Joy Robinson
ABSTRACT
Defining the boundaries of a discipline is important work for helping others discover new avenues of research. In this research report, we share two new dimensions from an analysis of over 400 empirical user experience (UX) studies published between 2000 and 2016. The findings of this comprehensive examination reveal patterns within the researcher's methodological choices and artifacts of study across different countries and disciplines. Our research questions were: 1) Does the researcher's region (continent) affect the method(s) or artifacts(s) studied? 2) Does the researcher's disciplinary identity impact their choice of method and sample size? This research reveals future avenues for examination and helps UX researchers consider new opportunities on the horizon.
- E. Law, P. van Schaik, and V. Roto, "Attitudes Towards User Experience (UX) Measurement," vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 526--541, Jun. 2014.Google Scholar
- J. A. Bargas-Avila and K. Hornbæk, "Old Wine in New Bottles or Novel Challenges: A Critical Analysis of Empirical Studies of User Experience," New York, New York, USA, 2011, p. 2689. Google ScholarDigital Library
- "UX Mastery," UXmastery.com, 25-Feb-2017. {Online}. Available: http://uxmastery.com/resources/ux-degrees/. {Accessed: 25- Feb-2017}.Google Scholar
- R. Alves, P. Valente, and N. J. Nunes, "The State of User Experience Evaluation Practice," presented at the 8th Nordic Conference, New York, New York, USA, 2014, pp. 93--102. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Robinson, C. Lanius, R. Weber, "The Past, Present, and Future of UX Empirical Research," Communication Design Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1--15, Oct. 2017. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Roto, E. Law, A. Vermeeren, and J. Hoonhout, "User Experience White Paper," 2011.Google Scholar
- E. Law, V. Roto, M. Hassenzahl, A. Vermeeren, and J. Kort, "Understanding, Scoping and Defining User Experience: A Survey Approach," presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, New York, USA, 2009, pp. 719--728. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Lallemand, G. Gronier, and V. Koenig, "User Experience: A Concept Without Consensus? Exploring Practitioners' Perspectives Through an International Survey," CHB, vol. 43, pp. 35--48, Feb. 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Ketola and V. Roto, "Exploring user experience measurement needs," Open Workshop on Valid Useful User Experience, 2008.Google Scholar
- A. Vermeeren, E. Law, V. Roto, M. Obrist, J. Hoonhout, and K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, User Experience Evaluation Methods: Current State and Development Needs. New York, New York, USA: ACM, 2010, pp. 521--530. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Gerea and V. Herskovic, Measuring User Experience in Latin America: An Exploratory Survey. New York, New York, USA: ACM, 2015, pp. 19--4.Google Scholar
- A. Gross and S. Bongartz, Why Do I Like It?: Investigating the Product-Specificity of User Experience. New York, New York, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 322--330. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. L. Scapin, B. Senach, B. Trousse, and M. Pallot, "User Experience: Buzzword or New Paradigm?," Jan. 2012.Google Scholar
- C. J. Hooper and A. Dix, "Web Science and Human-Computer Interaction: When Disciplines Collide,"WebSci '12, pp. 128--136, Jun. 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. A. Bargas-Avila and K. Hornbæk, "Foci and Blind Spots in User Experience Research," interactions, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 24--27, Nov. 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Khabsa and C. L. Giles, "The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web," PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. e93949--6, May 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- "About Google Scholar." Google Inc., pp. 1--2, 19-Feb-2017.Google Scholar
- A. W. Harzing, "A Longitudinal Study of Google Scholar Coverage Between 2012 and 2013," Scientometrics, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 565--575, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. A. M. Prins, R. Costas, T. N. van Leeuwen, and P. F. Wouters, "Using Google Scholar in Research Evaluation of Humanities and Social Science Programs: A Comparison with Web of Science Data," Research Evaluation, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 264--270, Aug. 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Martin-Martin, E. Orduna-Malea, and A. W. Harzing, "CanWe Use Google Scholar to Identify Highly-Cited Documents?," Journal of Informetrics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 152--163, 2017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J.-F. Gehanno, L. Rollin, and S. Darmoni, "Is the Coverage of Google Scholar Enough to Be Used Alone for Systematic Reviews," BMC medical informatics and decision making, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1--5, 2013.Google Scholar
- J. Nielsen, "How Many Test Users in a Usability Study?," nngroup.com, Jun-2012. {Online}. Available: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/. {Accessed: 27-Feb-2017}.Google Scholar
Recommendations
The past, present, and future of UX empirical research
Rethinking UX requires mapping trends in empirical research to find out how the field has developed. This study addresses that need by analyzing over 400 academic empirical studies published between 2000--2016. Our research questions are, "How have the ...
Determining and validating smart TV UX factors: A multiple-study approach
Highlights- We identified a comprehensive set of smart TV UX factors via think-aloud and diary studies.
AbstractTelevision (TV) remains one of the most important media channels in our daily lives. Smart TVs support highly interactive functions between the TV and users, offer Internet connections, and run various applications. Compared with ...
UX trek: a post-interaction journey from immersive experience logs
IHC '20: Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing SystemsUser Experience (UX) is a holistic attribute focused on the quality of user-product interaction. However, the technology evolution in different contexts has not imposed limits on user-product interactions. For instance, in immersive technologies, the ...
Comments