New innovative products are being designed while the user interface of existing products is constantly being revamped to give them a new look. All this is an effort to bring a satisfactory interacting experience for the user. However, in most cases users do not feel that they experience that benefit. The introduction of a new product, or the enhancement of the functionality and user interface of an existing product, often faces criticism and brings resistance to the acceptance and usage of the product by the users. Therefore, the change in user interface or introduction of new products does not only affect the business processes but also the lifestyles of the users, as well as their overall user experience. One of the most important components for the success of any product is a positive user experience. User experience refers to the subjective feeling of the user that results from their interaction or intention to interact with a product in order to perform a specific task in a specific environment. When the user interface and functionality of a product match the expectations of the users and make the users effective and efficient, feel safe and attain some level of self-worth from using or possessing the product, their interaction with the product becomes more satisfactory. User experience practitioners are in agreement that a change to the user interface influences the user experience of the people when interacting with the product; hence it affects change in the user experience of the people. A vast body of literature exists on the methods for evaluating user experience as well as on the principles that are aimed at guiding the design of products for a positive user experience. However, there is a lack of a means to manage this change in user experience that results from the changes in the features of the user interface or the product functionalities. This inadequacy opens up the potential for integrating change management principles in order to manage user experience. However, existing change management principles do not address the user experience aspects when managing change. Following the above premise, this study focused on the development of a model for managing user experience: the User Experience Management Model (UXM2). The UXM2 infers its components from the disciplines of user experience and change management. Its uniqueness is seated in its people-centred approach that aims to effect a free-will change in the individuals towards a long-term positive user experience. The proposed model further aims to promote the voluntary acceptance of a product, which is contrary to the mandatory change that is guided by the policies of the organization, as discussed in the study. The UXM2 was developed from a thorough argumentation of literature on user experience and change management. The components that were required for development of the model were identified from literature, and were evaluated for their relevance by means of academic publications in subject domain international conferences. The academic publications underwent double-blind peer review with subject domain experts. The model was evaluated for its relevance and potential applicability through interviews and discussions with subject domain experts. The subject domain experts consist of user experience practitioners and academic professionals in the domain of HCI. The subject domain experts also evaluated the model by means of an evaluation tool comprising of a Likert scale rating of the proposed components and related activities for managing user experience. The target users of the UXM2 are user experience practitioners and product developers who aim to promote a sustainable long-term positive user experience for the people interacting with their products. The UXM2 is aimed at being used for the design of products that are meant for institutional use, personal use, mandatory use and optional use. It is believed that adoption of the UXM2 will promote acceptance of the product by users, with an associated sustainable positive long-term user experience.

As user interfaces become more powerful and easier to use they are often harder to design and implement. This has caused a great demand for interface tools. While existing tools ease interface creation, they typically do not provide mechanisms to simplify application development and are too low-level. Furthermore, existing tools do not provide effective mechanisms to port interactive applications across user interfaces. While some tools provide limited mechanisms to port applications across user interfaces which belong to the same class (e.g., the class of all standard graphical direct-manipulation user interfaces), very few can provide the ability to port applications across different interface classes (e.g., command-line, hypermedia, speech recognition and voice synthesis, virtual reality, etc.). With my approach, the programmer uses an abstract model to describe the structure of the application including the information that the application must exchange with the user, rather than describing a user interface which realizes these characteristics. By specifying application semantics at a very high level of abstraction it is possible to obtain a much greater separation between the application and the user interface. Consequently, the resulting applications can be ported not only across user interfaces which belong to a common interface class, but across interfaces which belong to distinct classes. This can be realized through simple recompilation - source code does not have to be modified. NAAG (Not Another Application Generator), a tool which embodies these ideas, enables programmers to create interactive applications with minimal effort. An application is modelled as a set of operations which manipulate objects belonging to user-defined object classes. The input to NAAG is a source program which describes classes, operations and their inputs and outputs, and the organization of operations within the application. Classes and operations are implemented as data structures and functions in a conventional programming language such as C. This model simplifies not only the specification and generation of the user interface, but the design and implementation of the underlying application. NAAG utilizes existing technology such as macro-preprocessors, compilers, make programs, and low-level interface tools, to reduce the programming task. An application that is modified by adding, removing, or reorganizing artifacts (classes, operations, and menus), can be regenerated with a single command. Traditionally, software maintenance has been a very difficult task as well. Due to the use of a simple abstract model, NAAG applications are also easier to maintain. Furthermore, this approach encourages software reuse: applications consisting of arbitrary collections of original and pre-existing artifacts can be composed easily; functions which implement abstract operations are independent of both, user interface aspects, and the context in which they are employed. Application development is further simplified in the following ways: the programmer describes the semantics of the user interface - a conventional explicit specification is not required; output primitives are defined in an interface-independent manner; many programming tasks such as resource management, event processing, and communication, are either handled directly by the tool or else simplified greatly for the programmer. NAAG is currently used by the members of the Laboratory for Computational Vision at the University of British Columbia to maintain a sophisticated image processing system. / Science, Faculty of / Computer Science, Department of / Graduate

Thesis (Masters) -- University of Canberra, 2008. / Includes bibliography (p. 130-135) Also available online.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wollongong, 2004. / Typescript. This thesis is subject to a 2 year embargo (16/09/2004 to 16/09/2006) and may only be viewed and copied with the permission of the author. For further information please Contact the Archivist. Includes bibliographical references: p. 360-374.

Thesis (PhD) - Swinburne University of Technology, 2006. / [Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Swinburne University of Technology - 2006]. Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (p. 218-231).

published_or_final_version / abstract / Mechanical Engineering / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / abstract / Architecture / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / abstract / Mechanical Engineering / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

No description available.

No description available.