer and gave feedback like “I liked it a lot” and “I found it to be super cool”.

The responses were quantified and categorized in terms of Concrete Attributes, Abstract Attributes, Functional Consequences, Psychosocial Consequences, Instrumental Values (IV), Final Values (TV), according to Vanden and Zaman [20]. These categories were then quantified.

Five concrete attributes were collected, which usually describe the product, for example: “I like teddy bears that speak”. Five abstract attributes, which are impalpable attributes, for example: “Bugs are cute” which are characteristic of plush. In the same way, 5 functional consequences were collected: “Because the animals talk and we can hug”.

Six Psychosocial Consequences are those related to psychological aspects, for example, “I had a lot of fun with the animals”. Only one Instrumental Worth was found “Because I hug the little critters.”

Four Final Values were derived, for example: “He liked the monkey because he likes bananas”.

Workshop 2: Similarly to Workshop 1, six children attended the workshop and answered the interview, all of them answered “Yes” to the question of whether they liked the workshop. The evaluation criteria were the same as those of the previous workshop. They have derived six concrete attributes, such as: “I liked the tree”. Five abstract attributes, like those of the previous workshop, for example: “Ted and the little monkey are fluffy.” Three functional consequences, for example: “I liked the tree because it lights.”. Four Psychosocial Consequences “Because it is cool, and I can be accompanied by my colleagues.” Four Instructional Values were derived, (e.g., “I liked the little critters I hugged them”). And finally, three Final Values were collected, for example: (“I liked that embracing is cool”).

5 Discussion

UX assessment of children is a complex task, in part because of their subjectivity, partly because of the lack of specific methodologies for such assessments.

In this context, authors such as Jolley [17] argue that to suggest improvements in design regarding usability or user experience, care should be taken in drawing conclusions about children’s behaviors and reactions. One should always critically question whether children’s enthusiasm is actually caused by positive experience and not, for example, by the fact that, in general, people are more likely to report positive product emotions than negative emotions [17]. In this paper, we try to circumvent these prerogatives by adapting methods and procedures.

The AttrakDiff questionnaire, adapted to the context of the workshop, proved useful for evaluation. It brought positive results regarding interaction with the artifacts exposed and the use of the pen and paper model, different from the traditional online questionnaire, was effective because it promoted more spontaneity of the participants. The fact that the assessment was made immediately after the interaction also allowed the overall impression of the interaction not to be lost.

The evaluation of affective responses through emoti-SAM was also efficient to capture aspects of the children’s experience. The figures were easily understood by the children, with only a questioning about the emoticon with a hat. However, this did not cause any loss to the participants’ interpretation.

Regarding the evaluation of the experience through drawings, we sought to understand whether it was possible to evaluate the UX of children by means of drawings. We wondered whether the plushies of the workshops would wake the children emotionally and whether this would be captured by the drawings. The results showed that the drawings can be used as a research method and aid in the evaluation of UX, especially when corroborated by other methods. The use of UX evaluation drawings showed the following results: It helped create a relaxed and comfortable environment, improved communication between the researcher and the children, providing a deeper insight into the perspective of the children, likewise offered to children the possibility of expressing their personal experiences through the drawings.

With regard to the evaluation made through the interview based on the Laddering technique, both psychosocial aspects were detected in both workshops. Regarding the manifestation of social interaction, one of the children expressed it in his answer: “Because it is cool, and I can be accompanied by my colleagues”. Likewise, mood tendencies have been identified (e.g. “teddy bears are very funny”). Tendencies of affection have also been detected, (for example, “I loved the hugs”).

When using the Laddering technique, we tried to understand whether the presence of the plush in the routine of the children who attend the hospital conveys some kind of affection. Whether the technique is able to capture aspects of the children’s experience in the hospital context.

We asked ourselves whether the interview based on the ladder methodology would be able to capture aspects inherent to the user experience. The results of the interviews through the psychosocial consequences showed that key aspects of UX could be observed. With regard to the emotional aspects of the interaction, we in-tended that the hug stimulated by the dynamics of the workshop could provide affection and trust between the child and the “plush” objects.

Laddering data provided insight into children’s perceptions of the workshops, for example, which elements were the most relevant to them. In the initial dynamics it was proposed that through the hugs given in the pets, levels of the Christmas tree would be lit; however, only one of the children mentioned the lighting of the lamps and their relationship with the hugs. In fact, the tree was not their central object of attention.

In this study we could perceive the potential of the techniques to evaluate the UX of this audience. Although the original Laddering aims to perform a comparison between products, we believe that it is possible to apply the technique with a focus on interaction and experience.

Vanden and Zaman [20] argue that reaching the level of functional or psychosocial consequences already provides the UX evaluator with information about meaningful associations between the individual and the attributes of the product.

6 Conclusion

Contemporary scenarios of technology use (ubiquitous, pervasive) present several challenges in evaluating the user experience. This work sought to situate itself in this context, investigating and understanding how the user experience can be evaluated considering the new forms of interaction. Likewise, assessing UX for children is equally challenging, in part, due to the lack of adequate methods to obtain the data.

In this work two UX evaluation methods were used: the AttrakDiff, which seeks to evaluate hedonic, pragmatic and attractiveness qualities, considering that these aspects characterize a product or service. We also used Emoti-SAM, as we consider that affective aspects are relevant to the experience as a whole. Drawings were also used to capture the children’s UX, as we consider that drawings reveal emotional and individual aspects that would probably not be included in word communication. The Laddering interview was used because we understood that UX is subjective in nature and, therefore, the methodology of the Laddering technique that seeks to analyze the experiences of people based on self-reports might be helpful.

The results showed that adapted methods were able to capture essential aspects of children’s experience, such as emotion. We believe that the adaptation to the contexts of the case studies as well as the procedures used during the evaluation together with the fact that the evaluation was done immediately after the interaction prevented the aspects of the experience of being lost. The triangulation of the data through four methods proved to be effective for the evaluation of children’s UX.

In addition, the use of drawings for data collection was also useful, as they represent greater spontaneity on the part of the children, validating the emotional responses given by the children through Emoti-SAM and the interview Laddering.

Although AttrakDiff has closed questions, when used in conjunction with other methods, it has shown that the results obtained were consistent with the results of Emoti-SAM. We understand the challenges posed by UX’s assessment, especially when evaluating the experience of children with technology. Nevertheless, based on the results so far, we believe that the combination of methods explored in this work may be useful for evaluating UX in similar scenarios.

Future work involves extending the results of this study to the creation of a set of guides to evaluate UX in socio-enactive scenarios.