Systematically engineering a good user experience (UX) into a computer-based system under development demands that the user requirements of the system reflect all needs, including emotional, of all stakeholders. User requirements address two different types of qualities: pragmatic qualities (PQs), that address system functionality and usability, and hedonic qualities (HQs) that address the stakeholder’s psychological well-being. Studies show that users tend to describe such satisfying UXes mainly with PQs and that some users seem to believe that they are describing an HQ when they are actually describing a PQ. The problem is to see if classification of any user requirement as PQ-related or HQ-related is difficult, and if so, why. We conducted two controlled experiments involving the same twelve requirements-engineering and UX professionals, hereinafter called “analysts.” The first experiment, which had the twelve analysts classifying each of 105 user requirements as PQ-related or HQ-related, shows that neither (1) an analyst’s involvement in the project from which the requirements came nor (2) the analyst’s use of a detailed model of the qualities in addition to the standard definitions of “PQ” and “HQ” has a positive effect on the consistency of the analyst’s classification with that of others. The second experiment, which had the twelve analysts classifying each of a set of 50 user requirements, derived from the 105 of the first experiment, showed that difficulties seem to be caused both by the analyst’s lacking skill in applying the definitions of “PQ” and “HQ” and by poorly written user requirement specifications. The first experiment revealed that classification of user requirements is a lot harder than initially assumed. The second experiment provided evidence that the difficulties can be mitigated by the combination of (1) training analysts in applying the definitions of “PQ” and “HQ” and (2) casting user requirement specifications in a new template that forces provision of the information needed for reliable classification. The experiment shows also that neither training analysts nor casting user requirement specifications in the new template, by itself, mitigates the difficulty in classifying user requirements.

中文翻译：

---

改进用户需求中享乐质量的识别：第二次受控实验

将良好的用户体验 (UX) 系统地设计到正在开发的基于计算机的系统中，要求系统的用户需求反映所有利益相关者的所有需求，包括情感需求。用户需求涉及两种不同类型的品质：实用品质 (PQ)，涉及系统功能和可用性，以及享乐品质 (HQ)，涉及利益相关者的心理健康。研究表明，用户倾向于主要用 PQ 来描述这种令人满意的 UX，并且一些用户在实际描述 PQ 时似乎认为他们在描述 HQ。问题是看将任何用户需求分类为 PQ 相关或 HQ 相关是否困难，如果是，为什么。我们进行了两个受控实验，涉及相同的 12 名需求工程和 UX 专业人员，以下简称“分析师”。第一个实验让 12 位分析师将 105 个用户需求中的每一个分类为 PQ 相关或 HQ 相关，表明 (1) 分析师参与了需求来自的项目，或者 (2) 分析师使用了除了“PQ”和“HQ”的标准定义之外，质量的详细模型对分析师的分类与其他人的分类的一致性有积极影响。第二个实验有 12 位分析师对一组 50 个用户需求中的每一个进行分类，这些需求来自第一个实验的 105 个，表明​​困难似乎是由于分析师缺乏应用“PQ”定义的技能和“总部”和写得很糟糕的用户需求规范。第一个实验表明，用户需求的分类比最初假设的要困难得多。第二个实验提供的证据表明，通过 (1) 培训分析师应用“PQ”和“HQ”的定义和 (2) 在强制提供信息的新模板中投射用户需求规范，可以减轻这些困难需要可靠的分类。实验还表明，无论是培训分析师还是在新模板中投射用户需求规范，本身都减轻了用户需求分类的难度。第二个实验提供的证据表明，通过 (1) 培训分析师应用“PQ”和“HQ”的定义和 (2) 在强制提供信息的新模板中投射用户需求规范，可以减轻这些困难需要可靠的分类。实验还表明，无论是培训分析师还是在新模板中投射用户需求规范，本身都减轻了用户需求分类的难度。第二个实验提供的证据表明，通过 (1) 培训分析师应用“PQ”和“HQ”的定义和 (2) 在强制提供信息的新模板中投射用户需求规范，可以减轻这些困难需要可靠的分类。实验还表明，无论是培训分析师还是在新模板中投射用户需求规范，本身都减轻了用户需求分类的难度。