Are Software Developers Just Users of Development Tools? Assessing Developer Experience of a Graphical User Interface Designer

  • Kati KuusinenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9856)


Software developers use software products to design and develop new software products for others to use. Research has introduced a concept of developer experience inspired by the concept of user experience but appreciating also the special characteristics of software development context. It is unclear what the experiential components of developer experience are and how it can be measured. In this paper we address developer experience of Vaadin Designer, a graphical user interface designer tool in terms of user experience, intrinsic motivation, and flow state experience. We surveyed 18 developers using AttrakDiff, flow state scale, intrinsic motivation inventory and our own DEXI scale and compare those responses to developers’ overall user experience assessment using Mann-Whitney U test. We found significant differences in motivational and flow state factors between groups who assessed the overall user experience either bad or good. Based on our results we discuss the factors that construe developer experience.


Graphical User Interface Intrinsic Motivation Developer Experience Integrate Development Environment Paper Prototype 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I want to thank all the survey respondents for their valuable contribution. I also want to thank Vaadin for making the study possible. I am grateful for my contact person in the company for their help in organizing the survey. This research has been conducted while I was working for Tampere University of Technology, Finland. My research has been supported by TEKES as part of the Need for Speed research program of DIGILE (Finnish Strategic Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation in the field of ICT and digital business).


  1. 1.
    Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., Sharp, H.: Motivation in software engineering: A systematic literature review. IST 50, 860–878 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Capretz, L.F., Ahmed, F.: Making sense of software development and personality types. IT professional 12(1), 6–13 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coplien, J.O., Bjørnvig, G.: Lean Architecture: For Agile Software Development. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: the psychology of optimal experience, vol. 41. HarperPerennial, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M., LeFevre, J.: Optimal experience in work and leisure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56(5), 815–822 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., Nakamura, J.: Flow. In: Elliot, A.: Handbook of Competence and Motivation. The Guilford Press, New York pp. 598–698 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deci, E., Ryan, R.M.: Self-Determination Theory. Handbook of Theories Of Social Psychology. SAGE, Los Angeles (2012). ISBN 9780857029607Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fagerholm, F.: Software developer experience: Case studies in lean-agile and open-source environments. Doctoral Thesis. Series of publications A, report A-2015-7. University of Helsinki (2015). ISBN 978-951-51-1747-2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagerholm, F., Münch, J.: Developer experience: concept and definition. In: Proceeding International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 73–77. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferreira, J., Sharp, H., Robinson, H.: User experience design and agile development: managing cooperation through articulation work. Softw. Pract. Experience 41(9), 963–974 (2011). WileyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferreira, J., Sharp, H., Robinson, H.: Values and assumptions shaping agile development and user experience design in practice. In: Martin, A., Wang, X., Whitworth, E., Sillitti, A. (eds.) XP 2010. LNBIP, vol. 48, pp. 178–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franca, A.C.C., Gouveia, T.B., Santos, P.C.F., Santana, C.A., da Silva, F.Q.B.: Motivation in software engineering: a systematic review update. In: Proceeding Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), pp. 154–163 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gass, O., Meth, H., Maedche, A.: PaaS characteristics for productive software development: an evaluation framework. IEEE Internet Comput. 18(1), 56–64 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graziotin, D., Wang, X., Abrahamsson, P.: Software developers, moods, emotions, and performance. IEEE Softw. 31(4), 24–27 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The interplay of beauty, goodness and usability in interactive products. In: Proceeding HCI. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 319–349 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceeding of 20th International Conference of the Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine, pp. 11–15. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., Göritz, A.: Needs, affect, and interactive products–facets of user experience. Interact. Comput. 22(5), 353–362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO 9241. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability. International Organization for Standardisation, Genève (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackson, S.A., Martin, A.J., Eklund, R.C.: Long and short measures of flow: the construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. JSEP 30(5), 561 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khan, I.A., Brinkman, W.-P., Hierons, R.M.: Do moods affect programmers’ debug performance? Cogn. Technol. Work 13(4), 245–258 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuusinen, K.: BoB - A framework for organizing within-iteration UX work in agile development. In: Cockton, G., Larusdottir, M.K., Gregory, P., Cajander, Å. (eds) Integrating User Centred Design in Agile DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuusinen, K.: Integrating UX work in agile enterprise software development. Doctoral thesis, Publication 1339, Tampere University of Technology (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuusinen, K., Mikkonen, T.: On designing UX for mobile enterprise apps. In: Proceeding Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) 2014, pp. 221–228 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuusinen, K., Mikkonen, T., Pakarinen, S.: Agile user experience development in a large software organization: good expertise but limited impact. In: Winckler, M., Forbrig, P., Bernhaupt, R. (eds.) HCSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7623, pp. 94–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuusinen, K., Petrie, H., Fagerholm, F., Mikkonen, T.: Flow, intrinsic motivation, and developer experience in software engineering. In: Sharp, H., Hall, T. (eds.) XP 2016. LNBIP, vol. 251, pp. 104–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuusinen, K., Väätäjä, H., Mikkonen, T., Väänänen, K.: Towards understanding how agile teams predict user experience. In: Cockton, G., Larusdottir, M.K., Gregory, P., Cajander, Å.: (eds) Integrating User Centred Design in Agile DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., Koenig, V.: User experience: a concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 35–48 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Law, E., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A., Kort, J.: Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceeding of CHI 2009, pp. 719–728 ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McAuley, E., Duncan, T., Tammen, V.V.: Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 60, 48–58 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myers, B., Hudson, S.E., Pausch, R.: Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 7(1), 3–28 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olsen Jr., D.R., Klemmer, S.R.: The future of user interface design tools. In: CHI 2005 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2134–2135. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reichheld, F.F.: The one number you need to grow. Harvard Bus. Rev. 81(12), 46–55 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ryan, R.M.: Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43, 450–461 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sharp, H., Baddoo, N., Beecham, S., Hall, T., Robinson, H.: Models of motivation in software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(1), 219–233 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shaw, T.: The emotions of systems developers: an empirical study of affective events theory. In: Proceeding Computer Personnel Research: Careers, Culture, and Ethics in a Networked Environment, SIGMIS CPR 2004, pp. 124–126. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sundberg, H.-R.: The importance of user experience related factors in new product development – Comparing the views of designers and users of industrial products. In: 23rd Nordic Academy of Management Conference, 12–14 August 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    World Health Organization, Informed consent form template for qualitative studies.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Central LancashirePrestonUK
  2. 2.Tampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations