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

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.

towardsAnIntegratedViewQoEandUX_AddingEudaimonicDimension

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).

References

  • [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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-018-0022-0

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: https://www.qomex2019.de/

 

Quality of Experience Column: An Introduction

“Quality of Experience (QoE) is 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 user’s personality and current state.“ (Definition from the Qualinet Whitepaper 2013).

Research on Quality of Experience (QoE) has advanced significantly in recent years and attracts attention from various stakeholders. Different facets have been addressed by the research community like subjective user studies to identify QoE influence factors for particular applications like video streaming, QoE models to capture the effects of those influence factors on concrete applications, QoE monitoring approaches at the end user site but also within the network to assess QoE during service consumption and to provide means for QoE management for improved QoE. However, in order to progress in the area of QoE, new research directions have to be taken. The application of QoE in practice needs to consider the entire QoE eco-system and the stakeholders along the service delivery chain to the end user.

The term Quality of Experience dates back to a presentation in 2001 (interestingly, at a Quality of Service workshop) and Figure 1 depicts an overview of QoE showing some of the influence factors.

QualityofExperience

Figure 1. Quality of Experience (from Ebrahimi’09)

Different communities have been very active in the context of QoE. A long-established community is Qualinet which started in 2010. The Qualinet community (www.qualinet.eu) provided a definition of QoE in its [Qualinet Whitepaper] which is a contribution of the European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services, Qualinet (COST Action IC 1003), to the scientific discussion about the term QoE and its underlying concepts. The concepts and ideas cited in this paper mainly refer to the Quality of Experience of multimedia communication systems, but may be helpful also for other areas where QoE is an issue. Qualinet is organized in different task forces which address various research topics: Managing Web and Cloud QoE; Gaming; QoE in Medical Imaging and Healthcare; Crowdsourcing; Immersive Media Experiences (IMEx). There is also a liaison relation with VQEG and a task force on Qualinet Databases providing a platform with QoE-related dataset. The Qualinet database (http://dbq.multimediatech.cz/) is seen as a key for current and future developments in Quality of Experience, which resides in a rich and internationally recognized database of content of different sorts, and to share such a database with the scientific community at large.

Another example of the Qualinet activities is the Crowdsourcing task force. The goal of this task force is among others to identify the scientific challenges and problems for QoE assessment via crowdsourcing but also the strengths and benefits, and to derive a methodology and setup for crowdsourcing in QoE assessment including statistical approaches for proper analysis. Crowdsourcing is a popular approach that outsources tasks via the Internet to a large number of users. Commercial crowdsourcing platforms provide a global pool of users employed for performing short and simple online tasks. For quality assessment of multimedia services and applications, crowdsourcing enables new possibilities by moving the subjective test into the crowd resulting in larger diversity of the test subjects, faster turnover of test campaigns, and reduced costs due to low reimbursement costs of the participants. Further, crowdsourcing allows easily addressing additional features like real-life environments. Crowdsourced quality assessment however is not a straightforward implementation of existing subjective testing methodologies in an Internet-based environment. Additional challenges and differences to lab studies occur, in conceptual, technical, and motivational areas. The white paper [Crowdsourcing Best Practices] summarizes the recommendations and best practices for crowdsourced quality assessment of multimedia applications from the Qualinet Task Force on “Crowdsourcing” and is also discussed within the standardization ITU-T P.CROWD.

A selection of QoE related communities is provided in the following to give an overview on the pervasion of QoE in research.

  • Qualinet (http://www.qualinet.eu): European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services as outlined above. Qualinet is also technical sponsor of QoMEX.  
  • QoMEX (http://qomex.org/). The International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) is a top-ranked international conference and among the twenty-best conferences in Google Scholar for subcategory Multimedia. In 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.
  • ACM SIGMM (http://www.sigmm.org/): Within the ACM community, QoE plays also a significant role in the major events like ACM Multimedia (ACM MM), where “Experience” is one of the four major themes. ACM Multimedia Systems (MMSys) regularly publishes works on QoE, and included special sessions on those topics in the last years. ACM MMsys 2019 will held from June 18 – 21, 2019 in Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.
  • ICME: The IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (IEEE ICME 2019) will be held from July 8-12, 2019 in Shanghai, China. It includes in the call for papers topics such as Multimedia quality assessment and metrics, and Multi-modal media computing and human-machine interaction.
  • ACM SIGCOMM (http://www.sigcomm.com): Within ACM SIGCOMM, Internet-QoE workshops have been initiated in 2016 and 2017. The focus of the last edition was on QoE Measurements, QoE-based Traffic Monitoring and Analysis, QoE-based Network Management.
  • Tracking QoE in the Internet Workshop: A summary and the outcomes of the “Workshop on Tracking Quality of Experience in the Internet” at Princeton gives a very good impression on the QoE activities in US with a recent focus on QoE monitoring and measurable QoE parameters in the presence of constraints like encryption.  
  • SPEC RG QoE (https://research.spec.org): The mission of SPEC’s Research Group (RG) is to promote innovative research in the area of quantitative system evaluation and analysis by serving as a platform for collaborative research efforts fostering the interaction between industry and academia in the field. The SPEC research group on QoE is the starting point for the release of QoE ideas, QoE approaches, QoE measurement tools, and QoE assessment paradigms.
  • QoENet (http://www.qoenet-itn.eu) is a Marie Curie project, whose focus is the analysis, design, optimization and management of the QoE in advanced multimedia services, creating a fully-integrated and multi-disciplinary network of 12 Early Stage Researchers working in and seconded by 7 academic institutions, 3 private companies and 1 standardization institute distributed in 6 European countries and in South Korea. The project is then fulfilling the major objective of training through research of the young fellows to broader the knowledge in the field of the new generation of researchers. Significant research results have been achieved in the field of: QoE for online gaming, social TV and storytelling, and adaptive video streaming; QoE management in collaborative ISP/OTT scenarios; models for HDR, VR/AR and 3D images and videos.
  • Many QoE-related activities at a national level are also happening. For example, a community of professors and researchers from Spain organize a yearly workshop entitled “QoS and QoE in Multimedia Communications” since 2015 (URL of its latest edition: https://bit.ly/2LSlb2N). This community is targeted at establishing collaborations, sharing resources, and discussing about the latest contributions and open issues. The community is also pursuing the creation of a national network on QoE (like the Spanish Qualinet), and then involving international researchers in that network.
  • There are several standardization-related activities ongoing e.g. in standardization groups ITU, JPEG, MPEG, VQEG. Their specific interest in QoE will be summarized in one of the upcoming QoE columns.

The first QoE column will discuss how to approach an integrated view of QoE and User Experience. While research on QoE has mostly been carried out in the area of multimedia communications, user experience (UX) has addressed hedonic and pragmatic usage aspects of interactive applications. In the case of QoE, the meaningfulness of the application to the user and the forces driving the use have been largely neglected, while in the UX field, respective research has been carried out but hardly been incorporated in a model combined with the pragmatic and hedonic aspects. In the first column will be dedicated to recent ideas “Toward an integrated view of QoE and User Experience”. To give the readers an impression on the expected contents, we foresee in the upcoming QoE columns topics to discuss about recent activities like

  • Point cloud subjective evaluation methodology
  • Complex, interactive narrative design for complexity
  • Large-Scale Visual Quality Assessment Databases
  • Status and upcoming QoE activities in standardization
  • Active Learning and Machine Learning for subjective testing and QoE modeling
  • QoE in 5G: QoE management in softwarized networks with big data analytics
  • Immersive Media Experiences e.g. for VR/AR/360° video applications

Our aim for SIGMM Records is to share insights from the QoE community and to highlight recent development, new research directions, but also lessons learned and best practices. If you are interested in writing for the QoE column, or have something you would like to know more about in this area, please do not hesitate to contact the editors. The SIGMM Records editors responsible for QoE are active in different communities and QoE research directions.

The QoE column is edited by Tobias Hoßfeld and Christian Timmerer.

[Qualinet Whitepaper] 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.” Qualinet_QoE_whitepaper_v1.2

[Crowdsourcing Best Practices] Tobias Hoßfeld et al. “Best Practices and Recommendations for Crowdsourced QoE-Lessons learned from the Qualinet Task Force ‘Crowdsourcing’” (2014). Qualinet_CSLessonsLearned_29Oct2014

Hossfeld_Tobias Tobias Hoßfeld is full professor at the University of Würzburg, Chair of Communication Networks, and is active in QoE research and teaching for more than 10 years. He finished his PhD in 2009 and his professorial thesis (habilitation) “Modeling and Analysis of Internet Applications and Services” in 2013 at the University of Würzburg. From 2014 to 2018, he was head of the Chair “Modeling of Adaptive Systems” at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He has published more than 100 research papers in major conferences and journals and received the Fred W. Ellersick Prize 2013 (IEEE Communications Society) for one of his articles on QoE. Among others, he is member of the advisory board of the ITC (International Teletraffic Congress), the editorial board of IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials and of Springer Quality and User Experience.
ct2013oct Christian Timmerer received his M.Sc. (Dipl.-Ing.) in January 2003 and his Ph.D. (Dr.techn.) in June 2006 (for research on the adaptation of scalable multimedia content in streaming and constrained environments) both from the Alpen-Adria-Universität (AAU) Klagenfurt. He joined the AAU in 1999 (as a system administrator) and is currently an Associate Professor at the Institute of Information Technology (ITEC) within the Multimedia Communication Group. His research interests include immersive multimedia communications, streaming, adaptation, Quality of Experience, and Sensory Experience. He was the general chair of WIAMIS 2008, QoMEX 2013, and MMSys 2016 and has participated in several EC-funded projects, notably DANAE, ENTHRONE, P2P-Next, ALICANTE, SocialSensor, COST IC1003 QUALINET, and ICoSOLE. He also participated in ISO/MPEG work for several years, notably in the area of MPEG-21, MPEG-M, MPEG-V, and MPEG-DASH where he also served as standard editor. In 2012 he cofounded Bitmovin (http://www.bitmovin.com/) to provide professional services around MPEG-DASH where he holds the position of the Chief Innovation Officer (CIO).