The New Thinking in Emotional User Experience: From Visual Metaphor to Interactive Affordance

  • Xin ChenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)


In our daily lives, products always catch our attention with form, color, texture, sound, meaning, and environment. Recently, products have become more intelligent and adaptive that they change people’s emotional expression and experience perception due to the more complex human-product interaction. This paper aims to develop a theoretical framework, which establishes a general understanding of the experience emerged from the interactive activities between people and technology, and the confusion within specific critical dimensions, which include subjective feelings, behavior, social practice, and knowledge. This study reveals the usability of products mainly depends on the designers’ understanding of the users’ need and perception. By setting a visual metaphor which promotes interactive affordance and enables users to be well acquainted with how to use at a glance, this study suggests that better design need to focus on better creation of user experience, which combines utilitarian and hedonic aspects. Therefore, the comprehensive consideration from users’ psychological and behavioral perspectives is essential. This study makes a relatively original contribution to exploring the importance of affordance in interaction design which invents products acceptance and adorable.


Affordance Experience User study Visual metaphor 



The author would like to thank Shenzhen University for the support of the study and preparation of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Alben, L.: Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions 3(3), 11–15 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arhippainen, L., Tähti, M.: Empirical evaluation of user experience in two adaptive mobile application prototypes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM2003), Norrköping, Sweden, pp. 27–34 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Battarbee, K.: Defining co-experience. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI 2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 109–113 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Battarbee, K., Koskinen, I.: Co-experience: user experience as interaction. Codesign 1(1), 5–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dewey, J.: Experience and Nature. Open Court, Lasalle (1925)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewey, J.: Art as Experience. Perigree, New York (1934)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forlizzi, J., Battarbee, K.: Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of The 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, And Techniques, pp. 261–268 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forlizzi, J., Ford, S.: The building blocks of experience: an early framework for interaction designers. In: Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems (DIS2000), pp. 419–423 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaver, W.W.: Situating action II: affordances for interaction: the social is material for design. Ecol. Psychol. 8(2), 111–129 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Theory of Affordances. Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, pp. 67–82 (1979)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe, M.A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A.F., Wtight, P.C. (eds.) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho, A.G., Siu, K.W.M.: Emotionalise design, emotional design, emotion design. Des. J. 15(1), 9–32 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J.: User experience over time: an initial framework. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 729–738. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuniavsky, M.: User experience and HCI. In: Sears, A., Jacko, J.A. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mccarthy, J., Wright, P.: Technology as experience. Interactions 11(5), 42–43 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday Business, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman, D.: Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3) (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park, J., Han, S.H., Kim, H.K., Cho, Y., Park, W.: Developing elements of user experience for mobile phones and services: survey, interview, and observation approaches. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 23(4), 279–293 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park, J., Han, S.H., Kim, H.K., Oh, S., Moon, H.: Modeling user experience: a case study on a mobile device. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 43(2), 187–196 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siu, K.W.M.: Pleasurable products: public space furniture with user fitness. J. Eng. Des. 16(6), 545–555 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smets, G., Overbeeke, K.: Industrial design engineering and the theory of direct perception. Des. Stud. 15(2), 175–184 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smets, G., Overbeeke, K., Gaver, W.: Form-giving: expressing the nonobvious. In: Proceedings of The SIGCHI Conference On Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 79–84. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torenvliet, G.: We can’t afford it!: the devaluation of a usability term. Interactions 10(4), 12–17 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wensveen, S.A.G., Overbeeke, C.J., Djajadiningrat, P.J.: Push me, shove me and I know how you feel: recognising mood from emotionally rich interaction. In: Macdonald, N. (ed.) Proceedings of DIS2002, London (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xenakis, I., Arnellos, A.: The relation between interaction aesthetics and affordances. Des. Stud. 34(1), 57–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of DesignShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations