To Measure or Not to Measure UX: An Interview Study Effie Lai-Chong Law Paul van Schaik University of Leicester Teesside University Dept. of Computer Science School of Psychology LE1 7RH Leicester, UK TS1 3BA Middlebrough, UK elaw@mcs.le.ac.uk P.Van-Schaik@tees.ac.uk ABSTRACT solved in tandem. However, the definitional issue on UX The fundamental problem of defining what UX is (or is not) remains unresolved, UX researchers and practitioners tend has a significant influence on another challenging question: to select and adapt one of the many definitions out there to to measure or not to measure UX constructs. The answer of serve their particular goals and needs. The recent efforts of most, if not all, UX researchers and practitioners, would deepening the understanding of the theoretical roots of UX probably be “It depends!” As we were motivated to find [10] can complement the earlier work on UX evaluation out “depending on what”, we conducted semi-structured methods on the one hand [13] and the current interviews with eleven UX professionals where a set of operatonalisation work for UX measurement on the other questions in relation to UX measurement were explored. hand (e.g. [11]). As UX research studies have hitherto Participants expressed scepticism as well as ambivalence relied heavily on qualitative methods [1], the progress on towards UX measures and shared anecdotes related to such UX measures has thus been slow. A plausible reason is the measures in different contexts. To improve the interplay scepticism about the measurability of UX. between UX evaluation and system development, a clear definition of UX, combining various data types, and robust The field of HCI in which UX is rooted has inherited education in UX concepts are deemed essential. theoretical concepts, epistemological assumptions, values, and methodologies from a diversity of disciplines, ranging Author Keywords from engineering where measures are strongly embraced User experience; Measurement; Interview; Feedback loop (cf. William Thomson’s [14] dictum ‘to measure is to ACM Classification Keywords know’) to humanities where measures can be regarded as H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): naïve or over-simplistic, especially when the concepts to be Miscellaneous. measured are ill-defined, leaving (too) much for interpretation [2]. As UX subsumes a range of fuzzy General Terms experiential qualities such as happiness, disgust, surprise Design; Evaluation; Measurement and love, controversies and doubts about the measurability INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND of UX are inevitable. A main divergence between two To measure or not to measure concepts of interest? A clear major camps of UX researchers is the legitimacy of cut “Yes!” if this question is raised in the context of breaking down experiential qualities into components, physical sciences whereas an ambiguous “It depends!” rendering them to be measured; it is rooted in the age-old when it is addressed in the context of social sciences in philosophical debate on reductionism versus holism. general and the emerging research area of User Experience INTERVIEW ON UX MEASUREMENT (UX) in particular. We aimed to explore such stipulations Instrument (i.e. ‘depending on what’) for UX measures and their The interviews were semi-structured with 12 questions implications to design and evaluation of interactive grouped into three main parts. Part A comprises four systems. To meet this purpose, we conducted an empirical background questions (Table 1). study in which eleven UX researchers and practitioners were interviewed. In this paper we report some main Q1. Gender: Female, Male findings of the study that are particularly relevant to Q2. Age: <=20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, >50 understanding the interplay between UX measurement and Q3: I am a: Practitioner, Researcher, Student, Other Q4. How long have you worked in the area of UX? (Never, <1 iterative system redesign. Specifically, we adopt Hand’s year, 1-3 year, 3-5 year, >5 year). Please describe the topic and ([4], p.3) definition of measurement “quantification: the related work. assignment of numbers to represent the magnitude of Table 1. Background questions attributes of a system we are studying or which we wish to Part B comprises five questions on the measurability of UX describe.’ qualities (Table 2). The inclusion of Q5 is to know if the The exploration of the issue of UX measurement was respondent’s understanding aligns with any of the existing embarked on (e.g. [6]) after another, if not more, thorny definitions of measurement. For Q6, the rationale issue of UX - its multiple definitions - had been examined underpinning each statement varies. The first one was [7]. In principle these two foundational issues should be derived from the classic justification for measurement advocated by Thomson [14]. The second and third ones Seven of them were female, five aged between 31 and 40, were two rather extreme views against UX measures another five between 41 and 50 and one above 50. All were expressed in some informal contexts (e.g. group discussion researchers except P5, who was a practitioner. The job of in a workshop). They were aimed to stimulate thoughts and eight of the participants was predominantly design-oriented, should not be treated as scientific claims. In contrast, the be it practical or theoretical, such as empathic design for fourth and fifth statements represent views on the potential house renovation, co-design for persuasive games, and uses of UX measures. They were deliberately broad in design theories. The other three focused more on UX scope to stimulate discussions. evaluation of interactive products such as mobile phone. Two of them have worked in UX for less than 1 year, three Q5. What is a ‘measure’? 1-3 years, five 3-5 years and one for than 5 years. All the Q6. (a) Please rate your agreement with each of the following statements (5-point Likert scale); (b) Explain your ratings interviews were conducted on an individual basis in  UX measures lead to increase of knowledge English, audio-taped and transcribed subsequently.  UX measures are insane RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS  UX measures are a pain For analysing the data, we developed coding schemes for  UX measures are important for design  UX measures are important for evaluation individual interview questions by applying thematic Q7. (a) Name a specific experiential quality (e.g., fun, surprise) analysis [3] and the CUE model [15]. Due to limited space, that is most relevant to your work; (b) Explain the relevance; (c) here we do not report results of Q5 (What is a ‘measure’?). Do you think the named quality can be measured: If ‘yes’, Statements on UX Measures describe how; If ‘no’, describe why. Given the small sample size, no inferential statistics of the Q8. (a) Name an experiential quality that you are (almost) ratings are computed. Justifications for the ratings are of certain is measurable; (b) How can it be measured and when (before/during/after interaction)? (c) Why are you so (almost) higher relevance and the analyses are presented below. certain about its measurability? What is your reservation, if any? UX measures lead to increase of knowledge (mean = 4.0, Q9. (a) Name an experiential quality that you think (almost) range: 2-5). When prompted to specify which kinds of impossible to measure; (b) Why do you think so? What is your knowledge would be increased, several were mentioned, reservation, if any?  references against which products can be compared; Table 2. Five main questions on UX measures  the extent to which the development goals is achieved; The notion of “experiential qualities” is central for Q7, Q8  values to be delivered by certain design methods; and Q9. In the simplest sense, they are referred to as  information helpful for future projects; feelings. In the broadest sense, they are related to the  experience per se; concept of emotional responses, as defined in the Ambivalence was observed, for instance: “There are ways Components of User Experience (CUE) model [15], which to get knowledge about UX in a more meaningful way are influenced by instrumental (i.e. usability) and non- rather than using measures, but I still think that they are instrumental qualities (i.e. aesthetic, symbolic and important.” (P6). Besides, the need for including qualitative motivational). While CUE focuses more on evaluation, in data as complementary knowledge was emphasized: “We the context of the design the notion of experiential qualities should have both… qualitative is to know what the reason is defined as articulations of key qualities in the use of a is for user experience and for the related design issue.” certain type of digital artefact intended for designers to (P8). Furthermore, conditions for benefiting from UX appropriate in order to develop their own work [8]. Note measures were specified: “It requires people using the that in order to enable open discussion no definition was measure, understand the measure and what it actually provided to the interviewees unless requests for means… There might be people who are not trained to use clarification were solicited. Part C comprises three UX measures, no matter how well we define the measures.” questions aimed to simulate in-depth discussion (Table 3). (P5). This observation highlights the need for enhancing education and training in UX. Q10. Which theoretical arguments (e.g. reductionism) are for or against UX measurement? UX measures are insane (mean = 2.0, range: 1-4). A Q11. Which methodological arguments (e.g. validity) are for common view was that the insanity lies not in UX measures or against UX measurement? but rather in what claims to be made about them, especially Q12. Which practical arguments (e.g. cost) are for or against UX when people do not understand such measure, intentionally measurement? misuse them, are unaware of their inherent limitations (e.g. Table 3. Questions for in-depth discussions incompleteness) or over-formalize them. There were also concerns whether UX measures can explain why people Participant and Procedure experience something or have any use for design, as An invitation to the interview was circulated in the intranet remarked by P11 (a designer): of a university. Eight participants volunteered to take part in it. The other three participants were recruited by the first “… for the purpose of design, measuring variables up to a very high degree and intricate level of measurement might not be that author via personal invitation. Their participations were also voluntary. They were designated as P1, P2 and so on. purposeful because you have to translate the numbers back to In summary, the interplay between UX measures, which are design requirements, and I am not sure whether that works.” common evaluation outcomes, and (re)design is ambiguous. UX measures are a pain (mean = 3.27, range: 1 – 5). Pain UX measures are important for evaluation (mean = 4.6, inflicted was psychological rather than physical. Reasons range: 2-5). On this claim the participants were somewhat for such pain varied with the phase of UX measurement. In less ambivalent. Supporting arguments such as justifying the preparation phase, defining valid and meaningful decisions, validating design goal, and giving reliability (cf. metrics, which entailed deep and wide knowledge of P2’s remark: “If you only use the designer intuition, only various matters, was cognitively taxing and thus painful. use empathic interpretation, it is not very reliable for the For data collection, participant recruitment and time rest of the world”) were given. Some participants pointed constraint were a pain for researchers, as illustrated by P4’s out the time issue: in which development phase UX remark: “We would not use half-an-hour to measure measures are taken and how much time the process of something but rather get some qualitative data out of measuring is allowed, for instance: participants.” On the other hand, the intrusiveness and “… in industry-led cases they are more keen on fast lengthiness of the procedure could be pain for users. For phenomenon … the industrial people want to improve the design data analysis, statistical analysis was deemed challenging but not really want to provide input for the academic world in by four participants. This again is a clear implication for the general” (P4) training of UX. Interpretation of UX measures was another There are also reservations about the role of UX measures common concern: it could be an issue of lack of knowledge, in evaluation, for instance: confirmation bias, and attempts to draw implications from “it's not been proven yet that [UX measures] can make any exact measures for design. difference to outcomes…. I mean, they could be; certainly if you UX measures are important for design (mean = 4.0, range: include traditional usability measures, then persistent task failure 2-5). Participants’ stance on this claim was ambivalent. for many designs is going to be something you want to know They recognized that UX measures could help identify about. But I don't think they're automatically important; they're design constraints and justify design decisions by all hinges around design objects” (P11) convincing developers and management, given that Measurable and Non-measurable Experiential Qualities numbers could convey a sense of reliability. However, they In response to Q7, Q8 and Q9 (Table 2), participants stipulated the importance of UX measures in design with identified different experiential qualities (EQ), which we the need of combining with qualitative data, for instance: categorized by the adapted CUE model [15]: “I mean they are important, but I’d not base my design solely  Instrumental qualities (NQ) – “the experienced amount of on UX measures... there are lot of things that I don’t think that support the system provides and the ease of use” (e.g. we can measure properly enough yet… it would cause too much controllability, learnability, effectiveness); work to get really really good measurement that would be our main basis for design… [UX measurement] would only be  Non-instrumental qualities (NIQ) – “the look and feel of second; the first being an overall understanding of qualitative the system”, including aesthetic, symbolic and views we have found out from users.” (P4) motivational qualities ([15], p. 916; [9]); “If UX measures are clusters that are described through numbers  Affective responses (AR) – subjective feelings, motor or questionnaires, then they are not important for design, expressions, and physiological reactions [12] arising from whereas if UX measures are, for instance, clusters of qualitative interacting with the system (NB: It broadens the scope data and users’ accounts, then they are important for design” implied by original notion of ‘emotional reactions’ to (P11) accommodate mildly affective responses with an artefact). Some participants explicitly expressed their doubt about the  Evaluation (cf. system appraisal) – long-term effects of role of UX measures in design, for instance: interacting with the system on user affect, attitude and “I can see relatively little value of applying UX measures, cognition; because they don’t really link to the product’s attributes in most Several interesting observations are noted: cases… they link it at an abstract level… it is hard to trace what i) All three EQs considered as non-measurable fall into the the underlying causes for certain response. It is almost category of Evaluation; it seems implying that long-term impossible if we just use UX measures without combining them effects of interaction are considered not amenable to with qualitative data” (P1) measurement; Furthermore, one participant pointed out the differences ii) No non-measurable instrumental and non-instrumental between usability and UX measures: qualities were identified by the participants; this is not “… sometimes it is difficult to explain why we design like this surprising as instrumental qualities are closely related to even when we provide evidence. From usability point of view traditional software attributes that have explicitly been we can more easily give this measurement that it is better, but operationalised and operationlising non-instrumental designing for UX is problematic. People with technical qualities such as aesthetic and symbolic has been backgrounds have problems making the difference between UI endeavoured in recent UX research efforts (e.g. [5]); and UX. They think they are the same thing.” (P3) iii) Fun is the EQ that was dually considered as measurable as well as non-measurable. This is somewhat surprising because game experiences of which fun is an integral reporting (e.g. diary, interview, scale); and psycho- part have been one of the hot topics in UX research physiological (e.g. eye-tracking, heart rate). Obstacles for where different attempts to measure fun have been implementing measurement were also mentioned, including undertaken (see the review in [1]). This observation various forms of validity, individual differences, cultural underpinned P11’s argument for the measurability of factors, confidence in interpreting non-verbal behaviour, fun as it is a well-defined concept. In contrast, P1’s translating abstract concepts into concrete design property, counterargument referred to the complexity and and consistency of observed behaviour multidimensionality of fun; reporting on overall fun Anecdotal Descriptions on the Interplay between after interaction seemed more plausible than on Evaluation and Development individual sub-constructs; In responding to the interview questions, some participants iv) Several high-level concepts were mentioned: ‘hedonic described intriguing cases that can well illustrate the quality’ for measurability and ‘long-term experience’ challenges of enhancing the interplay between UX and ‘deep [sub]-conscious experience’; they do not fit evaluation and system development. Subsequently we into any of the categories. highlight the challenges and related anecdotes, which are grouped as theoretical (Q10), methodological (Q11) and practical issues (Q12). Theoretical issues  Problem of measuring UX in a holistic way and breaking down into components seems not an ideal solution. P3: When we go through the issues with uses, we observe the whole expression, their comments on certain issues. If we have a lot of things to study, it is more difficult to run this kind of a holistic study; in a lab test where we only study some specific items. In an evaluation session when we study several issues, we can show users some of them and then the whole one. Holistic approach is the way to go, but measures about some specific details help as well. P4: I'd say UX is holistic in nature, it is difficult to break it down into very small pieces. From the traditional scientific perspective, the way to measure something, to break it down and separate different factors … The value of the Furthermore, the main argument for measurability is that measurement gets lower if you break it down to small pieces... the EQs of interest are well defined and documented in the My colleague studied 3D video. She was able to measure literature. Two participants, however, could not name any objectively some aspects in lab by breaking things down, but certainly measurable EQ because they considered that when she went to realistic context for certain kinds of qualitative data were better for understanding feelings and arrangement, the results are really different…. Your that experiential concepts were in general fairly vague. In experience may change dramatically. contrast, the key arguments for non-measurability are the  Memorized experiences prone to fading and fabrication epistemological assumption about the nature of certain P5: the actual intensity of the moment fades very fast… So it experiences and lack of a unified agreement on what UX is. is interesting to see how to recall and how we change the The five participants could not name any certainly non- memory of the experience. When we ask people whether they like something or not it depends on the moment you are measurable EQ. They, while assuming that everything can asking. iPhone, there is so much positive information of that be measured, had the reservations for the validity, impact product out there that even if you did not like it, your and completeness of UX measures. Specifically, P9 pointed environment is so positive about it that you are positive as out the issue of conflating meaningfulness with relevance: well. It is the same as with reconstructing the memories. … “I think anything can be measured in a meaningful way; it Most people as well as I myself are sure I have memories depends who the audience is… the issues with measurement … where I cannot make a difference between the reconstructed are well understood in the psychometric system whether you are and actual memory. really measuring what you think you are measuring. So, and, again you need to distinguish between meaningfulness and  UX measures are highly sensitive to timing and nature of relevance… there are things that are irrelevant … but I don’t tasks think it’s possible for things in this world to have no meaning… P2: When to measure depends the duration and complexity of people are natural interpreters. the task. For a small task, we can let people complete it and take measures at the end. For the longer one may need to be With regard to the question on how to measure EQ, the interrupted…. I am thinking a lot how much I am manipulating participants identified a range of known HCI methods, everything when I am organizing a workshop with some tasks which can be categorized into three major types: overt how everything would be different if the tasks would be behaviour (e.g., time-on-task, number of trials to goal); self- different….  Resource-demanding evaluation with a large number of heterogeneous users P4: Our perspective is very design-oriented. My experience in measuring UX in design process is not so much. It is so easy and fast to make the participants fill out AttrakDiff, it really would not make sense not to do it. How we analyse the results and get out of it, that's still to be seen. We don’t have so many P8: Different measures in different phases of the usethey participants that we could see what the different ways of using complement each other if we need long-term evaluation. those results are. Like a backup, we get a general understanding Sometimes you can get details out of there supporting design. of the situation to compare for making the second prototype, They are more for prioritising the essential issues.… You don’t what things to change. When we have the second prototype and have exact measures for evaluating emotions at the moment. we use the same measurement, we can see where the design is Very momentary info can be useful, but you also need other going. As measurement depending so heavily on individual measures. Even though you can capture all the momentary participants, it is difficult to make conclusion about the emotional measures, you don’t know how the user interprets the measurements… it is hard to say why there is a difference in the emotion. The interpretation of the person is very important results because of different social groups. a negative experience can be interpreted as a positive experience later on.  Need of sophisticated prototypes for eliciting authentic Methodological Issues user experiences P7: Difficult, especially housing business … we cannot build  Different preferences for qualitative and quantitative data only one prototype and then ask people experience it, get by design- and engineering-oriented stakeholders feedback and then do it… we need good examples, media we P7: … we are not fond of measures … we have smart design can use to produce our tools, social media, TV, etc to show what work, something we have emphasized more on qualitative and kind of solution we might have.. the storytelling method like inspirational aspect of UX. We have something to do with movie; I’d like to see sophisticated level like what would be design perspective; kind of measurement only gives basic done with professional actors, directors, writers, like real life, constraints and do not give directions. It depends where you feeling like real life with different natural mistakes. apply the methods; how they should be interpreted and position the methods. Measures are good background knowledge but we Practical Issues have more unpredictable, qualitative data.  Lack of knowledge in exploiting feedback on UX for P8: Qualitative data could cover everything, but then how to future system development convince the engineers, that's why we need numbers. Also for P5: Most people in industry, whether they have backgrounds in research purpose, it could be interesting to find the relationships economics, engineers or marketing, for them handling between factors. I have to measure somehow to find out which qualitative information is very difficult and they even don’t is more influential, hedonic or pragmatic quality, on customer know how to use that or they would need that…. We've been loyalty… quantitative data are more convincing, but developers criticising the UX evaluation, not about how we measure UX, need qualitative data as well because they want to understand but how we use the information it in industry. … But there is so the reason for frustration… the developers like videos because much information that people don't bother to read or follow they can describe very lively the situation. They can also believe them. We need to make things simple and easy so that people textual descriptions. … It is important to measure both don't have backgrounds they can understand. In fact, the immediate experience and memorable experience. Practitioners majority of usability people, at least in Finland, have are very thrilled by the idea that you can do it afterwards engineering or computer science background but have little because it is so easy. So the companies are very interested in about psychology. There are a lot of things natural for long-term UX or this kind of retrospective evaluation, they don't psychologists or sociologists during the study handling control mind that, because they are convinced that memories are very vs. experiment. They don't necessarily come to think of; there important because they are telling stories to other customers; are experts in company talking about human beings, but they they are loyal to the companies based on the memories. Only the have certain views. It is challenging. This area of UX has the reviewers are criticising the validity of retrospective methods. good side of interdisciplinary as well as the negative ones. Practitioners are very interested in it and like the idea. P4: Quite often field experiments lead to straightforward results P10: You have to interpret psycho-physiological data and map that can be exploited in their design work right away. One these data to one of these experiential concepts and it is very project quite a while ago… We had purely lab experiments. We hard to know whether you get it right. You can have a high heart were doing lab test applying Fitt's law with different input rate because you really love it or you hate it. So may be it also devices, we were creating some constants that could be used for depends on how many categories you have; the more categories evaluating early stages of design to see if input device Design A you have, the more difficult to find a good mapping. is better than Design B. The partners were really excited about the results. They were well done, theoretically and practically P11: To see the impact of the goal of the system, how people validated and applicable… Industrial people were quite lost perceive it. I think that's fine. For the purpose of design, when we were not there. They needed our guidance. quantitative measures do not make sense. It is a wrong method Unfortunately we had no choice. We had good results, but no for the purpose of design. real exploitation of the results since the customer did not know what to do with the results.  Lack of standard UX metrics renders redesign decisions than it can answer. As the number of participants was prone to personal biases relatively low with most of them originating from one P5: People make decisions based on their personal beliefs. They country, namely, Finland, the views expressed might not be just pick from the UX measures the ones that support their representative. Given this drawback, we have been existing belief, and ignore the other results that don't support. … motivated to expand the investigation on UX measurement They don't even realize it themselves that they are manipulating with a larger scale survey of which results are documented the results. … People don't know how to use information on human beings. … we had noticed that the same icon did not elsewhere (under review). With a better understanding of work for various kinds of notification… We got feedback the the issues about UX measures, especially how they can be people were annoyed… there was a very strong personality in translated into new design requirements, insights into the the design lead who said that he did not want the design changes interplay between UX evaluation and design can be gained. because they look ugly… It is problematic that UX have no ACKNOWLEDGEMENT commonly agreed definition or no commonly agreed metrics. It allows people to use this kind of argumentation that “I believe Many thanks should be given to Dr. Virpi Roto, Aalto that it is better UX”. You don't need to justify, it can be a University, Finland for her generous support in arranging personal opinion even though there are tons of user feedback. the interviews when Effie Law had her short-term scientific mission in Helsinki funded by COST IC0904 TwinTide.  Packaging UX measures for decision makers and speaking their language REFERENCES P4: … social TV case we did Attrakdiff questionnaire and 1. Bargas-Avila, J.A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011). Old wine in new industry partner was very interested in that. They saw the bottles or novel challenges? A critical analysis of empirical potential in that when we had enough data, more convincing, studies of user experience. In Proc. CHI’11 more easily convince their superior of the organization to 2. Bartholomew, D. J. (2006) (Ed). Measurement (Sage finance their projects, show the need for working on some Benchmarks in Social Research Methods). Volume 1. Sage. aspects further; objective foundations. 3. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage. P5: It is not meaningless to measure moment-to-moment 4. Hand, D.J. (2004). Measurement theory and practice. Wiley- experience, but the question is how you use this information… Blackwell. But how to pack the thing and sell the thing to people making 5. Hassenzahl, M., & Monk, A. (2010). The influence of product or legislation decisions. In this area we should talk perceived usability from beauty. Human-Computer about how we use the information in this domain for the Interaction, 25(3), 235-260. legislation and guiding the decision makers of different 6. Law, E.L-C. (2011). The measurability and predictability of countries… Even when I think about from the industry user experience. In Proc. of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI Symposium perspective. Strategy management what they are most interested on Engineering Interactive Computing System (EICS 2011), in is that what are the elements that make users buy next devices Pisa, Italy, June 2011. from the same company as well and what can reduce the number 7. Law, E. L-C, Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A., & of helpdesk contacts. The first one is related to the future Kort, J. (2009). Understanding, scoping and defining user revenue of the company and the second one is related to the cost experience: a survey approach. In Proc. CHI ’09, 719–728. saving. It is mostly transfer it to money. It is the language that ACM, 2009. the management understands. 8. Löwgren, J. (2007). Fluency as an experiential quality in augmented spaces. International Journal of Design, 1, 1-10. CONCLUDING REMARKS 9. Mahlke, S., Lemke, I., & Thüring, M.(2007). The diversity of UX, as an immature research area, is still haunted by the non-instrumental qualities in human-technology interaction. challenges of defining the scope of UX in general and MMI-Interaktiv, Nr. 13, Aug 2007, ISSN 1439-7854. operationalising experiential qualities in particular. Apart 10. Obrist, M., Law, E.L-C., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A., & Kuutti, K. (2011). UX research- which from addressing these basic issues, it is necessary for UX theoretical roots do we build on – if any. In Extended Abstract professionals to identify plausible means for compromising CHI’11. the difficulties of evaluating UX in a holistic manner with 11. Schaik, van P., Hassenzahl, M., & Ling, J. (2012). User the limitations of adopting the reductionist approaches. experience from an inference perspective. ACM Transaction Deeper understandings about the relationship between on Human-Computer Interaction. experience and memory and about the temporality of UX 12. Scherer, K. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be are also required. While the utility and necessity of measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695-729. employing both quantitative and qualitative methods is 13. Vermeeren, A. P.O.S. Law, E. L-C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., commonly recognized, the concomitant issue of providing Hoonhout, J., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2010). User experience evaluation methods: current state and development appropriate education and training in UX needs to be needs. In Proc NordiCHI 2010 (pp. 521-530). explored. Specifically, UX researchers and practitioners 14. Thomson, W. (1891). Popular Lectures and Addresses, Vol. I. should be equipped with knowledge and skills to know why (p.80). London: MacMillan. certain UX measures are taken and how to use and interpret 15. Thüring, M., & Mahlke, S. (2007). Usability, aesthetics and them in order to inform design and development decisions. emotions in human-technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 253-264. Insights into the issues of UX measures have been gained from the interviews. The study has raised more questions