Quality-of-user-experience: a position paper

  • Florian Hammer
  • Sebastian Egger-Lampl
  • Sebastian Möller
Research Article


So far, research on quality-of-experience (QoE) has mostly been carried out in the area of multimedia communications, and user experience (UX) has addressed hedonic and pragmatic usage aspects of interactive applications. In the case of QoE, the meaningfulness of the application to the user and the forces driving the use have been largely neglected, while in the UX field, respective research has been carried out but hardly been incorporated in a model combined with the pragmatic and hedonic aspects. In this article, we take a step further approaching a comprehensive view of QoE and UX by adding eudaimonic aspects, such as meaningfulness and purpose-of-use, and by introducing the multidimensional construct of quality-of-user-experience (QUX). As meaning can be expected to play a major role in cyber-physical system (CPS) applications, we provide a characterization of CPS applications considering the professional/industrial and consumer/private domains, and analyze a number of characteristics that are relevant for users and their experience. In three exemplary scenarios, we illustrate the application of our concept and propose respective, not yet validated, QUX-models. Finally, we address related research challenges .


Quality-of-experience Cyber-physical systems User experience 



Parts of this work have been supported by the COMET-K2 Center for Symbiotic Mechatronics of the Linz Center of Mechatronics (LCM) funded by the Austrian federal government and the federal state of Upper Austria, by the EU-funded H2020 ECSEL project SILENSE (ID 737487), and by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency funded project MMAssist II (FFG:858623).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Alur R (2015) Principles of cyber-physical systems. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bargas-Avila JA, Hornbæk K (2011) Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2689–2698Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnard L, Yi JS, Jacko JA, Sears A (2007) Capturing the effects of context on human performance in mobile computing systems. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 11(2):81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Aaker JL, Garbinsky EN (2013) Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. J Posit Psychol 8(6):505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belk RW (1975) Situational variables and consumer behavior. J Consum Res 2:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biswas-Diener R, Kashdan TB, King LA (2009) Two traditions of happiness research, not two distinct types of happiness. J Posit Psychol 4(3):208–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bradley NA, Dunlop MD (2005) Toward a multidisciplinary model of context to support context-aware computing. Hum Comput Interact 20(4):403–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carroll JM (2004) Beyond fun. Interactions 11(5):38–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen H (2017) Applications of cyber-physical system: a literature review. J Ind Integr Manag 2(3):1750012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dey A (2001) Understanding and using context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 5(1):4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dey N, Ashour AS, Shi F, Fong SJ, Tavares JMRS (2018) Medical cyber-physical systems: a survey. J Med Syst 42(4):74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diefenbach S, Kolb N, Hassenzahl M (2014) The ‘hedonic’ in human-computer interaction: history, contributions, and future research directions. In: Proceedings of conference on designing interactive systems. ACM, pp 305–314Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endsley MR (2011) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiedler M, Möller S, Reichl P, Xie M (2018) QoE Vadis? (Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 16472). Dagstuhl Manifestos 7(1):30–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer G (2017) Exploring richer ecologies between designers and users. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–29Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fröhlich P, Egger S, Schatz R, Mühlegger M, Masuch K, Gardlo B (2012) QoE in 10 seconds: are short video clip lengths sufficient for quality of experience assessment? In: 2012 Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, pp 242–247Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gagné M, Deci EL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. J Organ Behav 26(4):331–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallagher MW, Lopez SJ, Preacher KJ (2009) The hierarchical structure of well-being. J Pers 77(4):1025–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glavas A, Kelley K (2014) The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus Ethics Q 24(2):165–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hammer F, Egger-Lampl S, Möller S (2017) Position paper: quality-of-experience of cyber-physical system applications. In: Proceedings of international conference on conference on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX 2017). Erfurt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Göritz A (2010) Needs, affect, and interactive products—facets of user experience. Interact Comput 22:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Diefenbach S, Laschke M, Len E, Kim J (2013) Designing moments of meaning and pleasure: experience design and happiness. Int J Des 7(3):21–31Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience: a research agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25(2):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hassenzahl M, Wiklund-Engblom A, Bengs A, Hägglund S, Diefenbach S (2015) Experience-oriented and product-oriented evaluation: psychological need fulfillment, positive affect, and product perception. Int J Hum Comput Interact 31(8):530–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huta V, Ryan RM (2010) Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J Happiness Stud 11(6):735–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huta V, Waterman AS (2014) Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. J Happiness Stud 15(6):1425–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacko JA (ed) (2012) Human computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Judge TA (2009) Core self-evaluations and work success. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18(1):58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Vainio T (2010) Framing the context of use for mobile HCI. Int J Mob Hum Comput Interact 2(4):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kahneman D (1999) Well-being: foundations of hedonic psychology, chap. Objective happiness. Russell Sage Foundation Press, New York, pp 3–25Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khaitan SK, McCalley JD (2015) Design techniques and applications of cyberphysical systems: a survey. IEEE Syst J 9(2):350–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Law ELC (2011) The measurability and predictability of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systemsGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Law ELC, van Schaik P, Roto V (2014) Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement. Int J Hum Comput Stud 72(6):526–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis, A (eds) (2013) Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience, European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003 Qualinet). Version 1.2. Novi SadGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee E (2008) Cyber physical systems: design challenges. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2008-8, University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lin T, Rivano H, Mouël FL (2017) A survey of smart parking solutions. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 18(12):3229–3253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Macedonia M, Hammer F, Weichselbaum O (2018) Guided embodiment and potential applications of tutor systems in language instruction and rehabilitation. Front Psychol (to appear)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maruping L, Bala H, Venkatesh V, Brown S (2017) Going beyond intention: integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68(3):623–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McCarthy J, Wright P (2004) Technology as experience. Interactions 11(5):42–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mekler ED, Hornbæk K (2016) Momentary pleasure or lasting meaning?: Distinguishing eudaimonic and hedonic user experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 4509–4520Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mijović P, Milovanović M, Minović M, Mačužić I, Ković V, Gligorijević I (2015) Towards creation of implicit HCI model for prediction and prevention of operators error. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 341–352Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Möller S, Engelbrecht KP, Kühnel C, Wechsung I, Weiss B (2009) A taxonomy of quality of service and quality of experience of multimodal human-machine interaction. In: Proceedings of international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Elsevier, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Norman D (2013) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Norman D (2017) Technology forces us to do things we’re bad at. Time to change how design is done.
  50. 50.
    Norman DA, Draper SW (eds) (1986) User-centered system design. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Oliver MB, Raney AA (2011) Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: differentiating hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. J Commun 61:984–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T (1994) Human-computer interaction: concepts and design. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Preece J, Sharp H, Rogers Y (2015) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Raake A, Egger S (2014) Quality and quality of experience. In: Moller S, Raake A (eds) Quality of experience. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rajkumar RR, Lee I, Sha L, Stankovic J (2010) Cyber-physical systems: the next computing revolution. In: Proceedings of the 47th design automation conference, DAC ’10. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 731–736Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reichl P, Egger S, Möller S, Kilkki K, Fiedler M, Hossfeld T, Tsiaras C, Asrese A (2015) Towards a comprehensive framework for QoE and user behavior modelling. In: 2015 Seventh international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Reiss S, Havercamp SM (1998) Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation: factor structure of the reiss profiles. Psychol Assess 10(2):97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Roda C (ed) (2011) Human attention in digital environments. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A (2010) On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Res Organ Behav 30:91–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Roto V, Law E, Vermeeren A, Hoonhout J (2011) User experience white paper: bringing clarity to the concept of user experience. In: Dagstuhl seminar on user experience-2010, DagstuhlGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rubio S, Díaz E, Martín J, Puente JM (2004) Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl Psychol 53(1):61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ryan R, Deci E (2001) On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol 52:141–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ryan RM, Huta V, Deci EL (2013) Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. In: The exploration of happiness. Springer, Berlin, pp 117–139Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(2):325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shi J, Wan J, Yan H, Suo H (2011) A survey of cyber-physical systems. In: International conference on wireless communications and signal processing (WCSP)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis F, Davis M (2003) User acceptance of information technology—toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vermeeren AP, Law ELC, Roto V, Obrist M, Hoonhout J, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2010) User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries. ACM, pp 521–530Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Villani V, Pini F, Leali F, Secchi C (2018) Survey on human robot collaboration in industrial settings: safety, intuitive interfaces and applications. Mechatronics (in press)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Waterman A (1993) Two conceptions of happiness: contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:678–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Weiss B, Guse D, Möller S, Raake A, Borowiak A, Reiter U (2014) Temporal development of quality of experience. In: Quality of experience. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wirth W, Hofer M, Schramm H (2012) Beyond pleasure: exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Hum Commun Res 38:406–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linz Center of Mechatronics GmbH (LCM)LinzAustria
  2. 2.AIT Austrian Institute of TechnologyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Quality and Usability LabTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations