In Search of Theoretical Foundations for UX Research and Practice

Abstract In this paper we point out the relevance of and the need for a theoretical discussion around UX research and practice. Although there is a good coverage of methodological and design related topics in the HCI literature, there is still a lack of theoretical focus in the rapidly increasing work on user experience (UX). We analyzed 122 individual items on theories collected in a CHI’11 special interest group session on UX theories and theoretical frameworks. The data set was filtered and categorized in several iterations, resulting in 56 items distributed over 7 major theory categories and related to 9 relevant disciplines. The categories are an initial mapping of the field and point towards the directions for further conceptual and theoretical clarification. Our results help to explore the multi-disciplinary nature of UX and to build a more solid foundation for UX research and practice.

Keywords User Experience; Theory; Data Analysis

ACM Classification Keywords H.1.2 [Models And Principles]: User/machine Systems; H.5.m [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Miscellaneous

General Terms Theory, Human Factors

Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, TX, USA.

ACM 978-1-4503-1016-1/12/05.

Marianna Obrist

Culture Lab

School of Computing Science

Newcastle University

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 7RU, UK

marianna.obrist@ncl.ac.uk

Virpi Roto

Aalto University, School of

Art, Design, and Architecture

P.O.Box 31000

00076 Aalto, Finland

virpi.roto@aalto.fi

Arnold Vermeeren

Delft University of Technology

Fac. of Ind. Design Engineering

Landbergstraat 15, NL 2628 CE,

Delft, The Netherlands

a.p.o.s.vermeeren@tudelft.nl

Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila

Tampere University of Technology

Unit of Human-Centered Tech.

P.O.Box 589

FI-33101 Tampere, Finland

kaisa.vaananen-vainio-

mattila@tut.fi

Effie Lai-Chong Law

University of Leicester

Department of Computer

Science

LE1 7RH Leicester, UK

elaw@mcs.le.ac.uk

Kari Kuutti

University of Oulu, Department of

Information Processing Science

90014 Oulu, Finland

kari.kuutti@oulu.fi

Work-in-Progress CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA

1979

Introduction and Motivation “We must recognize that nothing is so practical as a good theory and that theory thrives when challenged by practice” [10]. Ten years ago, at CHI‘02, Ben Shneiderman made this statement in a panel on the future evolvement of the HCI field. Stuart Card added: “For HCI to be a successful discipline, for it even to survive in universities, it has to have content with intellectual power” [12]. The need to deepen the theoretical foundations of HCI research is increasingly recognized as an essential action point within the CHI community (e.g., [2][3]). However, the theoretical discussion still lags behind HCI practice, which is often based on ad-hoc decisions, lacking foundations in theory-driven design [4]. Within the CHI community, where user experience (UX) is seen as being subsumed by the discipline of HCI, only a limited number of studies exist focusing on theoretical approaches of UX design and evaluation (e.g., [1][2]). Although there is a relatively rich discussion about technological, methodological, and design issues on UX, the efforts to find and elaborate the theoretical roots for UX research still fall short (see e.g., [1][10][14]).

A key motivation for our work is to contribute to a clarification of the relationship between UX and the neighboring research fields, as theories provide a way to understand the different perspectives on UX. A “map” of theories in use would be one step towards understanding the theoretical foundations of UX.

At the CHI’11 conference we organized a special interest group (SIG) session where participants were asked the question: What theoretical roots do we build on, if any in UX research? [10]. Overall, 110 responses from about 70 participants were collected, which

corroborates the relevance of and interest in this topic. While the theoretical foundations for UX research are not yet established, those responses can serve as candidate resources for setting the theoretical directions. A main conclusion from the SIG discussion is that the HCI community needs theories in UX research. This does not necessarily mean a single or a unified UX theory: it could also be a combination of theories that can be applied to address empirical issues and inform and guide practice.

In this paper, we analyze and summarize the responses, highlighting the theoretical ideas shared by HCI researchers and practitioners in the SIG session. Based on this analysis, initial conclusions are presented to steer future work.

Related Work Several theories, for instance, in psychology, sociology, and philosophy explain how people act and behave in the real world. Such theories were found as relevant for interaction design [13] as well as for evaluation studies [2]. However, the diversity of theories has advantages as well as disadvantages. As compared to the selection of a method or methodology, the consequences of choosing one theory over another are not always clear. Moreover, Baumer and Tomlinson [2] argue: “It is unlikely that any single theory will meet all the needs of every HCI researcher and practitioner. Thus, rather than strive toward unification, we should seek to capitalize on our current theoretical pluralism”.

The related research presents diverse views about the kind of theories needed in the UX field. Law and van Schaik [9] propose a research agenda for modeling UX in terms of measurement models and structural

Figure 1. SIG session at CHI’11 on the theoretical roots of UX research [10].

Work-in-Progress CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA

1980

models. In their view, structural models can play an important role in “building the theoretical understanding of (causal) relationships between UX constructs and design characteristics as a basis for informing (practical) system design.” This is in line with Shneiderman et al.’s [10] pointing out the relevance of theories in HCI for predictive, explanatory, and generative purposes, in particular to systematically support the next generation of innovations.

Another view is exemplified by Rogers [13], who suggests that instead of striving for explanatory frameworks and predictions for specific problems, interdependencies between design, technology and behavior should be addressed. This should be done by developing “wild theories”, i.e., theories derived from studying situations in real-life instead of in laboratories. It is because, according to Roger [13], some HCI theory developed in the lab has been found to be unfit or inapplicable. While this claim entails further discussion, essentially this is a call for contextual theories of UX that are broad enough to explain phenomena in the complex real world.

Deriving from this broader view, there is an increasing attention to describe the whole experience in terms of its interconnected aspects, rather than focusing on fragmented aspects [15]. Such viewpoint (directed towards the complexity of experiences) does not support truly theory-driven design. Gaver [7] points out that we should not demand too much of our theories. When it comes to design practice, a wider palette of orienting concepts and frameworks is often requested, for enabling ad hoc usage, rather than focusing on theories, which cannot be well integrated with the ad hoc fashion of practice-based research [7].

Data and Analysis From the SIG session at CHI’11 [10], we collected 110 responses where people named theories that they have used in their UX work or that they think are applicable to UX, often with a reference to more information on the theory. From these responses, we extracted 122 individual items for further analysis. After removing duplicates and items with an unclear theoretical basis (e.g., ‘Satisfaction’), 86 items remained. From this set, we filtered out 9 items that were design and evaluation techniques (e.g., “Participatory problem framing”, ‘Think aloud’) or tools (e.g., ‘TRUE system’) rather than theories, resulting in a set of 77 items for the next phase of the analysis.

In the SIG session, participants were asked to map their theories to four categories described in the SIG’s plenary session: the three categories described in [16], i.e., user-centered (helping to understand users), interaction-centered (focusing on how people engage with products), and product-centered (checklists and criteria for good product design); or other (other foci for UX work). When investigating the data, we realized there were items that did not clearly fall under one of the three categories (see category A, B, C below). There was a need to extend the user-centered viewpoint towards social aspects and social influences (e.g., ‘Co-experience’ – see category D) as well as towards design processes and activities (e.g., ‘design rationale as theory’ – see category E). Moreover, several user-, product- and interaction aspects were brought together in concepts such as social cognition theory or the actor-network theory, and were summarized in a new combination category (see F below). Finally, some items were even broader, addressing basic human and societal aspects (e.g.,

Work-in-Progress CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA

1981

‘feminist theory’, ‘critical theory’, ‘Marxism’: see category G). Three authors categorized the items separately along the following seven categories, which were used for the second round of the categorization.

A. Human/user focus B. Product/artifact focus C. User/artifact/environment relations D. Social nature of UX E. Design focus F. Frameworks involving several themes from A to E G. Even broader frameworks related to human

existence

Two other authors did a final filtering, excluding methodological concepts such as ‘ethnography’, ‘heuristics on decision making’, as well as approaches such as ‘user-centered design’, ‘participatory design’. The remaining set of 56 categorized items helped us in the search for the theoretical foundations for UX research and practice.

In addition to the above categorization of the items, the theories were also categorized based on the scientific discipline from which the theory originated. One of the authors first made a list of disciplines and three other authors mapped the items against these disciplines. The authors then discussed their disagreements until consensus was reached on one main discipline for each item. Only for some items no unique discipline assignment could be made due to their very interdisciplinary background. This was mainly the case for the items in category G (e.g., Constructivist learning theory – categorized as ‘philosophy and education’; Symbolic interactionism – categorized as ‘sociology and psychology’).

An overview on the seven emerged categories (A to G) and the included items, as well as the identified disciplines are shown in Table 1 to 3.

Towards Theoretical Foundations In the following, we are zooming into the seven categories, pointing out their main linkage with UX research and practice.

A. Human/user: The largest category is about understanding the individual user, the users’ characteristics, emotions, motives and cognitive processes. Psychological models and theories dominate this category. When using theories about a human/user, the design process investigates issues like motivation and human factors affecting product acceptance and appraisal. Typically, UX evaluations based on these theories investigate momentary experiences or sensemaking.

B. Product/artifact: Next to a focus on the human/user, one may take theories on products/artifacts as starting points for UX design. For instance, formalist aesthetics and product semiotics start by investigating product characteristics. UX evaluations, if done at all, are often based on expert considerations rather than thorough investigations of human reactions.

C. User/artifact/environment Relations: In this category, the interplay between the user and product is central. The items in this category come from design and psychological disciplines mainly, and many of them highlight the importance of context and situation in UX formation. Thus, this theoretical foundation provides support for investigating UX in real life.

Category�items� Discipl.�

A:�Human/user��1.�Change�aversion�2.�Cognitive�load�theory�3.�Cognitive�user�model�4.�Dynamic�memory�models�5.�Emotional�response�theories�6.�Flow�theory�7.�GOMS�model,�Human�proc.�model�8.�Heuristics�on�decision�making�9.�Hick's�Law�10.�Hierarchical�value�models�11.�Inform.�processing�psychology�12.�Maslow's�hierarchy�of�needs�13.�Means‐end�chains�14.�Mental�model�theory�15.�Accessibility�of�emotion�model�16.�SCI�model�17.�Theory�of�motiv.�and�human�needs�18.�Theory�on�behavior�change�19.�User�self‐efficacy�20.�Visual�attention�theory�21.�Working�memory�theory�22.�Affordance�theory�

� ti �i � t� l � �

�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy/Mar�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy�Psy��

Table 1. Part 1 of the overview on our collection of 56 theoretical perspectives extracted from the collected data and mapped to 7 main categories (A to G) and 9 identified disciplines. Legend for disciplines: Psy = Psychology Soc = Sociology Mar = Marketing Phil = Philosophy Com = Communication Edu = Education Art = Art Anth = Anthropology Des = Design

Work-in-Progress CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA

1982

D. Social Nature of UX: The perspective in category A is focused on an individual, whereas items in this category stem from theories about relations and communication between people. Designers leaning on theories that focus on social aspects and co-experience, consider experience as a social phenomenon and study reflection on and recounting of experiences (see [15]). Thus, this category is more interdisciplinary with items coming from sociology, communication and design.

E. Design: The two items in this category come from the art and design field. Carroll [4], for instance, points out the contribution of design rationale to the theory development in HCI, as it provides a foundation for action research and thus a rapid understanding for instance with a focus on UX. Experience evaluation is not central in this theoretical foundation.

F. Frameworks involving several themes from A to E: Many items in our collection integrate different perspectives and are thus placed under this category. Items such as the actor-network theory or symbolic interactionism investigate the interrelationship between users and their roles in interaction situations. This theories support the direction toward a more holistic description of UX in terms of its interconnected aspects, rather than focusing on fragmented aspects [15].

G. Broader frameworks related to human existence: In this last category, we find broad theoretical frameworks, mainly reflecting philosophical views about human existence. Several attempts have been made to broaden the HCI perspective, e.g. in value or sensitive based design or feminist discussions, which become also relevant when targeting UX and its embedding into socio-technical system discussions [6].

Discussion and Conclusions This paper addresses the need for more knowledge on UX theories used in research and practice by HCI researchers and practitioners. Previously no systematic analysis of UX-related theories existed. The results of our research – 56 theory items mapped into 7 theory categories and 9 disciplines – provide the basis for an understanding of potentially applicable UX theories. Experience itself has been studied by different disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, management, marketing, ergonomics, where it has been defined according to specific disciplinary jargon and conceptualized by own understandings and findings. Based on our initial data collection, psychology clearly dominates the set of reported theories. However, we could see some indications that other social sciences, such as sociology, can broaden the view on UX. Philosophical theories additionally hold strong potential to change our ways of designing for and studying UX. By familiarizing ourselves with these theories, we can reach a broader picture of designing for UX beyond interaction design, for example from the perspectives of human values, feminism and sustainable aspects in HCI.

Based on our data we do not know how these theories have been or are intended to be used, thus more empirical research is needed. Moreover, the current use and understanding of the concept of UX by the HCI community is not nebulous, but multileveled and multidimensional. The categories we have identified are an initial mapping of the field and point towards the directions for further conceptual and theoretical clarification. The following topics need further attention and should stimulate future discussions and work (see also our future work activities [11]):

Category�items� Discipl.�

23.�Utility�Theory�24.�Ideal�types�25.�Personality�construct,laddering�27.�Sensemaking��B:�Product/artifact��1.�Formalist�Aesthetics�2.�Long�tail�model�3.�Semiology/Semiotics�in�Prod.�design��C:�Relation�user/artifact/environment�1.�Fitt's�Law�2.�Gestalt�theory�3.�Hedonic‐pragmatic�model�4.�Theory�of�MEMES�5.�Distributed�cognition��D:�Individual/social�1.�Co‐experience�2.�Comm.�accommodation�theory�4.�Social�netw.�anal.�(theories�about)�5.�Social�translucence�6.�Socially�shared�cognitive�theory��

Psy�Psy/Soc�Psy/Mar�Psy/Soc/Phil���Des�Mar�Des/Com���Psy/Des�Psy/Des�Psy�Soc�Psy���Des/Soc�Com/Soc�Soc�Psy/Soc�Psy/Soc��

Table 2. Part 2 of the overview on our collection of 56 theoretical perspectives extracted from the collected data and mapped to 7 main categories (A to G) and 9 identified disciplines. Legend for disciplines: Psy = Psychology Soc = Sociology Mar = Marketing Phil = Philosophy Com = Communication Edu = Education Art = Art Anth = Anthropology Des = Design

Work-in-Progress CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA

1983

Applicability and appropriation of theories and theoretical concepts in UX design and evaluation.

Transferability of theories and theoretical concepts from research to practice.

Usage of theories for studying UX in different settings and contexts.

Collection of theories used in UX work outside the CHI community.

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the support by the Marie Curie IEF Action of the European Union (FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IEF), and by TEKES/FIMECC. We also thank the participants of the SIG for their active participation.

REFERENCES [1] Bassoli, A., Brewer, J. and Martin, K. 2007. In-between theory and practice: dialogues in design research. In CHI EA '07. ACM, NY, USA, 1691-1696.

[2] Baumer, E.P.S. and Tomlinson, B. 2011. Comparing activity theory with distributed cognition for video analysis: beyond "kicking the tires". In Proc. CHI '11. ACM, NY, USA, 133-142.

[3] Blythe, M., Wright, P., McCarthy, J. and Bertelsen, O.W. 2006. Theory and method for experience centered design. In Proc. CHI EA '06. ACM, NY, USA, 1691-1694.

[4] Carroll, J.M. (Ed.) 2003. HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks. Towards a Multidisciplinary Science. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.

[5] Diefenbach, S and Hassenzahl, M. 2009. The "Beauty Dilemma": beauty is valued but discounted in product choice. In Proc. CHI '09. ACM, NY, USA, 1419-1426.

[6] Fuchs, C. and Obrist, M. 2010. HCI and society: Towards a typology of universal design principles. In: International Journal of HCI, 638-656.

[7] Gaver, W. 2006. Learning from Experience: The Humble Role of Theory in Practice-Based Research. CHI’06 Workshop position paper for Theory and method for experience centered design.

[8] Kuutti, K. 2010. Where are the Ionians of user experience research? In Proc. NordiCHI '10. ACM, NY, USA, 715-718.

[9] Law, E.L.C., van Schaik, P. 2010. Modelling user experience - An agenda for research and practice. Interacting with Computers 22(5): 313-322.

[10] Obrist, M.; Law, E. L.-C.; Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.; Roto, V.; Vermeeren, A. & Kuutti, K. UX Research: What Theoretical Roots Do We Build On – If Any? In Proc. CHI EA '11. ACM, NY, USA, 165-168.

[11] Obrist, M., Roto, V., Law, E.L-C., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Buie, E. 2012. Theories behind UX Research and How They Are Used in Practice. Accepted CHI’12 Workshop.

[12] Shneiderman, B., Card, S., Norman, D.A., Tremaine, M. and Waldrop, M.M. 2002. CHI@20: fighting our way from marginality to power. In CHI EA '02. ACM, NY, USA, 688-691.

[13] Rogers, Y. 2011. Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. interactions 18, 4(7/11), 58-62.

[14] Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J. and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. 2010. UX evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In Proc. NordiCHI '10. ACM, NY, USA, 521-530.

[15] Wright, P., and McCarthy J. 2010. Experience-Centered Design: Designers, Users, and Communities in Dialogue. Synthesis Lectures in Human-Centered Informatics, ed. John Carroll, no. 8, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

[16] Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Koskinen, I. 2009. Building a unified framework for the practice of experience design. In Proc. CHI '09. ACM, NY, USA, 4803-4806.

Category�items� Discipl.�

E:�Design�1.�Design�Rationale�(Carroll)�2.�Performance�as�interaction���F:�Frameworks�involving�several�themes�from�A�through�E�1.�Aesthetic�experience�2.�Technology�adoption�models�3.�Social�cognition�theory�4.�Activity�Theory�5.�Actor‐Network�Theory�6.�Phenomenology�7.�Symbolic�interactionism�8.�Dramaturgical�Theory�9.�Visual�anthropology��G:�Broader�frameworks�related�to�human�existence�1.�American�pragmatism�2.�Constructivist�learning�theory�3.�Critical�theory�4.�Feminist�theory�5.�Functionalism/structuralism�6.�Marxism�

�Des�Anth����Des�Soc�Soc/Psy�Psy�Soc�Phil�Soc/Psy�Art/Soc�Anth����Edu/Psy�Phil/Edu�Phil/Soc�Phil/Soc�Phil�Phil/Soc�

Table 3. Part 3 of the overview on our collection of 56 theoretical perspectives extracted from the collected data and mapped to 7 main categories (A to G) and 9 identified disciplines. Legend for disciplines: Psy = Psychology Soc = Sociology Mar = Marketing Phil = Philosophy Com = Communication Edu = Education Art = Art Anth = Anthropology Des = Design

Work-in-Progress CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA

1984