See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221436916

Towards a UX manifesto.

Conference Paper · September 2007

DOI: 10.14236/ewic/HCI2007.95 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

89 2,415

4 authors:

Lai-Chong Effie Law Arnold P. O. S. Vermeeren

University of Leicester Delft University of Technology
171 PUBLICATIONS   3,987 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   2,705 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marc Hassenzahl Mark Blythe

Universität Siegen Northumbria University
274 PUBLICATIONS   16,196 CITATIONS    142 PUBLICATIONS   5,066 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fundamentals of user experience View project

Law in Children's Lives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc Hassenzahl on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Towards a UX Manifesto
Effie Lai-Chong Law Arnold P.O.S. Vermeeren Marc Hassenzahl Mark Blythe
University of Leicester, UK TU Delft, NL University of Landau, DE, University of York, UK
Computer Science Industrial Design Economic Psychology Computer Science
University Road, Engineering Fortstraße 7 Heslington, York
Leicester, Landbergstraat 15 76829 Landau YO10 5DD
LE2 4UN NL 2628 CE Delft +49 6341 280 261 +44 190 4434764
+44 116 2717 302 +31 15 2784218 hassenzahl@uni- mblythe@cs.york.ac.uk
elaw@mcs.le.ac.uk a.p.o.s.vermeeren@tudelft.nl landau.de

ABSTRACT psychology tend to deconstruct experience into single

In this workshop we invite researchers, educators and components (e.g. motivation, trust, aversion, hedonics, fun,
practitioners to contribute to the construction of a coherent etc). The collection of components is further supplemented by
Manifesto for the field of User Experience (UX). Such a UX processes, which address, for example, the temporal aspect of
manifesto should express statements about issues like: experience or the dynamicity of psychological states, and
Fundamental assumptions underlying UX (principles), modulate experience. The concomitant questions are: Is there
positioning of UX relative to other domains (policy) and a core set of UX components (if yes, what are they)? Are
action plans for improving the design and evaluation of UX these components orthogonal, hierarchical or causally linked?
(plans). The UX manifesto can become a reference model for How does the relevance of each UX component vary with the
future work on UX. particularities of a context? What are boundary conditions for
a component-based UX model and what are the alternatives?
Although proponents of both approaches tend to
1. BACKGROUND & MOTIVATION overemphasize differences in the approaches, both are
Is the research and practice on User Experience (UX) important and far from mutually exclusive. The pragmatist
maturing since it has popularized the HCI community and the perspective advocates the detailed analysis of experience,
industry more than a decade ago? Is there a unified view offering rich insights into specific interactions, which can
about principles of UX? Are there any well-defined policies surely be used by designers. However, some in the field of
where to position UX in a map of the Information Technology HCI feel uncomfortable with relying solely on very small -
(IT) landscape, which is populated by usability, human but detailed - samples of experiences on which the design or
factors, interaction design, software engineering, marketing, evaluation of an interactive product is based. They rather look
and other domains? Are there any sound plans how to refine for more general principles and mechanisms – a few
methodologies on designing for, evaluating and teaching UX? categories of "average" experiences. The strength of an
In fact, such set of Principles, Policies and Plans constitute approach based on aggregated knowledge is the potential
what we coin «UX Manifesto», which is deemed important simplicity of the resulting models. However, at the same time
for the maturation of this emerging domain by providing the this – per definition – implies a reduction. This reduction has
foundation, objectives, and action plans for the future work of costs. First, the average model may not be predictive for any
UX. Principles inform the formation of policies, which in turn real user and his/her experience. Second, averaged data and
feed into plans as courses of action. accordingly abstract principles are not vivid; they may appear
shallow and may thus not be very inspiring for designers.
1.1 Principles Obviously, to be fruitful in the field of HCI UX, it is a
The term “Principles” denotes fundamental assumptions must to have both: ways to describe experiences in detail and
underlying UX. It addresses questions of what an experience all their complexity – especially as an inspiration for
is (in the context of interactive products and software), how it designers - and ways to average experiences, to build models
can be described or - from a designer' perspective - how it can to reduce complexity and to guide the detailed enquiries. In
be fabricated? other words, integrating the advantages of both approaches
Two seemingly exclusive positions emerged from rather than treating them as mutually exclusive is the
discussing these questions: one phenomenological/pragmatist challenge of future UX theorizing.
and one inspired by experimental psychology. The former is
exemplified by McCarthy and Wright's notion of 'felt 1.2 Policy
experience' [4]. It is based on Dewey's pragmatist view of The term ‘Policy’ primarily addresses the positioning of UX
experience. They argue against abstract models of experience relative to other closely related but distinct domains. For
and place emphasis on the situatedness and uniqueness of instance, distinctions between usability and UX have been
experience. In contrast, approaches inspired by experimental drawn [2]. Usability is a necessary but insufficient condition
to make a user smile, but UX, when desirable, can do so.
Positioned in this way, usability is subsumed by UX. But
some argue that UX is just an extension of usability to
accommodate fuzzy quality attributes such as emotion and
© Law, Vermeeren, Hassenzahl, Blythe , 2007 fun. The link between UX and software engineering lies in the
Published by the British Computer Society
definition of quality models that address a mesh of functional
Volume 2 Proceedings of the 21st BCS HCI Group
Conference and non-functional quality factors (e.g. reliability, security,
HCI 2007, 3-7 September 2007, Lancaster University, UK accessibility) determining user acceptance. There is also a
Devina Ramduny-Ellis & Dorothy Rachovides (Editors) link to the domain of industrial (electronic) product design
which traditionally focuses on integrating sub-outcomes of
 attributes and consequences into the overall value of a 4. WORKSHOP PROCEDURE
product. As noted by Cockton [1], UX can be considered at All submissions will be peer reviewed by members of the
least as one of these sub-outcomes. While usability standards program committee. For each submission, authors are
(e.g. ISO 9241) have some visible impacts on the research required to include a “Reflection Section” to derive from their
and practice of usability, questions concerning the necessity analytic or empirical work their own version of Principles,
and utility of such standards are recurrent. Hence, whether Policy and Plans as constituents of a UX Manifesto.
specific standards for UX should be developed is debatable. Participants may understand the three terms differently, and
Besides, as UX has added a new dimension to HCI and our challenge is to negotiate and consolidate the divergences
interactive product design, it should be explored how UX can to draw a consensus. Prior to the workshop, a Green Paper
effectively be taught as well. will be drafted based on ideas to be extracted from the
submissions of this workshop and those from the earlier UX
1.3 Plans workshops. It will then be distributed to the workshop
Theoretically UX is incoherent; methodologically UX is not
participants for comments and further inputs. In the
yet mature either. Questions like “How to design for UX?”
workshop, the following activities will be conducted:
and “How to evaluate UX?” are easy to ask but difficult to
answer. Answers may be sought in terms of devices that may (i) Presentation of the Green Paper
improve the UX (see the articles by Timco et al., Følstad, and (ii) Presentation of ‘personal’ UX Manifesto by the main
Hole in [3]) and of techniques (see Geven’s article in [3]) and author of each accepted submission
tools (e.g. TUMCAT [see Vermeeren & Kort’s in [3]) for (iii) Group Discussions: The audience will be divided into
analyzing, designing, engineering and evaluating UX. In groups of four or five to consolidate a group-based UX
brief, developing theoretically sound methodologies should be Manifesto and discuss other topics of interest (to be
high in the UX research agenda. Besides, there are critics that listed in the Green Paper).
UX is only used as a marketing slogan. It is intriguing to (iv) Plenary Reporting: Each group presents their UX
gather real case studies to illustrate how UX is actually Manifesto
handled in the professional world of interactive product (v) Panel Discussion: Invited UX experts will hold a panel
design in terms of requirements analysis, design, engineering to discuss the group Manifestoes and address the future
and evaluation. development of UX
5. PROGRAM COMMITTEE
2. THE MAIN GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ƒ Mark Blythe, University of York, UK
The overarching goal of the workshop is to invite inputs for ƒ Gilbert Cockton, University of Sunderland, UK
the construction of a coherent UX Manifesto constituted by ƒ Asbjørn Følstad, SINTEF, NO
the three pillars: Principles, Policy and Plans. This goal is ƒ Marc Hassenzahl, University of Landau, DE
divided into a number of objectives: ƒ Paul Hekkert, Delft University of Technology, NL
ƒ Effie Lai-Chong Law, University of Leicester, UK
ƒ To work on a unified view on UX by integrating different
ƒ Gitte Lindgaard, Carlton University, CA
theoretical perspectives (Principles)
ƒ Virpi Roto, Nokia, FL
ƒ To develop a generic UX model comprising the structure
ƒ Arnold Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology, NL
(i.e. core components; static) and process (i.e. situational
ƒ Peter C. Wright, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
factors; dynamic) of UX (Principles)
ƒ To identify boundary conditions under which a generic, 6. EXPECTED OUTCOMES
component-based UX model is applicable and identify ƒ Accepted papers will be published in the workshop
alternatives otherwise (Principles) proceedings, both online and printed versions.
ƒ To identify the transversal relationships between UX and ƒ Selected papers will be invited to submit an extended
the related fields by fleshing out their communalities and version to a special issue of a prestigious HCI journal
distinctions (Policy) ƒ Interested participants are invited to join the MAUSE SIG-
ƒ To understand the role of UX in the means-end chains UX to sustain the collaborative efforts of the workshop.
between product attributes, usage consequences and ƒ To publish a draft UX Manifesto on a designated website,
product values (Policy) inviting further comments and input.
ƒ To explore the necessity and potential utility of developing
UX standards (Policy) REFERENCES
ƒ To identify effective teaching strategies for UX (Policy) [1] Cockton, G. (in press). Putting value into e-valu-ation. In
ƒ To develop theoretically sound methodologies for E. Law, E. Hvannberg & G. Cockton (Eds.), Maturing
analyzing, designing, engineering and evaluating UX (Plan) usability: Quality in software, interaction and value.
ƒ To understand UX in practice through case studies, thereby London: Springer.
identifying factors that may facilitate or hinder the [2] Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User
incorporation of UX into interactive products (Plan). experience – a research agenda. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 25, 91-97.
3. PARTICIPANTS [3] Law, E., Hvannberg, E. & Hassenzahl, M. (2006). Proc.
Maximum: 25. Generally, contributions from researchers, of the workshop “User Experience – Towards a unified
educators and practitioners working on UX and related areas view” in conjunction with NordiCHI’ 06, 14-18.
are invited. Specifically, the participants of earlier UX October, Oslo. Online at: http://www.cost294.org/
workshops (DAC’05, CHI’06 and NordiCHI’06) and [4] Wright, P. C., McCarthy, J., & Meekison, L. (2003).
members of the MAUSE SIG-UX (http://www.cost294.org) Making sense of experience. In M. Blythe, C.
are strongly encouraged to partake in the Workshop to Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C. Wright (Eds.),
substantiate the ideas explored. UX experts will be invited to Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (pp. 43-53).
be panelists. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

View publication stats