Towards an Integrated View on QoE and UX: Adding the Eudaimonic Dimension

Authors: Sebastian Egger-Lampl (AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Wien, Austria), Florian Hammer (Linz Center of Mechatronics GmbH, Austria), Sebastian Möller (Quality and Usability Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, and DFKI Berlin, Germany)

Editors: Tobias Hoßfeld (University of Würzburg, Germany), Christian Timmerer (Alpen-Adria-Universität (AAU) Klagenfurt and Bitmovin Inc., Austria)

In the past, research on Quality of Experience (QoE) has frequently been limited to networked multimedia applications, such as the transmission of speech, audio and video signals. In parallel, usability and User Experience (UX) research addressed human-machine interaction systems which either focus on a functional (pragmatic) or aesthetic (hedonic) aspect of the experience of the user. In both, the QoE and UX domains, the context (mental, social, physical, societal etc.) of use has mostly been considered as a control factor, in order to guarantee the functionality of the service or the ecological validity of the evaluation. This situation changes when systems are considered which explicitly integrate the usage environment and context they are used in, such as Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), used e.g. in smart home or smart workplace scenarios. Such systems dispose of sensors and actuators which are able to sample and manipulate the environment they are integrated into, and thus the interaction with them is somehow moderated through the environment; e.g. the environment can react to a user entering a room. In addition, such systems are used for applications which differ from standard multimedia communication in the sense that they are frequently used over a long or repeating period(s) of time, and/or in a professional use scenario. In such application scenarios the motivation of system usage can be divided between the actual system user and a third party (e.g. the employer) resulting in differing factors affecting related experiences (in comparison to services which are used on the user’s own account). However, the impact of this duality of usage motivation on the resulting QoE or UX has rarely been addressed in existing research of both scientific communities. 

In the context of QoE research, the European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services, Qualinet (COST Action IC 1003) as well as a number of Dagstuhl seminars [see note from the editors], started a scientific discussion about the definition of the term QoE and related concepts around 2011. This discussion resulted in a White Paper which defines QoE as “the degree of delight or annoyance of the user of an application or service. It results from the fulfillment of his or her expectations with respect to the utility and/ or enjoyment of the application or service in the light of the users personality and current state.” [White Paper 2012]. Besides this definition, the white paper describes a number of factors that influence a user’s QoE perception, e.g. human-, system- and contextual factors. Although this discussion lists a large set of influencing factors quite thoroughly, it still focuses on rather short-term (or episodic) and media related hedonic experiences. A first step towards integrating an additional (quality) dimension (to the hedonic one) has been described in [Hammer et al., 2018], where the authors introduced the eudaimonic perspective as being the user’s overall well-being as a result of system usage. The term “eudaimonic” stems from Aristoteles and is commonly used to designate a deeper degree of well-being, as a result of a self-fulfillment by developing one’s own strengths.

On a different side, UX research has historically evolved from usability research (which was for a long time focusing on enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the system), and was initially concerned with the prevention of negative emotions related to technology use. As an important contributor for such preventions, pragmatic aspects of analyzed ICT systems have been identified in usability research. However, the twist towards a modern understanding of UX focuses on the understanding of human-machine interaction as a specific emotional experience (e.g., pleasure) and considers pragmatic aspects only as enablers of positive experiences but not as contributors to positive experiences. In line with this understanding, the concept of Positive or Hedonic Psychology, as introduced by [Kahnemann 1999], has been embedded and adopted in HCI and UX research. As a result, the related research community has mainly focused on the hedonic aspects of experiences as described in [Diefenbach 2014] and as critically outlined by [Mekler 2016] in which the authors argue that this concentration on hedonic aspects has overcasted the importance of eudaimonic aspects of well-being as described in positive psychology. With respect to the measurement of user experiences, the devotion towards hedonic psychology comes also with the need for measuring emotional responses (or experiential qualities). In contrast to the majority of QoE research, where the measurement of the (single) experienced (media) quality of a multimedia system is in the focus, the measurement of experiential qualities in UX calls for the measurement of a range of qualities (e.g. [Bargas-Avila 2011] lists affect, emotion, fun, aesthetics, hedonic and flow as qualities that are assessed in the context of UX). Hence, this measurement approach considers a considerable broader range of quantified qualities. However, the development of the UX domain towards a design-based UX research that steers away from quantitatively measurable qualities and focuses more towards a qualitative research approach (that does not generate measurable numbers) has marginalized this measurement or model-based UX research camp in recent UX developments as denoted by [Law 2014].

While existing work in QoE mainly focuses on hedonic aspects (and in UX, also on pragmatic ones), eudaimonic aspects such as the development of one’s own strengths have not been considered extensively so far in the context of both research areas. Especially in the usage context of professional applications, the meaningfulness of system usage (which is strongly related to eudaimonic aspects) and the growth of the user’s capabilities will certainly influence the resulting experiential quality(ies). In particular, professional applications must be designed such that the user continues to use the system in the long run without frustration, i.e. provide long-term acceptance for applications which the user is required to use by the employer. In order to consider these aspects, the so-called “HEP cube” has been introduced in [Hammer et al. 2018]. It opens a 3-dimensional space of hedonic (H), eudaimonic (E) and pragmatic (P) aspects of QoE and UX, which are integrated towards a Quality of User Experience (QUX) concept.

Whereas a simple definition of QUX has not yet been set up in this context, a number of QUX-related aspects, e.g. utility (P), joy-of-use (H), meaningfulness (E), have been integrated into a multidimensional HEP construct. This construct is displayed in Figure 1. In addition to the well-known hedonic and pragmatic aspects of UX, it incorporates the eudaimonic dimension. Thereby, it shows the assumed relationships between aforementioned aspects of User Experience and QoE, and in addition usefulness and motivation (which is strongly related to the eudaimonic dimension). These aspects are triggered by user needs (first layer) and moderated by the respective dimension aspects joy-of-use (for hedonic), ease-of-use (pragmatic), and purpose-of-use (eudaimonic). The authors expect that a consideration of the additional needs and QUX aspects, and an incorporation of these aspects into application design, will not only lead to higher acceptance rates, but also to deep-grounded well-being of users. Furthermore, incorporation of these aspects into QoE and / or QUX modelling will improve their respective prediction performance and ecological validity.


Figure 1: QUX as a multidimensional construct involving HEP attributes, existing QoE/UX, need fulfillment and motivation. Picture taken from Hammer, F., Egger-Lampl, S., Möller, S.: Quality-of-User-Experience: A Position Paper, Quality and User Experience, Springer (2018).


  • [White Paper 2012] Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience (2012).  European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and  Services (COST Action IC 1003), Patrick Le Callet, Sebastian Möller and Andrew Perkis, eds., Lausanne, Switzerland, Version 1.2, March 2013.
  • [Kahnemann 1999] Kahneman, D.: Well-being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, chap. Objective Happiness, pp. 3{25. Russell Sage Foundation Press, New York (1999)
  • [Diefenbach 2014] Diefenbach, S., Kolb, N., Hassenzahl, M.: The `hedonic’ in human-computer interaction: History, contributions, and future research directions. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, pp. 305{314. ACM (2014)
  • [Mekler 2016] Mekler, E.D., Hornbaek, K.: Momentary pleasure or lasting meaning?: Distinguishing eudaimonic and hedonic user experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4509{4520. ACM (2016)
  • [Bargas-Avila 2011] Bargas-Avila, J.A., Hornbaek, K.: 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, pp. 2689{2698. ACM (2011)
  • [Law 2014] Law, E.L.C., van Schaik, P., Roto, V.: Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72(6), 526{541 (2014)
  • [Hammer et al. 2018] Hammer, F., Egger-Lampl, S., Möller, S.: Quality-of-User-Experience: A Position Paper, Quality and User Experience, Springer (2018).

Note from the editors:

More details on the integrated view of QoE and UX can be found in Hammer, F., Egger-Lampl, S. & Möller, “Quality-of-user-experience: a position paper”. Springer Quality and User Experience (2018) 3: 9.

The Dagstuhl seminars mentioned by the authors started a scientific discussion about the definition of the term QoE in 2009. Three Dagstuhl Seminars were related to QoE: 09192 “From Quality of Service to Quality of Experience” (2009), 12181 “Quality of Experience: From User Perception to Instrumental Metrics” (2012), and 15022 “Quality of Experience: From Assessment to Application” (2015). A Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 16472 “QoE Vadis?” followed in 2016 which set out to jointly and critically reflect on future perspectives and directions of QoE research. During the Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop, the QoE-UX wedding proposal came up to marry the area of QoE and UX. The reports from the Dagstuhl seminars  as well as the Manifesto from the Perspectives Workshop are available online and listed below.

One step towards an integrated view of QoE and UX is reflected by QoMEX 2019. The 11th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience will be held in June 5th to 7th, 2019 in Berlin, Germany. It will bring together leading experts from academia and industry to present and discuss current and future research on multimedia quality, quality of experience (QoE) and user experience (UX). This way, it will contribute towards an integrated view on QoE and UX, and foster the exchange between the so-far distinct communities. More details:


Bookmark the permalink.