Comment From the Editor-in-Chief

Abstract

Dear Readers, Over the last decade, user experience (UX) has grown exponentially as a field of interest, making significant inroads in education and professional practice. As noted by Peter Morville, considered by many as a founding father of Information Architecture, any information brought to bear in the design process should be: useful, usable, desirable, findable, accessible, credible, and valuable. Therefore, considering users’ experiences in the design process is critical. This issue presents the results of three very different studies which examined UX as part of the design process for a service or product. The issue’s first paper presents a UX evaluationmethodology whereby authors Kapusy and Lógó collected data about users’ experiences during a first-time interaction with a product. In this case, the product was the social media application Snapchat. The authors used a three-step process in which each step built upon the previous step(s). First, they performed a usability test on a sample of young men and women, novices to Snapchat, between 20 and 25 years. Second, study participants with backgrounds in design, marketing, and ergonomics applied Jiro Kawakita’s affinity diagram to expand the statements from the usability test findings. Finally, as a third step, the authors applied Hassenzahl’s model to organize the attributes from the second step. The model defines two distinct characteristics of a product: pragmatic (functionality and usability) and hedonic (stimulation, identification, and evocation). The results indicated that some users found Snapchat trendy and exciting, while others found it pointless and lost interest and thus experienced weak stimulation while interacting with the app. The study also reported mixed results for identification and evocation. The authors suggest that these findings will help UX designers and product management teams become aware of the critical characteristics for developing better designs for interacting with a product or service. In the second paper, Yang and Hunt developed and tested an interactive system, SonicTrainer, designed to improve exercise quality and user motivation. Using biceps curls as an example, the authors monitored arm movement andmuscle activity and provided auditory feedback to promote exercise quality. Although several participants reported that the sonic feedback distracted them from feeling fatigued, their arm movement quality as measured by the motion analysis was not significant. The study demonstrated that augmented feedback through auditory modality could be easy, safe, and valuable during real-time exercise and could be applied for outdoor physical activities as well. Also, Sauer et al. present results from a survey of vehicle design experts that considered level-four automated vehicle interiors in China, Germany, and US markets. The study identified cultural diversity in design requirements related to passenger well-being and other user needs (i.e., trust, comfort, and usability). Across the markets, experts believed that spatial features (e.g., seat or vehicle dimensions) are most important to passenger well-being, followed by technical elements (e.g., system behavior or transparency). However, the authors cautioned that experts’ views on automated vehicle design requirements might not match users’ opinions in their respective countries. Therefore, user validation of each country’s vehiclerelated designs and requirements is essential. Although the authors focused on only one issue (i.e., vehicle interiors), input from both vehicle design experts and users at the onset of the product development will have a massive potential for increased acceptance of automated vehicles. Last but not least, in Part 1 of a twopart series, Chiou and Roscoe highlight the importance of measuring, documenting, and tracking diversity and inclusion efforts across time in professional memberships. The authors initiated their discussion of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society (HFES) membership with a framework of authentic diversity. Then, utilizing HFES’s 2018 member data, supplemented by information from the HFES website and past reports from the Diversity Committee and Diversity Task Force, the authors dissected our membership demographics. This paper emphasizes transforming demographics and practicing authentic diversity within HFES. I commend the authors for tackling this vital issue, and I am looking forward to Part 2 in the next issue of EID. In the meantime, I wish you all a happy, safe, and restorative summer season.