1UX does have one advantage in that it is a new, practical, cross-disciplinary subject. No one has yet trained on a bespoke UX only degree programme, and so everyone has their own background and ‘slant’ to the area. There are many UX Industrial Departments/Companies, there are few UX courses. The combination of your technical Computer Science training coupled with this UX training will give you an advantage; a software focused UX professional.↩

2Unger, R. and Chandler, C. (2009). A project guide to UX design: for user experience designers in the field or in the making. Voices that matter. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.↩

3Bowles, C. and Box, J. (2011). Undercover user experience: learn how to do great UX work with tiny budgets, no time, and limited support. Voices that matter. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.↩

4Lund, A. (2011). User experience management: essential skills for leading effective UX teams. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA.↩

5Email me with any jargon I haven’t explained, or that you think I should explain better.↩

6Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. Morrow, New York.↩

7Doctorow, C. (2026). The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI: How to Think About Artificial Intelligence — Before It’s Too Late. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.↩

8Doctorow, C. (2026). ‘Criticizing the everything machine’, Pluralistic, 6 June. Available at: https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2026-06-06-applied-counterescatology-step-right-up-9fda1749d927↩

9Tolomia, C. (2026). ‘AI critic Ed Zitron warns OpenAI collapse could crash markets’, Quartz, 17 July. Available at: https://qz.com/ai-critic-openai-bubble-lehman-brothers-collapse-071726↩

10Zitron, E. (2026). ‘The Silicon Valley Bubble (Part 2)’, Where’s Your Ed At, 19 June. Available at: https://www.wheresyoured.at/premium-the-silicon-valley-bubble-part-2/↩

11Marcus, G. (2025). ‘25 predictions on where AI will be at the end of 2025’, X (formerly Twitter), 1 January. Available at: https://x.com/GaryMarcus/status/1874587110809682092↩

12Forecast Fools (2026). ‘Gary Marcus’s AI Predictions: 19 tracked’. Available at: https://forecastfools.com/forecaster/gary-marcus/↩

13Merchant, B. (2023). Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech. New York: Little, Brown and Company.↩

14Merchant, B. (2025). ‘AI Killed My Job’ series, Blood in the Machine (newsletter). Available at: https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/s/ai-killed-my-job↩

15Connley, C. (2026). ‘AI is now the leading reason companies give for cutting jobs, says new report’, CNBC, 5 June. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/ai-is-now-the-leading-reason-companies-give-for-cutting-jobs-says-new-report-what-that-means-for-workers.html↩

16Gartner (2026). Cited in: ManageEngine (2026). ‘AI Layoffs 2026: What’s really driving the cuts at tech companies’. Available at: https://www.manageengine.com/insights/artificial-intelligence/2026-ai-layoffs↩

17ManageEngine (2026). ‘AI Layoffs 2026: What’s really driving the cuts at tech companies’. Available at: https://www.manageengine.com/insights/artificial-intelligence/2026-ai-layoffs↩

18Forrester (2026). 2026 Future of Work Report. Cited in: The Agency Recruiting (2026). ‘AI Layoffs and Job Cuts: What They Mean for the Workforce’. Available at: https://www.theagencyrecruiting.com/insights/ai-layoffs-repercussions-roi-2026↩

19Great Question (2026). ‘Will AI replace UX researchers? What the data actually says’, 18 March. Available at: https://greatquestion.co/blog/will-ai-replace-ux-researchers↩

20Nielsen Norman Group (2026). ‘State of UX 2026: Design Deeper to Differentiate’, 17 March. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/state-of-ux-2026/↩

Part I: Introducing the User Experience

1Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2):81–97.↩

2Nielsen, J. (2000). Why You Only Need to Test With 5 Users.↩

3Faulkner, L. (2003). Beyond the Five-User Assumption: Benefits of Increased Sample Sizes in Usability Testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(3).↩

4Schmettow, M. (2012). Sample size in usability studies. Commun. ACM, 55(4):64–70.↩

5Robertson, J. i. (2012). Likert-type scales, statistical methods, and effect sizes. Commun. ACM, 55(5):6–7.↩

6Burton, H. i. (2003). Visual cortex activity in early and late blind people. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(10):4005–4011.↩

7see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo.↩

8see Ben Goldacre’s http://www.badscience.net/.↩

9see Steve J. Martin’s http://scienceofyes.com/↩

10Conducted by Wesley Schultz (Behavioural Scientist).↩

11Defining Human science within the context of HCI is a difficult proposition especially for an empirical, small ‘p’ positivist, such as myself. However, I see Human science as the investigation of human life and human activities that acknowledges the validity of data derived by impartial observation within an empirical framework. It includes the subjects such as history, sociology, anthropology, psychology and economics. And while not able to validate the subjective aspect of human life and activity, can contribute to an understanding of the human experience.↩

12The ‘up–side’ is that this level of complexity makes the study of the user experience incredibly interesting and incredibly challenging if done correctly.↩

13Such as the keyboard, mouse, trackpad, or trackball.↩

14Such as the monitor.↩

15Such as windows, panes, panels, and the like.↩

16Narumi, T., Nishizaka, S., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T., and Hirose, M. (2011). Augmented reality flavors: gustatory display based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11, pages 93–102, New York, NY, USA. ACM.↩

17Often as Universal Modelling Language (UML): Use Case Diagrams, the abstract description of user task composition and flow; Scenarios, Sequence Diagrams, and Narrative Text, the concrete description of user tasks; along with Class Diagrams, the description of user domain concepts; you probably already have experience of this from your second year software engineering course.↩

18Mark Bernstein’s - Creator of ‘TinderBox’ - view.↩

19Indeed, if you’re reading this - you are probably an immigrant from the ‘technical’ Computer Science / Software Engineering domain.↩

20Law, E. L.-C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P., and Kort, J. (2009). Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ‘09, pages 719–728, New York, NY, USA. ACM.↩

21Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., and Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings : an integrated approach to design and analysis. Routledge, New York; London.↩

22Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., and Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings : an integrated approach to design and analysis. Routledge, New York; London.↩

23…and so this is how this text is structured.↩

Part II: Designing the User Experience

1Raskin, J. (2000). The humane interface: new directions for designing interactive systems. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.↩

2Weinschenk, S. (2011). 100 things every designer needs to know about people. Voices that matter. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.↩

3Bear, M. F., Connors, B. W., and Paradiso, M. A. (2007). Neuroscience: exploring the brain. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, 3rd ed edition.↩

4Kirkpatrick, A., Rutter, R., Heilmann, C., Thatcher, J., and Waddell, C. (2006). Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. friends of ED.↩

5Narumi, T., Nishizaka, S., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T., and Hirose, M. (2011). Augmented reality flavors: gustatory display based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11, pages 93–102, New York, NY, USA. ACM.↩

6Ashcraft, M. H. (1998). Fundamentals of cognition. Longman, New York.↩

7Pelachaud, C. (2012). Emotion-oriented systems. ISTE, London.↩

8The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula is used by the US Government Department of Defence as a standard test.↩

9Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.↩

10We’ll talk more about affective computing later.↩

11Brand, S. (1988). The Media Lab: inventing the future at MIT. Penguin Books, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.↩

12…and many other tablet computers.↩

13I say subjects here because this is the old name for participants – implicitly indicating a power dynamic with the scientist or experimenter.↩

14The definitive record of the English language.↩

15Sales, B. D. and Folkman, S. (2000). Ethics in research with human participants. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.↩

16Association, A. P. (2003). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Amer- ican Psychological Association.↩

17Rettig, M. (1992). Hat racks for understanding. Commun. ACM, 35:21–24.↩

189241-100:2011, I. (2011). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 100: Introduction to standards related to software ergonomics. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS 13.180; 35.180, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.↩

19You should also remember that changes and tweaks to methods or processes may indeed be useful and based on long experience – however you should also be realistic – they may also be based on the desire to sell more, and different, books and training texts.↩

20Now you’ll start to see some ‘bleed’ between terms. Requirements Engineering (Elicitation and Analysis) is pretty formal and is ‘well’ know in the software engineering domain. UCD isn’t as well known in the engineering community and uses less formal methods to convey understanding. I’m agnostic to an extent but I think a combination of both is a better way of building our ‘Hat Rack for Understanding’ than one type alone. In this case, I try to marry terms and use interchangeable language to get the process. In the end, we want to pick tools and techniques – ‘magpie-like’ – which suit us. ↩

21Cato, J. (2001). User Centered Web Design. Addison Wesley.↩

22Currently, some organisations get their software engineers to elicit requirements, although I would contend that this is not necessarily in their area of expertise.↩

23We’ll discuss these real world implications more fully later.↩

24Indeed, I even worked on one such tool called MOOSE ‘Model-based Object Oriented System Engineering’; with Derrick Morris, Gareth Evans, and Peter Green.↩

25Within the UCD process the post-it note is very similar to standard index card often used for a process known as ‘Card Sorting’ and, in this case, provides a familiarity to the UX’er, which may not be possible with different kinds of technical software tools.↩

26Anthropologists and sociologists describe data capture variously as fieldwork, ethnography, case study, qualitative research, interpretative procedures, and field research. However, among anthropologists fieldwork is synonymous with the collection of data using observational methods. For the sociologist, the term often describes the collection of data using a social survey.↩

27Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: for agile software development. Addison-Wesley, Boston.↩

28Cockburn, A. (2001). Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston.↩

29Nielsen, L. (2013). Personas. The Encyclopaedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.↩

30Persona Example: Mary has a learning disability. She finds looking at images on a webpage very distracting. Mary would like to see all images rendered in the following order. First, for images with long descriptions have the long description rendered in place of the image. If the long description does not exit, she wants the ‘alt text’ to be rendered. If neither is available, Mary wants the file name rendered. Added functionality would allow Mary to right click (context menu) on an image to list and select the rendering of the available alternatives (thumbnail, original size, full screen, low resolution, high resolution, alt text, long description, file name). Juan is hard of hearing. He wants always to see a video on the page. Also, Juan would like the Spanish language track used if available, along with Spanish captions as a default. If these are not available, he wants to see the video with English audio and captions. If no captions are available, Juan wants the video and English audio. Added functionality would allow Juan to right click (context menu) on a video to list and select the rendering of the available alternatives. (W3c WAI UAAG Version 2). ↩

31http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/05/18/yahoos-approach-to-keeping-personas-alive/↩

32MUST, SHOULD, COULD, or WON’T.↩

33Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions —Wikipedia.↩

34Loucopoulos, P. and Karakostas, V. (1995). System requirements engi- neering. International Software Engineering Series. McGraw-Hill.↩

35Ambler, S. W. (2005). The elements of UML 2.0 style. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.↩

36Dix, A. (2010). Human–computer interaction: A stable discipline, a nascent science, and the growth of the long tail. Interacting with Computers, 22(1):13 – 27.↩

37Harper, S. (2007). Is there design-for-all? Universal Access in the Information Society, 6:111–113.10.1007/s10209-007-0071-2.↩

Part III: Building the User Experience

1Martin, R. C. (2011). The clean coder: a code of conduct for professional programmers. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.↩

29241-100:2011, I. (2011). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 100: Introduction to standards related to software ergonomics. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS 13.180; 35.180, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.↩

3Such as Microsoft’s - now defunct - Pioneer Studios.↩

4We’ll discuss these real world implications more fully later on.↩

5Indeed, code with is open to the scrutiny of peers (such as open-source code) is often found to be more elegant and less error prone than code that is hidden from scrutiny. ↩

6Oram, A. and Wilson, G. (2007). Beautiful code. O’Reilly, Beijing, 1st. ed edition.↩

7Sommerville, I. (2011). Software engineering. Pearson, Boston, 9th ed edition.↩

8You never really know what you need - you just think you do - so this section should be titled ‘Kinda Know What You Need…’.↩

9http://www.agilealliance.org/.↩

10Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Addison-Wesley, Boston.↩

11http://agilemanifesto.org.↩

12Raymond, E. S. (2001). The cathedral and the bazaar: musings on Linux and Open Source by an accidental revolutionary. O’Reilly, Beijing, rev. ed edition.↩

13Raymond, E. S. (1998). Homesteading the Noosphere. First Monday, 3(10).↩

14Concerned with, or having the function of, carrying into effect, executing, or accomplishing; (of a cause) that makes something to be what it is, efficient (cf. effective cause n. at Special uses). / Having the power of acting upon the thing designated. (OED).↩

15That produces its intended effect, or adequately answers its purpose (OED).↩

16The removal of all technical barriers to effective interaction – this is my definition, but there are plenty more in the Appendix.↩

179241-100:2011, I. (2011). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 100: Introduction to standards related to software ergonomics. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS 13.180; 35.180, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.↩

18Zobel, G. (BBC W. S.) (2013). The light inventor who is poor but proud. BBC News. BBC World Service. Retrieved from the BBC on November 17, 2014.↩

19http://http://www.sonyericsson.com.↩

20http://www.littlefluffytoys.com.↩

21Indeed, we could think of all users on a continuum of personal difference and requirements (which psychology alludes to in that disciplines study of individual difference and Differential Psychology) include cognitive differences (disputed by some but know as cognitive style).↩

22Kirkpatrick, A., Rutter, R., Heilmann, C., Thatcher, J., and Waddell, C. (2006). Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. friends of ED.↩

23ISO/TR 9241-110:2006 (2006). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 110: Dialogue principles. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS 13.180, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.↩

24Harper, S. and Yesilada, Y. (2008). Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research, volume 1 of Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London, 1st edition.↩

25Chisholm, W. (2008). Universal design for Web applications. O’Reilly Media Inc., Se- bastopol, CA.↩

26Neustaedter, C. and Sengers, P. (2012). Autobiographical design in HCI research: designing and learning through use-it-yourself. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’12, pages 514–523, New York, NY, USA. ACM.↩

27Neustaedter, C. and Sengers, P. (2012). Autobiographical design: what you can learn from designing for yourself. interactions, 19(6):28–33.↩

28Visual acuity (VA) is acuteness or clearness of vision, more technically, a measure of the spatial resolution of the visual processing system. In the expression, 20/40 vision, the 20 is the distance in feet between the subject and the chart. The 40 means that the subject can read the chart as well as a normal person can read a chart that is 40 feet away. This is calculated by finding the smallest optotype they can identify and calculate the distance at which it has a visual angle of 5 arcminutes. A vision of 20/20 is considered nominal performance for human distance vision. A vision of 20/40 is considered half as good as nominal performance. A vision of 20/10 is considered twice as good as nominal performance — Wikipedia.↩

29We conclude the same in some recent work we have just completed.↩

30Lunn, D. and Harper, S. (2011). Providing assistance to older users of dynamic web content. Comput. Hum. Behav., 27:2098–2107.↩

31Fairweather, P. G. (2008). How older and younger adults differ in their approach to prob- lem solving on a complex website. In Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, Assets ’08, pages 67–72, New York, NY, USA. ACM.↩

32ISO 9241-20:2008 (2008). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 20: Accessibility guidelines for information/communication technology (ICT) equipment and service. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS: 35.180; 13.180 / Stage: 90.60 (2011-06-17), International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.↩

33Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw, R., Bransford, J., and of Minnesota. Center for Research in Human Learning, U., editors, Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.↩

34After all, a system may still be used even if it fails every so often.↩

35Productive of effects; effective; adequately operative. The cause that makes effects be what they are (esp. of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense — OED. ↩

36The fact or quality of being usable (That can be used; that can be readily put to practical use) — OED. The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use — ISO.}. ↩

379241-100:2011, I. (2011). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 100: Introduction to standards related to software ergonomics. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS 13.180; 35.180, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.↩

38There are other more aesthetic considerations – which we will look at later – in that the brushed stainless steel dial frames the display while the ring’s curved, neutral silver finish creates a chameleon effect that grounds Nest within its environment by picking up the colour of the wall upon which it’s mounted. This combination of sleek design elements and premium materials makes Nest a thermostat a user can feel proud to display in your home. ↩

39…not least because the requirement to interact with the thermostat is sporadic; therefore reducing the familiarity that would become a learned behaviour to a bespoke interface. ↩

40PARC definitely ‘Eat Their Own Dog Food’! ↩

41Vanderheiden, G. (2000). Fundamental principles and priority setting for universal usability. In Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability, CUU ’00, pages 32–37, New York, NY, USA. ACM.↩

42Shneiderman, B. (2001). Design: CUU: bridging the digital divide with universal usability. interactions, 8(2):11–15.↩

43Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.↩

44Remember, usability principles sell books!↩

45We’ll call them Principles from now on.↩

46B. Shneiderman and C. Plaisant. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Addison-Wesley, Boston, 5th ed edition, 2010.↩

47D. C. Smith, C. Irby, R. Kimball, B. Verplank, and E. Harslem. Designing the star user interface. BYTE, 7(4):242–282, 1982.↩

48D. A. Norman. The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New York, 1st basic paperback edition, 1988.↩

49J. Nielsen. Usability engineering. Academic Press, Boston, 1993. Nielsen also lists Aesthetic and minimalist design.↩

50ISO/TR 9241-110:2006. Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 110: Dialogue principles. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS 13.180, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.↩

51

1. Dix, J. Finlay, G. Abowd, and R. Beale. Human-computer interaction. Prentice Hall Europe, London, 2nd ed edition, 1998. Dix, Finally, Abowd & Beale describe ‘Learnability’ as: Predictability, Synthesizablity, Familiarity, Generalizabilty, and Consistency. ‘Flexibility’ as: Dialog initiative, Multi-threading, Task migratabilty, Subsitutivity, and Customizability. ‘Robustness’ as: Observability, Recoverability, Responsiveness, and Task conformance.

↩

52J. Raskin. The humane interface: new directions for designing interactive systems. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 2000.↩

53H. Sharp, Y. Rogers, and J. Preece. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, Chichester, 2nd ed edition, 2007. Preece, Rogers and Sharp also list Satisfying, Enjoyable, Fun, Entertaining, Helpful, Motivating, Aesthetic, Supports creativity, Rewarding, and Emotionally fulfilling.↩

54F. P. Brooks. The mythical man-month: essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Mass., anniversary ed edition, 1995.↩

55ISO/TR 9241-110:2006 (2006). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 110: Dialogue principles. TC/SC: TC 159/SC 4 ICS 13.180, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.↩

56Such as those for the Mac OSX http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/Intro/Intro.html↩

57http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/handsacrossthescreen.↩

58Of or relating to the affections or emotions, esp. as contrasted with the intellect or rational faculty; emotional. Psychol. and Psychiatry. Of, relating to, or involving feelings, emotion, or mood. AFFECT - Philos. An emotional, unreflective response. Psychol. (and Psychiatry). A feeling or subjective experience accompanying a thought or action or occurring in response to a stimulus; an emotion, a mood. In later use also (usu. as a mass noun): the outward display of emotion or mood, as manifested by facial expression, posture, gestures, tone of voice, etc. — OED. ↩

59Of or relating to the emotions; based on or appealing to the emotions. any strong mental or instinctive feeling, as pleasure, grief, hope, fear, etc., deriving esp. from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationship with others — OED. ↩

60Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York.↩

61Fishwick, P. A. (2006). Aesthetic computing. Leonardo. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.↩

62Lavie and Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3):269–298.↩

63We’ll call them Principles later on.↩

64H. Sharp, Y. Rogers, and J. Preece. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, Chichester, 2nd ed edition, 2007.↩

65J. Nielsen. Usability engineering. Academic Press, Boston, 1993.↩

66D. A. Norman. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York, 2004.↩

67J. Khaslavsky and N. Shedroff. Understanding the seductive experience. Commun. ACM, 42:45–49, May 1999.↩

68B. Reeves and C. I. Nass. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications, Stanford, Calif., 1996.↩

69B. J. Fogg. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Amsterdam, 2003. Touch-points include – Physical, physiological, language, social dynamics, and social roles.↩

70P. W. Jordan. Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis e–Library, London, 2003. Touch-points include – physio pleasure, socio-pleasure, psycho pleasure, Ideo pleasure.↩

71M. Csikszentmihalyi. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New York, 1st ed edition, 1990.↩

72Jordan, P. W. (2003). Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis e–Library, London.↩

73Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New York, 1st basic paperback edition.↩

74Khaslavsky, J. and Shedroff, N. (1999). Understanding the seductive expe- rience. Commun. ACM, 42:45–49.↩

75Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Amsterdam.↩

76Reeves, B. and Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications, Stanford, Calif.↩

77Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New York, 1st ed edition.↩

78The concept of flow also impacts on learnability, progressiveness, and situational.↩

79Owned and run by Ling Valentine (aka ‘Crazy Ling’).↩

80A category of taste in food (besides sweet, sour, salty, and bitter), corresponding to the flavour of glutamate, especially monosodium glutamate. ORIGIN Japanese, literally ‘deliciousness.’ ↩

81Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Amsterdam.↩

82Reeves, B. and Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications, Stanford, Calif.↩

83Audrey Crane, A Gamification Framework for Interaction Designers, ARTICLE NO. 678 May 24, 2011, http://tinyurl.com/bq57vgg↩

84Ian Bogost, My position statement at the Wharton Gamification Symposium, August 8, 2011, http://bogo.st/wm.↩

85Anderson, S. P. (2011). Seductive interaction design: creating playful, fun, and effective user experiences. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.↩

86To urge, exhort, persuade, or induce —OED.↩

87Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Amsterdam.↩

88Reeves, B. and Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications, Stanford, Calif.↩

89Jordan, P. W. (2003). Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis e–Library, London.↩

90Weinschenk, S. (2011). 100 things every designer needs to know about people. Voices that matter. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.↩

91Anderson, S. P. (2011). Seductive interaction design: creating playful, fun, and effective user experiences. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.↩

92Blythe, M. A. (2003). Funology: from usability to enjoyment, volume v. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.↩

93Such as ‘Waze’ which is gamified crowdsourcing of traffic data. Waze say that *‘Waze is all about contributing to the ‘common good’ out there on the road. By connecting drivers to one another, we help people create local driving communities that work together to improve the quality of everyone’s daily driving (thanks for pointing this ground-up gamified app out Nima Ara). ↩

94Kolibree is a connected electric toothbrush, equipped with sonic technology to make your teeth brushing more efficient. Its sensors interact with mobile apps for adults and children to make brushing an enjoyable experience. Kolibree helps the whole family learn about and improve their oral hygiene ⁴.↩

95Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2006). The game design reader: a Rules of play anthology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.↩

96Zichermann, G. and Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. O’Reilly Media Inc.↩

97Again, we’ll work them into Principles later on.↩

98K. Duggan, Badgerville http://www.badgeville.com/.}↩

99S. P. Anderson\index{Anderson, S. P.}. Seductive Interaction design: creating playful, fun, and effective user experiences. New Riders, Berkeley, CA, 2011.}↩

100M. Csikszentmihalyi. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper \& Row, New York, 1st ed edition, 1990.}↩

101S. Weinschenk. 100 things every designer needs to know about people. Voices that matter. New Riders, Berkeley, CA, 2011.}↩

102R. Paharia, Bunchball http://www.bunchball.com.}↩

103H. Sharp, Y. Rogers, and J. Preece. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, Chichester, 2nd ed edition, 2007.}↩

104M. A. Blythe. Funology: from usability to enjoyment, volume v. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003.}↩

105J. Khaslavsky and N. Shedroff. Understanding the seductive experience. Commun. ACM, 42:45–49, May 1999.}↩

106

1. Crane, DesignMap http://www.designmap.com/.

↩

107D. A. Norman. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York, 2004.}↩

108G. Zichermann and C. Cunningham. Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. 2011. Particularly his SAPS (status, access, power, and stuff) model.}↩

109…and because I’m not yet wholly convinced.↩

Part IV: Validating the User Experience

1Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2nd ed edition.↩

2Webb, E. J. (1966). Unobtrusive measures; nonreactive research in the social sciences. Rand McNally sociology series. Rand McNally, Chicago.↩

3Tullis, T. and Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the user experience: collecting, an- alyzing, and presenting usability metrics. The Morgan Kaufmann interactive technologies series. Else- vier/Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam.↩

4Rodden, K., Hutchinson, H., and Fu, X. (2010). Measuring the user experience on a large scale: user-centered metrics for web applications. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’10, pages 2395–2398, New York, NY, USA. ACM.↩

5The Net Promoter Score is obtained by asking customers a question such as ‘How likely is it that you would recommend our company to a friend or colleague?’ rated on a 10 point scale from ‘not’ to ‘very’.↩

6Such as UsaProxy, which is based upon an HTTP proxy approach. Logging is automatically done on an intermediate computer lying between the web browser and the web servers while multiple users surf the web. The assumption is that all page requests, the browsers make, go through the proxy — http://fnuked.de/usaproxy/index.htm. ↩

7Lazar, J., Feng, J. H., and Hochheiser, H. (2010). Research methods in human-computer interaction. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.↩

8Here touched on for completeness.↩

9Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3rd ed edition.↩

10Interestingly this expectation was ripe in the 19th and early 20th century with anthropologist’s who conduct their work from the veranda of their bungalows in faraway countries, expecting their ‘subjects’ to come to them as opposed to them embedding with the population that they were studying; this led to the derogatory term ‘veranda anthropology’ that produced many incorrect, badly interpreted, florid, and in some cases sanitised results.↩

11The observation room is connected to the user room normally via one-way mirrors (of the type you’d probably see in popular crime dramas in which an observation room is linked to an interrogation room via a one-way mirror), or in some cases a closed-circuit television is used such that all angles can be covered, and all interaction observed.↩

12Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.↩

13Graziano, A. M. and Raulin, M. L. (2010). Research methods: a process of inquiry. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 7th ed edition.↩

14Thanks for pointing to this Josh Nolan.↩

15Elish, M.C. (2019) ‘Moral Crumple Zones: Cautionary Tales in Human-Robot Interaction’, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 5, pp. 40–60.↩

16Doctorow, C. (2024) ‘AI’s “human in the loop” isn’t’, Pluralistic, 30 October. Available at: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/↩

17Green, B. (2022) ‘The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms’, Computer Law & Security Review, 45, 105681.↩

18Green, B. and Kak, A. (2021) ‘The False Comfort of Human Oversight as an Antidote to A.I. Harm’, Slate, 15 June. Available at: https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/human-oversight-artificial-intelligence-laws.html↩

19Docherty, B. (2012) Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots. Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/11/19/losing-humanity-0↩

20Baggini, J. and Fosl, P. S. (2010). The philosopher’s toolkit: a compendium of philosophical concepts and methods. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2nd ed edition.↩

21Veritasium. (2013). Can You Solve This? Retrieved from YouTube on November 17, 2014.↩

22Therefore, the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true.↩

23Note that you could not say ‘Therefore, all cows eat vegetables’ because fruit also contains only plant matter; as do grass and trees.↩

24In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views about how we know ‘things,’ part of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or ‘the Theory of Knowledge’. Empiricism emphasises the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.}↩

25In which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive.↩

26Rosenberg, A. (2012). Philosophy of science: a contemporary introduction. Routledge contemporary introductions to philosophy. Routledge, New York, 3rd ed edition.↩

27Null being from the Latin ‘nullus’, which means not any; hence, not any difference between the two conditions beyond chance variations.↩

28Floridi, L. (2004). The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information. Blackwell Pub., Malden, MA.↩

29…also, as we’ll see this later↩

30Taken from Kernighan and Ritchie’s ‘c’ programming language, which was called ‘c++’ by Stroustrup, when he extended it.↩

31…which, rather than beginning with a hypothesis, actually starts with data collection, from which understanding emerges, which then help hypotheses/assertions/theories to be formed. This is almost in a reverse fashion from scientific research and therefore, many scientists feel it be in contradiction to the scientific method.↩

32Professor emeritus of higher education and organisational change at the University of California at Los Angeles.↩

33In ‘Academically Adrift,’ Data Don’t Back Up Sweeping Claim↩

34Read on – but be aware that you may need to skip ahead and then jump back here. I want to tell you this caveat now because it is important to discuss it early which you are still forming your opinions.↩

Part V: In Real Life

1Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., and Haeffele, L. M. (2012). When to use what research design. Guilford Press, New York.↩

2Alkin, M. C. (2011). Evaluation essentials from A to Z. Guilford Press, New York.↩

3Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., and Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings : an integrated approach to design and analysis. Routledge, New York; London.↩

4Brooks, F. P. (1995). The mythical man-month: essays on software engineering. Addison- Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Mass., anniversary ed edition.↩

5For instance, Brooks initially states that code should not be hidden from other developers on the same project. He suggests openness and open scrutiny increases code quality; thereby supporting the work of Harlan Mills and undermining the work of David Parnas. After 20 years he cites Object Oriented Programming and the concept of abstraction for why he thinks he was wrong – 20 years ago – and why Parnas was right. I’d disagree, or, at least, be more specific in that abstraction is good in use, but openness is good in an audit. We can see that open source software suffers fewer bugs and has increased code quality, mainly because of the oversight (our reputation to our peers - maybe) of other coders.↩

6Strachey, C. (1962). Project stretch. In Planning a Computer System, page 322.↩

7Further this way of thinking of disposable prototypes does not contradict the idea of the incremental build, rapid prototyping, or the build-every-night approach. These items can still occur because the build does not imply a finished product but just the absence of bugs in the program logic (No complier errors). The misconception of user requirements and the need for full system changes – at least at the interface level – are still very present; indeed, the ebb and flow of the user dictates this is so.↩

8Streiner, D. L. and Sidani, S. (2010). When research goes off the rails : why it happens and what you can do about it. Guilford Press, New York.↩

Appendices

1Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. Morrow, New York.↩

2AllAboutUx provides information about user experience (UX). The information on the site is collected from the UX community and is shared and maintained by volunteers: Virpi Roto; Ming Lee; Kari Pihkala; Brenda Castro; Arnold Vermeeren; Effie Law; Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila; Jettie Hoonhout; and Marianna Obrist. I’d like to thank everyone who contributes to allaboutux.org, it is a great community resource. ↩

3These definitions were compiled for a project involving Yeliz Yesilada, Giorgio Brajnik, Markel Vigo, and myself. Thanks mainly go to Yeliz Yesilada, at the Middle Eastern Technical University (Cyprus Campus), for compiling this list. ↩

4Various. (2014a). Kolibree Gamified Toothbrush. Kolibree. Retrieved from the Web Archive on November 17, 2014.↩