In search of theoretical foundations for UX research and practice
6
In Search of Theoretical Foundations for UX Research and Practice Abstract In this paper we point out the relevance of and the need for a theoretical discussion around UX research and practice. Although there is a good coverage of methodological and design related topics in the HCI literature, there is still a lack of theoretical focus in the rapidly increasing work on user experience (UX). We analyzed 122 individual items on theories collected in a CHI’11 special interest group session on UX theories and theoretical frameworks. The data set was filtered and categorized in several iterations, resulting in 56 items distributed over 7 major theory categories and related to 9 relevant disciplines. The categories are an initial mapping of the field and point towards the directions for further conceptual and theoretical clarification. Our results help to explore the multi- disciplinary nature of UX and to build a more solid foundation for UX research and practice. Keywords User Experience; Theory; Data Analysis ACM Classification Keywords H.1.2 [Models And Principles]: User/machine Systems; H.5.m [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Miscellaneous General Terms Theory, Human Factors Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, TX, USA. ACM 978-1-4503-1016-1/12/05. Marianna Obrist Culture Lab School of Computing Science Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK [email protected] Virpi Roto Aalto University, School of Art, Design, and Architecture P.O.Box 31000 00076 Aalto, Finland [email protected] Arnold Vermeeren Delft University of Technology Fac. of Ind. Design Engineering Landbergstraat 15, NL 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands [email protected] Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila Tampere University of Technology Unit of Human-Centered Tech. P.O.Box 589 FI-33101 Tampere, Finland kaisa.vaananen-vainio- [email protected] Effie Lai-Chong Law University of Leicester Department of Computer Science LE1 7RH Leicester, UK [email protected] Kari Kuutti University of Oulu, Department of Information Processing Science 90014 Oulu, Finland [email protected] Work-in-Progress CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA 1979
-
Upload
mediaconcepts -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of In search of theoretical foundations for UX research and practice
In S
earc
h of
The
oret
ical
Fou
ndat
ions
fo
r UX
Rese
arch
and
Pra
ctic
e
Ab
stra
ct
In t
his
pap
er w
e poin
t out
the
rele
vance
of an
d t
he
nee
d f
or
a th
eore
tica
l dis
cuss
ion a
round U
X r
esea
rch
and p
ract
ice.
Although t
her
e is
a g
ood c
ove
rage
of
met
hodolo
gic
al a
nd d
esig
n r
elat
ed t
opic
s in
the
HCI
liter
ature
, th
ere
is s
till
a la
ck o
f th
eore
tica
l fo
cus
in t
he
rapid
ly incr
easi
ng w
ork
on u
ser
exper
ience
(U
X).
We
anal
yzed
122 indiv
idual
ite
ms
on t
heo
ries
colle
cted
in a
CH
I’11 s
pec
ial in
tere
st g
roup s
essi
on o
n U
X t
heo
ries
an
d t
heo
retica
l fr
amew
ork
s. T
he
dat
a se
t w
as f
ilter
ed
and c
ateg
orize
d in s
ever
al ite
rations,
res
ultin
g in 5
6
item
s dis
trib
ute
d o
ver
7 m
ajor
theo
ry c
ateg
ories
and
rela
ted t
o 9
rel
evan
t dis
ciplin
es.
The
cate
gories
are
an
initia
l m
appin
g o
f th
e fiel
d a
nd p
oin
t to
war
ds
the
direc
tions
for
furt
her
con
ceptu
al a
nd t
heo
retica
l cl
arific
atio
n.
Our
resu
lts
hel
p t
o e
xplo
re t
he
multi-
dis
ciplin
ary
nat
ure
of U
X a
nd t
o b
uild
a m
ore
solid
fo
undat
ion for
UX r
esea
rch a
nd p
ract
ice.
Keyw
ord
s U
ser
Exp
erie
nce
; Theo
ry;
Dat
a Anal
ysis
AC
M C
lass
ific
ati
on
Keyw
ord
s H
.1.2
[M
odel
s And P
rinci
ple
s]:
Use
r/m
achin
e Sys
tem
s;
H.5
.m [
Info
rmat
ion I
nte
rfac
es a
nd P
rese
nta
tion
]:
Mis
cella
neo
us
Gen
era
l Term
s Theo
ry,
Hum
an F
acto
rs
Copyr
ight
is h
eld b
y th
e au
thor
/ow
ner
(s).
CH
I 2012,
May
5–10,
2012,
Aust
in,
TX,
USA.
ACM
978-1
-4503-1
016-1
/12/0
5.
Mari
an
na O
bri
st
Culture
Lab
Sch
ool of Com
puting S
cien
ce
New
cast
le U
niv
ersi
ty
New
cast
le u
pon T
yne
NE1 7
RU
, U
K
mar
ianna.
obri
st@
ncl
.ac.
uk
Vir
pi
Ro
to
Aalto U
niv
ersi
ty,
Sch
ool of
Art
, D
esig
n,
and A
rchitec
ture
P.O
.Box
31000
00076 A
alto,
Finla
nd
virp
i.ro
to@
aalto.f
i
Arn
old
Verm
eere
n
Del
ft U
niv
ersi
ty o
f Tec
hnolo
gy
Fac.
of
Ind.
Des
ign E
ngin
eering
Landber
gst
raat
15,
NL
2628 C
E,
Del
ft,
The
Net
her
lands
a.p.o
.s.v
erm
eere
n@
tudel
ft.n
l
Kais
a V
ään
än
en
-Vain
io-M
att
ila
Tam
per
e U
niv
ersi
ty o
f Tec
hnolo
gy
Unit o
f H
um
an-C
ente
red T
ech.
P.O
.Box
589
FI-3
3101 T
amper
e, F
inla
nd
kais
a.va
anan
en-v
ainio
-
mat
tila
@tu
t.fi
Eff
ie L
ai-
Ch
on
g L
aw
Univ
ersi
ty o
f Le
ices
ter
Dep
artm
ent
of
Com
pute
r
Sci
ence
LE1 7
RH
Lei
cest
er,
UK
elaw
@m
cs.le.
ac.u
k
Kari
Ku
utt
i
Univ
ersi
ty o
f O
ulu
, D
epar
tmen
t of
Info
rmat
ion P
roce
ssin
g S
cien
ce
90014 O
ulu
, Fi
nla
nd
kari.k
uutt
i@oulu
.fi
Wor
k-in
-Pro
gres
sC
HI 2
012,
May
5–1
0, 2
012,
Aus
tin, T
exas
, USA
1979
Intr
od
uct
ion
an
d M
oti
vati
on
“W
e m
ust
rec
ogniz
e th
at n
othin
g is
so p
ract
ical
as
a good t
heo
ry a
nd t
hat
theo
ry t
hrive
s w
hen
chal
lenged
by
pra
ctic
e” [
10].
Ten
yea
rs a
go,
at C
HI‘02,
Ben
Shnei
der
man
mad
e th
is s
tate
men
t in
a p
anel
on t
he
futu
re e
volv
emen
t of
the
HCI
fiel
d.
Stu
art
Car
d a
dded
: “F
or
HCI
to b
e a
succ
essf
ul dis
ciplin
e, f
or it
even
to
surv
ive
in u
niv
ersi
ties
, it h
as t
o h
ave
conte
nt
with
inte
llect
ual
pow
er”
[12].
The
nee
d t
o d
eepen
the
theo
retica
l fo
undat
ions
of H
CI
rese
arch
is
incr
easi
ngly
re
cogniz
ed a
s an
ess
ential
act
ion p
oin
t w
ithin
the
CH
I co
mm
unity
(e.g
., [
2][
3])
. H
ow
ever
, th
e th
eore
tica
l dis
cuss
ion s
till
lags
beh
ind H
CI
pra
ctic
e, w
hic
h is
oft
en
bas
ed o
n a
d-h
oc
dec
isio
ns,
lac
king foundat
ions
in
theo
ry-d
rive
n d
esig
n [
4].
Within
the
CH
I co
mm
unity,
w
her
e use
r ex
per
ience
(U
X)
is s
een a
s bei
ng s
ubsu
med
by
the
dis
ciplin
e of H
CI,
only
a lim
ited
num
ber
of
studie
s ex
ist
focu
sing o
n t
heo
retica
l ap
pro
aches
of
UX
des
ign a
nd e
valu
atio
n (
e.g.,
[1][
2])
. Although t
her
e is
a
rela
tive
ly r
ich d
iscu
ssio
n a
bout
tech
nol
ogic
al,
met
hodolo
gic
al,
and d
esig
n iss
ues
on U
X,
the
effo
rts
to
find a
nd e
labora
te t
he
theo
retica
l ro
ots
for
UX r
esea
rch
still
fal
l sh
ort
(see
e.g
., [
1][
10][
14])
.
A k
ey m
otiva
tion f
or
our
wor
k is
to c
ontr
ibute
to a
cl
arific
atio
n o
f th
e re
lationsh
ip b
etw
een U
X a
nd t
he
nei
ghboring r
esea
rch f
ield
s, a
s th
eories
pro
vide
a w
ay
to u
nder
stan
d t
he
diffe
rent
per
spec
tive
s on U
X.
A
“map
” of
theo
ries
in u
se w
ould
be
one
step
tow
ards
under
stan
din
g t
he
theo
retica
l fo
undat
ions
of
UX.
At
the
CH
I’11 c
onfe
rence
we
org
aniz
ed a
spec
ial
inte
rest
gro
up (
SIG
) se
ssio
n w
her
e par
tici
pan
ts w
ere
aske
d t
he
ques
tion:
What
theo
retica
l ro
ots
do w
e build
on,
if a
ny
in U
X r
esea
rch?
[10].
Ove
rall,
110 r
esponse
s fr
om
about
70 p
artici
pan
ts w
ere
colle
cted
, w
hic
h
corr
obor
ates
the
rele
vance
of
and inte
rest
in t
his
topic
. W
hile
the
theo
retica
l fo
undat
ions
for
UX r
esea
rch a
re
not
yet
esta
blis
hed
, th
ose
res
ponse
s ca
n s
erve
as
candid
ate
reso
urc
es f
or s
etting t
he
theo
retica
l direc
tions.
A m
ain c
oncl
usi
on f
rom
the
SIG
dis
cuss
ion is
that
the
HCI
com
munity
nee
ds
theo
ries
in U
X r
esea
rch.
This
does
not
nec
essa
rily
mea
n a
sin
gle
or
a unifie
d U
X
theo
ry:
it c
ould
als
o b
e a
com
bin
atio
n o
f th
eories
that
ca
n b
e ap
plie
d t
o a
ddre
ss e
mpiric
al iss
ues
and info
rm
and g
uid
e pra
ctic
e.
In t
his
pap
er,
we
anal
yze
and s
um
mar
ize
the
resp
onse
s, h
ighlig
hting t
he
theo
retica
l id
eas
shar
ed b
y H
CI
rese
arch
ers
and p
ract
itio
ner
s in
the
SIG
ses
sion.
Bas
ed o
n t
his
anal
ysis
, in
itia
l co
ncl
usi
ons
are
pre
sente
d
to s
teer
futu
re w
ork
.
Rela
ted
Wo
rk
Sev
eral
theo
ries
, fo
r in
stan
ce,
in p
sych
olo
gy,
soci
olo
gy,
an
d p
hilo
sophy
expla
in h
ow
peo
ple
act
and b
ehav
e in
th
e re
al w
orld.
Such
theo
ries
wer
e fo
und a
s re
leva
nt
for
inte
ract
ion d
esig
n [
13]
as w
ell as
for
eval
uat
ion s
tudie
s [2
]. H
ow
ever
, th
e div
ersi
ty o
f th
eories
has
adva
nta
ges
as
wel
l as
dis
adva
nta
ges
. As
com
par
ed t
o th
e se
lect
ion
of
a m
ethod o
r m
ethodolo
gy,
the
conse
quen
ces
of
choosi
ng o
ne
theo
ry o
ver
anoth
er a
re n
ot a
lway
s cl
ear.
M
ore
ove
r, B
aum
er a
nd T
omlin
son [
2]
argue:
“It
is
unlik
ely
that
any
single
theo
ry w
ill m
eet
all th
e nee
ds
of
ever
y H
CI
rese
arch
er a
nd p
ract
itio
ner
. Thus,
rat
her
th
an s
triv
e to
war
d u
nific
atio
n,
we
shou
ld s
eek
to
capital
ize
on o
ur
curr
ent
theo
retica
l plu
ralis
m”.
The
rela
ted r
esea
rch p
rese
nts
div
erse
vie
ws
about
the
kind o
f th
eories
nee
ded
in t
he
UX f
ield
. La
w a
nd v
an
Sch
aik
[9]
pro
pose
a r
esea
rch a
gen
da
for
model
ing U
X
in t
erm
s of
mea
sure
men
t m
odel
s an
d s
truct
ura
l Fig
ure
1.
SIG
ses
sion a
t CH
I’11 o
n t
he
theo
retica
l ro
ots
of U
X r
esea
rch [
10].
Wor
k-in
-Pro
gres
sC
HI 2
012,
May
5–1
0, 2
012,
Aus
tin, T
exas
, USA
1980
model
s. I
n t
hei
r vi
ew,
stru
ctura
l m
odel
s ca
n p
lay
an
import
ant
role
in “
build
ing t
he
theo
retica
l under
stan
din
g o
f (c
ausa
l) r
elat
ionsh
ips
bet
wee
n U
X
const
ruct
s an
d d
esig
n c
har
acte
rist
ics
as a
bas
is f
or
info
rmin
g (
pra
ctic
al)
syst
em d
esig
n.”
This
is
in lin
e w
ith
Shnei
der
man
et
al.’s
[10]
poin
ting o
ut
the
rele
vance
of
theo
ries
in H
CI
for
pre
dic
tive
, ex
pla
nat
ory,
and
gen
erat
ive
purp
ose
s, in p
articu
lar
to s
yste
mat
ical
ly
support
the
nex
t gen
erat
ion o
f in
nova
tion
s.
Anoth
er v
iew
is
exem
plif
ied b
y Roger
s [1
3],
who
sugges
ts t
hat
inst
ead o
f st
rivi
ng f
or
expla
nat
ory
fr
amew
ork
s an
d p
redic
tions
for
spec
ific
pro
ble
ms,
in
terd
epen
den
cies
bet
wee
n d
esig
n,
tech
nolo
gy
and
beh
avio
r sh
ould
be
addre
ssed
. This
should
be
done
by
dev
elopin
g “
wild
theo
ries
”, i.e
., t
heo
ries
der
ived
fro
m
studyi
ng s
ituat
ions
in r
eal-
life
inst
ead o
f in
lab
ora
tories
. It
is
bec
ause
, ac
cord
ing t
o R
oger
[13],
som
e H
CI
theo
ry d
evel
oped
in t
he
lab h
as b
een found t
o b
e unfit
or
inap
plic
able
. W
hile
this
cla
im e
nta
ils furt
her
dis
cuss
ion,
esse
ntial
ly t
his
is
a ca
ll fo
r co
nte
xtual
th
eories
of U
X t
hat
are
bro
ad e
nough t
o e
xpla
in
phen
om
ena
in t
he
com
ple
x re
al w
orld
.
Der
ivin
g f
rom
this
bro
ader
vie
w,
ther
e is
an incr
easi
ng
atte
ntion t
o des
crib
e th
e w
hole
exp
erie
nce
in t
erm
s of
its
inte
rconnec
ted a
spec
ts,
rath
er t
han
foc
usi
ng o
n
frag
men
ted a
spec
ts [
15].
Such
vie
wpoin
t (d
irec
ted
tow
ards
the
com
ple
xity
of ex
per
ience
s) d
oes
not
su
pport
tru
ly t
heo
ry-d
rive
n d
esig
n.
Gav
er [
7]
poin
ts o
ut
that
we
shou
ld n
ot
dem
and t
oo m
uch
of our
theo
ries
. W
hen
it
com
es t
o d
esig
n p
ract
ice,
a w
ider
pal
ette
of
orien
ting c
once
pts
and fra
mew
ork
s is
oft
en r
eques
ted,
for
enab
ling a
d h
oc
usa
ge,
rat
her
than
focu
sing o
n
theo
ries
, w
hic
h c
annot
be
wel
l in
tegra
ted w
ith t
he
ad
hoc
fash
ion o
f pra
ctic
e-bas
ed r
esea
rch [
7].
Data
an
d A
naly
sis
From
the
SIG
ses
sion
at
CH
I’11 [
10],
we
colle
cted
110
resp
onse
s w
her
e peo
ple
nam
ed t
heo
ries
that
they
hav
e use
d in t
hei
r U
X w
ork
or
that
they
thin
k ar
e ap
plic
able
to
UX,
ofte
n w
ith a
ref
eren
ce t
o m
ore
info
rmat
ion o
n
the
theo
ry.
From
thes
e re
sponse
s, w
e ex
trac
ted 1
22
indiv
idual
ite
ms
for
furt
her
anal
ysis
. Aft
er r
emovi
ng
duplic
ates
and ite
ms
with a
n u
ncl
ear
theo
retica
l bas
is
(e.g
., ‘Sat
isfa
ctio
n’)
, 86 ite
ms
rem
ained
. Fr
om t
his
set
, w
e filter
ed o
ut
9 ite
ms
that
wer
e des
ign a
nd e
valu
atio
n
tech
niq
ues
(e.
g.,
“Par
tici
pat
ory
pro
ble
m fra
min
g”,
‘T
hin
k al
oud’)
or
tools
(e.
g.,
‘TRU
E s
yste
m’)
rat
her
than
th
eories
, re
sultin
g in a
set
of
77 ite
ms
for
the
nex
t phas
e of th
e an
alys
is.
In t
he
SIG
ses
sion,
par
tici
pan
ts w
ere
aske
d t
o m
ap
thei
r th
eories
to f
our
cate
gories
des
crib
ed in t
he
SIG
’s
ple
nar
y se
ssio
n:
the
thre
e ca
tegories
des
crib
ed in [
16],
i.e.
, use
r-ce
nte
red (
hel
pin
g t
o u
nder
stan
d u
sers
),
inte
ract
ion-c
ente
red (
focu
sing o
n h
ow
peo
ple
engag
e w
ith p
roduct
s),
and p
roduct
-cen
tere
d (
chec
klis
ts a
nd
criter
ia for
good p
roduct
des
ign);
or
oth
er (
oth
er foci
fo
r U
X w
ork
). W
hen
inve
stig
atin
g t
he
dat
a, w
e re
aliz
ed
ther
e w
ere
item
s th
at d
id n
ot
clea
rly
fall
under
one
of
the
thre
e ca
tegories
(se
e ca
tegory
A,
B,
C b
elow
).
Ther
e w
as a
nee
d t
o ex
tend t
he
use
r-ce
nte
red
view
poin
t to
war
ds
soci
al a
spec
ts a
nd s
oci
al influen
ces
(e.g
., ‘Co-e
xper
ience
’ – s
ee c
ateg
ory
D)
as w
ell as
to
war
ds
des
ign p
roce
sses
and a
ctiv
itie
s (e
.g.,
‘des
ign
rational
e as
theo
ry’ – s
ee c
ateg
ory
E).
More
ove
r,
seve
ral use
r-,
pro
duct
- an
d inte
ract
ion a
spec
ts w
ere
bro
ught
toget
her
in c
once
pts
such
as
soci
al c
ognitio
n
theo
ry o
r th
e ac
tor-
net
work
theo
ry,
and w
ere
sum
mar
ized
in a
new
com
bin
atio
n c
ateg
ory
(see
F
bel
ow
). F
inal
ly,
som
e item
s w
ere
even
bro
ader
, ad
dre
ssin
g b
asic
hum
an a
nd s
oci
etal
asp
ects
(e.
g.,
Wor
k-in
-Pro
gres
sC
HI 2
012,
May
5–1
0, 2
012,
Aus
tin, T
exas
, USA
1981
‘fem
inis
t th
eory
’, ‘cr
itic
al t
heo
ry’, ‘M
arxi
sm’:
see
ca
tegory
G).
Thre
e au
thors
cat
egorize
d t
he
item
s se
par
atel
y al
ong t
he
follo
win
g s
even
cat
egories
, w
hic
h
wer
e use
d for
the
seco
nd r
ound o
f th
e ca
tegoriza
tion.
A.
Hum
an/u
ser
focu
s
B.
Product
/art
ifac
t fo
cus
C.
Use
r/ar
tifa
ct/e
nvi
ronm
ent
rela
tions
D.
Soci
al n
ature
of
UX
E.
Des
ign f
ocu
s F.
Fr
amew
orks
invo
lvin
g s
ever
al t
hem
es fro
m A
to E
G
. Eve
n b
road
er fra
mew
ork
s re
late
d t
o h
um
an
exis
tence
Tw
o o
ther
auth
ors
did
a fin
al filt
erin
g,
excl
udin
g
met
hodolo
gic
al c
once
pts
such
as
‘eth
nogra
phy’
, ‘h
eurist
ics
on d
ecis
ion m
akin
g’, a
s w
ell as
appro
aches
su
ch a
s ‘u
ser-
cente
red d
esig
n’, ‘par
tici
pat
ory
des
ign’.
The
rem
ainin
g s
et o
f 56 c
ateg
orize
d ite
ms
hel
ped
us
in
the
sear
ch for
the
theo
retica
l fo
undat
ions
for
UX
rese
arch
and p
ract
ice.
In a
dditio
n t
o t
he
above
cat
egoriza
tion o
f th
e item
s, t
he
theo
ries
wer
e al
so c
ateg
ori
zed b
ased
on t
he
scie
ntific
dis
ciplin
e fr
om w
hic
h t
he
theo
ry o
rigin
ated
. O
ne
of
the
auth
ors
first
mad
e a
list
of dis
ciplin
es a
nd t
hre
e oth
er
auth
ors
map
ped
the
item
s ag
ainst
thes
e dis
ciplin
es.
The
auth
ors
then
dis
cuss
ed t
hei
r dis
agre
emen
ts u
ntil
conse
nsu
s w
as r
each
ed o
n o
ne
mai
n d
isci
plin
e fo
r ea
ch
item
. O
nly
for
som
e item
s no u
niq
ue
dis
ciplin
e as
signm
ent
could
be
mad
e due
to t
hei
r ve
ry
inte
rdis
ciplin
ary
bac
kgro
und.
This
was
mai
nly
the
case
fo
r th
e item
s in
cat
egor
y G
(e.
g.,
Const
ruct
ivis
t le
arnin
g
theo
ry –
cat
egori
zed a
s ‘p
hilo
sophy
and e
duca
tion’;
Sym
bolic
inte
ract
ionis
m –
cat
egorize
d a
s ‘s
oci
olo
gy
and
psy
cholo
gy’
).
An o
verv
iew
on t
he
seve
n e
mer
ged
cat
egories
(A t
o G
) an
d t
he
incl
uded
ite
ms,
as
wel
l as
the
iden
tified
dis
ciplin
es a
re s
how
n in T
able
1 t
o 3
.
Tow
ard
s T
heore
tica
l Fou
nd
ati
on
s In
the
follo
win
g,
we
are
zoom
ing into
the
seve
n
cate
gories
, poi
nting o
ut
thei
r m
ain lin
kage
with U
X
rese
arch
and p
ract
ice.
A.
Hu
man
/u
ser:
The
larg
est
cate
gory
is
about
under
stan
din
g t
he
indiv
idual
use
r, t
he
use
rs’
char
acte
rist
ics,
em
otions,
motive
s an
d c
ognitiv
e pro
cess
es.
Psy
cholo
gic
al m
odel
s an
d t
heo
ries
dom
inat
e th
is c
ateg
ory
. W
hen
usi
ng t
heo
ries
about
a hum
an/u
ser,
the
des
ign p
roce
ss inve
stig
ates
iss
ues
lik
e m
otiva
tion a
nd h
um
an fac
tors
affec
ting p
roduct
ac
cepta
nce
and a
ppra
isal
. Typ
ical
ly,
UX e
valu
atio
ns
bas
ed o
n t
hes
e th
eories
inve
stig
ate
mom
enta
ry
exper
ience
s or
sen
sem
akin
g.
B.
Pro
du
ct/art
ifact
: N
ext
to a
focu
s on t
he
hum
an/u
ser,
one
may
tak
e th
eories
on
pro
duct
s/ar
tifa
cts
as s
tart
ing p
oin
ts f
or U
X d
esig
n.
For
inst
ance
, fo
rmal
ist
aest
het
ics
and p
roduct
sem
iotics
st
art
by
inve
stig
atin
g p
roduct
char
acte
rist
ics.
UX
eval
uat
ions,
if done
at a
ll, a
re o
ften
bas
ed o
n e
xper
t co
nsi
der
atio
ns
rath
er t
han
thoro
ugh inve
stig
atio
ns
of
hum
an r
eact
ions.
C.
Use
r/art
ifact
/en
vir
on
men
t R
ela
tion
s: I
n t
his
ca
tegory
, th
e in
terp
lay
bet
wee
n t
he
use
r an
d p
roduct
is
centr
al.
The
item
s in
this
cat
egory
com
e fr
om
des
ign
and p
sych
olo
gic
al d
isci
plin
es m
ainly
, an
d m
any
of
them
hig
hlig
ht
the
import
ance
of co
nte
xt a
nd s
ituat
ion in U
X
form
atio
n.
Thus,
this
theo
retica
l fo
undat
ion p
rovi
des
su
pport
for
inve
stig
atin
g U
X in r
eal lif
e.
Catego
ry�item
s�Discipl.�
A:�H
uman
/user��
1.�Cha
nge�av
ersion
�2.�Cog
nitiv
e�load
�the
ory�
3.�Cog
nitiv
e�us
er�m
odel�
4.�Dyn
amic�m
emory�mod
els�
5.�Emotiona
l�respo
nse�theo
ries�
6.�Flow�th
eory�
7.�GOMS�mod
el,�H
uman
�proc.�m
odel�
8.�Heu
ristic
s�on
�dec
ision�making�
9.�Hick's�La
w�
10.�H
ierarchical�value
�mod
els�
11.�Inform.�p
rocessing�ps
ycho
logy
�12.�M
aslow's�hierarchy
�of�n
eeds�
13.�M
eans‐end
�cha
ins�
14.�M
ental�m
odel�the
ory�
15.�A
ccessibility�of�emotion�mode
l�16.�S
CI�m
odel�
17.�T
heory�of�m
otiv.�and
�hum
an�nee
ds�
18.�T
heory�on
�beh
avior�c
hang
e�19.�U
ser�s
elf‐e
fficac
y�20
.�Visua
l�atten
tion
�the
ory�
21.�W
orking
�mem
ory�theo
ry�
22.�A
fforda
nce�theo
ry�
�ti
�i�
t�l
��
� Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy/Mar�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
Psy�
�
Tab
le 1
. Pa
rt 1
of th
e ove
rvie
w o
n o
ur
colle
ctio
n o
f 56 t
heo
retica
l per
spec
tive
s ex
trac
ted fro
m t
he
colle
cted
dat
a an
d
map
ped
to 7
mai
n c
ateg
ories
(A t
o G
) an
d 9
iden
tified
dis
ciplin
es.
Legen
d for
dis
ciplin
es:
Psy
= P
sych
olo
gy
Soc
= S
oci
olo
gy
Mar
= M
ark
etin
g
Phil
= P
hilo
sophy
Com
= C
om
munic
ation
Edu =
Educa
tion
Art
= A
rt
Anth
= A
nth
ropolo
gy
Des
= D
esig
n
Wor
k-in
-Pro
gres
sC
HI 2
012,
May
5–1
0, 2
012,
Aus
tin, T
exas
, USA
1982
D.
Soci
al N
atu
re o
f U
X:
The
per
spec
tive
in c
ateg
ory
A
is f
ocu
sed o
n a
n indiv
idual
, w
her
eas
item
s in
this
ca
tegory
ste
m f
rom
theo
ries
about
rela
tion
s an
d
com
munic
atio
n b
etw
een p
eople
. D
esig
ner
s le
anin
g o
n
theo
ries
that
focu
s on s
oci
al a
spec
ts a
nd c
o-e
xper
ience
, co
nsi
der
exp
erie
nce
as
a so
cial
phen
om
enon a
nd s
tudy
reflec
tion o
n a
nd r
ecounting o
f ex
per
ience
s (s
ee [
15])
. Thus,
this
cat
egory
is
mor
e in
terd
isci
plin
ary
with ite
ms
com
ing fro
m s
oci
olo
gy,
com
munic
atio
n a
nd d
esig
n.
E.
Desi
gn
: The
two
item
s in
this
cat
egory
com
e fr
om
the
art
and d
esig
n fie
ld.
Car
roll
[4],
for
inst
ance
, poin
ts
out
the
contr
ibution o
f des
ign r
atio
nal
e to
the
theo
ry
dev
elopm
ent
in H
CI,
as
it p
rovi
des
a f
oundat
ion f
or
action r
esea
rch a
nd t
hus
a ra
pid
under
stan
din
g for
inst
ance
with a
focu
s on
UX.
Exp
erie
nce
eva
luat
ion is
not
centr
al in t
his
theo
retica
l fo
undat
ion.
F.
Fra
mew
ork
s in
volv
ing
severa
l th
em
es
from
A t
o
E:
Man
y item
s in
our
colle
ctio
n inte
gra
te d
iffe
rent
per
spec
tive
s an
d a
re t
hus
pla
ced u
nder
this
cat
egory
. It
ems
such
as
the
acto
r-net
work
theo
ry o
r sy
mbolic
in
tera
ctio
nis
m inve
stig
ate
the
inte
rrel
atio
nsh
ip b
etw
een
use
rs a
nd t
hei
r ro
les
in inte
ract
ion s
ituat
ions.
This
th
eories
support
the
direc
tion t
ow
ard a
more
holis
tic
des
crip
tion
of U
X in t
erm
s of
its
inte
rconnec
ted a
spec
ts,
rath
er t
han
foc
usi
ng o
n f
ragm
ente
d a
spec
ts [
15].
G.
Bro
ad
er
fram
ew
ork
s re
late
d t
o h
um
an
exis
ten
ce:
In t
his
las
t ca
tegory
, w
e find b
road
th
eore
tica
l fr
amew
ork
s, m
ainly
ref
lect
ing p
hilo
sophic
al
view
s ab
out
hum
an e
xist
ence
. Sev
eral
att
empts
hav
e bee
n m
ade
to b
road
en t
he
HCI
per
spec
tive
, e.
g.
in
valu
e or
sensi
tive
bas
ed d
esig
n o
r fe
min
ist
dis
cuss
ions,
w
hic
h b
ecom
e al
so r
elev
ant
when
tar
get
ing U
X a
nd its
em
bed
din
g into
soci
o-t
echnic
al s
yste
m d
iscu
ssio
ns
[6].
Dis
cuss
ion
an
d C
on
clu
sio
ns
This
pap
er a
ddre
sses
the
nee
d f
or m
ore
know
ledge
on
UX t
heo
ries
use
d in r
esea
rch a
nd p
ract
ice
by
HCI
rese
arch
ers
and p
ract
itio
ner
s. P
revi
ousl
y no s
yste
mat
ic
anal
ysis
of U
X-r
elat
ed t
heo
ries
exi
sted
. The
resu
lts
of
our
rese
arch
– 5
6 t
heo
ry ite
ms
map
ped
into
7 t
heo
ry
cate
gories
and 9
dis
ciplin
es –
pro
vide
the
bas
is for
an
under
stan
din
g o
f pote
ntial
ly a
pplic
able
UX t
heo
ries
. Exp
erie
nce
its
elf has
bee
n s
tudie
d b
y diffe
rent
dis
ciplin
es,
such
as
soci
olo
gy,
psy
cholo
gy,
m
anag
emen
t, m
arke
ting,
ergonom
ics,
wher
e it h
as
bee
n d
efin
ed a
ccord
ing t
o s
pec
ific
dis
ciplin
ary
jarg
on
and c
once
ptu
aliz
ed b
y ow
n u
nder
stan
din
gs
and
findin
gs.
Bas
ed o
n o
ur
initia
l dat
a co
llect
ion,
psy
cholo
gy
clea
rly
dom
inat
es t
he
set
of r
eport
ed t
heo
ries
. H
ow
ever
, w
e co
uld
see
som
e in
dic
atio
ns
that
oth
er
soci
al s
cien
ces,
such
as
soci
olo
gy,
can
bro
aden
the
view
on U
X.
Philo
sophic
al t
heo
ries
additio
nal
ly h
old
str
ong
pote
ntial
to c
han
ge
our
way
s of des
ignin
g for
and
studyi
ng U
X.
By
fam
iliar
izin
g o
urs
elve
s w
ith t
hes
e th
eories
, w
e ca
n r
each
a b
road
er p
ictu
re o
f des
ignin
g
for
UX b
eyond inte
ract
ion d
esig
n,
for
exam
ple
fro
m t
he
per
spec
tive
s of hum
an v
alues
, fe
min
ism
and
sust
ainab
le a
spec
ts in H
CI.
Bas
ed o
n o
ur
dat
a w
e do n
ot
know
how
thes
e th
eories
hav
e bee
n o
r ar
e in
tended
to b
e use
d,
thus
mor
e em
piric
al r
esea
rch is
nee
ded
. M
oreo
ver,
the
curr
ent
use
an
d u
nder
stan
din
g o
f th
e co
nce
pt
of U
X b
y th
e H
CI
com
munity
is n
ot
neb
ulo
us,
but
multile
vele
d a
nd
multid
imen
sion
al.
The
cate
gories
we
hav
e id
entified
are
an
initia
l m
appin
g o
f th
e fiel
d a
nd p
oin
t to
war
ds
the
direc
tions
for
furt
her
con
ceptu
al a
nd t
heo
retica
l cl
arific
atio
n.
The
follo
win
g t
opic
s nee
d furt
her
att
ention
an
d s
hould
stim
ula
te futu
re d
iscu
ssio
ns
and w
ork
(se
e al
so o
ur
futu
re w
ork
act
ivitie
s [1
1])
:
Catego
ry�item
s�Discipl.�
23.�U
tility
�The
ory�
24.�Ide
al�typ
es�
25.�P
erso
nality�co
nstruct,ladd
ering�
27.�S
ensemaking�
� B:�P
rodu
ct/artifact��
1.�Formalist�A
esthetics�
2.�Lon
g�tail�mod
el�
3.�Sem
iology
/Sem
iotics�in
�Prod.�design�
� C:�Relation�user/artifact/en
vironm
ent�
1.�Fitt's
�Law
�2.�Gestalt�theo
ry�
3.�Hed
onic‐pragm
atic�m
ode
l�4.�The
ory�of�M
EMES
�5.�Distributed
�cogn
ition�
� D:�Ind
ividua
l/soc
ial�
1.�Co‐ex
perie
nce�
2.�Com
m.�a
ccom
mod
ation�theo
ry�
4.�Soc
ial�n
etw.�a
nal.�(the
ories�ab
out)�
5.�Soc
ial�trans
lucenc
e�6.�Soc
ially�sha
red�co
gnitive
�theo
ry�
�
Psy�
Psy/So
c�Ps
y/Mar�
Psy/So
c/Ph
il�� � Des�
Mar�
Des/Com
�� � Ps
y/Des�
Psy/Des�
Psy�
Soc�
Psy�
� � Des/Soc
�Co
m/Soc
�So
c�Ps
y/So
c�Ps
y/So
c��
Tab
le 2
. Pa
rt 2
of th
e ove
rvie
w o
n o
ur
colle
ctio
n o
f 56 t
heo
retica
l per
spec
tive
s ex
trac
ted fro
m t
he
colle
cted
dat
a an
d
map
ped
to 7
mai
n c
ateg
ories
(A t
o G
) an
d 9
iden
tified
dis
ciplin
es.
Legen
d for
dis
ciplin
es:
Psy
= P
sych
olo
gy
Soc
= S
oci
olo
gy
Mar
= M
ark
etin
g
Phil
= P
hilo
sophy
Com
= C
om
munic
ation
Edu =
Educa
tion
Art
= A
rt
Anth
= A
nth
ropolo
gy
Des
= D
esig
n
Wor
k-in
-Pro
gres
sC
HI 2
012,
May
5–1
0, 2
012,
Aus
tin, T
exas
, USA
1983
Applic
abili
ty a
nd a
ppro
priat
ion o
f th
eories
and
theo
retica
l co
nce
pts
in U
X d
esig
n a
nd e
valu
atio
n.
Tra
nsf
erab
ility
of
theo
ries
and t
heo
retica
l co
nce
pts
fr
om
res
earc
h t
o p
ract
ice.
Usa
ge
of th
eories
for
studyi
ng U
X in d
iffe
rent
sett
ings
and c
onte
xts.
Colle
ctio
n o
f th
eories
use
d in U
X w
ork
outs
ide
the
CH
I co
mm
unity.
Ack
now
led
gem
en
ts
We
ackn
ow
ledge
the
support
by
the
Mar
ie C
urie
IEF
Act
ion o
f th
e Euro
pea
n U
nio
n (
FP7-P
EO
PLE-2
010-I
EF)
, an
d b
y TEKES/F
IMECC.
We
also
than
k th
e par
tici
pan
ts
of
the
SIG
for
thei
r ac
tive
par
tici
pat
ion.
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
[1
] Bas
soli,
A.,
Bre
wer
, J.
and M
artin,
K.
2007.
In-
bet
wee
n t
heo
ry a
nd p
ract
ice:
dia
logues
in d
esig
n
rese
arch
. In
CH
I EA '07.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
1691-1
696.
[2]
Bau
mer
, E.P
.S.
and T
om
linso
n,
B.
2011.
Com
par
ing
activi
ty t
heo
ry w
ith d
istr
ibute
d c
ognitio
n for
video
an
alys
is:
bey
ond "
kick
ing t
he
tire
s".
In P
roc.
CH
I '1
1.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
133-1
42.
[3]
Bly
the,
M.,
Wri
ght,
P.,
McC
arth
y, J
. an
d B
erte
lsen
, O
.W.
2006.
Theo
ry a
nd m
ethod for
exper
ience
cen
tere
d
des
ign.
In P
roc.
CH
I EA '06.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
1691-1
694.
[4]
Car
roll,
J.M
. (E
d.)
2003.
HCI
Model
s, T
heo
ries
, an
d
Fram
ewor
ks.
Tow
ards
a M
ultid
isci
plin
ary
Sci
ence
. M
org
an K
aufm
ann,
San
Fra
nci
sco.
[5]
Die
fenbac
h,
S a
nd H
asse
nza
hl, M
. 2009.
The
"Bea
uty
Dile
mm
a":
bea
uty
is
valu
ed b
ut
dis
counte
d in
pro
duct
choic
e. I
n P
roc.
CH
I '0
9.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
1419-
1426.
[6]
Fuch
s, C
. an
d O
brist
, M
. 2010.
HCI
and s
ocie
ty:
Tow
ards
a ty
polo
gy
of univ
ersa
l des
ign p
rinci
ple
s. I
n:
Inte
rnat
ional
Journ
al o
f H
CI,
638-6
56.
[7]
Gav
er,
W.
2006.
Lear
nin
g fro
m E
xper
ience
: The
Hum
ble
Role
of
Theo
ry in P
ract
ice-
Bas
ed R
esea
rch.
CH
I’06 W
orks
hop p
osi
tion p
aper
for
Theo
ry a
nd m
ethod
for
exper
ience
cen
tere
d d
esig
n.
[8]
Kuutt
i, K
. 2010.
Wher
e ar
e th
e Io
nia
ns
of use
r ex
per
ience
res
earc
h?
In P
roc.
Nord
iCH
I '1
0.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
715-7
18.
[9]
Law
, E.L
.C.,
van
Sch
aik,
P.
2010.
Model
ling u
ser
exper
ience
- A
n a
gen
da
for
rese
arch
and p
ract
ice.
In
tera
ctin
g w
ith C
om
pute
rs 2
2(5
): 3
13-3
22.
[10]
Obrist
, M
.; L
aw,
E.
L.-C
.; V
äänän
en-V
ainio
-Mat
tila
, K.;
Roto
, V.;
Ver
mee
ren,
A.
& K
uutt
i, K
. U
X R
esea
rch:
What
Theo
retica
l Roots
Do W
e Build
On –
If Any?
In
Proc.
CH
I EA '11.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
165-1
68.
[11]
Obrist
, M
., R
oto,
V.,
Law
, E.L
-C.,
Vää
nän
en-V
ainio
-M
attila
, K.,
Ver
mee
ren,
A.P
.O.S
., B
uie
, E.
2012.
Theo
ries
beh
ind U
X R
esea
rch a
nd H
ow
They
Are
Use
d
in P
ract
ice.
Acc
epte
d C
HI’12 W
ork
shop.
[12]
Shnei
der
man
, B.,
Car
d,
S.,
Norm
an,
D.A
.,
Tre
mai
ne,
M.
and W
aldro
p,
M.M
. 2002.
CH
I@20:
fighting o
ur
way
fro
m m
argin
ality
to p
ow
er.
In C
HI
EA
'02.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
688-6
91.
[13]
Roger
s, Y
. 2011.
Inte
ract
ion d
esig
n g
one
wild
: st
rivi
ng f
or
wild
theo
ry.
inte
ract
ions
18,
4(7
/11),
58-6
2.
[14]
Ver
mee
ren,
A.P
.O.S
., L
aw,
E.L
.C.,
Roto
, V.,
Obrist
, M
., H
oon
hout,
J.
and V
äänän
en-V
ainio
-Mat
tila
, K.
2010.
UX e
valu
atio
n m
ethods:
curr
ent
stat
e an
d d
evel
opm
ent
nee
ds.
In P
roc.
Nord
iCH
I '1
0.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
521-5
30.
[15]
Wright,
P.,
and M
cCar
thy
J. 2
010.
Exp
erie
nce
-Cen
tere
d D
esig
n:
Des
igner
s, U
sers
, an
d C
om
munitie
s in
Dia
logue.
Syn
thes
is L
ectu
res
in H
um
an-C
ente
red
Info
rmat
ics,
ed.
John C
arro
ll, n
o. 8
, San
Raf
ael, C
A:
Morg
an &
Cla
ypool Publis
her
s.
[16]
Zim
mer
man
, J.
, Fo
rliz
zi,
J.,
and K
osk
inen
, I.
2009.
Build
ing a
unifie
d f
ram
ewor
k fo
r th
e pra
ctic
e of
exper
ience
des
ign.
In P
roc.
CH
I '0
9.
ACM
, N
Y,
USA,
4803-4
806.
Catego
ry�item
s�Discipl.�
E:�Design�
1.�Design�Ra
tiona
le�(Ca
rroll)�
2.�Perform
ance�as�interaction ��
� F:�Framew
orks�in
volving�seve
ral�
them
es�from
�A�th
roug
h�E�
1.�Aesthetic�exp
erienc
e�2.�Techn
olog
y�ad
optio
n�mod
els�
3.�Soc
ial�cog
nitio
n�theo
ry�
4.�Activity
�The
ory�
5.�Actor‐Network�Th
eory�
6.�Phe
nomen
olog
y�7.�Sym
bolic�in
teractionism
�8.�Dramaturgical�The
ory�
9.�Visua
l�anthrop
olog
y�� G:�B
road
er�fram
eworks�related
�to�
human
�existen
ce�
1.�American
�pragm
atism�
2.�Con
structivist�learning�theo
ry�
3.�Critic
al�th
eory�
4.�Fem
inist�the
ory�
5.�Fun
ctiona
lism/struc
turalism�
6.�M
arxism
�
� Des�
Anth �
� � � Des�
Soc�
Soc/Ps
y�Psy�
Soc�
Phil�
Soc/Ps
y�Art/Soc
�Anth�
� � � Edu/Psy�
Phil/Ed
u�Ph
il/So
c�Ph
il/So
c�Ph
il�Ph
il/So
c�
Tab
le 3
. Pa
rt 3
of th
e ove
rvie
w o
n o
ur
colle
ctio
n o
f 56 t
heo
retica
l per
spec
tive
s ex
trac
ted fro
m t
he
colle
cted
dat
a an
d
map
ped
to 7
mai
n c
ateg
ories
(A t
o G
) an
d 9
iden
tified
dis
ciplin
es.
Legen
d for
dis
ciplin
es:
Psy
= P
sych
olo
gy
Soc
= S
oci
olo
gy
Mar
= M
ark
etin
g
Phil
= P
hilo
sophy
Com
= C
om
munic
ation
Edu =
Educa
tion
Art
= A
rt
Anth
= A
nth
ropolo
gy
Des
= D
esig
n
Wor
k-in
-Pro
gres
sC
HI 2
012,
May
5–1
0, 2
012,
Aus
tin, T
exas
, USA
1984
