User experience framework that combines aspects, dimensions, and measurement methods

References

• Anitha, P. C., & Prabhu, B. (2012). Integrating requirements engineering and user experience design in product life cycle management. In 2012 First International Workshop on Usability and Accessibility Focused Requirements Engineering (UsARE) (pp. 12–17). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6226784
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, N. (2009a). Extending quality in use to provide a framework for usability measurement. In Proceedings of HCI International 2009 (pp. 13–22). San Diego, CA. 5619 LNCS(1991).
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, N. (2009b). What is the difference between the purpose of usability and user experience evaluation methods? In INTERACT 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Changyuan, G., Shiying, W., & Chongran, Z. (2013). Research on user experience evaluation system of information platform based on web environment. In Measurement, Information and Control (ICMIC), 2013 International Conference on (pp. 558–562). IEEE. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6758026
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Z., & Zhu, S. (2011). The research of mobile application user experience and assessment model. In Computer Science and Network Technology (ICCSNT), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 2832–2835). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6182553
   Google Scholar
• Fronemann, N., & Peissner, M. (2014). User experience concept exploration: User needs as a source for innovation. In NordiCHI ‘14 Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 727–736. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2641203
   Google Scholar
• Fuchsberger, V., Moser, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Values in action (ViA): Combining usability, user experience and user acceptance. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (pp. 1793–1798).
   Google Scholar
• Gegner, L., Runonen, M., & Keinonen, T. (2011). Oscillating between extremes: A framework for mapping differing views on user experience. In DPPI ‘11 Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces Article No. 57. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2347566
   Google Scholar
• Gross, A., & Bongartz, S. (2012). Why do i like it?: Investigating the product-specificity of user experience. In NordiCHI ‘12 Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (pp. 322–330. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2399067
   Google Scholar
• Huy, N. P., & Van Thanh, D. (2012). Evaluation of mobile app paradigms. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing & Multimedia - MoMM ‘12 (p. 25). ACM Press. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2428955.2428968
   Google Scholar
• ISO. (2010). Ergonomics of human-system interaction–Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Standards Organisation, 2010, 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Jetter, H.-C., & Gerken, J. (2007). A simplified model of user experience for practical application. In 2nd International Open Workshop on COST294-MAUSE (2006) (pp. 2–3).
   Google Scholar
• Kremer, S., Schlimm, A., & Lindemann, U. (2017). The ExodUX framework: Supporting comprehensive user experience design. In 2017 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1–10). IEEE. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8125371/
   Google Scholar
• Kujala, S., Obrist, M., Vogel, M., & Pohlmeyer, A. (2013). Lost in time: The meaning of temporal aspects in user experience. In CHI ‘13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems on–CHI EA ’13 (pp. 559–564).
   Google Scholar
• Kujala, S., & Roto, V. (2011). Identifying hedonic factors in long-term user experience. In DPPI ‘11 Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (p. 17). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2347523
   Google Scholar
• Kumaresh, S. (2012). Defect prevention based on 5 dimensions of defect origin. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 3(4), 87–98. Retrieved December 24, 2016, from http://www.airccse.org/journal/ijsea/papers/3412ijsea07.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Law, E. L.-C. (2011). The measurability and predictability of user experience. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems - EICS ’11 (p. 1). ACM Press. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1996461.1996485
   Google Scholar
• Law, E. L.-C., Roto, V., & Hassenzahl, M. (2009). Understanding, Scoping and Defining User eXperience: A Survey Approach. In CHI ‘09 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 719–728. ACM, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Law, E., Schaik, P., & Roto, V. (2012). To measure or not to measure UX: An interview study. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (pp. 58–63).
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I., Kim, J., & An, Y. (2008). Cultural dimensions for user experience: Cross-country and cross-product analysis of users’ cultural characteristics. In British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2008, 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Liikkanen, L., Kilpiö, H., Svan, L., & Hiltunen, M. (2014). Lean UX– The next generation of user-centered agile development? In NordiCHI ‘14 Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 1095–1100.
   Google Scholar
• Mahlke, S. (2005). Understanding users’ experience of interaction. In EACE ‘05 Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference on European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 251–254.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, Charles C. (2002). Why software is so bad. Technology Review, 105(6), 33–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcnamara, N. (2005). Functionality, usability, and user experience: Three areas of concern. In International Journal, 2005, 26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Mercuri, R. I. A. (2005). Technology as experience. Interactions – Funology, 11, 42–43.
   Google Scholar
• Minge, M., & Thüring, M. (2018). Hedonic and pragmatic halo effects at early stages of user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 109, 13–25. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.psu.edu.sa/science/article/pii/S1071581917301076
   Google Scholar
• Moller, S., Engelbrecht, K. P., Kuhnel, C., Wechsung, I., & Weiss, B. (2009). A taxonomy of quality of service and qualisty of experience of multimodal human-machine interaction. In Quality of Multimedia Experience, 2009. QoMEx 2009. International Workshop on (pp. 7–12). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=5246986
   Google Scholar
• Ogheneovo, E. E. (2014, April). Software dysfunction: Why do software fail? Journal of Computer and Communications, 2, 25–35. Retrieved December 24, 2016, from http://www.scirp.org/journal/jcc
   Google Scholar
• Peres, A. L., & Meira, S. L. (2015). Towards a framework that promotes integration between the UX design and SCRUM, aligned to CMMI. In 2015 10th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. Retreived from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=7170443
   Google Scholar
• Rajeshkumar, S., Omar, R., & Mahmud, M. (2013). Taxonomies of user experience (UX) evaluation methods. In Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), 2013 International Conference on (pp. 533–538). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6716765
   Google Scholar
• Roto, V., Obrist, M., & Kaisa, V.-V.-M. (2009). User experience evaluation methods in academic and industrial contexts. In Interact 2009 Conference, User Experience Evaluation Methods in Product Development (UXEM’09).
   Google Scholar
• Roto, V., Rantavuo, H., & Kaisa, V.-V.-M. (2009). Evaluating user experience of early product concepts. In Proc. DPPI (p. 9). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.155.5362
   Google Scholar
• Sahar, F., Varsaluoma, J., & Kujala, S. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of electronic diary and UX curve methods in multi-component product study. In AcademicMindTrek ‘14: Proceedings of the 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Media Business, Management, Content & Services (pp. 93–100).
   Google Scholar
• Schulze, K., & Krömker, H. (2010). A framework to measure user experience of interactive online products. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research–MB ‘10 (pp. 1–5). ACM Press. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1931344.1931358
   Google Scholar
• Sproll, S., Peissner, P., & Sturm, C. (2010). From product concept to user experience: Exploring UX potentials at early product stages. In NordiCHI ‘10 Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (pp. 473–482). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1868968
   Google Scholar
• Swallow, D., Blythe, M., & Wright, P. (2005). Grounding experience: Relating theory and method to evaluate the user experience of smartphones. In EACE ‘05 Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference on European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 91–98).
   Google Scholar
• Tan, J., Ronkko, K., & Gencel, C. (2013). A framework for software usability and user experience measurement in mobile industry. In Software Measurement and the 2013 Eighth International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA), 2013 Joint Conference of the 23rd International Workshop on (pp. 156–164). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6693235
   Google Scholar
• Tung, W.-F., & Yuan, S.-T. (2007). Optimization of collaborative service systems using experience evaluation model. In Services Computing, 2007. SCC 2007. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 244–247). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=4278662
   Google Scholar
• Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Hassenzahl, M., Landau, C., & Fort, I. (2008). Towards practical user experience evaluation methods. In 5th COST294-MAUSE Open Workshop on Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (pp. 1–4).
   Google Scholar
• Väätäjä, H., Koponen, T., & Roto, V. (2009). Developing practical tools for user experience evaluation: A case from mobile news journalism. In ECCE ‘09 European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Designing beyond the Product—Understanding Activity and User Experience in Ubiquitous Environments. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Article No. 23. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1690508.1690539
   Google Scholar
• Vyas, D., & Van Der Veer, G. C. (2006). Experience as meaning: Some underlying concepts and implications for design. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Trust and Control in Complex Socio-Technical Systems. ACM. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.148.1190
   Google Scholar
• Wigelius, H., & Väätäjä, H. (2009). Dimensions of context affecting user experience in mobile work. In INTERACT ‘09 Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Part II (pp. 604–617).
   Google Scholar
• Yong, L. T.. (2013). User experience evaluation methods for mobile devices. In Innovative Computing Technology (INTECH), 2013 Third International Conference on, IEEE (pp. 281–286.
   Google Scholar
• Zarour, M., & Alharbi, M. (2017). user experience aspects and dimensions: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Knowledge Engineering, 3(2), 52–59.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, Z., & Balagué, C.. (2014). A design framework of branded mobile applications. In MobileHCI ‘14 Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services (pp. 507–512). Retreived from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2634224
   Google Scholar