Model 2: The moderator may ask schools to courier files to their school or a central venue
2.5.3. Human-Computer Interaction
2.5.3.6. Relationship between usability and user experience
There are varying viewpoints on the correlation between usability and user experience and there does not appear to be a consensus on whether UX is a characteristic of usability or vice versa (Lew et al., 2010; Moczarny et al., 2012; Hedegaard & Simonsen, 2013; Kashfi et al., 2019). Their specific definitions and allocation into dimensions such as efficiency, hedonic quality, and others are widely debated (Hedegaard & Simonsen, 2013).
2 The ISO/IEC standards providing terminology do not have page numbers.
Author UX definition
Thüring and Mahlke
(2007, p. 29). User experience is exclusively concerned with the user’s perception of a system’s usability.
Norman and Nielsen
(2008). UX incorporates all aspects of the users’ interaction with the product.
Roto & Kaasinen (2008,
p. 572). UX describes the “user’s feelings towards a specific product, system, or object during and after interacting with it”.
ISO-IEC (2018)2. “User’s perceptions and responses that result from the use and/or anticipated use of a system, product, or service”.
Law et al. (2009, p. 727). User experience is related to usage and focuses on the “interaction between a person and something that has a user interface”.
Hassenzahl et al. (2010,
p. 353). “UX is a dynamic, highly context-dependent, and subjective account of human–
technology interaction”.
Obrist et al. (2010, p.
3198). “User experience (UX) explores how users feel about using a product, i.e., the affective aspects of product use”.
Vermeeren et al. (2010,
p. 521). “User experience explores how a person feels about using a product, i.e., the experiential, affective, meaningful, and valuable aspects of product use”.
53
Some researchers propose that UX incorporates usability and is more comprehensive than usability (Rubinoff, 2004; Blythe et al., 2007; Tan et al., 2013; Rusu et al., 2015; Hassan &
Galal-Edeen, 2017; Rose et al., 2017), while others argue that user experience is a measure of usability (Petrie & Bevan, 2009). Still others propose that user experience and usability are separate but closely related entities (Hassenzahl, 2007; Moczarny et al., 2012). Petrie and Bevan (2009) suggest that satisfaction is the subjective element of usability; hence, user experience can be considered a general term for satisfaction. This perspective views usability as including user experience. Studies that indicate these varying viewpoints are depicted in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7: Relationship between usability and user experience UX incorporates usability and is
more comprehensive than usability User Experience is a measure
of usability User experience and usability are separate but closely related.
Rubinoff (2004). Desmet and Hekkert (2007). Hassenzahl (2007).
Rusu et al. (2015) Petrie and Bevan (2009). Moczarny et al. (2012).
Blythe et al. (2007).
Hassan and Galal-Edeen (2017).
Rose et al. (2017).
Tan et al. (2013).
While usability is an attribute of the interaction between the user and the system, UX considers the broader association between the system and the user (McNamara & Kirakowski, 2006).
Usability is considered as a prerequisite for a good UX, yet is different from UX (Kashfi et al., 2019). Hassenzahl et al. (2010) and Kashfi et al. (2019) identify five unique characteristics of UX that differentiate it from usability. UX is:
Subjective: UX relies largely on human perception;
Holistic: UX includes hedonic as well as pragmatic aspects of use;
Dynamic: UX changes over time;
Context-dependent: UX is situated in context; and
Worthwhile: UX incorporates positive and meaningful effects of use.
54
Delivering a good UX requires considering user expectations and delivering satisfaction by providing unexpected qualities (Kashfi et al., 2019). The perceived qualities of an interactive system can be separated into pragmatic (do goals) and hedonic (be goals) attributes to define key elements of UX (Hassenzahl, 2004, 2007; Hassenzahl et al., 2010; Hassenzahl &
Tractinsky, 2006; Lew et al., 2010). These attributes are described below.
Pragmatic attributes refer to the ability of the system to cater to the task-related needs and behavioural goals (usability) of users (Hassan & Galal-Edeen, 2017). The focus is on the system’s utility and usability in completing tasks that are regarded as the “do-goals” of the user, which is equivalent to a general understanding of usability as “quality in use”
(Hassenzahl, 2007, p. 10; Hornbæk, 2006, p. 79).
Hedonic attributes refer to the system’s ability to satisfy the non-task-related needs of the user (Hassan & Galal-Edeen, 2017). The focus is on the user. The hedonic quality of a system refers to an assessment of a system’s ability to support the realisation of ‘‘be-goals”
(for instance an increase of knowledge and skills) for the user (Hassenzahl, 2004, 2007;
Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006; Hassenzahl et al., 2010).
Hassenzahl (2003) views pragmatic and hedonic attributes as independent of each other and argues for the consideration of both attributes in the design of interactive systems. Although the achievement of be-goals is the driver of user experience, an inability to complete do-goals may prevent the achievement of be-goals (Hassenzahl, 2008). In essence, user experience arises from the fulfilment of be-goals, which are facilitated by do-goals.
Usability focuses only on pragmatic quality aspects, while UX includes pragmatic and hedonic aspects together with user emotions that result from the interaction between the user and the system. User satisfaction can be measured by the extent to which users have achieved their pragmatic and hedonic goals (Bevan, 2008). Thus, the UX is influenced by the satisfaction of both usability in use (pragmatic goals) and satisfaction in use (hedonic goals) (Lew et al., 2010).
Effectiveness and efficiency are emphasized in usability, while UX emphasizes hedonic and pragmatic characteristics (Roto et al., 2009). Thus, user experience seeks to examine a person's subjective experience of using the system, by focusing on the user’s well-being as a result of his/her interaction with the system rather than on the performance of the system itself
55
(Moczarny et al., 2012); in contrast, usability is focused on ensuring that the system design satisfies user requirements (Grinberga, 2016).
Considering the various definitions of usability (see Table 2-4) and the ambiguity regarding a clear boundary between usability and user experience and, in line with Hassan and Galal- Edeen's (2017) assertion that usability is a user experience measure, the stance taken in this study is to regard UX as the overarching concept that includes usability. Subsequent discussions are therefore centred around usability as a subset of UX. Given this position, the terms usability and UX are used interchangeably in the remainder of this thesis.
Having considered Technology Acceptance Models (see Table 1-2), IS Success Models, and the field of HCI in Chapter One, the components identified from each of these areas are illustrated in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8: Components identified from Technology Acceptance, HCI and IS models
Components Constructs Reference
TAM Human
System functionality. Perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness. Tarhini et al. (2015); Venkatesh
et al. (2003, 2013); Venkatesh and Davis (1996, 2000).
UTAUT Human
Social factors. Effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, social influence.
Hariyanti et al. (2018); Pynoo et al., 2011); Ramayasa, 2015).
TOE Technology
Environment Organization.
Compatibility, complexity, competitive pressure, external ICT support, ICT experience, industry, management support market scope, observability,
organisational readiness, relative advantage, size, trialability.
Borgman, Bahli, Schewski, and Heier (2013); Ramdani, Chevers, and Williams (2013); Gangwar, Date, and Ramaswamy (2015).
TTF Technology
characteristics Task characteristics Individual
characteristics.
Effectiveness, efficiency,
individual impact, quality. Dishaw and Strong (1999); Lai (2017); Wu and Chen (2017).
HOT-Fit Human Technology Environment.
Environment, information quality, satisfaction, service quality, system use, system quality, user structure of organization.
Hariyanti et al. (2018); Muslimin et al. (2017); Papazafeuropoulou et al. (2008).
HCI Usability (quality in use)
User experience (task environment, physical technology, user) Product quality.
Ease of learning, effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, user satisfaction.
Bevan et al. (2016); Grinberga (2016); ISO-IEC 25010, 2011);
Lew et al. (2010); McNamara and Kirakowski (2006); Moczarny et al. (2012).
56
Components Constructs Reference
IS Success model
Functionality Content Usability.
Information quality, net benefit, service quality, system quality, use, user satisfaction.
Petter et al. (2008); Petter and McLean (2009); Ramirez-Correa et al. (2016).
The user, task and technology are components common to Technology Acceptance Models, the field of HCI, and IS Success Models (see Table 2-8).