Robots in Time: How User Experience in Human-Robot Interaction Changes over Time

  • Roland Buchner
  • Daniela Wurhofer
  • Astrid Weiss
  • Manfred Tscheligi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8239)


This paper describes a User Experience (UX) study on industrial robots in the context of a semiconductor factory cleanroom. We accompanied the deployment of a new robotic arm, without a safety fence, over one and a half years. Within our study, we explored if there is a UX difference between robots which have been used for more than 10 years within a safety fence (type A robot) and a newly deployed robot without fence (type B robot). Further, we investigated if the UX ratings change over time. The departments of interest were the oven (type A robots), the etching (type B robot), and the implantation department (type B robot). To observe experience changes over time, a UX questionnaire was developed and distributed to the operators at three defined points in time within these departments. The first survey was conducted one week after the deployment of robot B (n=23), the second survey was deployed six months later (n=21), and the third survey was distributed one and a half years later (n=23). Our results show an increasing positive UX towards the newly deployed robots with progressing time, which partly aligns with the UX ratings of the robots in safety fences. However, this effect seems to fade after one year. We further found that the UX ratings for all scales for the established robots were stable at all three points in time.


Industrial Robots Measurement Semiconductor Factory User Experience 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weiss, A., Buchner, R., Fischer, H., Tscheligi, M.: Exploring human-robot cooperation possibilities for semiconductor manufacturing. In: Workshop on Collaborative Robots and Human Robot Interaction (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kose-Bagci, H., Dautenhahn, K., Nehaniv, C.L.: Emergent dynamics of turn-taking interaction in drumming games with a humanoid robot. In: RO-MAN 2008, pp. 346–353. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alben, L.: Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions 3(3), 11–15 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Obrist, M., Reitberger, W., Wurhofer, D., Förster, F., Tscheligi, M.: User experience research in the semiconductor factory: A contradiction? In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6949, pp. 144–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J.B.: User experience over time: an initial framework. In: Proc. of CHI 2009, pp. 729–738 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karapanos, E.: User experience over time. In: Karapanos, E. (ed.) Modeling Users’ Experiences with Interactive Systems. SCI, vol. 436, pp. 61–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pohlmeyer, A.E.: Identifying Attribute Importance in Early Product Development. Exemplified by Interactive Technologies and Age. PhD thesis (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kujala, S., Vogel, M., Pohlmeyer, A.E., Obrist, M.: Lost in time: the meaning of temporal aspects in user experience. In: CHI 2013 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2013, pp. 559–564. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kujala, S., Miron-Shatz, T.: Emotions, experiences and usability in real-life mobile phone use. In: Proc. of the SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2013, pp. 1061–1070 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dautenhahn, K.: Methodology & Themes of Human-Robot Interaction: A Growing Research Field. Int. Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 4(1), 103–108 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sung, J.Y., Christensen, H.I., Grinter, R.E.: Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. In: HRI, pp. 45–52 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K.: Living with robots: Investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. In: RO-MAN 2007, pp. 564–569. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castellano, G., Aylett, R., Dautenhahn, K., Paiva, A., McOwan, P.W., Ho, S.: Long-Term Affect Sensitive and Socially Interactive Companions. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coradeschi, S., Kristoffersson, A., Loutfi, A., Von Rump, S., Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Gonzalez, J.: Towards a methodology for longitudinal evaluation of social robotic telepresence for elderly. In: 1st Workshop on Social Robotic Telepresence at HRI 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, M.K., Forlizzi, J.: Designing adaptive robotic services. In: Proc. of IASDR 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, M.K., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Rybski, P., Antanitis, J., Savetsila, S.: Personalization in hri: A longitudinal field experiment. In: HRI 2012, pp. 319–326. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, M.K., Forlizzi, J., Rybski, P.E., Crabbe, F., Chung, W., Finkle, J., Glaser, E., Kiesler, S.: The snackbot: documenting the design of a robot for long-term human-robot interaction. In: Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 7–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernaeus, Y., Håkansson, M., Jacobsson, M., Ljungblad, S.: How do you play with a robotic toy animal?: A long-term study of pleo. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 39–48 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kidd, C.D.: Designing for Long-Term Human-Robot Interaction and Application to Weight Loss. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J.: Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In: Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 287–294 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F.: Attrakdiff: Ein fragebogen zur messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer qualität. Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. Journal of Social Robotics 1(1), 71–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lohse, M.: Bridging the gap between users’ expectations and system evaluations. In: RO-MAN 2011, pp. 485–490. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Varsaluoma, J., Kentta, V.: Drawux: web-based research tool for long-term user experience evaluation. In: Proc. of the 7th NordiCHI 2012, pp. 769–770 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J.B.: Measuring the dynamics of remembered experience over time. Interact. Comput. 22(5), 328–335 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kujala, S., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Sinnelä, A.: Identifying hedonic factors in long-term user experience. In: Proc. of the 2011 Conf. on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, DPPI 2011, pp. 17:1–17:8 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Lankes, M., Tscheligi, M.: The usus evaluation framework for human-robot interaction. In: AISB 2009: Proceedings of the Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 158–165 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pedhazur, E., Schmelkin, L.: Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Erlbaum (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Buchner
    • 1
  • Daniela Wurhofer
    • 1
  • Astrid Weiss
    • 1
  • Manfred Tscheligi
    • 1
  1. 1.HCI& Usability Unit, ICT&S CenterUniversity of SalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations