探索用户体验主观评价工具和用户体验维度的前景：系统性文献综述（2010-2021 年）

IF 1 4区计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS

Interacting with Computers Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1093/iwc/iwae017

Ehsan Mortazavi, Philippe Doyon-Poulin, Daniel Imbeau, Mitra Taraghi, Jean-Marc Robert

{"title":"探索用户体验主观评价工具和用户体验维度的前景：系统性文献综述（2010-2021 年）","authors":"Ehsan Mortazavi, Philippe Doyon-Poulin, Daniel Imbeau, Mitra Taraghi, Jean-Marc Robert","doi":"10.1093/iwc/iwae017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quality of the User Experience (UX) with systems, products and services is now considered an indispensable part of success in the market. Users' expectations have increased in such a way that mere usability is no longer sufficient. While numerous UX subjective evaluation tools exist, there is little guidance on how to select or use these tools. Therefore, there is a need to provide a critical state of the art on the topic of subjective evaluation tools and the UX dimensions covered. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review on UX subjective evaluation tools and the UX dimensions covering the period of 2010–2021 with an initial sample of 3831 publications, 325 of which were selected for the final analysis, to provide researchers and practitioners with the recent changes in the field of UX. Results showed that 104 different tools are available for UX evaluation, they can be classified as general or domain-specific, applicable for a wide variety of products and in total covering more than 300 UX dimensions. Our categorization of UX dimensions under 13 main dimensions (e.g. usability, utility, hedonic, emotion, sensory, etc.) showed that the informational, social, cognitive and physical dimensions appeared to be less frequently present in current tools. We argue that these four dimensions deserve more space in UX tools. Having a high number of UX evaluation tools can be confusing for evaluators, and they need some guidance for selecting and combining tools. Modularity is the emerging trend in the development of UX evaluation questionnaires (e.g. meCUE, UEQ+), bringing the benefits of being thorough, flexible, easy to use, low-cost and rapid, while avoiding overlapping of dimensions and providing comparability through the use of a similar format and rating scale. Finally, the need for having a comprehensive evaluation tool requires updating the set of included dimensions to accommodate for new generations of products and technologies.","PeriodicalId":50354,"journal":{"name":"Interacting with Computers","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Landscape of UX Subjective Evaluation Tools and UX Dimensions: A Systematic Literature Review (2010–2021)\",\"authors\":\"Ehsan Mortazavi, Philippe Doyon-Poulin, Daniel Imbeau, Mitra Taraghi, Jean-Marc Robert\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/iwc/iwae017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The quality of the User Experience (UX) with systems, products and services is now considered an indispensable part of success in the market. Users' expectations have increased in such a way that mere usability is no longer sufficient. While numerous UX subjective evaluation tools exist, there is little guidance on how to select or use these tools. Therefore, there is a need to provide a critical state of the art on the topic of subjective evaluation tools and the UX dimensions covered. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review on UX subjective evaluation tools and the UX dimensions covering the period of 2010–2021 with an initial sample of 3831 publications, 325 of which were selected for the final analysis, to provide researchers and practitioners with the recent changes in the field of UX. Results showed that 104 different tools are available for UX evaluation, they can be classified as general or domain-specific, applicable for a wide variety of products and in total covering more than 300 UX dimensions. Our categorization of UX dimensions under 13 main dimensions (e.g. usability, utility, hedonic, emotion, sensory, etc.) showed that the informational, social, cognitive and physical dimensions appeared to be less frequently present in current tools. We argue that these four dimensions deserve more space in UX tools. Having a high number of UX evaluation tools can be confusing for evaluators, and they need some guidance for selecting and combining tools. Modularity is the emerging trend in the development of UX evaluation questionnaires (e.g. meCUE, UEQ+), bringing the benefits of being thorough, flexible, easy to use, low-cost and rapid, while avoiding overlapping of dimensions and providing comparability through the use of a similar format and rating scale. Finally, the need for having a comprehensive evaluation tool requires updating the set of included dimensions to accommodate for new generations of products and technologies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interacting with Computers\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interacting with Computers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae017\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interacting with Computers","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

现在，系统、产品和服务的用户体验（UX）质量已被视为市场成功不可或缺的一部分。用户的期望值越来越高，单纯的可用性已不再足够。虽然用户体验主观评估工具层出不穷，但如何选择或使用这些工具却鲜有指导。因此，有必要对用户体验主观评价工具及其所涵盖的用户体验维度的现状进行深入研究。在本研究中，我们对用户体验主观评价工具和用户体验维度进行了系统的文献综述，时间跨度为 2010 年至 2021 年，初步样本为 3831 篇出版物，最终分析选取了其中的 325 篇，以便为研究人员和从业人员提供用户体验领域的最新变化。结果显示，有 104 种不同的工具可用于用户体验评估，这些工具可分为通用工具和特定领域工具，适用于各种产品，总共涵盖 300 多个用户体验维度。我们将用户体验维度分为 13 个主要维度（如可用性、实用性、享乐性、情感、感官等），结果显示，信息、社会、认知和物理维度在当前工具中出现的频率较低。我们认为，这四个维度应该在用户体验工具中占据更大的空间。大量用户体验评估工具会让评估者感到困惑，他们需要一些指导来选择和组合工具。模块化是用户体验评估问卷（如 meCUE、UEQ+）发展的新趋势，它具有全面、灵活、易用、低成本和快速等优点，同时避免了维度的重叠，并通过使用类似的格式和评分量表提供了可比性。最后，由于需要有一个全面的评估工具，因此需要更新所包含的维度集，以适应新一代产品和技术的需要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Exploring the Landscape of UX Subjective Evaluation Tools and UX Dimensions: A Systematic Literature Review (2010–2021)

The quality of the User Experience (UX) with systems, products and services is now considered an indispensable part of success in the market. Users' expectations have increased in such a way that mere usability is no longer sufficient. While numerous UX subjective evaluation tools exist, there is little guidance on how to select or use these tools. Therefore, there is a need to provide a critical state of the art on the topic of subjective evaluation tools and the UX dimensions covered. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review on UX subjective evaluation tools and the UX dimensions covering the period of 2010–2021 with an initial sample of 3831 publications, 325 of which were selected for the final analysis, to provide researchers and practitioners with the recent changes in the field of UX. Results showed that 104 different tools are available for UX evaluation, they can be classified as general or domain-specific, applicable for a wide variety of products and in total covering more than 300 UX dimensions. Our categorization of UX dimensions under 13 main dimensions (e.g. usability, utility, hedonic, emotion, sensory, etc.) showed that the informational, social, cognitive and physical dimensions appeared to be less frequently present in current tools. We argue that these four dimensions deserve more space in UX tools. Having a high number of UX evaluation tools can be confusing for evaluators, and they need some guidance for selecting and combining tools. Modularity is the emerging trend in the development of UX evaluation questionnaires (e.g. meCUE, UEQ+), bringing the benefits of being thorough, flexible, easy to use, low-cost and rapid, while avoiding overlapping of dimensions and providing comparability through the use of a similar format and rating scale. Finally, the need for having a comprehensive evaluation tool requires updating the set of included dimensions to accommodate for new generations of products and technologies.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Interacting with Computers 工程技术-计算机：控制论

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Interacting with Computers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, is an official publication of BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT and the Interaction Specialist Group . Interacting with Computers (IwC) was launched in 1987 by interaction to provide access to the results of research in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) - an increasingly crucial discipline within the Computer, Information, and Design Sciences. Now one of the most highly rated journals in the field, IwC has a strong and growing Impact Factor, and a high ranking and excellent indices (h-index, SNIP, SJR).