A Conceptual UX-Aware Model of Requirements

  • Pariya KashfiEmail author
  • Robert Feldt
  • Agneta Nilsson
  • Richard Berntsson Svensson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9856)


User eXperience (UX) is becoming increasingly important for success of software products. Yet, many companies still face various challenges in their work with UX. Part of these challenges relate to inadequate knowledge and awareness of UX and that current UX models are commonly not practical nor well integrated into existing Software Engineering (SE) models and concepts. Therefore, we present a conceptual UX-aware model of requirements for software development practitioners. This layered model shows the interrelation between UX and functional and quality requirements. The model is developed based on current models of UX and software quality characteristics. Through the model we highlight the main differences between various requirement types in particular essentially subjective and accidentally subjective quality requirements. We also present the result of an initial validation of the model through interviews with 12 practitioners and researchers. Our results show that the model can raise practitioners’ knowledge and awareness of UX in particular in relation to requirement and testing activities. It can also facilitate UX-related communication among stakeholders with different backgrounds.


Software quality Quality requirements User experience Usability Non-task-related Hedonic Non-instrumental 


  1. 1.
    Chung, L., do Prado Leite, J.C.S.: On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Mylopoulos Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO: ISO 25010: Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO: ISO 9241: Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe, M.A., Monk, A.F., Overbeeke, K., Wright, P.C. (eds.) Funology: from Usability to Enjoyment, pp. 31–42. Kluwer Academic (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hassenzahl, M.: Experience Design: Technology for All the Right Reasons. Morgan & Claypool, San Francisco (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lallemand, C., Koenig, V., Gronier, G.: How relevant is an expert evaluation of user experience based on a psychological needs-driven approach? In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI 2014), pp. 11–20. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kashfi, P., Nilsson, A., Feldt, R.: Integrating user eXperience practices into Software Development Processes: the implication of subjectivity and emergent nature of UX. PeerJ Computer Science (in submission) (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ardito, C., Buono, P., Caivano, D., Costabile, M.F., Lanzilotti, R.: Investigating and promoting UX practice in industry: an experimental study. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 72(6), 542–551 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lanzilotti, R., Costabile, M.F., Ardito, C., Informatica, D., Aldo, B.: Addressing usability and UX in call for tender for IT products. In: Proceedings of the 15h IFIP TC 13 International Conference Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2015), pp. 1–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright, P., McCarthy, J.: Experience-Centered Design: Designers, Users, and Communities in Dialogue. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics. Morgan & Claypool, San Francisco (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kashfi, P., Nilsson, A., Feldt, R.: Supporting practitioners in prioritizing user experience requirements. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Requirements Prioritization for Customer Oriented Software Development: (RePriCo 2012), vol. 19–23 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bevan, N.: UX, Usability and ISO standards. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI 2008), pp. 1–5. ACM, New York, April 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorschek, T., Wohlin, C., Carre, P., Larsson, S.: A model for technology transfer in practice. IEEE Softw. 23(6), 88–95 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Softw. Eng. 14(2), 131–164 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooks, F.P.: No silver bullet essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Folstad, A.: The relevance of UX models and measures. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Interplay between UX and Software Development (I-UxSED 2010), pp. 8–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilb, T., Brodie, L.: Competitive Engineering: A Handbook for Systems Engineering Requirements Engineering, and Software Engineering Using Planguage. Elsevier Ltd. (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berntsson Svensson, R., Regnell, B.: A case study evaluation of the guideline-supported QUPER model for elicitation of quality requirements. In: Fricker, S.A., Schneider, K. (eds.) REFSQ 2015. LNCS, vol. 9013, pp. 230–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hassenzahl, M., Wessler, R., Hamborg, K.C.: Exploring and understanding product qualities that users desire. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference of the Human-Computer Interaction Group of the British Computer Society (IHM-HCI 2001), pp. 95–96 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zimmermann, P.G.: Beyond usability-measuring aspects of user experience. Ph.D. dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 1994, pp. 413–414. ACM Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO: ISO 9126: Software engineering - Product quality - Part 4: Quality in use metrics. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wright, P., McCarthy, J., Meekison, L.: Making Sense of Experience. In: Blythe, M., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A., Wright, P. (eds.) Funology. Human-Computer Interaction Series, vol. 3, pp. 43–53. Springer, Netherlands (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pariya Kashfi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Robert Feldt
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Agneta Nilsson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard Berntsson Svensson
    • 3
  1. 1.Software Engineering Division, Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Gothenburg UniversityGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Software Engineering Research Lab, School of ComputingBlekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden

Personalised recommendations