Abstract
AbstractThe relevance of user experience in safety–critical domains has been questioned and lacks empirical investigation. Based on previous studies examining user experience in consumer technology, we conducted an online survey on positive experiences with interactive technology in acute care. The participants of the study consisted of anaesthesiologists, nurses, and paramedics (N = 55) from three German cities. We report qualitative and quantitative data examining (1) the relevance and notion of user experience, (2) motivational orientations and psychological need satisfaction, and (3) potential correlates of hedonic, eudaimonic, and extrinsic motivations such as affect or meaning. Our findings reveal that eudaimonia was the most salient aspect in these experiences and that the relevance of psychological needs is differently ranked than in experiences with interactive consumer technology. We conclude that user experience should be considered in safety–critical domains, but research needs to develop further tools and methods to address the domain-specific requirements.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Science Applications,Human-Computer Interaction,Philosophy
Reference61 articles.
1. Administration USFaD (2016) Applying human factors and usability engineering to medical devices—Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. https://www.fda.gov/media/80481/download. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
2. Bargas-Avila JA, Hornbæk K (2011) Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 2689–2698. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979336
3. Bujacz A, Dunne S, Fink D, Gatej AR, Karlsson E, Ruberti V, Wronska MK (2016) Why do we enjoy creative tasks? Results from a multigroup randomized controlled study. Think Skills Creativity 19:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.002
4. Clarkson J, Coleman R (2010) Inclusive design. J Eng Des 21(2–3):127–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544821003693689
5. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior:how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40(3):330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献