Enter e-mail address for subscribing to our newsletter:


Background

The background of the workshop are several approaches for the assessment of emotions as part of the user experience (UX). There are subjective methods that rely on a self-report of users such as questionnaires or interviews. Objective methods, such as physiological measures (e.g. galvanic skin response, electromyography, electrocardiograms) or behaviour observation (e.g. coding of facial expressions) exist. It has been proposed that there is a need to discuss affect measurement beyond the individual level and advance measures like physiology and (mostly verbal) self-reports (Shami, Hancock, Peter, Muller, & Mandryk, 2008). There are (among others) two well-known approaches for measuring emotions by non-verbal pictorial techniques: the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Bradley & Lang, 1994), a scale that directly measures the dimensions pleasure, arousal, and dominance as affective reactions to a stimulus, and EmoCards (Desmet, Overbeeke, & Tax, 2001) a non-verbal method for user-self-reports of emotional categories. Most known approaches for assessing UX and emotion have several other shortfalls: Questionnaires or written interviews with verbal statements depend on the user to read and understand text. This method is not adequate for users who are illiterate, dyslexic, blind, have certain cognitive limitations, or have not learned to read yet (e.g. children). Solely quantitative measures are not sufficient to provide really deep insights into UX and emotion, as most of these measures do not trigger the users to freely talk about their thoughts and feelings. But: For HCI it is not only important to describe the interaction (quantitative), but also to understand the interaction (qualitative). Furthermore, the user might be stimulated to explain his choice of haptic objects in evaluation. By doing so, he/she provides deep qualitative insides into emotion during the game, which helps improving the user experience. A highly innovative approach is the Sensual Evaluation Instrument (SEI) (Isbister et al., 2006); (Isbister et al., 2007); (Laaksolahti et al., 2009) that contains 8 haptic objects for evaluating emotional responses to interactive systems. Each of the SEI-objects represents one or more emotional state(s), such as anger, frustration, confusion or calmness. The authors show that the SEI provides valuable insights into UX and emotional experiences of users. Furthermore, it is accepted by users and provides a promising new way for user evaluations of interactive systems. The SEI combines quantitative data (frequencies of chosen objects) with qualitative data (reason for choice of object) and was (amongst others) validated by (Wimmer, Wckl, Leitner, & Tscheligi, 2010).

 


Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 4959. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9

Desmet, P., Overbeeke, K., & Tax, S. (2001). Designing Products with Added Emotional Value: Development and Appllcation of an Approach for Research Through Design. The Design Journal, 4(1), 3247. doi:10.2752/146069201789378496

Isbister, K., Hk, K., Laaksolahti, J., & Sharp, M. (2007). The sensual evaluation instrument: Developing a trans-cultural self-report measure of affect. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(4), 315328. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.017

Isbister, K., Hk, K., Sharp, M., & Laaksolahti, J. (2006). The sensual evaluation instrument. CHI (p. 1163). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124946

Laaksolahti, J., Isbister, K., & Hk, K. (2009). Using the Sensual Evaluation Instrument. Digital Creativity, 20(3), 165175. doi:10.1080/14626260903083603

Shami, N. S., Hancock, J. T., Peter, C., Muller, M., & Mandryk, R. (2008). Measuring affect in HCI: going beyond the individual. CHI (p. 3901). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1358628.1358952

Wimmer, B., Wckl, B., Leitner, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2010). Measuring the dynamics of user experience in short interaction sequences. NordiCHI (p. 825). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1868914.1869039