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

net/publication/228895372

Conceptualising user hedonic experience

Article · October 2004

CITATIONS READS

47 2,179

3 authors, including:

Bob Fields Ann Blandford

Middlesex University, UK University College London
106 PUBLICATIONS 1,401 CITATIONS 565 PUBLICATIONS 11,839 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bob Fields on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Preprint. Final version of paper available from:
S TELMASZEWSKA , H., FI E L D S , B. & BLANDFORD , A. (2004) Conceptualising user hedonic
experience. In D. J. Reed, G. Baxter & M. Blythe (Eds.), Proceedings of ECCE-12, the 12th
European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2004, Living and Working with Technology, 12-15
September 2004, York. York: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics. 83-89.

Conceptualising user hedonic experience

Hanna Stelmaszewska Bob Fields Ann Blandford

Middlesex University Middlesex University UCL Interaction Centre,
Interaction Design Centre Interaction Design Centre University College London
Trent Park, Bramley Road Trent Park, Bramley Road Remax House,
London N14 4YZ London N14 4YZ 31-32 Alfred Place
[email protected] [email protected] London WC1E 7DP
[email protected]

ABSTRACT activities to other aspects of user experience (Thomas &

For many years, the approach taken towards technology Macredie, 2002; Graves-Petersen et al., 2002).
design focused on supporting the effective, efficient,
and satisfying use of it. The way people use technology New principles and guidelines are required to help
has shifted from merely using it to enjoying using it. designers marching through the ‘electronic era’ with
This paper describes an early approach to understanding products that do not merely allow users to achieve their
user experience in context of technologies (e.g. digital goals and tasks but allow them to experience something
cameras, PDAs, and mobile phones), as well as in more more, for example, pleasure, enjoyment, and
general context such as physical activities e.g. empowerment. This more holistic approach to the
exercising, orienteering, and walking, and in context of design expands the boundary of the ‘old usability’
diaries. The focus of this paper is on hedonic user suggested by Nielson and Dix, and opens it to the new
experience; that is pleasure, enjoyment, excitement, and areas that need to be explored.
fun in the context of technology. This study provides
insights into factors contributing to and influencing such Advances in computing and information technology are
experiences and the relationships between them. changing the way people use and experience
Keywords technology. As new technologies penetrate not only
User experience, pleasure, joy, excitement, fun, HCI, workplaces but also homes, personal space, leisure, and
personal technology, diary, mobile phone, PDA the social environment, research on user experience
with technology has started to receive more attention.
INTRODUCTION
There has been a growing focus around what we might
For many years Human–Computer Interaction, as a
call experience. It varies across different fields.
discipline, has focused on achieving the effective,
According to Dewey experience consists of
efficient, and satisfying use of technology. The set of
“relationship between self and object, where the self is
defined standards, guidelines, and principles (e.g.
always engaged and comes to every situation with
Nielsen, 1994; Dix, 1993) helped designers to fulfil
personal interests and ideologies” (cited in McCarthy et
users’ requirements in the context of artefacts used
al. 2002), whereas Preece et al. (2002, p. 19) describe
mainly for work related activities. Although rules and
user experience in the context of goals as “what the
principles have been applied by designers for at least a
system feels like to the users…[and how they]
decade, it seems that a very narrow view of users’
experience an interactive product from their
experience has been taken. Therefore, recognising the
perspective”. The latter presents user experience as
importance of users and the need for a new
subjective since it depends and it changes according to
understanding of usability (broadened its original
the primary objectives of a software whereas Dewey
concerns from easy-to-use, and easy-to-learn to include
views on experience puts its focus on people and
notion of user experience such as pleasure, enjoyment,
and fun) will shift our focus from goal-directed
situations, which are dynamic and change by related to positive experience, it gives a basic structure
experience. of elements influencing experience.
In the context of people’s interaction with technology, A different approach to user experience is presented
there is a lack of theories to conceptualise user within Hassenzahl’s (2003) model, which consists of
experience, which this paper intends to investigate. two perceptions of user experience. One is that of a
There is a need to understand human activities and designer, including product features, intended product
technology that supports them in various ways in new character, and consequences, which are a judgement
environments. HCI lacks theories and methods to about the product’s appeal. Another perception is that of
facilitate approaches to design products which allow for a user including product features, apparent product
pleasurable, enjoyable, and entertaining interaction. character, and consequences that are moderated by the
Expanding the boundary of usability from easy to use specific usage situation (i.e. work, social, or other).
and learn products, to products that enhance user Hassenzahl (2003) discusses two different attributes of
experience into a holistic dimension, is the new HCI product character; that is pragmatic and hedonic.
path that needs to be investigated. This paper provides Hedonic attributes emphasize individual’s
characterisation of user experience in the context of psychological well-being and oscillate around
personal technology (e.g. digital camera, mobile phone, stimulation, identification, and evocation. Although
and PDA). The following sections will discuss issues Hassenzahl (2003) discusses hedonic attributes of a
related to: user experience as a flow, description of product, the approach taken in that research differs from
study and methods applied. This will be followed by the one presented in this paper, which focuses on the
presentation of results, discussion, and the final section nature of hedonic experience encountered by users: how
will provide conclusions. users interacting with technology, rather than designers,
USER EXPERIENCE AS A FLOW understand, perceive, and describe hedonic experience.
The concept of optimal experience has its beginning in So far many researchers have explored the implication
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975, 1988, 1990) holistic of flow and various notions of experience. The focus of
experience of flow. The term ‘flow’ describes a state of this study is on those dimensions of experience related
being completely involved in an activity for its own to pleasure, enjoyment, and fun; collectively referred to
sake; “the state is so satisfying that individuals want to as Hedonic Experience (HE). According to the Greek
repeat the activity continually” (Csikszentmihalyi, definition, ‘hedone’ means pleasure – akin to sweet.
1988). Understanding HE, both theoretically and empirically,
Many researchers have attempted to conceptualise flow is important for designers interested in building
in different environments. For instance, Ghani (1991), effective and experience rich systems for other than
Ghani et al., (1991), and Webster et al. (1993) adopted work activities and purposes.
flow theory in order to measure positive user experience
with personal computers. Hoffman & Novak (1996), USER HEDONIC EXPERIENCE
Novak, Hoffman, & Yung (1999), and Chen et al Since the character of HE is vaguely presented within
(1999) applied it to an online environment to measure the HCI literature, it seems important to investigate:
customer experience using web, or more recently Ly (no • What is the nature of HE? This includes: how
date) employed it to a computer-related classroom we define it, decompose its components, and
environment. Additionally, the concept of ‘flow’ has what is the relationship between these
been utilized in connection to user experience components?
interacting with emerging technology (e.g. Wright et al., • What makes a system hedonically experienced;
2003; Monk, 2000; McCarthy et al., 2004). that is what features or functions of a system
However, user experience has many aspects, which can evoke hedonic experience?
have been given some consideration by researchers. For • What are the influential factors of HE?
example, Brandtzeg et al. (2003) focused on enjoyment, In addition, we need a better understanding of how
Green & Jordan (2002) and Knight & Jefsioutine (2003) people interact with various types of technology in
investigated the feeling of pleasure when designing different contexts and how the context affects their
products, Wright et al. (2003) looked at fun and hedonic experience.
engagement within games, McCarthy et al. (2002) This paper reports an interview-based study that is a
explored user experience in the context of electronic general preliminary investigation of the issue of hedonic
shopping. As a result of his study a framework of user experience taken in general as well as in the context of
experience was developed. The framework consists of diaries and personal technology – in detail: how people
four aspects of experience; that is compositional understand and perceive hedonic experience in different
structure, sensual appearance, emotional unity, and contexts, what are the components of HE, how they are
spatio-temporal fabric, which are not divisible decomposed, and what are the factors influencing HE.
independent components but depend on each other.
Although this model does not directly addresses issues
Methods The interviewed subject group consisted of 11 people.
Currently there are many methods available for studying Six of those were computer scientists; two of them were
users in the context of use. For example, Hassenzahl students; one was a self-employed hairdresser; one was
and Trautman (2001) applied the Repertory Grid a civil servant; and one was a PA working in a
Technique to investigate users’ “inferences made about Computer Science Department. Volunteers were asked
the product character and the resulting consequences” to talk freely about their understanding and examples of
whereas Hassenzahl (2002) used questionnaires to hedonic experience, in the context of three sets of
gather computer expertise and general demographic data questions – the first about HE in general(people gave
and a short interview to find out about the effect of examples of hedonic experience mainly in relation to
perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. A physical activities such as: exercising, walking,
survey was also applied by Skadberg and Kimmel (in swimming, playing instruments, or paragliding), the
press) to measure factors in the flow experience model second about diaries, and the third about technology
of tourists visiting a web site. Makela and Mattelmaki (people discussed experiencing hedonic experience
(2002) applied a combination of two field inquiry while using mobile phones, digital cameras, PDAs, and
techniques to study users’ experiences with mobile various software packages). Each interview lasted
phones; that is collecting stories and self photographing. between 30 - 50 minutes and was audiotaped. The data
When studying human experience in virtual was then transcribed and analysed by using qualitative
environments Spagnolli et al. (in press) applied methods to extract the high level of concepts that
ethnographic, action-based approach. Because we captured participants understanding of hedonic
wanted to gather insights about how people understand experience.
and perceive hedonic experience, in general, and in the
context of personal technology, we employed a semi- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
structured interview technique for data collection. In an effort to develop the model of user hedonic
Although this technique is time consuming, it provides experience, the analysis of the data was performed that
rich qualitative data that will form the basis of analysis helped in categorising determinants of hedonic
of the study. experience and factors influencing it. The former refers
to clusters of concepts extracted from the key phrases
Description of study used by participants during the interviews, whereas the
As well as considering explicitly people’s perception of latter one refers to ‘things’ (features or situations) I
hedonic experience when using personal technology, we don’t know how to call them that were identified by
look also at their hedonic experience in the context of participants.
different physical activities such as: exercising, walking, It was apparent from the analysis that there are five
and orienteering This allow us to obtain a better major components constituting hedonic experience.
understanding of what it means to have hedonic These are: pleasure, enjoyment, excitement, fun, and
experience in a larger context. happiness. These components are consistent across all
three contexts of hedonic experience investigated in this
A preliminary study was conducted in order to produce study.
an initial understanding of the nature of peoples’ The findings from the preliminary study have indicated
experiences with personal technologies (e.g. mobile determinants of hedonic experience in three different
phones, digital cameras, and PDAs). Part of each contexts: in general, when using diaries and when using
interview inquired broadly about a range of experiences, technology, which do varies across contexts (see table
part was devoted to peoples’ experiences when using 1). The results of the study are summarised under five
technology, and part focused on the use of and headings:
experiences with an apparently mundane technology: 1. Determinants of hedonic experience in general
the diary. Diaries were used as an example of a personal context, including different types of physical
technology that can be used across different contexts activities (e.g. skiing, walking, exercising,
(e.g. work vs. private) in ways that can change peoples’ orienteering, paragliding, and playing
experiences. The aim of this study was to investigate: instruments).
1. How people understand or perceive hedonic 2. Determinants of hedonic experience in context
experience in general, in the context of diaries, of diaries, including issues related to how
and in context of personal technology people use diaries and what kind of
2. How people use diaries experiences they account for when working
3. What kinds of feeling and experiences people with them in work vs. private related context.
associate with their diaries 3. Determinants of hedonic experience in context
4. What factors influence hedonic experience of technology, taking a closer look at each
5. Words that people use when describing their category of determinants and highlighting
experience in the context of diary, personal peoples’ needs in relation to these categories.
technology, and in a general context.
 4. Similarities and differences of determinants using diaries are more associated with pleasure,
across contexts determined by usability/functionality, feel good,
5. Factors influencing hedonic experience when evocation, and appealingness of diaries. Participants
dealing with technology. also discussed their happiness as being triggered by a
Determinants of hedonic experience in general feel good factor when, for example, viewing up-coming
When discussing hedonic experience participants often holidays. Other experiences like fun and excitement are
mentioned different types of physical activities provoked by evocation factors (e.g. viewing notes,
(including swimming, walking, orienteering, skiing, which conjure up personal memories of some events).
paragliding, yoga, gaming, and exercising), as well as This determinant is consistent with Hassenzahl’s (2003)
reading, listening and making music, doing model of user experience and it appears to be one of the
photography, and teaching. However, the most key factors within product’s hedonic attributes
frequently discussed activities that produced hedonic (task/goal-unrelated). Although evocation appears in
experience were not related to work. both studies, there is a mismatch between its affect on
As stated, participants distinguished five components of peoples’ experience. Hassenzahl’s (2003) study
hedonic experience, which then were characterised by a suggests that evocation produces a set of consequences,
set of determinants to create such experiences. Seven one of which is pleasure whereas the study reported
groups of determinants emerged from the data, within here shows that it can provoke other kinds of
which some of them were consistent across two experience, namely excitement and fun. Although these
contexts. However, none of the determinants were findings provide a significant difference as to a diversity
consistent across all three contexts (see table 1). of experiences generated by the same determinant, it
When participants discussed hedonic experience in requires further investigation in order to make a stronger
general, they identified four sets of determinants for claim.
such experience: challenge/achievement, from which Diaries were used at the first stage of the preliminary
the most frequently mentioned were: sense of study to help with categorisation of determinants of
achievement, sense of being able to do something, or a different user experiences identified by participants.
sense of satisfaction; interactivity-social element (e.g. However, it appeared that diaries are examples of
sense of affiliation, interactivity with others); feel good, invisible technology, which is “out of sight, out of
which the most typical were a sense of restful, sense of mind, but ever more powerful” (www.jnd.org) as one of
nourishment, or sense of feeling good about yourself or the participants noted: ‘ …gosh, you make me realise
others; and novelty, which incorporated novel activities, how important the diary is and I’m taking everything for
environment, and a sense of surprise. granted’. [Diaries fade into the background of peoples’
It appeared that, for example, novelty and interactivity- lives and work in harmony with them but can create a
social element are common when discussing HE in completely chaotic environment when lost. When asked
general and when using technology. Further sections about feelings when a diary was lost, one of the
will discuss this in more details. participants commented: ‘ … my experience of loosing
one … my whole live comes to an end … I though I’ve
lost a part of me … yeah, it was a disaster.’ Another
Determinants General Diaries Technology one stated: ‘ … when I discovered that I lost it, I felt
of experience horrible, I felt, I think, lost.’ As much as participants
Challenge/  appreciated having diaries they also could see the
achievement
diaries negative affects on people; that is being too
Interactivity –  
Social element dependant on diaries and reducing the usage of peoples’
Feel good   memory when using them. ‘… thing that I don’t like
Novelty   about it is it doesn’t make your memory function. You
Usability/   rely too much on it. You know, where as I never used to
functionality I remembered everything. Never forgot anything. Now I
Appealingness   depend much too much on it.’ this cane be taken out as
Evocation  it doesn’t relate to hedonic experience. If yes then the
Table 1 Summary of determinants of hedonic following sentence need to be changed]In contrast to
experience across different contexts. these negative feelings participants also identified a
whole set of positive experiences that fall into feel good
Determinants of hedonic experience in the context category of determinants of user experience, which is
of diaries common to hedonic experience in general (see table 1).
Diaries are ubiquitous and important tools not only in Giving a sense of safety and security, reducing stress,
the work environment but also in a private context. and making one feel important these are only a few
They are an example of a personal technology that is examples from the feel good category. ‘… I think when
very simple and mundane, and as such, carries limited I’m not at work it gets less cluttered but that might make
potential for hedonic experience. Experiences when
us feel less important’ was a comment from one of the functionality
participants. Interactivity/   
Social element
It was apparent from the data that usability/functionality Appealingness 
issues and appealingness are pertinent in the context of Novelty   
diaries and technology. This might be related to the fact
that they both are examples of personal technology. Table 2 Hedonic experience in context of technology
They can be used not only to satisfy users needs where
usability/functionality are the key factors but both Usability/functionality group represents issues that are
artefacts share some physical attributes that users can related to: how usable and efficient is the technology,
experience such as touch, feel, or the look, which in turn how transparent the functionality is so the learning
evoke aesthetically pleasing experiences. These issues process and interaction between technology and a
appeared to be of a high importance within work of person can be as easy and stress free as possible, how
other researchers (Jordan, 2000, 1988; Tractinsky et al., useful the functions are so they can help in one’s
2000). The former argues that aesthetic and physical activity. This appeared to be an important factor for the
attributes of products can evoke pleasurable experiences other researchers as well including Hassenzahl (2003)
and can change peoples’ perception and usage of them. and Pilke (2004). The former argues that utility and
People have different feelings towards their diaries usability are primary instrumental and can lead to a
depending on whether they use them for work or product’s character, which in turn can produce a set of
personal or social activities. The former evokes consequences (e.g. pleasure). In this study, we claim
pleasurable experiences such as feel good (e.g. giving that usability/functionality can have a direct impact on
sense of being in control, or making them feel pleasure and happiness as one of the participants noted:
important). The latter brings happiness (e.g. when ‘… it makes me happy … it’s also very good, very useful
viewing the coming holidays marked in a diary) and tool that does make life easier’ when discussing
funny memories (e.g. when viewing notes and dates of database software.
events). This is in line with the findings of Novak et al. Appealingness combines two attributes: aesthetic and
(2000). They reported that online customer experiences physical factors. The former oscillates around
were positively correlated with non-work related attractiveness of technology (e.g. leather finish, shape,
activities (fun, recreational and experiential use of Web) size (slim line)), the latter focuses on size (how big),
but negatively correlated with work-related activities. weight, and a feel in one’s hand. Numerous researches
also suggest that these factors are the key element when
discussing usage of technology (e.g. Jordan, 1998,
Determinants of hedonic experience in the context 2000; Tractinsky et al., 2000; Hassenzahl et al. 2000;
of technology Hassenzahl, 2003). Hassenzahl et al. (2000) argue that
As mentioned earlier, participants identified five for a system regarded as being appealing and enjoyable
constituents of hedonic experience when using or fun to use, it needs to be interesting, novel, and
technology, which are: pleasure, enjoyment, excitement, surprising. Other researchers including Jordan (1998)
fun, and happiness. Each of the constituents can be and Tractinsky et al. (2000) found a strong link between
described by a set of determinants, which next section aesthetics and usability. They claim that equilibrium
will explore in detail. between aesthetics and usability is instrumental in
The technologies that participants mentioned most creating pleasurable electronic products.
frequently as being implicated in hedonic experience As well as discussing positive attributes of products
were: mobile phones, digital cameras, PDAs, and (mentioned above), participants problematic features
computer software (database and web browser). Most of that may lead to negative experiences. ‘ … I don’t want
the time, usage occurred outside work environment. it to be cluttered or too loud. Whether is too loud in
However, with PDAs were, even though usage was colour, too much on a screen or just too much stuff and
primarily outside work, very often the activities t were too many buttons. That would not be good’ was a
related to work. Computer software (database) was comment from one of them. The negative effects of
another technology used in relation to work. cluttered page layout and inappropriate use of colour on
Four sets of determinants were identified that evoked users’ experience were also reported by other
different user experiences. These are: researchers (e.g. Pace, 2004a; Pilke, 2004). Pace
usability/functionality, interactivity-social element, (2004a) argues that by minimalizing the distractions
appealingness, and novelty (see table 2 for details). (e.g. cluttered web interface, use of inappropriate
Each of those can be characterised/described by a set of colours, disorganised content and pop-up
factors that contribute to a specific experience to advertisements) faced by users, the opportunity of flow
happen. experience (experience that promote enjoyment) might
be maximized.
Determinants Pleasu Enjoy Excite Fun Happi
Of experience re ment ment ness Interactivity-social element addresses issues like:
Usability/   interactivity with others, functions that are used in
social context (e.g. reminders of people’s birthdays), person has a palm as well, so you say let’s exchange the
and sense of affiliation. In context of this study, the cards Another one noted: ‘… there is a sense of fun in
latter is perceived as one’s feeling as a part of trying out just something that probably I didn’t believe
something (e.g. a team, band, or a group of owners of that is going to work very well … it was just a bit of fun
the same piece of technology). It appeared that being an when I first got it.’ The element of novelty was also
owner of a specific very advanced technology (e.g. discussed within other research literature including
PDA, or a digital camera) brings pleasurable Hassenzahl (2003), Novak and Hoffman (2003), and
experience. Csikszentmihalyi (1990). The former discusses
Novelty comprises of sense of surprise, an element of stimulation (novelty) as a key factor for experience and
novelty, and sense of discoveries. In the context of this argues (predicts) that pleasure happens when
study, the former represents some features of an artefact expectations are exceeded. He also discusses
that does something that one did not expect it to do (e.g. satisfaction, which relates to a fulfilment of expectations
the ability to download ring tones from the web into a whereas Csikszentmihalyi (1990) discusses novelty as
mobile phone, or the behaviour of an eye focus camera) necessity for new challenges to happen. Approach taken
whereas the latter one relates to new features of by Novak and Hoffman (2003) suggests that peoples’
technology (e.g. wireless communication). It appeared desire for curiosity and novelty when using Web relates
that the sense of discovery is linked to curiosity, which to their perception of their skills and the challenges the
can allow one to be absorbed in specific novel activity Web provides them.
and is essential to experiencing pleasure (Kashdan et al., One can claim that novelty wares off with the time.
2004). The sense of discovery seems to fit well into the Longer users ‘play’ with the product the excitement and
Pace (2004b) study of the roles of challenge and skill in fun related to discovering and trying out new features
the flow experiencing by web users. In study reported might be decreasing as one of the user stated: ‘ …the
by him the element of discovery (“finding, learning or eye tracking is just a toy …it was just a bit of fun when I
observing something for the first time” p.355) is linked first got it’. This is consistent with Hassenzahl (2003)
to joy. The same way the joy of discovery was also work, which suggests that “a product that was perceived
described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and Hassenzahl as new and stimulating in the beginning may lose some
et al. (2000). The latter one argues that for a system novelty and ability to stimulate over time’ (p. 32). One
regarded as being enjoyable or fun to use, it needs to be can speculate that when novelty fades away the
interesting, novel, and surprising. The study reported excitement and fun could be transferred into pleasurable
here demonstrates a strong connection between novelty experience as one learn how to appreciate what a
and experience of excitement and fun when technology particular feature of an artefact has to offer. This could
is concerned. suggest that these experiences are not settled but rather
One can argue that such association might be due to two dynamic. However, more research is needed to
factors. One is to do with the fact that technology investigate this issue.
mentioned was new on its own and users were at the The interactivity-social element that something works in
exploratory stage of it. The second that it allowed a not expected manner in general context of HE was
communication between people in a new mode; that is connected to pleasure, whereas in technology context it
by downloading pictures from a camera onto a computer evoked excitement and fun. As one of the participants
and sending them to a recipient via email service or said: ‘ … my new mobile phone has these polyphonic
transferring files across PDAs using wireless ring tones … I got them off the web … it’s my favourite
communication. So the excitement and fun came from band … this is very exciting.’ It can be argued that when
exploring new features to their full potentials and technology is concerned, excitement and fun come from
technology being a communication medium between the fact that technology is considered as medium for
people as one of the participants stated: ‘… and you do interaction and as such allows new ways for people to
the wireless link up and you exchange documents umm communicate between each other. One of the
… on the fly, that’s quite cool.’ participants stated:’ …yeah, yeah, it’s great. It’s very
Relating determinants across contexts nice that I can email pictures …’ when discussing
It appeared that two of the determinants linked to digital camera issues.
technology used are consistent with those occurred Factors influencing hedonic experience
when having hedonic experience in the general context; From the analysis of the data, it was evident that there
namely novelty and interactivity-social element (see are five main factors influencing hedonic experience.
table 1). The difference between them is such that in the There are: functionality, usability, social element, and
former novelty determines enjoyable experience, aesthetic and physical factors.
whereas in the latter for the majority of participants it It was apparent from participants’ comments that
provoked excitement and fun. In the context of functionality would determine the usage of a specific
questions related to how the technology (in this case technology. People very often look for functions that
PDA) makes you feel, one of the participants would help them in activities they need to perform even
commented: ‘…and the buzz comes when the other when ‘on the move’ as one participant noted: ‘…I have
used it as my travelling office… So I would write a positive feelings, which in turn brought some
report if I’m on a plain using my PDA, or work out the pleasurable experience to its user. This was a replay to
conference budget …I was planning the conference … one of the questions (What kind of experience
so I could do that….I could do all that and it’s all technology gives you?): ‘ …it’s attractive and it’s small
recorded and I bring it back to my office and uploaded …it’s got nice shape, … it feels nice in your hand’ or
my machine.’ Furthermore, the important issue is to ‘…should be easy to hold’ was a commend of another
provide functionality that is transparent to the users and participant.
allows the efficiency of the technology being exercised
to its full potentials. ‘… it’s functional, it does all I need CONCLUSIONS
to do …’ commented one of the participants discussing Traditional usability is about how well user’s task can
his PDA. Finneran and Zhang (2003) have a similar be supported whereas the emerging focus on user
view on this matter claiming that the artefact should be experience is reaching far beyond this. User experience
transparent so it will not interfere with person’s focus is a part of every interaction between user and system.
on the task. Knowing and understanding users needs is an important
Usability was yet another crucial factor pointed out by step that need to be taken, in order to be able to design
participants as one of them remarked ‘… it has to do all systems that allow user experience to be pleasurable,
the things that I want it to do without all the hassle’. enjoyable, or exciting.
Having technology for only its look and ‘coolness’ is Following Wright et al’s (2003) view on experience that
not enough. People want to use it in a ‘walk up and use one can only design for experience, if one has a good
it’ manner. If it does not do what is expected to do, they understanding of it and its different aspects, this study
‘walked away’ from it and choose another one has presented a first step towards developing a model of
(Blandford et al., 2001). Therefore, usability seems to user hedonic experience, which is intended to help
be of high importance not only in relation to ‘goal’ designers developing technology that goes beyond
oriented usability but also in context of hedonic usability requirements and it moves towards fulfilling
experience. This is well in line with Pilke’s (2004) users needs for hedonic experience when interacting
study, where the “requirements for a flow-inducing with personal technology. Proposed decomposition of
interface seem to be exactly the same as demands for a HE constituents and their characteristic might help in
usable user interface” (p 9). The issue of a good better understanding what create experience and how it
usability that endorse flow (enjoyable experience) was can designed.
raise also by Finneran and Zhang (2003). They argue
that perceived ease of use is a person’s perception of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
being able to use an artefact, which in turn influences We would like to thank to all participants who took part
flow. in the study.
Social element appeared to be of the high importance
when technology was concerned. It oscillates around
people using the same technology. The fact that people REFERENCES
can perform different activities when sharing Blandford, A., E., & Green, T., R., G. (2001). Group
technology (e.g. transferring files through wireless and Individual Time Management Tools: What
communication or view pictures through emails) leads You Get is Not What You Need. Personal and
them to experience pleasure or excitement. Moreover, Ubiquitous Computing, 5, 213-230.
people feel very proud of their artefacts especially if it Blandford, A., Stelmaszewska, H. & Brayan-Kinns.
raise interests from external observer. The comments (2001). Use of multiple digital libraries: a case
from one of the participants’ support this claim: ‘ … study. Paper presented at the JCDL.
whenever I take it out [referring to PDA] people always
Brandtzeg, P. B., Folstad, A., & Heim, J. (2003).
get … uuuuuu, what’s that … it makes me feel proud …’ Enjoyment: lessons from Karasek. In Blythe, M.
or another comment ‘ …I still remember the time when I A., Monk, A. F., Overbeeke, K., & Wright, P. C.
was on the airplane. It was a long flight … I was (Ed.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (pp.
working on my paper and I was using my PDA to do the 55-65): Kluwer Academic Publisher.
work… errr… and the stewardess she was very curious
what I do and she asked me if I could explain to her Chen, H., Wigand, R., & Nilan, M. S. (1999). Optimal
what’s this was I was working on. So I explained that it experience of web activities. Computers in Human
was a document I was working on and I was using my Behaviour, 15((5)), 585-608.
PDA to write a report which I then can upload and print Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and
and everything else …and she was going wow, wow … Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
this was cool.’
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and
It was apparent from the participants’ statements that
human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, &
aesthetic and physical factors can enhance their hedonic
Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Ed.), Optimal Experience:
experience. The appeal of an artefact created very
 Psychological Studies of Flow in Conciousness. Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004).
(pp. 15-35). New York: Cambridge University Curiosity and Exploration: Subjective Experiences
Press. and Personal Growth Opportunities. Journal of
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 291-305.
Optimal Experience. Harper & Row. Knight, J., & Jefsioutine, M. (2003). The experience
Dix, A., Finley, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (1993). design framework: from pleasure to engagability.
Human-Computer Interaction: Prentice Hall. Retrieved 03.11.2003

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Ly, C. Experiencing Flow and Supporting Creativity in
Perigree. Computer-Related Classrooms. Retrieved
15.12.2003,from
Finneran, C. M., & Zhang, P. (2003). A person-artefact- http://calvinly.com/weblog/IT/eipt6153/motivation
task (PAT) model of flow antecedents in _paper/flow creativity_compclass.html
computer-mediated environments. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 475-496. Makela, A., & Mattelmaki, T. (2000). Collecting Stories
on User Experiences to Inspire Design – a Pilot.
Ghani, J. (1991). Flow in human computer interaction: In. J. P. W. Green W. S. (Ed.), Pleasure with
test of a model. In J. Carey (Ed.), Human Factors Products: Beyond Usability (pp. 333-344): Taylor
in Information Systems: Emerging Theoretical & Francis.
Bases. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp.
McCarthy, J., Wright, P., & Meekinson, L. (2002).
Ghani, J., Supnick, R., & Rooney, P. (1991, 16-18 Characteristics of user experience of brand and e-
December). The experience of flow in computer- shopping. Paper presented at the International
mediated and in face-to-face groups. Paper Symposium of Cultural Research and Activity
presented at the Proceedings of the Twalfth Theory, ISCRAT 2002, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
International Conference on Information Systems,
New York. McCarthy, J., Wright, P., Wallance, J., & Dearden, A.
(2004). The experience of enchantment in human-
Graves-Petersen, M., Halskov-Madsen, K., & Kjaer, A. computer interaction. in press.
(2002). The usability of everyday technology:
emerging and fading opportunities. A C M Monk, A. (2000). User-centre design: the home use
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction c h a l l e n g e . Paper presented at the Home
(TOCHI), 9, 74-105. informatics and telematics: information technology
and society (HOIC 2000), Wolverhampton, UK.
Green, W. S., Jordan, P.W. (2002). Pleasure with
Products: Beyond Usability. London and New Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen, &
York: Taylor & Francis. Mack, R. L. (Ed.), Usability Inspection Methods.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hassenzahl, M., & Trautman, T. (2001). Analysis of
web sites with the Repertory Grid Technique. Norman, D. (1998). The invisible computers: Why
Paper presented at the Conference on Human Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is
Factors in Computing CHI 2001. So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the
Solution. Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., & Lehner, K.
(2000). Hedonic and Ergonimic Quality Aspects Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (1999).
Determine a Software Appeal. Paper presented at Measuring the Customer Experience in Online
the Proceeding of CHI' 2000 Conference on Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach.
Human Factors in Computing, Amsterdam. Marketing Science, 19(1), 22-44.
Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The Thing and I: Understanding Novak, T., P., & Hoffman, D., L. (2003). The Influence
the Relationship Between User and Product. In of Goal-Directed and Experiential Activities on
Blythe, M. A., Monk, A. F., Overbeeke, K., & Online Flow Experience. Journal of Consumer
Wright, P. C. (Ed.). Funology: From Usability to Psychology, 13(1&2), 3-16.
E n j o y m e n t (pp. 31-42): Kluwer Academic Skadberg, Y. X., & Kimmel, J. R. ((in press)). Visitors'
Publisher. flow experience while browsing a Web site: its
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in measurement, contributing factors and
Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: consequences. Computers in Human Behaviour,
Conceptual Fundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, (in press).
50-68. Spagnolli, A., Varotto, D., & Mantovani, G. ((in press)).
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An ethnographic, action-based approach to human
an introduction to the new human factors. London experience in virtual environments. International
and New York: Taylor & Francis. Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
 Pace, S. (2004a). A grounded theory of the flow Thomas, P., & Macredie, R. D. (2002). Introduction to
experiences of Web users. International Journal of the new usability. ACM Transactions on
Human-Computer Studies, 60, 327-363. Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 9, 69-73.
Pace, S. (2004b) 'The roles of challenge and skill in the Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is
flow experiences of Web users', Issues in beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers,
Informing Science and Information Technology 13, 127-145.
Education. Retrieved 1.06.2004 Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The
http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE20 dimentionality and correlates of flow in human-
04/056pace.pdf) computer interaction. Computers in Human
Payne, S., J. (1993). Understanding calendar use. Behaviour, 9, 411-426.
Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 17-24. Wright, P., McCarthy, J., & Meekison, L. (2003).
Pilke, E. M. (2004). Flow experiences in information Making sense of experience. In M. A. Blythe,
technology use. International Journal of Human- Monk, A. F., Overbeeke, K., & Wright, P. C.
Computer Studies, (in press). (eds.) (Ed.), Funology: From Usability to
Preece, J., Roger, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interactive E n j o y m e n t (pp. 43-53): Kluwer Academic
Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction: Publisher.
Wiley Text Book.

View publication stats