{"title":"改进用户需求中的对价质量识别--对照实验","authors":"Andreas Maier, D. Berry","doi":"10.1109/RE.2017.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context and Motivation Systematically engineering a good user experience (UX) into a computer-based system under development demands that the user requirements of the system reflect all needs, including emotional, of all stakeholders. User requirements address two different types of qualities: pragmatic qualities (PQs), that address system functionality and usability, and hedonic qualities (HQs) that address the stakeholder's psychological well-being. Studies show that users tend to describe such satisfying UXes mainly with PQs, and that some users seem to believe that they are describing a HQ when they are actually describing a PQ. Question/Problem The problem is to see if classification of any user requirement as PQ-related or HQ-related is difficult, and if so, why. Principal Ideas/Results We conducted a controlled experiment in which twelve requirements-engineering and UX professionals, hereinafter called \"classifiers\" classified each of 105 user requirements as PQ-related or HQ-related. The experiment shows that neither (1) a classifier's involvement in the project from which the requirements came nor (2) the classifier's use of a detailed model of the qualities in addition to the standard definitions of \"PQ\" and \"HQ\" has a positive effect on the consistency of the classifier's classification with that of others. Contribution The experiment revealed that classification of user requirements is a lot harder than initially assumed.","PeriodicalId":176958,"journal":{"name":"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the Identification of Hedonic Quality in User Requirements — A Controlled Experiment\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Maier, D. Berry\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/RE.2017.49\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context and Motivation Systematically engineering a good user experience (UX) into a computer-based system under development demands that the user requirements of the system reflect all needs, including emotional, of all stakeholders. User requirements address two different types of qualities: pragmatic qualities (PQs), that address system functionality and usability, and hedonic qualities (HQs) that address the stakeholder's psychological well-being. Studies show that users tend to describe such satisfying UXes mainly with PQs, and that some users seem to believe that they are describing a HQ when they are actually describing a PQ. Question/Problem The problem is to see if classification of any user requirement as PQ-related or HQ-related is difficult, and if so, why. Principal Ideas/Results We conducted a controlled experiment in which twelve requirements-engineering and UX professionals, hereinafter called \\\"classifiers\\\" classified each of 105 user requirements as PQ-related or HQ-related. The experiment shows that neither (1) a classifier's involvement in the project from which the requirements came nor (2) the classifier's use of a detailed model of the qualities in addition to the standard definitions of \\\"PQ\\\" and \\\"HQ\\\" has a positive effect on the consistency of the classifier's classification with that of others. Contribution The experiment revealed that classification of user requirements is a lot harder than initially assumed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":176958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.49\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Improving the Identification of Hedonic Quality in User Requirements — A Controlled Experiment
Context and Motivation Systematically engineering a good user experience (UX) into a computer-based system under development demands that the user requirements of the system reflect all needs, including emotional, of all stakeholders. User requirements address two different types of qualities: pragmatic qualities (PQs), that address system functionality and usability, and hedonic qualities (HQs) that address the stakeholder's psychological well-being. Studies show that users tend to describe such satisfying UXes mainly with PQs, and that some users seem to believe that they are describing a HQ when they are actually describing a PQ. Question/Problem The problem is to see if classification of any user requirement as PQ-related or HQ-related is difficult, and if so, why. Principal Ideas/Results We conducted a controlled experiment in which twelve requirements-engineering and UX professionals, hereinafter called "classifiers" classified each of 105 user requirements as PQ-related or HQ-related. The experiment shows that neither (1) a classifier's involvement in the project from which the requirements came nor (2) the classifier's use of a detailed model of the qualities in addition to the standard definitions of "PQ" and "HQ" has a positive effect on the consistency of the classifier's classification with that of others. Contribution The experiment revealed that classification of user requirements is a lot harder than initially assumed.