Extended Deadline for the Workshop on User Experience (NordiCHI'06)
Effie Law <[email protected]> Tue, 4 Jul 2006 11:31:27 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.hci.acm-sigchi.educators |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030408040208050105070606 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Colleagues, We would like to draw your kind attention to the following event: NordiCHI'06 Workshop #2 - User Experience (UX): Towards a Unified View, 14th October 2006 (Sat.), Oslo, Norway (http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/Default.aspx?ID=27). Marc Hassenzahl, a co-organizer of the workshop and an expert in UX, will present a keynote speech in the workshop. The submission deadline is extended to *29th July 2006*. Should you have any query, please feel free to contact us: - Effie Law ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) - Ebba Hvannberg ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) - Marc Hassenzahl ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) TITLE: User Experience - Towards a unified view (The Second COST294-MAUSE International Open Workshop) BASIC INFORMATION: One full day workshop will be held in conjunction with the international conference on human-computer interaction, NordiCHI 2006 (http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/) Date: October 14, 2006 (Saturday) Location: NordiCHI'06 conference venue, Oslo, Norway. Website: http://www.cost294.org/ EXPECTED NUMBER, BALANCE AND SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS: 25: academic researchers and practitioners in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Software Engineering (SE) The primary selection criterion is the quality of position papers, which can: * contribute to a deeper understanding of User Experience (UX), especially its determinants and their relationships with existing HCI approaches * stimulate participants to reflect on UX issues from inter-disciplinary perspectives * lay a ground for integrating existing schools of thought on UX * offer innovative and plausible methods to evaluate and measure UX attributes * augment the scope of UX on the social level WORKSHOP THEMES AND GOALS: Theorizing, Qualifying and Quantifying UX The conception of usability has been evolving, along with the emerging IT landscape and the ever-blurring boundary of the field of HCI. Specifically, the so-called user experience (UX) movement is gaining ground. The tenet of UX can be well captured by McCarthy and Wright's [8] words: "Today we don't just use technology, we live with it. Much more deeply then ever before we are aware that interacting with technology involves us emotionally, intellectually and sensually. So people who design, use, and evaluate interactive systems need to be able to understand and analyze people's felt experience with technology" UX is a broadly defined term, including attainment of behavioural goals, satisfaction of non-instrumental (or hedonic) needs, and acquisition of positive feeling and well-being. Neither a universal definition of UX nor a cohesive theory of experience yet exists that can inform the HCI community how to practically design for and evaluate UX. Traditional usability is characterized as task-oriented and performance-based. The three canonical usability metrics - effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction - basically address the instrumental and non-instrumental aspects of technology use. Satisfaction is a composite term, amalgamating a cluster of "felt experience" [8], and is measured in a coarse-grained manner. The current UX research efforts attempt to reduce the composite satisfaction into elemental attributes - fun, pride, pleasure, surprise, intimacy, joy, to name just a few - and thrive to understand, define and quantify such attributes. Hassenzahl and Tractinsky [7] describe the trend of work on UX, evolving from being programmatic in the 90s, conceptual in early 2000 to empirical in mid-2000. Apparently, the HCI community, to a large extent, has been convinced about the utility and necessity of looking into UX issues. In attempting to understand UX several approaches focusing on different aspects have been developed. Examples are: * Focus on emotions and affect (e.g. [4], [9]) * Focus on the Experiential (e.g., [5], [8]) * Focus on non-instrumental (hedonic) needs (e.g. [6]) * Focus on aesthetics (e.g. [11]) But even those approaches understand interactive products as primarily used for individual problem-solving. However, as software becomes more and more "social" UX has to address concomitant issues as well. Counter to the common understanding that experience is personal and private, it can be co-constructed and shared in social interaction [1,2], resulting in so-called "co-experience". The challenge is how to define, theorize, qualify and quantify co-experience, which is clearly not the sum of individual user experience. In a digital social network, confounding issues of context awareness, tele-presence and synchronization can aggravate the difficulty of such a challenge. Furthermore, recent research on quality models of user interfaces [12] indicates that a mesh of so-called non-functional quality factors (e.g. security, privacy/trust, consistency, accessibility) determines user acceptance. As they are closely coupled, addressing them in parallel may invoke tradeoffs (e.g. [3]). It may be helpful to relate quality attributes from distinct fields of human factors, usability and software engineering to explore overlaps and similarities. Theoretically UX is currently incoherent, methodologically UX is not yet mature either. Some critics even argue that non-instrumental needs are too fuzzy, elusive and idiosyncratic to operationalize (i.e. they are simply dismissed as intractable) and that experience and emotion are too ephemeral and complex to measure. Proponents of UX are more optimistic. First, within UX there seems a shared understanding that UX needs to clarify and operationalize constructs to be taken seriously within the context of SE or user-centred design. Second, at least some approaches to UX believe that with a proper definition come valid and reliable measures. The later requires the integration of the many facets of UX into a more unified view. We reached a point, where the pressing question is no longer whether we need UX or not. We need it and we must work on a shared understanding of what UX is and how it can be addressed by design, engineering and research. The goals of the present workshop are: * To critically review theoretical frameworks for deepening our understanding of UX * To explore means of how non-instrumental needs, affective requirements and experiential expectations can be translated into product quality * To examine potential and pitfalls of traditional and alternative evaluation methodologies for measuring UX Specifically, we address the aforementioned challenges with the following research questions: * Are UX elements tractable, quantifiable and measurable? Are we looking for more qualitative measures? How valid and reliable are existing UX evaluation methods? * What implications can we draw from UX research on the design and evaluation of social software? * How does UX influence tradeoffs within software design? How does UX relate to existing quality approaches in Software Engineering? SUBMISSION Position papers addressing the above arguments, aims, research questions or related ideas are invited. Theoretical expositions, empirical studies, case studies and experiential reports will be considered. Of particular interest is to envision the role of UX in emerging technologies with expected impact of 5-10 years and beyond. Position papers should be submitted to: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Important dates: July 29. 2006: Deadline for submission of position paper August 8. 2006: Authors of accepted position papers notified August 14. 2006: Early registration deadline Position papers may be from four to six pages long and should be formatted according to the ACM SIGCHI format (http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/Default.aspx?ID=18): Position papers should preferably be submitted as .rtf or .pdf files. All submitted papers will be reviewed by at least two program committee members. It is expected that at least one of the authors of each accepted position paper registers for the workshop. OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP: * Online/printed proceedings of the accepted position papers; * Special issue in a refereed HCI journal; * Joint research proposals INTENDED AUDIENCE: UI designers, usability researchers and practitioners, HCI students DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES PLANNED: i. Presentation: Top 10 quality position papers (~ 3.0 hours) ii. Panel discussion: A panel of UX experts will engage the floor audience in debating some controversial topics in UX (~ 1.5 hour) iii. Research proposal drafting: Participants will be divided into a few small groups to identify most significant research questions in UX that can be investigated in a large-scale research project (~ 1.0 hours) iv. Integration : Participants will be divided into a few small groups to identify ways to a more integrated approach to UX (~ 1.0 hours) v. Group reporting: Group leaders will report to the plenary their outcomes (~ 0.5 hour) ORGANISERS' NAMES AND BACKGROUNDS: Organizers: Effie L-C. Law, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Switzerland [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Ebba T. Hvannberg, University of Iceland, Iceland [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Marc Hassenzahl, Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Program Committee: * Mark Blythe, University of York, UK * Gilbert Cockton, University of Sunderland, UK * Antonella De Angeli, University of Manchester, UK * Asbjørn Følstad, SINTEF, Norway, * Kasper Hornbæk, University of Copenhagen, Denmark * Andrew Monk, University of York, UK * Mark Springett, Middlesex University, UK * Chris Stary, University of Linz, Austria * Noam Tractinsky, Ben Gurion University, Negev, Israel * Arnold P.O.S. Vermeeren, TU Delft, the Netherlands REFERENCES: [1] Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience. Interactions, 3, 11-15 [2] Battarbee, K. (2003). Defining co-experience. Proceedings of DPPI'03, June 23-26, Pittsburgh, USA. [3] Cranor, L.F., & Garfinkel, S. (2005). Security and usability. Cambridge: O'Reilly. [4] Desmet, P. M. A., Overbeeke, C. J., & Tax, S. J. E. T. (2001). Designing products with added emotional value: development and application of an approach for research through design. The Design Journal, 4, 32-47. [5] Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. Proceedings of DIS2004, August 104, Cambridge, MA, USA. [6] Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In M.Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (pp. 31-42). Dordrecht: Kluwer. [7] Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience - a research agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 91-97 [8] McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. C. (2004). Technology as Experience. MIT Press. [9] Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books. [10] Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20(5), 347-356. [11] Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127-145 [12] Vanderdonckt, J., Law, E. L-C., & Hvannberg, E.T. (2005). Proceedings of the First COST294 International Workshop on User Interface Quality Models. In conjunction with INTERACT 2005, 12-13th Sept 2005, Rome, Italy. --------------030408040208050105070606 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Dear Colleagues,<br> <br> We would like to draw your kind attention to the following event:<br> NordiCHI'06 Workshop #2 - User Experience (UX): Towards a Unified View, 14th October 2006 (Sat.), Oslo, Norway (<a href="http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/Default.aspx?ID=27">http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/Default.aspx?ID=27</a>).<br> <br> Marc Hassenzahl, a co-organizer of the workshop and an expert in UX, will present a keynote speech in the workshop. <br> <br> The submission deadline is extended to <b>29th July 2006</b>.<br> Should you have any query, please feel free to contact us: <br> - Effie Law (<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>)<br> - Ebba Hvannberg (<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>)<br> - Marc Hassenzahl (<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>)<br> <br> <p><span lang="EN-GB">TITLE: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">User Experience – Towards a unified view<span> </span> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">(The Second COST294-MAUSE International Open Workshop) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">BASIC INFORMATION: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">One full day workshop will be held in conjunction with the international conference on human-computer interaction, NordiCHI 2006 (<a href="http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/">http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/</a>) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Date: <span> </span>October 14, 2006 (Saturday) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Location: <span> </span>NordiCHI'06 conference venue, Oslo, Norway. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Website:<span> </span><a href="http://www.cost294.org/">http://www.cost294.org/</a> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">EXPECTED NUMBER, BALANCE AND SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">25: academic researchers and practitioners in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Software Engineering (SE) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">The primary selection criterion is the quality of position papers, which can: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* contribute to a deeper understanding of User Experience (UX), especially its determinants and their relationships with existing HCI approaches </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* stimulate participants to reflect on UX issues from inter-disciplinary perspectives </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* lay a ground for integrating existing schools of thought on UX </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* offer innovative and plausible methods to evaluate and measure UX attributes </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* augment the scope of UX on the social level </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">WORKSHOP THEMES AND GOALS: Theorizing, Qualifying and Quantifying UX </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">The conception of usability has been evolving, along with the emerging IT landscape and the ever-blurring boundary of the field of HCI.<span> </span>Specifically, the so-called user experience (UX) movement is gaining ground.<span> </span>The tenet of UX can be well captured by McCarthy and Wright’s [8] words: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">“Today we don't just use technology, we live with it. Much more deeply then ever before we are aware that interacting with technology involves us emotionally, intellectually and sensually. So people who design, use, and evaluate interactive systems need to be able to understand and analyze people's felt experience with technology” </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">UX is a broadly defined term, including attainment of behavioural goals, satisfaction of non-instrumental (or hedonic) needs, and acquisition of positive feeling and well-being. Neither a universal definition of UX nor a cohesive theory of experience yet exists that can inform the HCI community how to practically design for and evaluate UX. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>Traditional usability is characterized as task-oriented and performance-based. The three canonical usability metrics – effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction – basically address the instrumental and non-instrumental aspects of technology use. Satisfaction is a composite term, amalgamating a cluster of “felt experience” [8], and is measured in a coarse-grained manner. The current UX research efforts attempt to reduce the composite satisfaction into elemental attributes – fun, pride, pleasure, surprise, intimacy, joy, to name just a few - and thrive to understand, define and quantify such attributes. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>Hassenzahl and Tractinsky [7] describe the trend of work on UX, evolving from being programmatic in the 90s, conceptual in early 2000 to empirical in mid-2000. Apparently, the HCI community, to a large extent, has been convinced about the utility and necessity of looking into UX issues. In attempting to understand UX several approaches focusing on different aspects have been developed. Examples are: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Focus on emotions and affect<span> </span>(e.g. [4], [9]) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Focus on the Experiential (e.g., [5], [8]) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Focus on non-instrumental (hedonic) needs (e.g. [6]) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Focus on aesthetics (e.g. [11]) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">But even those approaches understand interactive products as primarily used for individual problem-solving. However, as software becomes more and more "social" UX has to address concomitant issues as well. Counter to the common understanding that experience is personal and private, it can be co-constructed and shared in social interaction [1,2], resulting in so-called “co-experience”. The challenge is how to define, theorize, qualify and quantify co-experience, which is clearly not the sum of individual user experience.<span> </span>In a digital social network, confounding issues of context awareness, tele-presence and synchronization can aggravate the difficulty of such a challenge. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>Furthermore, recent research on quality models of user interfaces [12] indicates that a mesh of so-called non-functional quality factors (e.g. security, privacy/trust, consistency, accessibility) determines user acceptance. As they are closely coupled, addressing them in parallel may invoke tradeoffs (e.g. [3]). It may be helpful to relate quality attributes from distinct fields of human factors, usability and software engineering to explore overlaps and similarities. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>Theoretically UX is currently incoherent, methodologically UX is not yet mature either. Some critics even argue that non-instrumental needs are too fuzzy, elusive and idiosyncratic to operationalize (i.e. they are simply dismissed as intractable) and that experience and emotion are too ephemeral and complex to measure. Proponents of UX are more optimistic. First, within UX there seems a shared understanding that UX needs to clarify and operationalize constructs to be taken seriously within the context of SE or user-centred design. Second, at least some approaches to UX believe that with a proper definition come valid and reliable measures. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>The later requires the integration of the many facets of UX into a more unified view. We reached a point, where the pressing question is no longer whether we need UX or not. We need it and we must work on a shared understanding of what UX is and how it can be addressed by design, engineering and research. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">The goals of the present workshop are: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* To critically review theoretical frameworks for deepening our understanding of UX </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* To explore means of how non-instrumental needs, affective requirements and experiential expectations can be translated into product quality </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* To examine potential and pitfalls of traditional and alternative evaluation methodologies for measuring UX<span> </span> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Specifically, we address the aforementioned challenges with the following research questions: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Are UX elements tractable, quantifiable and measurable? Are we looking for more qualitative measures?<span> </span>How valid and reliable are existing UX evaluation methods? </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* What implications can we draw from UX research on the design and evaluation of social software? </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* How does UX influence tradeoffs within software design? How does UX relate to existing quality approaches in Software Engineering? </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">SUBMISSION </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Position papers addressing the above arguments, aims, research questions or related ideas are invited. Theoretical expositions, empirical studies, case studies and experiential reports will be considered. Of particular interest is to envision the role of UX in emerging technologies with expected impact of 5-10 years and beyond. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Position papers should be submitted to: <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Important dates: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">July 29. 2006:<span> </span>Deadline for submission of position paper </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">August 8. 2006:<span> </span>Authors of accepted position papers notified </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">August 14. 2006:<span> </span>Early registration deadline </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Position papers may be from four to six pages long and should be formatted according to the ACM SIGCHI format (<a href="http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/Default.aspx?ID=18">http://nordichi.net.dynamicweb.dk/Default.aspx?ID=18</a>): </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Position papers should preferably be submitted as .rtf or .pdf files. All submitted papers will be reviewed by at least two program committee members. It is expected that at least one of the authors of each accepted position paper registers for the workshop. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP: <span> </span> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Online/printed proceedings of the accepted position papers; </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Special issue in a refereed HCI journal; </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Joint research proposals </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">INTENDED AUDIENCE: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">UI designers, usability researchers and practitioners, HCI students </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES PLANNED:<span> </span> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">i. Presentation: Top 10 quality position papers (~ 3.0 hours) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">ii. Panel discussion: A panel of UX experts will engage the floor audience in debating some controversial topics in UX (~ 1.5 hour) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">iii. Research proposal drafting: Participants will be divided into a few small groups to identify most significant research questions in UX that can be investigated in a large-scale research project (~ 1.0 hours) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">iv. Integration : Participants will be divided into a few small groups to identify ways to a more integrated approach to UX (~ 1.0 hours) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">v. Group reporting: Group leaders will report to the plenary their outcomes (~ 0.5 hour) </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">ORGANISERS' NAMES AND BACKGROUNDS:<span> </span> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Organizers: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Effie L-C. Law, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Switzerland </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Ebba T. Hvannberg, University of Iceland, Iceland </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Marc Hassenzahl, Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany, </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">Program Committee: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Mark Blythe, University of York, UK </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Gilbert Cockton, University of Sunderland, UK </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Antonella De Angeli, University of Manchester, UK </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Asbjørn Følstad, SINTEF, Norway, </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Kasper Hornbæk, University of Copenhagen, Denmark </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Andrew Monk, University of York, UK </span></p> <p><span lang="NO-BOK">* Mark Springett, Middlesex University, UK </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Chris Stary, University of Linz, Austria </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Noam Tractinsky, Ben Gurion University, Negev, Israel </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">* Arnold P.O.S. Vermeeren, TU Delft, the Netherlands </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">REFERENCES: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[1] Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience. Interactions, 3, 11-15 </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[2] Battarbee, K. (2003). Defining co-experience. Proceedings of DPPI’03, June 23-26, Pittsburgh,<span> </span>USA. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[3] Cranor, L.F., & Garfinkel, S. (2005). Security and usability. Cambridge: O’Reilly. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[4] Desmet, P. M. A., Overbeeke, C. J., & Tax, S. J. E. T. (2001). Designing products with added emotional value: development and application of an approach for research through design. The Design Journal, 4, 32-47. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[5] Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. Proceedings of DIS2004, August 104, Cambridge, MA, USA. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[6] Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In M.Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (pp. 31-42). Dordrecht: Kluwer. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[7] Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience – a research agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 91-97 </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[8] McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. C. (2004). Technology as Experience. MIT Press. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[9] Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[10] Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20(5), 347-356. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[11] Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127-145 </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-GB">[12] Vanderdonckt, J., Law, E. L-C., & Hvannberg, E.T. (2005). Proceedings of the First COST294 International Workshop on User Interface Quality Models. In conjunction with INTERACT 2005, 12-13th Sept 2005, Rome, Italy. </span></p> </body> </html> --------------030408040208050105070606--