Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Process Reference Model for UX

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2019)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1182))

Abstract

We propose a process reference model for UX (UXPRM), which includes a description of the primary UX lifecycle processes within a UX lifecycle and a set of supporting UX methods. The primary UX lifecycle processes are refined into objectives, outcomes and base practices. The supporting UX methods are refined into related techniques, specific objectives and references to the related documentation available in the literature. The contribution of the proposed UXPRM is three-fold: conceptual, as it draws an accurate picture of the UX base practices; practical, as it is intended for both researchers and practitioners and customizable for different organizational settings; methodological, as it supports researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions while selecting UX methods and techniques. This is a first step towards the strategic planning of UX activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anderson, E., Lim, S.Y., Joglekar, N.: Are more frequent releases always better? Dynamics of pivoting, scaling, and the minimum viable product. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anthony, E.M.: Approach, method and technique. Engl. Lang. Teach. 17(2), 63–67 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XVII.2.63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnowitz, J., Arent, M., Berger, N.: Effective Prototyping for Software Makers. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bargas-Avila, J., Hornbæk, K.: Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges? A critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2689–2698 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979336. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1978942.1979336

  5. Bevan, N.: Classifying and selecting UX and usability measures. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement, vol. 11, pp. 13–18 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J.: Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-095811-5.X5000-7. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1051866

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Braga Sangiorgi, U.: A method for prototyping graphical user interfaces by sketching on multiple devices. Ph.D. thesis, UCL-Université Catholique de Louvain (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brhel, M., Meth, H., Maedche, A., Werder, K.: Exploring principles of user-centered agile software development: a literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 61 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Thevenin, D., Limbourg, Q., Bouillon, L., Vanderdonckt, J.: A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interact. Comput. 15, 289–308 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Card, S.K., Newell, A., Moran, T.P.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carter, S., Mankoff, J.: When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2005, pp. 899–908. ACM, New York (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055098. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1054972.1055098

  12. Chapman, L., Plewes, S.: A UX maturity model: effective introduction of UX into organizations. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014. LNCS, vol. 8520, pp. 12–22. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07638-6_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooke, N.J.: Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 41(6), 801–849 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1006/IJHC.1994.1083. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1071581984710834

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Crandall, B., Klein, G., Klein, G.A., Hoffman, R.R.: Working Minds: A Practitioner’s Guide to Cognitive Task Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. da Silva, T.S., Silveira, M.S., Maurer, F.: Usability evaluation practices within agile development. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 5133–5142, March 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.607

  16. Daae, J., Boks, C.: A classification of user research methods for design for sustainable behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 106(Complete), 680–689 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M.: Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In: Proceedings of the 16th Australian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2005). Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Earthy, J.: Usability maturity model: human centredness scale. INUSE Proj. Deliv. D 5, 1–34 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Earthy, J., Sherwood-Jones, B.: Human factors integration capability maturity model-assessment model. In: Presented at Human Interfaces in Control Rooms, pp. 320–326. IET (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Forbrig, P., Herczeg, M.: Managing the agile process of human-centred design and software development. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 15), pp. 223–232. ACM, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fowler Jr., F.J.: Survey Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garcia, A., da Silva, T.S., Selbach Silveira, M.: Artifacts for agile user-centered design: a systematic mapping. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 5859–5868 (2017). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.706, http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41870

  23. Ghaoui, C.: Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction. IGI Global, Hershey (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  24. HIMSS Usability Task Force: Promoting usability in health organizations: initial steps and progress toward a healthcare usability maturity model. Health Information and Management Systems Society (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J.B., Wood, S.: Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  26. ISO 13407:1999: Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  27. ISO 21500:2012: Guidance on project management. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  28. ISO 24744:2014: Software engineering – Metamodel for development methodologies. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  29. ISO 9241-210:2019: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  30. ISO 9241-220:2019: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 220: Processes for enabling, executing and assessing human-centred design within organizations. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  31. ISO/IEC 15504: Information technology – Process assessment. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  32. ISO/IEC 33004:2015: Information technology – Process assessment – Requirements for process reference, process assessment and maturity models. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. ISO/TR 18529:2000: Ergonomics – Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Human-centred lifecycle process descriptions. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  34. ISO/TS 18152:2010: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Specification for the process assessment of human-system issues. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. John, B.E., Kieras, D.E.: The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 3(4), 320–351 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1145/235833.236054. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/235833.236054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jokela, T.M.: Assessment of user-centred design processes as a basis for improvement action: an experimental study in industrial settings. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oulu (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Khan, V.J., Markopoulos, P., Eggen, B., IJsselsteijn, W., de Ruyter, B.: Reconexp. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI 2008, p. 471. ACM Press, New York (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1409240.1409316. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1409240.1409316

  38. Kieffer, S.: ECOVAL: ecological validity of cues and representative design in user experience evaluations. AIS Trans. Hum. Comput. Interact. 9(2), 149–172 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kieffer, S., Batalas, N., Markopoulos, P.: Towards task analysis tool support. In: Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: The Future of Design, OzCHI 2014, pp. 59–68. ACM, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2686612.2686621. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2686612.2686621

  40. Kieffer, S., Rukonic, L., de Meerendré, V.K., Vanderdonckt, J.: Specification of a UX process reference model towards the strategic planning of UX activities. In: 14th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2019) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kieffer, S., Vanderdonckt, J.: Stratus: a questionnaire for strategic usability assessment. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 205–212. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lacerda, T.C., von Wangenheim, C.G.: Systematic literature review of usability capability/maturity models. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 55, 95–105 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lavrakas, P.J.: Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P., Kort, J.: Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: A survey approach. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, pp. 719–728. ACM, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813

  45. Law, E.L.C., Vermeeren, A.P., Hassenzahl, M., Blythe, M.: Towards a UX manifesto. In: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI... but not as we know it-Volume 2, pp. 205–206. BCS Learning & Development Ltd. (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Leavitt, M.O., Shneiderman, B.: Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 14(3–4), 463–488 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lim, Y.K., Stolterman, E., Tenenberg, J.: 2008 the anatomy of prototypes: prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 15(2) (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1375761.1375762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Losada, B., Urretavizcaya, M., Fernández-Castro, I.: A guide to agile development of interactive software with a “User Objectives”-driven methodology. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(11), 2268–2281 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.07.022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.07.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mackay, W.E., Ratzer, A.V., Janecek, P.: Video artifacts for design: bridging the gap between abstraction and detail. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, DIS 2000, pp. 72–82. ACM, New York (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347666. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/347642.347666

  51. Maguire, M.C.: Methods to support human-centred design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 55(4), 587–634 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0503. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1071581901905038

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Maguire, M., Bevan, N.: User requirements analysis: a review of supporting methods. In: Hammond, J., Gross, T., Wesson, J. (eds.) Usability. ITIFIP, vol. 99, pp. 133–148. Springer, Boston, MA (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35610-5_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Mahatody, T., Sagar, M., Kolski, C.: State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions. Int. J. Hum. Comput. 26(8), 741–785 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., Duvendack, M.: The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. J. Dev. Eff. 4(3), 445–455 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Marcus, A., Gunther, R., Sieffert, R.: Validating a standardized usability/user-experience maturity model: a progress report. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 104–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Markopoulos, P., Pycock, J., Wilson, S., Johnson, P.: Adept-a task based design environment. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 587–596. IEEE (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mayhew, D.J.: The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner’s Handbook for User Interface Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. McCurdy, M., Connors, C., Pyrzak, G., Kanefsky, B., Vera, A.: Breaking the fidelity barrier: an examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2006, pp. 1233–1242. ACM, New York (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124959. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1124772.1124959

  59. Militello, L., Hutton, R.: Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): a practitioner’s toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands. Ergonomics 41, 1618–1641 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398186108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mostafa, D.: Maturity models in the context of integrating agile development processes and user centred design. Ph.D. thesis, University of York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Mulder, S., Yaar, Z.: The User is Always Right: A Practical Guide to Creating and Using Personas for the Web. New Riders, Berkeley (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1993)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  63. Nielsen, J.: Corporate Usability Maturity: Stages 1–4. Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 1990, pp. 249–256. ACM, New York (1990). https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/97243.97281

  65. NNGroup.Com: Nielsen Norman Group (1998). https://www.nngroup.com/

  66. Patton, J., Economy, P.: User Story Mapping: Discover the Whole Story, Build the Right Product. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Softw. 10(4), 18–27 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Peres, A., da Silva, T., Silva, F., Soares, F., De Carvalho, C., De Lemos Meira, S.: AGILEUX model: towards a reference model on integrating UX in developing software using agile methodologies. In: 2014 Agile Conference, pp. 61–63. IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Raza, A., Capretz, L.F., Ahmed, F.: An open source usability maturity model (OS-UMM). Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(4), 1109–1121 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.018. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212000209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rieman, J.: The diary study: a workplace-oriented research tool to guide laboratory efforts. Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1993), pp. 321–326 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169255. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=169255

  72. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J.A., Humburg, J.: A toolkit for strategic usability: Results from workshops, panels, and surveys. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2000, pp. 337–344. ACM, New York (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332454. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/332040.332454

  73. Rukonić, L., Kervyn de Meerendré, V., Kieffer, S.: Measuring UX capability and maturity in organizations. In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds.) HCII 2019. LNCS, vol. 11586, pp. 346–365. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23535-2_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  74. Salah, D., Cairns, P., Paige, R.F.: A systematic literature review for Agile development processes and user centred design integration. The Agile & UCD Project View project Serious Games for Character Education View project. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601276

  75. Sauro, J., Johnson, K., Meenan, C.: From snake-oil to science: measuring UX maturity. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2017, pp. 1084–1091. ACM, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053350. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3027063.3053350

  76. Schaffer, E.: Institutionalization of Usability: A Step-by-Step Guide. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sousa, K.S., Vanderdonckt, J., Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Evaluating a graphical notation for modelling software development methodologies. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 23(4), 195–212 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2012.04.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2012.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Sward, D., Macarthur, G.: Making user experience a business strategy. In: Law, E., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Towards a UX Manifesto, vol. 3, pp. 35–40 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Theofanos, M.F.: Common industry specification for usabilty-requirements. Technical report, U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Trull, T.J., Ebner-Priemer, U.: Ambulatory Assessment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 9(1), 151–176 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Tsai, P.: A Survey of Empirical Usability Evaluation Methods, pp. 1–18 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Tullis, T., Albert, B.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analysing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2013). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415781-1.00007-8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124157811000078

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  83. van den Akker, J., Branch, R.M., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., Plomp, T.: Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Springer, Dordrecht (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  84. Tyne, S.: Corporate user-experience maturity model. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 635–639. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_74

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Vanderdonckt, J.: Visual design methods in interactive applications. In: Content and Complexity, pp. 199–216. Routledge (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Vasmatzidis, I., Ramakrishnan, A., Hanson, C.: Introducing usability engineering into the cmm model: an empirical approach. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 45(24), 1748–1752 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Vermeeren, A., Kort, J.: Developing a testbed for automated user experience measurement of context aware mobile applications. In: Law, E., Hvannberg, E.T., Hassenzahl, M. (eds.) User eXperience, Towards a Unified View, p. 161 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, NordiCHI 2010, pp. 521–530. ACM, New York (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868973. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1868914.1868973

  89. Walker, M., Takayama, L., Landay, J.A.: High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 46(5), 661–665 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204600513. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/154193120204600513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Mirbel, I., Poelmans, S.: Building a rationale diagram for evaluating user story sets. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, 1–12 August 2016 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2016.7549299

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Language and Communication, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Suzanne Kieffer, Luka Rukonić & Vincent Kervyn de Meerendré

  2. Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Jean Vanderdonckt

Authors
  1. Suzanne Kieffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luka Rukonić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Kervyn de Meerendré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean Vanderdonckt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne Kieffer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ana Paula Cláudio

  2. University of Rennes 1, Rennes, France

    Kadi Bouatouch

  3. University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

    Manuela Chessa

  4. Mines ParisTech, Paris, France

    Alexis Paljic

  5. Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden

    Andreas Kerren

  6. French Civil Aviation University (ENAC), Toulouse, France

    Christophe Hurter

  7. University Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France

    Alain Tremeau

  8. University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Giovanni Maria Farinella

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kieffer, S., Rukonić, L., Kervyn de Meerendré, V., Vanderdonckt, J. (2020). A Process Reference Model for UX. In: Cláudio, A., et al. Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications. VISIGRAPP 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1182. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41590-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41590-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41589-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41590-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation