Ehsan Mortazavi, Philippe Doyon-Poulin, Daniel Imbeau, Mitra Taraghi, Jean-Marc Robert
{"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}
引用次数: 0
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.
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).
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
