Wherein is the Necessity and Importance of Changing Human-Computer Interaction Well-Known Design Methods?

This paper presents the essential aspects that argue for the further development of known or new HCI methods. The first step is to distinguish terms like usability and user experience according to ISO standards from the definition of positive UX. Since all models of positive UX derive from the theory of positive psychology, this plays an important role. For reference to this and would like to outline the roots and definitions of positive psychology briefly. From the historical development of positive psychology, there is a parallel to HCI research. The presented results form the basis for motivation. In assuming that positive UX can make a significant contribution to improving the design of user interfaces at a fundamental level. This potential mainly based on the fact that positive user experience quality characteristics and psychological concepts of dealing with user interfaces can methodically develop. To date, these features have been outside the field of vision of classical HCI paradigms or could not adequately address methodologically.

With his inaugural speech to the president, Seligman directed the focus to the examination of health and thus the (re- [16]) birth of positive psychology. As Seligman writes in his books and articles, he spent many years helping those suffering from depression, alcoholism, schizophrenia, and trauma [18]. Like classical psychology, he and his colleagues were concerned with the understanding of human misery and from where it comes. With the commonly-applied psychology of suffering, it was insufficient to make people less depressed, anxious, or angry. With these therapies, the experts only helped people to a zero state in which human suffering alleviated, and debilitating circumstances minimized [27]. However, the ability to experience one’s state of happiness is different from the ability to reduce pain. Positive psychology is about increasing general well-being by focusing on the strengths of the individual. According to Seligman, we should experience our forces and then live and communicate in all situations of life. We are supposed to choose things for the sake of the item itself.

In HCI research, scientists have focused on how negative effects occur, and they have developed methods to prevent negative experiences. In the book Software Ergonomics, we are concerned with understanding the human negative effects in the workplace [9]. The book explains the ignorance, violation, and lack of knowledge about laws and regulations of software ergonomic quality as the reason for the development of negative effects. Another reason is the insufficient knowledge of the context of the use of the software.

Positive UX models provide another reason for negative effects. With Hassenzahl et al.’s [6] publication of models on hedonic and pragmatic quality, he stated a statement that proven in studies that there is currently a pragmatic quality. It is a quality that prevents negative experiences and refers to hygiene factors (a term from psychology). Whenever they are present, users have negative experiences. However, when these are absent, users experience neutral experiences.

Donald Norman [15] – a representative of human-centered design methods – claims that his research and principles are designed for usability. The book Design of Everyday Things describes the fundamental principles of good design of things of daily use. Among many other theories, Norman and Jakob Nielsen have simplified the use of products “that assesses how easy user interfaces are to use” [14] to reduce frustration. These findings correspond to the zero-state in positive psychology.

Due to the increase in complex problem situations, design processes from human-centered approaches must further develop. “If design is entering a time of true complexity, we have to radically shift our thinking and move away from design paradigms based on problem-solving to create a new paradigm based on complexity theory and systems thinking. These disciplines demonstrate that in really complex systems, newness comes from the emergence of order, rather than goal-directed creation; change achieved through influencing the system, rather than implementation of a plan to solve the problem; and new state of relative stability achieved by creating resilience, rather than striving for an immutable structure – that so-called solution” [5]. Accordingly, we can shape technology in terms of how we imagine and desire it.

DIN EN ISO 9241-11:2018 [10] describes usability as the extent to which a product can be used by specific users within a particular application context to achieve specific goals effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily. The term user experience is defined in DIN EN ISO 9241-210:2019 [11] as “a person’s perceptions and responses that result from the use and/or anticipated use of a product, system or service.” This definition extends usability by aesthetic and emotional factors and – more recently – by goal formation and motivation. Thus, UX is deeply rooted in usability.

The processes of the classical human-centered design models and well-known design approaches alone are, in part, poorly or unsuited to create positive user experiences. It is insufficient to talk to the users and proceed according to methods of standard user interface (UI)/UX methods. Basic questions about positive UX, how positive emotions, and thus positive experiences generated have answered by Hassenzahl and other colleagues, as well as defining user experience [7, 8] “as a momentary, primarily evaluate feeling (good-bad) while interacting with a product or service” (Table 1).

In addition to the differences in definition, another difference between human-centered user experience, according to DIN EN ISO standards and positive user experience lies in the methods’ respective approaches. The design of positive user experience – a very theory-based approach – concerns which needs are relevant in a particular context [1]. According to Lowson [13], the human-centered design process involves analysis (understanding what the design requirement is), producing design solutions, and evaluation involving some iteration. The study of positive UX looks different: it is not looking for goals and tasks, but instead needs and positive experiences that it can fulfill. In the design phase, no tools are created, but rather possibilities for positive experiences. The evaluation does not reveal any problems to avoid negative emotions but gives positive experiences if better understood and expanded.

The following methods and models such as Positive Computing according to Rafael A. Calvo and Dorian Peters [3], Need Satisfaction according to Sheldon et al. [12], Positive Design Theory according to Desmet and Pohlmeyer [4], Experience Design according to Hassenzahl 2010 [6] and Positive Technologies according to Riva et. al 2012 [20] are already working with needs or experiences. A summary of the most frequently mentioned needs is shown in the figure below.

HCI research is a problem-solving oriented science [17]. If a classification of the procedure – which is explained in detail below – is to be made, so prefer the third type of problem, namely scientists with their emphasis on theories, concepts, and models, including a light mixture form with empirical research. In the article, the authors launch a call to look beyond design problems and user problems, study interaction purely from a conceptual perspective, develop designs that only serve research, and study empirical phenomena that only help to learn. At the same time, this classification justifies the choice of the following procedure. This way of thinking is a similarity imprinted on arising problems to find solutions. This established chain of processes could help us to gain new insights and solutions.

A1 Systematization.

With this insight and the models that take aspects from Fig. 1, and given the open questions from the introduction, a propose the systematic processing of existing positive UX approaches concerning useful quality criteria and analysis methods. With this collection of classifications, it is possible to describe a positive UX design process. The difference compared with human-centered approaches involves highlighting and developing ideas on how to create positive experiences. The example Quintuple of Usability [25] provides a suggestion for systematization from the perspective of a problem solution. According to Speicher, usability comprises the following:

Needs to be fulfilled in positive UX were related to three models of needs and the result was summarized from [1] (Ryan & Deci [21]; S: Sheldon et al. [12]; Reiss & Haverkamp [19]; Hassenzahl [8]; Hassenzahl et al. [6]; Tuch et al. [23]; Tuch et al. [24] Leisure context; Tuch et al. [24] Working context; Tuch and Hornbæk [22])

Full size image

Quintuple can be used to raise awareness of the careful specification of the usability concept. Each element contains a subset of other items. LEVEL comprises internal usability, external usability, and usability in use. With this definition, the author tries to cover all dimensions and characterize the exact kind of usability to ensure its quality. If the results from the primary studies of positive UX described with set theory, then the overall concept of happiness can be systematized with the help of a tuple. This suggestion would be a start to work out the quality characteristics of existing models.

A2 Methodology Performance.

The next step is to assess the methodological efficacy of positive UX using current research and existing practice. This priority divides into A2.1 novelty application and A2.2 enforced application.

A2.1 Novelty Application.

For the new creation of a software tool, the construction of the improvement process based on selected needs to address is crucial. The most critical points are the development process of the positive UX itself and which needs can meet with the new software. With the help of experience-interviews, it is possible to learn more about the intended use and the context of use. In addition to the standard interview, questions are taken up that lead to positive experiences in a company. For example, the experience interview uses to design concepts with positive user experience for project management software [27]. As a result of specific technologies, the virtual feeling of belonging, the need for connection, or the feeling of identification with the company – the need to have meaning in one’s work – was fulfilled.

A2.2 Enforced Application.

Complementary to this, the bottom-up method for reconstructing an improvement process uses existing software as the object of investigation and a starting point for iterative improvements. Current applications investigated in terms of positive UX design experiments (workshops). The study by Tuch and Hornbæk presents a practical reference. The examination tests Herzberg’s theory of hygiene factors and motivators [22] with the assumption that users experience positive emotions when motivators are present and no negative emotions when they are absent. The results of the study prove this assumption. In the absence of technical quality (hygiene factor), the users were angry, disappointed, frustrated, angry, and dissatisfied. In the presence of usefulness (motivator), the users were happy, satisfied, pleased, and enthusiastic. The shift in the weighting of needs compared with previous studies was interesting. Accordingly, the factors competence, self-esteem, and safety in the context of mobile device use were considered more important than competence, connectedness, and autonomy. From this research, we can observe that the weighting of needs also depends on the context.

With the experience interviews, not only positive experiences can be ascertained, but also a better understanding of the context of use built up. Moreover, with the positive UX, we go one step further beyond the zero-state. From the statements of the previous chapters and sections, this can deduce that the positive UX approach touches on concepts of user experience that strongly linked to emotional or socio-cultural or temporal-cognitive aspects of the participants’ world reference. To date, classical theories have only focused on the elements of immediate work management or eliminating immediate situational negative resonance patterns. Therefore, the current methodological incentives should be systematized in an appropriate reference framework to reflect this relationship.

The developed method can transform into adequate decision support and creative foundations of an actual design process. In the course of the clarification process, it should work out in which sufficient form of expression suitable design aids derived and how their effectiveness evaluated to some extent. At this point, this does not wish to commit itself to the classical design norms or working aids in the creative process.

In the previous chapters, we have dealt with the motivation and challenges of positive UX, whereas subsequently, this will summarize the next steps. When systematizing the positive UX concepts, the difference between the human-centered UX that goes beyond classical paradigms must work out. This system and the suggestions from the current state of research and practical experience can be transferred to an expert setup for analyzing a selected possible case, with the help of a pilot experiment to ensure an adequate experimental setup. Finally, the evaluation and re-assessment of the possibilities of the newly-conceived method in practice should seek.

The project is concerned with methodological research in the field of user interface design. It aims to develop approaches from the field of positive psychology that complement and supplement the paradigm of usability and human-centered user experience in such a way that they integrated into the design process. The introductory sections highlight the fundamental motivation for this, based on the underlying potential of positive psychology compared with classical psychological approaches to user interface design. Besides, the positive user experience paradigm first characterized, and fundamental differences compared with the methods known thus far introduced.

A particular difficulty arises from the fact that concrete software tools or other user interfaces that could serve as suitable candidates for investigation have already developed for a pre-formed purpose. Therefore, it would be necessary to evaluate them in terms of their usefulness or novelty established as the object of investigation. This process, in turn, seems to be inextricably connected with systematization.