UX Professionals’ Definitions of Usability and UX – A Comparison Between Turkey, Finland, Denmark, France and Malaysia

  • Dorina RajanenEmail author
  • Torkil Clemmensen
  • Netta Iivari
  • Yavuz Inal
  • Kerem Rızvanoğlu
  • Ashok Sivaji
  • Amélie Roche
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10516)


This paper examines the views of user experience (UX) professionals on the definitions of usability and UX, and compares the findings between countries and within different socio-cultural groups. A mixed-method analysis was employed on data gathered on 422 professionals through a survey in Turkey, Finland, Denmark, France, and Malaysia. Usability appears to be an established concept, respondents across all countries agreeing on the importance of the ISO 9241-11 definition. There is also a tendency that UX professionals attach organizational perspective to usability. UX professionals diverge when defining UX, and there are systematic differences related to socio-cultural conditions. UX professionals in Finland and France incline more towards the definition highlighting the experiential qualities, when compared to Turkey and Malaysia that incline towards the definition reflecting the ease of use, utility, attractiveness, and degree of usage. Further research should address the implications of the diverse meanings and contexts of usability and UX.


User experience Usability UX professional Cross-cultural HCI 


  1. 1.
    ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on Usability. International Standard Organization, Geneva (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO 9241-210: Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction - Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems. International Standard Organization, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hertzum, M.: Images of usability. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 26(6), 567–600 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Law, E., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A.P., Kort, J., Hassenzahl, M.: Towards a shared definition of user experience. In: CHI 2008 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Law, E.L.-C.: The measurability and predictability of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Law, E.L.-C., van Schaik, P.: Modelling user experience–an agenda for research and practice. Interact. Comput. 22(5), 313–322 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Law, E.L.-C., van Schaik, P., Roto, V.: Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72(6), 526–541 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Obrist, M., Law, E., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A., Kuutti, K.: UX research: what theoretical roots do we build on–if any? In: CHI 2011 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Obrist, M., Roto, V., Law, E.L.-C., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Vermeeren, A., Buie, E.: Theories behind UX research and how they are used in practice. In: CHI 2012 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Obrist, M., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Law, E.L.-C., Kuutti, K.: In search of theoretical foundations for UX research and practice. In: CHI 2012 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Law, E.L.-C., Abrahão, S.: Interplay between user experience (UX) evaluation and system development. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72(6), 523–525 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Law, E.L.-C., Hassenzahl, M., Karapanos, E., Obrist, M., Roto, V.: Tracing links between UX frameworks and design practices: dual carriageway. In: Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction Korea (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roto, V., Väätäjä, H., Law, E., Powers, R.: Experience design for multiple customer touchpoints. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bevan, N., Carter, J., Harker, S.: ISO 9241-11 revised: what have we learnt about usability since 1998? In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9169, pp. 143–151. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20901-2_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bevan, N.: Quality in use: meeting user needs for quality. J. Sys. Softw. 49(1), 89–96 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bevan, N.: Measuring usability as quality of use. Softw. Qual. J. 4(2), 115–130 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hornbæk, K., Law, E.L.-C.: Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tractinsky, N.: The usability construct: a dead end? Human–Computer Interaction (2017, accepted)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K.: Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine, pp. 11–15. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bargas-Avila, J.A., Hornbæk, K.: 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, pp. 2689–2698. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kujala, S., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Karapanos, E., Sinnelä, A.: UX curve: a method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interact. Comput. 23(5), 473–483 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCarthy, J., Wright, P.: Technology as experience. Interactions 11(5), 42–43 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clemmensen, T., Hertzum, M., Yang, J., Chen, Y.: Do usability professionals think about user experience in the same way as users and developers do? In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8118, pp. 461–478. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hertzum, M., Clemmensen, T.: How do usability professionals construe usability? Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 70(1), 26–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hertzum, M., Clemmensen, T., Hornbæk, K., Kumar, J., Shi, Q., Yammiyavar, P.: Usability constructs: a cross-cultural study of how users and developers experience their use of information systems. In: Aykin, N. (ed.) UI-HCII 2007. LNCS, vol. 4559, pp. 317–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73287-7_39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kelly, G.: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Routledge, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rajanen, M., Nissinen, J.: A survey of game usability practices in Northern European game companies. IRIS-Sel. Pap. Inf. Syst. Res. Semin. Scand. 2015(6), 1–15 (2015). Paper 8Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hussein, I., Mahmud, M., Tap, A.O.M.: A survey of user experience practice: a point of meet between academic and industry. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr) (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frandsen-Thorlacius, O., Hornbæk, K., Hertzum, M., Clemmensen, T.: Non-universal usability?: a survey of how usability is understood by Chinese and Danish users. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 41–50. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wallace, S., Yu, H.C.: The effect of culture on usability: comparing the perceptions and performance of Taiwanese and North American MP3 player users. J. Usab. Stud. 4(3), 136–146 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clemmensen, T., Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K., Shi, Q., Yammiyavar, P.: Cultural cognition in usability evaluation. Interact. Comput. 21(3), 212–220 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oyugi, C., Dunckley, L., Smith, A.: Evaluation methods and cultural differences: studies across three continents. In: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges, pp. 318–325. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oyugi, C., Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Clemmensen, T.: Harambee: a novel usability evaluation method for low-end users in Kenya. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, pp. 179–188. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yasuoka, M., Nakatani, M., Ohno, T.: Towards a culturally independent participatory design method: fusing game elements into the design process. In: 2013 International Conference on Culture and Computing, pp. 92–97. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yasuoka, M., Sakurai, R.: Out of Scandinavia to Asia: adaptability of participatory design in culturally distant society. In: Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases, vol. 2, pp. 21–24. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Iivari, N.: Representing the user’in software development—a cultural analysis of usability work in the product development context. Interact. Comput. 18(4), 635–664 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Iivari, N.: Culturally compatible usability work - an interpretive case study on the relationship between usability work and its cultural context in software product development organizations. J. Organ. End User Comput. 22(3), 40–65 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cajander, Å.: Usability–who cares?: the introduction of user-centred systems design in organisations. Doctoral Dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rajanen, M., Iivari, N.: Usability cost-benefit analysis: how usability became a curse word? In: Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J. (eds.) INTERACT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4663, pp. 511–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hertzum, M., Jacobsen, N.E.: The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 13(4), 421–443 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Blevis, E., Stolterman, E.: FEATURE transcending disciplinary boundaries in interaction design. Interactions 16(5), 48–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Clemmensen, T.: Four approaches to user modelling—a qualitative research interview study of HCI professionals’ practice. Interact. Comput. 16(4), 799–829 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sharp, H., Preece, J., Rogers, Y.: Interaction design - beyond human - computer interaction. Wiley, Chichester (2015)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Clemmensen, T.: Community knowledge in an emerging online professional community - The case of Knowl. Process. Manag. 12(1), 43–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I., Göransson, B.: Usability professionals—current practices and future development. Interact. Comput. 18(4), 568–600 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Iivari, N.: Understanding the work of an HCI practitioner. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, pp. 185–194. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marghescu, D.: Usability evaluation of information systems: a review of five international standards. In: Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, G., Lang, M., Conboy, K., Barry, C. (eds.) Information Systems Development, pp. 131–142. Springer, Boston (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-68772-8_11
  49. 49.
    ISO 13407: Human-Centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems (1999)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sivaji, A., Nielsen, S.F., Clemmensen, T.: A textual feedback tool for empowering participants in usability and UX evaluations. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 33(5), 1–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Elliott, N., Kling, R.: Organizational usability of digital libraries in the courts. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 62–71. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sørensen, C., Al-Taitoon, A.: Organisational usability of mobile computing—volatility and control in mobile foreign exchange trading. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66(12), 916–929 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rajanen, M.: Usability cost-benefit models–different approaches to usability benefit analysis. In: Proceedings of the 26th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS26), Haikko, Finland (2003)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rajanen, M.: Applying Usability Cost - Benefit Analysis – Explorations in Commercial and Open Source Software Development Contexts. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, Ser. A, Scient. rerum nat, 587 (2011)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rajanen, M., Jokela, T.: Analysis of usability cost-benefit models. In: ECIS 2004 Proceedings, 115 (2004)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lewis, J.R.: Usability: lessons learned… and yet to be learned. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 30(9), 663–684 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Karat, J.: Evolving the scope of user-centered design. CACM 40(7), 33–38 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorina Rajanen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Torkil Clemmensen
    • 2
  • Netta Iivari
    • 1
  • Yavuz Inal
    • 3
  • Kerem Rızvanoğlu
    • 4
  • Ashok Sivaji
    • 5
  • Amélie Roche
    • 6
  1. 1.University of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Copenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Atilim UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.Galatasaray UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  5. 5.MIMOS Technology SolutionsKuala LumpurMalaysia
  6. 6.ENSCBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations