<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Two Gaps instead of One. The Interplay between User Experience Engineering and Interaction Design</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Timo Jokela</string-name>
          <email>timo.jokela@helsinki.fi</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Helsinki University</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The paper identifies three main phases of designing user interfaces: user experience (UX) engineering, interaction design and software development. The paper focuses on the interplay between UX engineering and interaction design. It is argued that the gap between these two phases in inherently challenging. To overcome the gap, designers' knowledge on the results of UX activities and general UX guidance is critical. Incentives on good UX can be one means for good results.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;user experience</kwd>
        <kwd>interaction design</kwd>
        <kwd>software design</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>individual user interface elements, such as dialogs,
menus, tables, etc.
the structure of the user interface, such as the
identification, definition and design of the windows
visual appearance
also supporting material such as user manuals
Software development is used to implement interaction
design. In other words, interaction design, as such, is not
software development.</p>
      <p>Thereby, this paper argues that main phases of designing
interaction solutions are:
1 The term UX engineering is analogous with the term ‘usability
engineering’. It covers not only UX evaluation but also
understanding users, their goals, tasks and environments of use,
and UX requirements determination.
2.
3.</p>
      <p>Interaction design: driven by UX engineering activities
and UX design guidelines and standards, one creates
interaction design solutions (ISO/IEC 2010)
Software design: interaction solutions are implemented
through software.</p>
      <p>Thereby, there are two separate challenges of interplay:
the interplay between UX and interaction design
the interplay between interaction design and software
design
These different kinds of phases are illustrated in the
‘JFunnel’ lifecycle model: UX guided interaction design,
Figure 1. In the figure, the three activities are marked with
different colors:
orange: UX activities
light grey: interaction design
dark grey: software implementation
In this paper, we focus on the interplay challenge between
the two first sets of activities: UX engineering (orange) and
interaction design (light grey).</p>
      <p>UX ENGINEERING AND INTERACTION DESIGN
The distinction between UX activities and interaction
design is made because the two kinds of activities have a
fundamental difference:</p>
      <p>UX activities produce various kinds of user data, such
as user descriptions, UX requirements, and results
from evaluations (but does not produce interaction
design solutions)
Interaction design produces the actual user interaction
design solutions: GUI designs, user documentation,
and so on.</p>
      <p>In other words, the role of UX activities is to provide user
data to the interaction design activity; the role of the
interaction design activity is to transform this data into
design solutions that represent good UX. This is illustrated
also with the arrows from other activities to the interaction
design activity (Figure 1).</p>
      <p>This separation is also useful because those who carry out
UX activities (UX specialists) are often not the same
people as those who produce design solutions (interaction
designers). Moreover, the model illustrates that it is not
−
−
−
−
−
enough to introduce UX activities - UX activities have no
value unless the results are taken into account in the
interaction design activity.</p>
      <p>The UX Input for Interaction Design
The UX activities can be categorized into two groups:
UX requirement activities that provide data based on
analysis of users without any prototype or model of the
system to be developed (activities 1…4)
UX evaluation activities that provide feedback on a
prototype or a model of the system under development
(activities 6,7)
The UX requirement activities (1…4) provide data such as
user group descriptions
user goals, tasks and work descriptions
UX targets: strategic targets are at business level;
operational targets are at user level; UX measures</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>The UX evalutation activities (6,7) provide</title>
      <p>
        qualitative findings about which design solutions work
and which solutions do not work from the viewpoint of
UX
results to which extent the UX requirements are met
In addition, the generic UX guidelines provide principles
and design guidance at generic level. Examples of such
guidelines are ones from the ISO 9241 series [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ].
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>These inputs can be categorized as follows:</title>
      <p>UX activities 1-4 provide input for how to design
systems to support users’ tasks and work
Generic guidelines provide input for how to design
details of interactions
UX activities 6 and 7 provide feedback to both of these
levels of design: how the user interface support users’
work; and how well the details are designed
The Challenge between UX and Interaction Design
One can see that there is an obvious challenge in the
interplay between UX activities 0…4 and interaction
design: user definitions, user goals and task descriptions,
and UX targets do not provide concrete guidance for
interaction design. They provide only requirements, and it
is the task of designers to transform this data into UX
designs solutions.</p>
      <p>For example, consider a UX requirement “The system
should be learnable without user training”. This kind of
requirement represents a gap between UX and interaction
design. It is a requirement for interaction design but does
not provide any guidance for how to achieve it. It is a
design challenge to produce design solutions that would
meet the requirement.</p>
      <p>
        UX evaluation activities 6, 7 provide clear results what
works and what does not work. But the results do not as
such tell what a better interaction design solution is.
UX guidelines provide more concrete guidance, but still
they are more requirements than solutions. For example,
“speak user’s language” does not say what the
understandable terms of a specific system are. One
concrete category of UX guidelines, however, exists:
interaction design patterns (e.g. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]); although focus
currently more on usability than UX).
      </p>
      <p>The Interplay between UX and Interaction Design
The conclusion is that the interplay between UX and
interaction design is an inherent challenge. The extent to
which interaction designs truly represent good UX depends
very much on the interaction designers: to which extent
they are willing and able to transform the input of the UX
activities and generic UX guidelines into interaction design
solutions.</p>
      <p>
        Thereby designers’ knowledge on factors affecting UX is
extremely important: results from the different UX
activities and contents of general UX guidelines. One
solution that has worked in designing good usability [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] –
give incentives to designers – may also have a positive
impact for designing good UX.
      </p>
      <p>DISCUSSION
This paper focuses on the gap between UX engineering and
interaction design, and argues that there is a gap between
these two activities. UX requirements may be tough, and it
may be a challenge to produce design solutions that meet
such requirements.</p>
      <p>Would there be a direct gap between UX and software
design?
One should understand that there does not exist a single
‘right’ interaction design solution: the UX requirements
may be achieved with different kinds of design solutions.
Thereby one should aim at producing such interaction
design solutions that are easy to implement with software.
In other words, one should aim for interaction design
solutions that (1) meet the UX requirements and (2) are
easy to implement with software. Probably this is
achievable in most cases. But if not, then we have a gap
between UX engineering and software design.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>[1] ISO/IEC (</article-title>
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <fpage>9241</fpage>
          -210
          <string-name>
            <surname>Human-Centred Design</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Processes for Interactive Systems</article-title>
          . ISO/IEC 9241-
          <fpage>210</fpage>
          : 2010
          <string-name>
            <given-names>(E</given-names>
            <surname>).</surname>
          </string-name>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jokela</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
          <article-title>A Two-Level Approach for Determining Measurable Usability Targets</article-title>
          .
          <source>5th COST294-MAUSE Open Workshop on Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (VUUM)</source>
          , Reykjavik, Island.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jokela</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Koivumaa</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al. (
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
          <article-title>"Quantitative Usability Requirements in the Development of the User Interface of a Mobile Phone</article-title>
          .
          <source>A Case Study." Personal and Ubiquitous Computing</source>
          <volume>10</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>345</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>355</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Microsoft</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tidwell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design, O'Reilly</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>