Written by:

Salvatore Giulio Fiore
contact@salvatorefiore.com

In this paper, a review of some recent advances in thestudy of experience in HCI highlights developments towards an emphasis on the aesthetic and the subjective in design and use of electronic artefacts. A framework for the conceptualisation of user aesthetic experience is then presented, inspired by theorists from disciplines outside the traditional HCI matrix. The framework emphasises the relation between users and designers as co-constructors of experience and allows for physical, emotional and intellectual qualities in
aesthetic experiences. The work represents one phase in an ongoing research program to develop a methodology for understanding and designing to support user experience, at a time of change towards humanist concerns in HCI.

INTRODUCTION

The HCI domain represents a richness of knowledge about designing usable systems to support users to achieve goals with ease and efficiency. Aesthetics and experience meanwhile are sometimes regarded as being to the potential detriment of usability and designers who consider interface aesthetics over usability have sometimes been criticised [11]. This view reflects the modernist origins of HCI, privileging efficiency over pleasure [9]. It has even been suggested that usability dehumanises users [7]. Furthermore, computer use is changing with the development of technologies like the Internet, which cross geographical, cultural and social borders. With such technologies, the experience of use is often the primary motivation for users. Preece at al actually describe user experience goals as “what the system feels like to the users…[and how they] experience an interactive product from their perspective” [12, p19]. In this paper, an approach to understanding human experience is expounded from a discussion of developments currently altering the focus of HCI work to bring considerations like emotion, sensation, learning, collaboration, aesthetics, enjoyment and experience into the HCI vocabulary. A preliminary framework to support design of artefacts as the products and objects of aesthetic experience is presented. The framework is introduced in the context of reframing and extending HCI as an aesthetic discipline, where the complexities of subjective, historical and co-constructed human experiences with and through computer artefacts is fundamental and can bring a new quality to user interfaces.

BRIEF REVIEW OF DESIGN FOR EXPERIENCE

Work by Sanders proposes an approach to design which “transcends the traditional domain of design by making user experience (not artefacts, interfaces, systems or spaces) the focus of design inspiration and ideation” [13, p.6]. Such work aims to reflect changes in people, their experiences and relationships by simultaneously exploring what they say, do and make (using toolkits provided by designers); the aim being to access experiences and establish empathy with users. At the same time, emerging frames of reference in HCI, such as Activity Theory [10] and Ethnocriticism [9] emphasise the involvement of users in the design process and thus implicate a changing relationship between users and designers. Other researchers have sought to define this relationship, suggesting the potential for experiences to be the source of new products [8]. Indeed, much discussion is currently taking place into foundational changes to the HCI discipline as user experience gains acceptance as a design goal. Bertelsen and Pold have suggested the potential for HCI to be approached in terms of aesthetics, designing for dynamicity, provocation and where appropriate, user unfriendliness, as opposed to transparency and universality [1]. Whilst such work questions the very basis of the conditions guiding HCI work, others have focussed on examining what user experiences involve. Forlizzi and Ford [5] lend support to the notion of experience having various levels of richness and meaning. Indeed, as Forlizzi [4] suggests, experiences can be either satisfying – a “process driven act performed in a successful manner” – or rich – having a “sense of immersive continuity and interaction”. These two quality descriptors appear to be purposefully chosen for their non-emotive connotations, whereby a rich experience maybe either negative or positive in the eyes of a user. It is notable that many HCI researchers seeking ways of conceptualising or supporting user experiencing have looked to disciplines previously uninvolved with HCI work. Particularly, philosophical, literary and cultural studies are helping define the meaning of human experience in relation to HCI work. Wright and McCarthy, for instance, analyse experience of use in a holistic constructionist light [14], appealing to the Instrumentalism of John Dewey and the Dialogism of Mikhail Bakhtin to develop a framework for analysing user experience with emerging technologies. They suggest that user experience may be described from four points of view, namely these are the Compositional, Spatio-temporal, Sensual and Emotional threads. They also discuss how people make sense in experience, by actively constructing and interacting throughout. This form is composed, they suggest, of six successive stages: Anticipating, Connecting, Interpreting, Reflecting, Appropriating and Recounting in the context of other experiences. Wright and McCarthy have tested the usefulness of their framework, concluding that it lacked a concept of physicality [14]. Recognising this important element of experience, the remainder of this paper presents an alternative experience framework intended to complement the work of Wright and McCarthy, by emphasising the sensory aspects of user experience as part of an holistic conceptualization. Following the lead of such researchers, the framework looks outside the traditional realm of HCI, to the complementary juxtaposition of pre-existing frameworks from other disciplines. It attempts to begin to address the balance between key dichotomies, including those of function or aesthetics and usability or experience, implying that the two need not necessarily be exclusive.

THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

The theoretical foundations of the framework proposed in this paper lie primarily with the philosophical works ofJohn Dewey [3], which provide a holistic conceptualisation of aesthetic experience and it’s various characteristics. The dialogism of Bakhtin, founded in literary theory, further helps explain how meaning in experiencing is intersubjectively shared [6], while the psychology of  Csikszentmihalyi [2] helps explain human motivation towards optimal experiences that are intrinsically rewarding. The framework proposed, thus, builds on this basis with specificity to user experiences with technological artefacts. It is intended to provide a purely conceptual basis to assist the design of systems with respect to enabling the experience of users to take place.

Key dimensions of user experience

A series of universal experiential dimensions constitute the main body of the framework, each of which could be expected to be present in a unified aesthetic experience.

Educative and memorable.

The quality of every experience is affected by previous ones and each experience influences the objective possibilities open to future ones, as well as affecting the experiencing subject. A user may, for example remember the language abbreviations adopted in an on-line chat-room. Their experience of using the chat-room thus becomes knowledge, educating them for next time they visit it to communicate more effectively with other users.

Whole, unique and no-reduplicable.

An experience is characterised by a composition unique to it. In an interaction, possibilities and limitations are available to be explored, acted upon, explained and understood. For example, wondering about the consequence of clicking an icon on an interface, observing and reacting to the outcome of doing so, become part of the same structure, rather than a series of detached thoughts, actions and events.

Historical.

An experience has an historical dimension bearing three implications: First, an activity has a cultural specificity, being shaped by cultural-historical developments. Second, an experience is related to past and future experiences, from which it is inseparable in meaning. Third, the user may have previous experience of the artefact (e.g. using various on-line book stores). Meaningful/aesthetic. It is this dimension that gives an experience unity. Emotion can only help provide unity to an experience when it is significant. As such, an aesthetic experience beyond being merely emotional,is appreciative, perceiving and involves undergoing or even suffering, where the emotional, practical and intellectual phases move toward a consummation together. Meaningfulness comes from an active interplay between action and undergoing and as such, users need to be able to perceive a relation between what they do with an artefact and how it responds.

Qualitative.

Action is often motivated by emotion, or alternatively by intellectual reasoning of possible actions and their expected consequences. As such, users participate actively in building emotional, intellectual and physical responses in a situation. These responses help constitute the pervading quality of an experience – an indefinable essence that distinguishes it from the flow of general experiencing. It may not always be possible for such quality to be perceived directly or be communicated.

Instrumental, constructed and intersubjective.

The user has control over an experience in the sense that their knowledge is instrumental to altering the quality of the experience (e.g. to overcome an unpleasant situation). At the same time, experience is constructed with intersubjective meaning by at least two consciousnesses. In the construction of an experience through a computer artefact, the designer and user each have roles to bring meaning to the interaction: designer as educator and artist, user as learner and perceiver. The designer as educator has the opportunity and responsibility to arrange for experiences that engage the activities of the user, to see what attitudes and surroundings are being created and judge which are detrimental or conducive to growth and to understand the users as individuals. They can engage the user in learning what they might experience with the system, providing possibilities for the user to develop. However, it is in the manifestation of their role as artist that the designer can have the greatest influence over the nature of an interaction experience. This is because an aesthetic experience is necessarily connected with the experience of making; “the sensory satisfaction of eye and ear, when aesthetic, is so because it does not stand by itself, but is linked to the activity of which it is the consequence” [3, p.49].The designer constructs the artefact, at the same time experiencing it. It is then the role of the user to perceive the artwork, thus creating their own experience, inseparable from that of the designer. The role of the designer is thus one of responsibility and reflexivity to their own cultural, social and historical setting [3]. The perceiver (user) recreates the artefact, perceiving only through the creation of their own experience. Therefore, the experience is constructed jointly by user (perceiver/learner), designer (artist/educator) and artefact (artwork/object).

Contextual.

The committing to memory or communicating of an experience is always social and the experience cannot be separated from the socio-cultural context in which it occurs. In addition, an activity being designed for may have social or political stigma or socially embedded expectations attached to it, which will be a significant influence on the objective and internal conditions of the experience for each user.

Physical, sensual and embodied.

This dimension of experience is particularly relevant to computer-mediated activities where the possibility to touch, smell, hear, taste and even see real objects and people is disrupted by the technology. An experience is always characterised by physical sensations. This relates actual physical sensation (e.g. heat from a fire), to how sensory knowledge may be embodied in objects present at the interface (e.g. a picture of a red strawberry showing it is ripe to eat) and to physical responses to an event (e.g. shaking with nervousness before a feared event).

Situated in time and space.

Events occurring in an experience are temporally related to one another and unfold in a given space and time. Time may appear to pass slowly when the challenge perceived of an activity is too high, for example, or seem to pass quickly during high emotional engagement. Similarly, being rushed can lead to frustration and a feeling of confined space [14]. Certain spaces may hold particular relevance to a person and may be comfortable or not, public or private, contained or open. In virtual environments, space may also be a metaphor (e.g. the organisation of product lists or shelves at an on-line store)

Additional dimensions

It is important to consider the motivation a user has for making use of an artefact if we are to meet their experience needs. Users of a system may share a common utility goal (e.g. registering a domain name at a web site), and whether they can achieve this is part of their experience. However, a user may simply intend to experience the activity they perform through the artefactin a certain way, as may be the case while playing a computer game. Users may be interacting with a system as part of a work or play activity. For Dewey, work is simply play that has found embodiment in actual things. As such, work can involve pleasure and a fun activity is not necessarily fruitless. Additionally, such activities may or may not be familiar to the user. They may have knowledge of the artefact or activity (e.g. using various on-line search engines) and are likely to have expectations. Along similar lines, the activity may be one which the user has performed equivalently in a physical setting (e.g.shopping in a book store). Τhe designer may need to account for existing knowledge and experiences of users with real-world equivalents to the object of the interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

With contemporary developments in HCI seeking to broaden the horizons, relevance and potentiality of the discipline to become increasingly human centred, exciting parallels with non-HCI disciplines are being drawn from and new frames of reference sought and applied. Within this paper, attention has been drawn towards recent advances in the state of HCI knowledge, driven by a need to understand the nature of experience and begin to formulate methods of supporting and potentially extending the scope and richness of user experience with technological artefacts. An experience framework for HCI has been proposed, incorporating key characteristics including:

- Conceptualising the roles of and co-constructive relationship between designer and users with regard to an  experience;
- Providing a possible means of accounting for the sensory dimension of experience;
- Explaining the interplay between emotion, intellectuality and physicality in ascribing meaning and aesthetic quality to an experience;
- Accounting for the role of history and contextual factors in an experience, in terms of cultural specificity of the activity, past experiences and previous or existing artefacts used in the activity or involved in the experience so far;
- Encouraging and adapting to user learning and changing needs.

The framework provides an alternative conceptualisation of user experience intended as an addition and complement to the already expanding field of research by others in this area, particularly regarding these five characteristics. At this stage, further work is required to test its validity and usefulness in design. To this end, future stages
of this research will include the initial formulation of case specific guidelines for examining experience, based on the composite dimensions described.

REFERENCES

[1]   Bertelsen, O. W. & Pold, S. (2002). Human-computerinteraction considered as an aesthetic discipline. Paper for ‘Understanding User Experience: LiteraryAnalysis meets HCI’ workshop, at HCI 2000: http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/lithci/HCI2002%20Workshop/BertelsenPold.doc

[2]   Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988) Introduction. In Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S.(Eds.), Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness, Cambridge Univ. Press. 3-14.

[3]   Dewey, J. (1958). Art as Experience, Capricorn.

[4]   Forlizzi, J.(2002). Towards a Framework of Interaction and Experience As It Relates to Product Design: http://goodgestreet.com/experience/home.html

[5]   Forlizzi, J. & Ford, S. (2000). The Building Blocks of Experience: An Early Framework for Interaction Designers. Proceedings of the DIS00 Conference.

[6]   Hirschkop, K. (1999). Mikhail Bakhtin: an aesthetic for democracy, Oxford University Press.

[7]   Jordan, P. W. (2002). Human factors for pleasure seekers. In Frascara, J. (Ed.), Design and the Social Sciences: Making Connections, 9-23, Taylor & Francis.

[8]   Margolin, V. (1997). Getting to know the user. Design Studies. 18(3), 227-236

[9]   Muller, M. J. (1995). Ethnocritical Heuristics for HCI Work with Users and Other Stakeholders, in Proceedings of IRIS 18 conference: http://iris.informatik.gu.se/conference/iris18/iris1844.htm#E21E44

[10] Nardi,B.A.(Ed.)(1996).Context and Consciousness. USA: MIT Press.

[11] Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. USA: Basic Books.

[12] Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. USA: John Wiley & Sons.

[13] Sanders, E. B-N. (2000). From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches, In Frascara, J.(Ed.), Design and the Social Sciences: Making Connections (pp. 1-8). UK: Taylor & Francis.

[14] Wright, P.C. & McCarthy, J. M. (2003). A framework for analysing user experience. In Blythe, M., Monk,A., Wright, P.C. & Overbeeke, C. (Eds.) Funology: From Usability to user enjoyment. UK: Kluwer.

Published in:

HCI, the Arts and Humanities workshop, June, University of York.