Advertisement

Engaging Experience with Physical Activity Tracking Products

  • Armağan Kuru
  • Jodi Forlizzi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9186)

Abstract

Many people use physical activity tracking products to gather personal behavioral data, make better decisions, and make changes to their behavior. While the proliferation of new products on the market makes collecting personal data easier, how to help people engage with these products over a long period of time remains an open question. To uncover which features of physical activity tracking products lead to engaging experience, we conducted a study with people who use physical activity tracking products to support or track behavior change. We conducted baseline interviews and had participants interact with either a BodyMedia armband or a FitBit activity tracker. Participants rated their experience with the product daily for a period of four weeks and reflected on their engagement at the end of the study. Through synthesis and analysis of the study findings, we draw out four characteristics for engaging experience in physical activity tracking product use: connectivity, curiosity, personalization, and motivation.

Keywords

Design Experience User experience Interaction design engaging experience Physical activity tracking 

References

  1. 1.
    Fujiki, Y., Kazakos, K., Puri, C., Buddharaju, P., Pavlidis, I., Levine, J.: NEAT-o-games: blending physical activity and fun in the daily routine. Comput. Entertain. 6(2), 1–22 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., Landay, J.A.: Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W., Avrahami, D., Froehlich, J., LeGrand, L., Libby, R., Mosher, K., Landay, J.A.: Flowers or a robot army? Encouraging awareness and activity with personal, mobile displays. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Seoul, Korea, ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Consolvo, S., McDonald, D.W., Toscos, T., Chen, M.Y., Froehlich, J., Harrison, B., Klasnja, P., LaMarca, A., LeGrand, L., Libby, R., Smith, I., Landay, J.A.: Activity sensing in the wild: a field trial of ubifit garden. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin, J.J., Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delojoux, G., Strub, H.B.: Fish ‘n’ Steps: encouraging physical activity with interactive computer game. In: Proceedings of the UbiComp 2006, Orange County, CA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arteaga, S.M., Kudeki, M., Woodworth, A., Kurniawan, S.: Mobile system to motivate teenagers’ physical activity. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Barcelona, Spain, ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahtinen, A., Isomursu, M., Huhtala, Y., Kaasinen, J., Salminen, J., Häkkilä, J.: Tracking outdoor sports – user experience perspective. In: Aarts, E., Crowley, J.L., de Ruyter, B., Gerhäuser, H., Pflaum, A., Schmidt, J., Wichert, R. (eds.) AmI 2008. LNCS, vol. 5355, pp. 192–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fialho, A.T.S., Van den Heuvel, H., Shahab, Q., Liu, Q., Li, L., Saini, P., Lacroix, J., Markopoulos, P.: ActiveShare: sharing challenges to increase physical activities. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA, ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forlizzi, J., Disalvo, C., Hanington, B.: On the relationship between emotion, experience and the design of new products. Des. J. 6(2), 29–38 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klasnja, P., Consolvo, S., Pratt, W.: How to evaluate technologies for health behavior change in HCI research. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Overbeeke, K., Djajadiningrat, T., Hummels, C., Wensveen, S., Frens, J.: Let’s make things engaging. Funology, pp. 7–17. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Brien, H.L., Toms, E.G.: What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(6), 938–955 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chou, C.-J., Conley, C.: Engaging experience: a new perspective of user experience with physical products. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 31–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper and Row, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M., Csikszentmihalyi, I.: Introduction to Part IV. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chou, C.-J., Conley, C.: Identifying products that enable engaging experiences: searching cases for theory development. Paper presented at the International Association of Societies of Design Research, Seoul, South Korea (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rafaeli, A., Vilnai-Yavetz, I.: Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of physical artifacts as triggers of emotion. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 5(1), 91–112 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forlizzi, J.: The product ecology: understanding social product use and supporting design culture. Int. J. Des. 2(1), 11–20 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Consolvo, S., McDonald, D.W., Landay, J.A.: Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA, ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W., Landay, J.A.: Goal-setting considerations for persuasive technologies that encourage physical activity. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Claremont, California, ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abowd, G.D., Dey, A.K.: Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In: Gellersen, H.-.-W. (ed.) HUC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1707, pp. 304–307. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baldauf, M., Dustdar, S., Rosenberg, F.: A survey on context-aware systems. Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput. 2(4), 263–277 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blom, J.: Personalization: a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2000 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, The Netherlands, ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adomavicius, G., Tuzhilin, A.: Personalization technologies: a process-oriented perspective. Commun. ACM 48(10), 83–90 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ashman, H., Brailsford, T., Brusilovsky, P.: Personal Services: Debating the Wisdom of Personalisation. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Influencing individually: fusing personalization and persuasion. ACM Trans. Interac. Intell. Syst. (TiiS) 2(2), 9 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roth, C., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C.: The motivational appeal of interactive storytelling: towards a dimensional model of the user experience. In: Iurgel, I.A., Zagalo, N., Petta, P. (eds.) ICIDS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5915, pp. 38–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P., Fincham, F.D.: Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. J. Pers. Assess. 82(3), 291–305 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Loewenstein, G.: The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychol. Bull. 116(1), 75 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2(1), 21–41 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fogg, B.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change what We Think and Do. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Consum. Res. 11(1), 673–675 (1984)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1972)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Predicting and Changing Behavior : The Reasoned Action Approach. Psychology Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52(1), 1–26 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fogg, B.: A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology, Claremont, California, USA, ACM (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignTOBB University of Economy and TechnologyAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Human Computer Interaction InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations