Skip to main content

Identification of UX dimensions for incident reporting systems with mobile applications in urban contexts: a longitudinal study


Incident reporting systems enable end-users to report problems that they have experienced in their working activities to authorities. Such applications are sought to sense the quality of the environment, thus enabling authorities to promote safety and well-being among citizens. Many governments are now promoting the use of mobile applications allowing citizens to report incidents in their neighbourhood to the administration. Nonetheless, it is not clear which user experience dimensions affect the adoption of incident reporting systems, and to what extent anticipated use of the system (anticipated UX) is a determinant for predicting the user experience with the final application. In order to understand how citizens perceive incident reporting systems and which factors affect the user experience (UX), we have performed empirical studies including interviews in early phases of the development process and empirical user testing of advanced prototypes. In this paper, we present the results of a longitudinal study on the evolution of the perception of UX dimensions along the development process, from interviews to running prototypes. Hereafter, we describe the method that has been used for coding the findings of these empirical studies according to six UX dimensions (including visual and aesthetic experience, emotions, stimulation, identification, meaning & value and social relatedness/co-experience). Moreover, we describe how the findings have been associated with users’ tasks. The findings from interviews and user testing indicate that whilst the perceived importance of some UX dimensions (such as identification and meaning & value) remains similar over time, other dimensions such as stimulation and emotions do evolve. Beyond the practical implications of this study for the design of incident reporting systems, this work presents an approach that allows comparing the results of UX assessments in different phases of the process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. M-government refers to the use of mobile technology for improving the communication between citizens and the government.

  2. PhoneGap. Available at:


  • Alben L (1996) Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions 3:11–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach C, Bernhaupt R, Winckler M (2011) Mobile incident reporting in urban contexts: towards the identification of emerging user interface patterns. In: 5th IFIP’s WG 13.2 Workshop PUX. Lisbon, Portugal, September 2011

  • Bach C, Bernhaupt R, D’Agostini C, Winckler M (2013) Mobile applications for incident reporting systems in urban contexts: lessons learned from an empirical study. In: European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2013 (ECCE). ACM DL, pp 29–38

  • Bernhaupt R (2010) Evaluating user experience in games—concepts and methods. Human–Computer Interaction Series, Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-1-84882-962-6

  • Bernhaupt R, Pirker M (2013) Evaluating user experience for interactive television: towards the development of a domain-specific user experience questionnaire. In: IFIP TC13 conference on human–computer interaction 2013 (INTERACT). LNCS, vol 8118. Springer, Berlin, pp 642–659

  • Bradley MM, Lang PJ (1994) Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 25(1):49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooke J (1996) SUS: a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland AL (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynskov M, Dalsgård P, Ebsen T, Fritsch J, Halskov K, Nielsen R (2009) Staging urban interactions with media façades. In: INTERACT (1), pp 154–167

  • Desmet PMA, Hekkert P (2007) Framework of product experience. Int J Des 1(1):57–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmet PMA, Overbeeke CJ, Tax SJET (2001) Designing products with added emotional value: development and application of an approach for research through design. Des J 4(1):32–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer PT, Hornecker E (2011) Urban HCI: interaction patterns in the built environment. In: BCS HCI, pp 531–534

  • Forlizzi J, Battarbee K (2004) Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ‘04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 261–268

  • Gaver B, Martin H (2000) Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals. In: Proceedings of CHI, ACM, New York, pp 209–216

  • Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E (1999) Design: cultural Probes. Interactions 6(1):21–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Adline, USA

  • Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221. doi:10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M (2002) The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. Int J Hum Comput Interact 13:479–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M (2003) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe M, Overbeeke C, Monk AF, Wright PC (eds) Funology: from usability to enjoyment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 31–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M (2004) The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. J HCI 19(4):319–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M (2008) Aesthetics in interactive products: correlates and consequences of beauty. In: Product experience, Chapter 11. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 287–302

  • Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience—a research agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25(2):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hekkert P (2006) Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in product design. Psychol Sci 48(2):157

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittelson WH, Procshansky HM, Rivlin LG, Winkel GH (1974) An introduction to environmental psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Wintson, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jääskö V, Mattelmäki T (2003) Observing and probing. In: Proceedings of DPPI 03. ACM, NY, pp 126–131

  • Jordan P (2000) Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karapanos E, Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Martens J-B (2010) Measuring the dynamics of remembered experience over time. Interact Comput 22(5):328–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang P (1995) The emotion probe: studies of motivation and attention. Am Psychol 50(5):372–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson R, Csikszentmihalyi M (1983) The experience Sampling Method. In: Reis HT (ed) Naturalistic approaches to studying social interaction. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 41–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie T, Tractinsky N (2004) Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int J Hum Comput Stud 60(3):269–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law E (2011) The measurability and predictability of user experience. In: EICS ‘11, ACM, pp 1–10

  • Law E, Van Schaik P (2010) Modelling user experience—an agenda for research and practice. Interact Comput 22(5):313–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law E, Roto V, Hassenzahl M, Vermeeren A, Kort J (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: CHI 09, ACM

  • Lazar J, Feng JH, Hochheiser H (2010) Research methods in human–computer interaction. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahlke S, Lindgaard G (2007) Emotional experiences and quality perceptions of interactive products. In: Proceedings of HCII, LNCS, vol 4550. Springer, Berlin, pp 164–173

  • Mahlke S, Thüring M (2007) Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. In: Proceedings of CHI, ACM, NY, pp 915–918

  • Mandryk RL, Atkins MS, Inkpen KM (2006) A continuous and objective evaluation of emotional experience with interactive play environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, pp 1027–1036. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124926

  • Martinie C, Palanque P, Winckler M (2011) Structuring and composition mechanisms to address scalability issues in task models. In: Proceedings of INTERACT (3), pp 589–609

  • MaxQDA.

  • Meuter ML, Ostrom AL, Bitner MJ, Roundtree R (2003) The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. J Bus Res 56:899–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misuraca G (2009) Futuring e-Government: governance and policy implications for designing ICT-enabled Knowledge Society. In: Proceedings of ICEGOV, Bogota, Colombia, November 2009

  • Moles A, Rohmer E (1978) Psychologie de l’espace. Casterman, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon J (2004) From e-Government? Emerging practices in the use of m-technology by state governments. IBM Center for the Business of Governement

  • Moynihan DP (2007) From forest fires to Hurricane Katrina: case studies of incident command systems. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

  • Ntaliani M, Costopoulou C, Manouselis N, Karetsos S (2009) M-government services for rural SMEs. Int J Electron Secur Digit Forensics 2(4):407–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Looney J (2003) Using technology to increase citizen participation in government: the use of models and simulation. IBM Center for the Business of Government

  • Proshansky H, Fabian A, Kaminoff R (1983) Place identity: physical world socialization of the self. J Environ Psychol 3(1):57–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JM, Tran TQ (2010) Attractive phones don’t have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability. In CHI2010, ACM, pp 353–362

  • Rossel P, Finger M, Misuraca G (2006) “Mobile” e-Government options: between technology-driven and user centric. Electron J e-Government 4(2):79–86

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimi S, Sheng H (2008) Emerging trends in M-Government. Commun ACM 51(5):53–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2008) Towards a life cycle framework of mobile service user experience. In: 2nd MIUX workshop at MobileHCI

  • Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Roto V, Hassenzahl M (2008) Now let’s do it in practice: user experience evaluation methods in product development. In: Proceedings of CHI 2008. Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM

  • Wilson C (2013) Interview techniques for UX practitioners. Morgan Kaufmann, 100 p. ISBN: 9780124103931

  • Winckler M, Scapin D, Pontico F, Calvary G, Serna A (2009) Profiling user requirements for multi-target e-Government applications: a case study. In: Proceedings of Int. Workshop DEGAS 2009, Uppsala, Sweden, CEUR, vol 492, pp 9–16

  • Winckler M, Bach C, Bernhaupt R (2013) Identifying user experience dimensions for mobile incident reporting in urban contexts. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 56(2):97–119. doi:10.1109/TPC.2013.2257212

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Winckler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Winckler, M., Bernhaupt, R. & Bach, C. Identification of UX dimensions for incident reporting systems with mobile applications in urban contexts: a longitudinal study. Cogn Tech Work 18, 673–694 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Incident reporting systems
  • Interviews
  • User testing
  • Empirical studies
  • User experience
  • Mobile applications
  • Government