RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    다기준 의사결정 방법을 활용한 사용자 경험의 평가 방법 = User Experience Evaluation Method using Multi-Criteria Decision Making

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A108117600

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Objective: This study was conducted for the purpose of proposing a method to evaluate user experience for a system using a multi-criteria decision making model based on the evaluation factors of user experience.
    Background: User experience refers to a direct or indirect experience that a user obtains in the process of using a product or service. As various digital products and services become popular and competition intensifies in modern life, user experience is becoming more and more important. Various studies have been attempted to evaluate user experience according to such necessity. Since the user experience that an individual has for the same system can be different, it is important how the user experience evaluation of the system incorporates this subjectivity.
    Method: In this study, a method to obtain the user experience score was proposed by using importance weights of the user experience evaluation criteria and averaging the scores for each evaluation criterion of the system. To this end, we first determined the criteria for evaluating user experience based on the honeycomb model. AHP was used as a method to derive the relative importance weight of evaluation criteria. In addition, a Likert scale from 1 to 5 was used to give a rating for the user experience evaluation criteria.
    Results: In order to examine the applicability of the method proposed in this study, it was applied to the user experience evaluation problem for car rental websites.
    In this study, 'useful, usable, findable, credible, desirable, accessible, and valuable' presented in the honeycomb model were used as user experience evaluation criteria.
    Both the UX score and the SUS score showed a statistically significant difference at the significance level of 0.05 for each of the three car rental websites. A similar pattern was also observed in the average score. And the UX score showed a significant correlation with the SUS score of 0.509.
    Conclusion: User experience evaluation using the multi-criteria decision-making method showed a high correlation with SUS, which has been used as an effective usability evaluation method in many studies. From this fact, it can be seen that the user experience evaluation method proposed in this study can be effectively applied to the user experience evaluation problem of a system.
    Application: The results of this study could be used as a method to evaluate user experience on a digital system.
    번역하기

    Objective: This study was conducted for the purpose of proposing a method to evaluate user experience for a system using a multi-criteria decision making model based on the evaluation factors of user experience. Background: User experience refers to a...

    Objective: This study was conducted for the purpose of proposing a method to evaluate user experience for a system using a multi-criteria decision making model based on the evaluation factors of user experience.
    Background: User experience refers to a direct or indirect experience that a user obtains in the process of using a product or service. As various digital products and services become popular and competition intensifies in modern life, user experience is becoming more and more important. Various studies have been attempted to evaluate user experience according to such necessity. Since the user experience that an individual has for the same system can be different, it is important how the user experience evaluation of the system incorporates this subjectivity.
    Method: In this study, a method to obtain the user experience score was proposed by using importance weights of the user experience evaluation criteria and averaging the scores for each evaluation criterion of the system. To this end, we first determined the criteria for evaluating user experience based on the honeycomb model. AHP was used as a method to derive the relative importance weight of evaluation criteria. In addition, a Likert scale from 1 to 5 was used to give a rating for the user experience evaluation criteria.
    Results: In order to examine the applicability of the method proposed in this study, it was applied to the user experience evaluation problem for car rental websites.
    In this study, 'useful, usable, findable, credible, desirable, accessible, and valuable' presented in the honeycomb model were used as user experience evaluation criteria.
    Both the UX score and the SUS score showed a statistically significant difference at the significance level of 0.05 for each of the three car rental websites. A similar pattern was also observed in the average score. And the UX score showed a significant correlation with the SUS score of 0.509.
    Conclusion: User experience evaluation using the multi-criteria decision-making method showed a high correlation with SUS, which has been used as an effective usability evaluation method in many studies. From this fact, it can be seen that the user experience evaluation method proposed in this study can be effectively applied to the user experience evaluation problem of a system.
    Application: The results of this study could be used as a method to evaluate user experience on a digital system.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 류시천 ; 최진영 ; 심미희, "스마트 애플리케이션 UX 디자인 평가 접근 방법" (사)한국스마트미디어학회 8 (8): 70-79, 2019

    2 고은성 ; 김승인, "배달 애플리케이션을 통한 사용자 경험 비교분석 -배달의 민족, 요기요, 배달통을 중심으로-" 한국디지털정책학회 17 (17): 393-399, 2019

    3 Mandryk, R.L, "Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies" 25 (25): 141-158, 2006

    4 Ardévol, L.M, "User experience methodology for the design and evaluation of interactive systems" University of Lleida 2013

    5 Han, S.H, "User experience evaluation for mobile phones and mobile services" Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Korea 2012

    6 Morville, P, "User Experience Design"

    7 Hassenaahl, M, "To do or not to do: Differences in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals" 19 : 429-437, 2007

    8 Finstad, K, "The usability metric for user experience" 22 (22): 323-327, 2010

    9 Tullis, T, "Measuring the User Experience" 2008

    10 Hazlett, R.L, "Measuring emotional valence to understand the user's experience of software" 65 : 306-314, 2007

    1 류시천 ; 최진영 ; 심미희, "스마트 애플리케이션 UX 디자인 평가 접근 방법" (사)한국스마트미디어학회 8 (8): 70-79, 2019

    2 고은성 ; 김승인, "배달 애플리케이션을 통한 사용자 경험 비교분석 -배달의 민족, 요기요, 배달통을 중심으로-" 한국디지털정책학회 17 (17): 393-399, 2019

    3 Mandryk, R.L, "Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies" 25 (25): 141-158, 2006

    4 Ardévol, L.M, "User experience methodology for the design and evaluation of interactive systems" University of Lleida 2013

    5 Han, S.H, "User experience evaluation for mobile phones and mobile services" Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Korea 2012

    6 Morville, P, "User Experience Design"

    7 Hassenaahl, M, "To do or not to do: Differences in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals" 19 : 429-437, 2007

    8 Finstad, K, "The usability metric for user experience" 22 (22): 323-327, 2010

    9 Tullis, T, "Measuring the User Experience" 2008

    10 Hazlett, R.L, "Measuring emotional valence to understand the user's experience of software" 65 : 306-314, 2007

    11 Desmet, P, "Framework of Product Experience" 1 (1): 2007

    12 Bangor, A, "An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale" 24 (24): 574-594, 2008

    13 Morville, P, "Ambient Findability" 54 (54): 623-626, 2006

    14 Goepel, K.D, "AHP Priority Calculator"

    15 Saaty, T, "A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures" 15 : 234-281, 1977

    16 Moon, H, "A literature survey of measuring the user experience" 14-117, 2010

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2002-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    1999-07-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.1 0.1 0.14
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.15 0.19 0.306 0.02
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼