This paper explores the communication of emotion through shape using Morph-UX, a web-based application for emotive form design which uses physiological features correlated with emotional experience as input to control objects attributes in real-time. Centered on the body, our approach aims to provide visual feedback as to how bodily sensations associated with the expression of emotions can alter, transform and modulate shapes. Preliminary results from a 30-participant user study show that shapes generated using Morph-UX accurately convey users' experienced emotional valence and arousal. We describe the design and development of Morph-UX and highlight how embodied shapes can be used to communicate affect, ideas and intentions. Implications for further exploration of physiological signals as a design material are also discussed.

Due to their customizability, touchscreens continue to advance as a device of choice when designing aircraft cockpits.Previous studies investigated the effect of turbulence on human performance when using touchscreens, but few have evaluated its performance for realistic aviation-specific tasks.In this study, we compared four touchscreen widgets and three mechanical devices during realistic data input on a primary flight display (PFD).Twenty participants took part in the experiment at a constant level of vibration, while simultaneously completing a secondary tracking task.Results indicated that virtual keypads lead to faster completion time for medium to large changes while keeping error rates low.Rotary knobs were fastest for small changes.Virtual keypads also had lower workload and discomfort compared to rotary knobs and drag-based widgets.We found the completion time to be the most important factor in tracking task performance, which translated in higher precision for keypads.These findings suggest that virtual keypads represent an efficient and secure option for numerical data input at low-to-medium vibration.

The social dimension of interactive products covers all aspects of our relationships with others that are impacted by owning and using such products. Although social features are making their way into a growing number of interactive products, there is a lack of an evaluation tool to capture the social dimension of the user experience (UX). This study addressed this shortcoming by developing and validating new social scales based on the UEQ + framework. We developed four social scales to encompass various aspects within the social dimension. For scale development, 229 participants rated their UX with products having social aspects. Exploratory factor analysis allowed us to identify four sub-dimensions (Identification, Social interaction, Social stimulation, and Social acceptance), each evaluated with four items. For scale validation, 450 participants evaluated the UX of three product categories, using the new social scales, AttrakDiff, and the six UX dimensions of UEQ+. Results of MANOVA showed that the social scales discriminated the three categories (F (8, 560) = 20.68, p < 0.001, Pillai’s trace = 0.456). The four social scales developed in this study can be combined with other UX dimensions of the UEQ + modular framework to provide a comprehensive overview of user interaction with products.

With touchscreens being installed in aircraft flight decks, reach-and-turbulence-related challenges arise. Using the ISO 9241-411 multidirectional selection task (a 2D Fitts’ task), we quantified the impact of vibration on touchscreen target selection throughput (a performance score combining both speed and accuracy) and error rate in a cockpit layout. 24 participants completed the task under 2 vibration levels (helicopter level flight versus static), 2 hand support methods (using the thumb, while holding onto the screen’s edge, versus using the index finger freehand), 4 touchscreen types (two avionic and two consumer touchscreens), 2 touchscreen positions (main instrument panel versus pedestal), and 4 target sizes (0.8, 1, 1.5 and 2 cm). We found average throughput values of 6.5 bits per second (bps) in static conditions, versus 5.7 bps under vibration, and average error rates of 10.3% in static conditions, versus 16.6% under vibration. Similar to prior work, we found an exponential increase in error rate with decreasing target size. Larger target sizes helped mitigate the impact of vibration. We did not find evidence of a benefit to anchoring the hand on the touchscreen’s bezel edge, compared to the freehand baseline, under vibration or static conditions. Under vibration, the pedestal outperformed the main instrument panel position, with higher throughput and lower error rate. In static conditions, the two positions performed similarly. This work contributes to vibration mitigation methods when interacting with touchscreens in the aviation context.

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.

Abstract Billions of users around the world use mobile applications and computer software to achieve their professional and personal goals. This situation drives User Experience (UX) researchers and practitioners to assess the importance of UX dimensions across different products, to facilitate the design, development and evaluation of new products. To that end, this study surveyed a group of 200 end users and 8 UX experts from Canada to document the importance of 21 UX dimensions for 15 software product categories. The results confirmed that the importance of UX dimensions varies between product categories. Comparing the findings to those of similar studies conducted in Germany and Indonesia revealed that, while culture influences the rating of UX dimensions, the importance of UX dimensions is still determined by the product category. Comparisons between the importance ratings of UX dimensions between end users and experts and within end users were not significant in 77% and 97% of cases, respectively. Results showed that task-based product categories rely more on pragmatic dimensions (i.e. functionality and usability) while leisure-based products value hedonic dimensions (i.e. pleasure) as well. This study benefits researchers and practitioners by enabling them to select the most important UX dimensions for evaluating their products. CCS CONCEPTS: • Human-centered computing • Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) • HCI design and evaluation methods. Additional Keywords and Phrases: User experience, UX dimension, UX evaluation, culture.