VOLUME 6 ISSUE 1

The International Journal of

Visual Design
__________________________________________________________________________

Visualization of Knowledge Domains in

the User Experience
CARLOS CRDOBA-CELY AND YADIRA ALATRISTE-MARTNEZ

designprinciplesandpractices.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VISUAL DESIGN

http://designprinciplesandpractices.com/
First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA
by Common Ground Publishing
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First St, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com
ISSN: 2325-1581
2013 (individual papers), the author(s)
2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under
the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written
permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.
The International Journal of Visual Design is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Typeset in CGScholar.
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Visualization of Knowledge Domains in the User

Experience
Carlos Crdoba-Cely, University of Nario, Colombia
Yadira Alatriste-Martnez, Metropolitan Autonomus University, Mexico

Abstract: This paper explores the research trends on User Experience (Ux) using different
techniques of Visualizing Knowledge Domains (VDK). Through the ISI Web of Knowledge
(WoK), 9 key authors were selected for Factor Analysis and Pathfinder Network (PFNETs).
The goal of this document is to identify the main themes of empirical research in academic
journals on Ux among 20052010. The results obtained show the existence of three research
topics that focus in (1) artifact-oriented hedonic evaluation, (2) artifact-oriented utilitarian
evaluation, and (3) user-oriented holistic evaluation. These topics are consistent with the needs
of the new Experience Societies. We discuss the results.
Keywords: User Experience (Ux), Experience Design (xD), Experience Society, Visualizing
Knowledge Domains (VKD), Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA), Pathfinder Network
(PFNETs), Factor Analysis

INTRODUCTION

ser Experience (Ux) studies the interactions of users and technology in order to create
a high quality experience in the use of the system (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006).
Ux approach includes much more than the study of the systems instrumental needs,
which takes into account the users internal state, the characteristics of the system,
and the environment where the interaction occurs, as shown in Figure 1.

The International Journal of Visual Design

Volume 6, Issue 1, 2013, http://designprinciplesandpractices.com/, ISSN 2325-1581
Common Ground, Carlos Crdoba-Cely, Yadira Alatriste-Martnez, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VISUAL DESIGN

Figure 1: Topics on Ux. (Adapted from Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006)

The Ux research begins with the need to evaluate the usefulness of a system in Human-Computer
Interaction (HCI). At first, this approach was purely instrumental, and usability was the most
important indicator of a systems quality (Nielsen, 1993) which came from the Technology
Acceptance Model by Fred Davis (Davis, 1989; Porat & Tractinsky, 2008). However, this approach was not unanimous among researchers, and from the field of video games, Carroll &
Thomas (1988) considered that the fun and enjoyment had a powerful influence on the use of
the system. With these antecedents, Alben (1996) included beauty as an important aspect of
the value of technology in what he called quality of experience. Since then, Ux has been
discussed in conferences and symposia but rarely in academic journals, possibly due to the lack
of empirical research (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006). Thus, the objective of this paper is to
identify the main themes of empirical research on Ux in academic journals in the last five years.
It is hoped that these issues help to constitute the state of the art in Ux, and they can identify
research topics of the new Experience Societies. (Hassenzahl, 2011). Because Experience Society
focuses on the pursuit of pleasure and meaning beyond materialism and money, identifying
general themes that include any study on Experience Design to provide artifacts and technology
pursuant to these new needs is necessary (Anderson, 2011; Hassenzahl, 2011).
The analysis of academic journals will be done through Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA)
and visualization of knowledge domains will be performed by Pathfinder Network. ACA

16

CRDOBA-CELY: VISUALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS IN THE USER EXPERIENCE

technique was chosen because it has examined the cognitive structure in various disciplinessuch as Information Sciences (Ma et al., 2009), Knowledge Management (Pilkington & Meredith
2009), Ubiquitous Computing (Lee & Chen 2009) and Medical Issues (Raghupathi & Nerur
2008) but it has never been used on research in Ux. Moreover, Pathfinder Networks allow to
identify clusters of authors belonging to the same topic of study and visualize them as a network
of relationships. Thus, this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the bibliometric
technique of Author Co-citation Analysis and the procedure to select a group of key authors
of Ux. Section 3 presents the results obtained using Pathfinder networks, and Section 4 discusses
the relationship between the topics found and those proposed by Hassenzahl & Tractinsky
(2006). Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions of this work.

Author Co-citation Analysis (Aca)

In many occasions, the knowledge shared by a community can be represented as a scientific
network, a social network of co-authorship or citation networks and co-citation of authors
(Chen, 2004). These networks of shared knowledge allow the study of conceptual changes in
the paradigm and can be represented by different techniques of Knowledge Domain Visualization
(Chen, 2003; Brner, Chen & Boyack, 2003) such as Author Co-citation Analysis. The ACA
is a bibliometric technique that involves counting the citations of a body of literature to develop
statistical distributions with the purpose of determining the intellectual structure of a discipline
(White & Griffith, 1982), assuming that the authors cited are nothing more than the surrogates
for the concepts they write about (Culnan 1986; Sircar et al., 2001). The ACA approach is
based on the idea that authors who have made contributions to a concept are closely related
and therefore are more likely to be cited by other researchers thereby determining the cumulative
tradition of a field. Thus in a body of literature that contains hundreds of citations, the authors
who have cited two or more documents are grouped together based on their co-citations as
well as on the similarity of their patterns of citations regarding other authors (McCain, 1990).
These groups of authors can provide a fields view (White & Griffith, 1982) of any discipline
in a period of time (Culnan, 1986).

Selection of Authors
To obtain this fields view, the first step was to identify a list of the most cited authors using
the phrase User Experience in ISI Web of Knowledge and redefining the years of publication
between 20052010, time which made the query in the database. Out of a total of 2064 publications found, a pool of 85 seminal authors was selected if they were cited 15 times or more
during the period stipulated. The cutoff point of 15 citations was chosen based on the fact that
most items are cited twice per year on average, changing this information positively according
to the evaluated discipline (Culnan, 1986). Thus we determined that the key authors should
be cited at an average of three times per year. From the pool of 85 seminal authors those who
showed no correlation with any other author, as well as those authors who did not meet the
cutoff point were eliminated in the matrix of co-citation analysis because some of their citations
did not come on paper but another type of document as reviews or abstracts that were not
considered for this research. The final group was composed of 8 key authors as shown in Table
I. Because Ux is a relatively new research theme-as demonstrated by the low co-citation between
authors-we decided to include a representative author like Noam Tractinsky with their paper
foundational What is beautiful is usable (Tractinsky, Katz, & Ikar, 2000).

17

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VISUAL DESIGN

Table I: Key Authors in Ux, 20052010

Wu, JH (90)

Tractinsky, N (72)

Shang, RA (46)

Hassenzahl, M (27)

Bagozzi, RP (33)

Sanchez-Franco, MJ (27)

Zviran, M (25)

Castaeda, JA (25)

Karahanna, E (24)

Co-citation Matrix
Based on the list of key authors, we constructed a matrix of 9 x 9 to count the number of cocitations between each pair of authors. According to previous investigations (Culnan 1986;
McCain 1990; Sircar et al., 2001; White and Griffith 1982), the value of the diagonal of the
matrix was calculated by adding the three highest co-citations counts for each author and dividing such result by two. The raw data co-citation matrix was normalized to a Pearson correlations matrix for a later analysis of factors. In the case of the Pathfinder Networks has been
used only the raw data matrix and changing the values of the diagonal to zero. Table II shows
the results obtained.
Table II: Matrix of Authors Co-citation in Ux, 20052010
Bagozzi Castaeda Hassenzahl

Karahanna

SShang
Franco

Tractin- Wu, Zviran

sky
JH

Bagozzi

Castaeda

Hassenzahl

5,5

Karahanna

S-Franco

3,5

Shang

7,5

Tractinsky

5,5

Wu, JH

Zviran

Data Analysis
Factor Analysis was obtained with the Pearson correlation of the authors using SPSS, version
17.0. PFNETs were derived from the original raw data of co-citations using PCKnot version
6.3 for the nodes minimally connected network and nodes among nearest neighbors. UCINET
version 6.0, was used to flow betweenness measure in networks and Pajek version 1.28 was
used to graph visualization. Finally, networks plotting were done using Illustrator CS5 to group
data and improve the graphics presented in this review.

Factor Analysis
The factor analysis technique is used to explain the relationships between different factors
through the creation of a smaller number of subsets in which the key authors are grouped into
one specific discipline. Each factor may be observed as an intellectual perspective represented
by the authors who load on it (Sircar et al., 2001). All authors have a load greater than 0.4,

18

CRDOBA-CELY: VISUALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS IN THE USER EXPERIENCE

but for the interpretation of each factor only loads greater than 0.7 are considered. The results
of the main components using Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization are shown in Table
III. The results suggest that the first three factors accounted for 81.2% of the variance.
Table III: Factor Analysis of Ux, 20052010
Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

S. Franco

0.821

Tractinsky

0.722

Zviran

7.21

Castaeda

0.719

Wu, JH

0.719

Hassenzahl

0.689

Shang

0.709

Karahanna

0.599

Bagozzi

0.527

Eigenvalue
3.173

2.404

1.731

% Total Variance
35.289

26.706

19.235

Acumulative % Variance
35.289

61.995

81.229

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Authors loaded on factor 1 based their research on users motivational models in different
contexts. This group includes the following investigations: Sanchez-Franco & Roldans (2005)
study of the flow of user web navigation; Zviran, Glezer & Avnis (2006) study on the effect
of design in different commerce websites; Wu, JH & Wangs (2005) study of the perceived risk
in the acceptance of mobile commerce; and, Shang Chen & Shens (2005) study on the intrinsic
and extrinsic motivations of consumers when shopping online. Authors loaded under factor 2
based their research on two different themes. Tractinsky, Ikary, & Katz (2000), and Hassenzahl
(2004) who studied the influence of beauty and aesthetics in the evaluation of the system by
user are in the first group. On the other hand, Castaeda Munoz & Luque (2007), and Karahanna, Agarwal & Angst (2006) who studied different moderating effects of user, such as the
experience and the intension of use, are in the second group. Finally, Bagozzi & Dholakia
(2006) studied the involvement of user groups of LINUX based on three different group-context:
the group with a cognitive social identity, the group with a social affective identity and the
group with an evaluative social identity. Although Bagozzi & Dholakia (2006) do not have a
load greater than 0.7, their research is a good example of comparative evaluation in different
collaborative work environments.

Pathfinder Networks (PFNETS)

The scaling algorithm Pathfinder Network (PFNET) is a technique to extract the underlying
patterns in proximity data and represent them spatially through interconnected networks. The
PFNET algorithm allows prune, a complex network of multiple paths using the minimum
weight of a path between nodes (White 2003b). The weight of the paths can be determined by
the raw data matrix co-citation or Pearson correlation (Chen & Lee 2006; De Nooy 2005;
White 2003a). In this study, the weight of a path is the number of co-citations between authors
and the nodes are the authors themselves as shown in Figure 2. Because the distance from one
node to itself is zero, the diagonals of the original matrix of co-citations were changed to zero

19

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VISUAL DESIGN

to meet the third condition of the PFNET algorithm (Chen 1998). To prune the network of
TAM was q = n-1 and r = , resulting in a new network in which all authors are connected.
The q parameter limits the minimum cost of a path, and the parameter r defines the distance
of a path through the Minkowski metric. Of a total of 16 initial links, 8 lines were obtained
from authors who were graphed using the Kamada-Kawai spring embedder in Pajek such as
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: PFNET of Authors on Ux, 20052010

For interpret the PFNETs, the thickness of the lines was varied according to the number of cocitations between authors displayed in italics. The size of the nodes in gray was varied according
to the flow betweenness. The flow betweenness measures the centrality of actors in a network
using the sum of all independent paths between two points in the network (Nooy, Mrvar, &
Batagelj, 2005; Freeman, Borgatti, White, 1991). With this measure it is possible to speak of
the influence of information of an actor in the net if is assumed that actors will use all pathways
that connect them, proportionally to the length of the pathways (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).

20

CRDOBA-CELY: VISUALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS IN THE USER EXPERIENCE

Figure 3: Pruned PFNET of Authors on Ux

Figure 3 clearly shows the existence of four clusters: Users Intrinsic Motivation, Systems Extrinsic Evaluation and Systems Hedonic Evaluation. Bagozzis work appears alone in a fourth
research cluster on the context. These four clusters are consistent with data previously obtained
in the factor analysis. Below the results are discussed.

Discussion
Factor analysis shows some variations between the factors found and themes proposed by
Hassenzahl and Tractinsky (2006). Initially, factors 1 and 3 are adapted to the model. Thus,
the authors under factor 1 might be associated with topics on the users internal state with the
themes on flow, enjoyment and confidence. However, the author under factor 3 could be associated with themes about the context where interaction occurs. Conversely, factor 2 is composed
by two different types of authors: Castaneda and Karahanna who worked on utilitarian features,
and Tractinsky and Hassenzahl who worked on the systems hedonic characteristics and who
are closer to studies on users internal state. On the other hand, PFNET on Ux shows the same
separation of clusters. Thus, while systems extrinsic evaluation focuses on system utility, systems
hedonic evaluation focuses on aesthetic and emotional components. Similarly, the lack of research
on the environment where interaction occurs may be due to the fact that all the consulted empirical studies have been constructed from the particular characteristics of the context where
the valuation is intended to apply the system. From this perspective, all the authors presented
here, belong to the thematic context studies. Figure 4 shows the variations between the model
Hassenzahl & Tractinsky (2006), and the themes found in this study represented by colored
circles. The diameters of the circles are determined from the average flow betweenness authors
belonging to each cluster. Their location in space is given by the observations exposed above.

21

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VISUAL DESIGN

Figure 4: Topics Proposed by Hassenzahl and Tractinsky vs Topics Obtained in this Study

Moreover, it is important to stress that Figure 4 also shows the evolution of the user experience.
While extrinsic evaluation, focuses on issues of usability and function of the system (Nielsen,
1993), intrinsic motivation goes a step further and focuses on the emotions of the user (Norman,
2004). Finally, it appears the hedonic evaluation of the system, which includes indicators of
the previous two approaches, to propose a broader notion of experience, called Experience
Design (Hassenzahl, 2011). The Experience Design (xD), represents the evolution of hierarchical responsive to the needs of the new Society of Experience (Anderson, 2011). Thus, xD must
contain utilitarian and emotional indicators that tend to enjoy the experience.

Conclusions
From the results obtained in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) taking into
account the low co-citation between authors who write in academic journals, it can be said
that the Ux research topics are still new to the researchers and there is still short empirical work
on the subject. (2) The Ux research topics focus on the users intrinsic motivation, the systems
extrinsic evaluation; and the systems hedonic evaluation. The users intrinsic motivation is
focuses on determining the levels of enjoyment of the system, while the systems extrinsic
evaluation focuses on determining the usefulness of the system. Finally, hedonic evaluation is
focuses on the users aesthetic and emotional evaluations when the system is used. (3) Currently,
the Ux thematic focuses on evaluating the technological artifact and evaluate the user separately.
In turn, the technological artifact can be evaluated from a utilitarian perspective and from a
hedonic perspective, while the user is considered from a holistic perspective as a total experience
obtained by interacting with the system. Thus, the search for a total experience is the fundamental objective of Experience Design (xD). The next step is in user experience. Figure 5 shows
the topics proposed for this research theme.

22

CRDOBA-CELY: VISUALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS IN THE USER EXPERIENCE

Figure 5: Research Topics of xD

(4) This model is thought to be used as guidance to researchers who decide to carry out empirical work on xD and wishes to obtain valid indicators of previous investigations. It is clear that
all research on xD must contain at least three types of theoretical constructs: Utility, Aesthetics
and Enjoyment. These three constructs have their epistemological origins in the technology
acceptance model in the theory of fun, and the systems quality evaluation through the users
experience.

23

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VISUAL DESIGN

REFERENCES
Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design.
Interactons, 3, pp. 1115.
Anderson, S. P. (2011). Seductive Interaction Design. First Ed. Berkeley: USA: New Riders.
ISBN-13: 978-0-321-72552-3.
Bagozzi, R., & Dholakia, U. (2006). Open source software user communities: A study of participation in Linux user groups. Management Science, 52 (7), 10991115.
Brner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack. K.W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review
of Information Science & Technology. 37 (1), 179255.
Carroll, J. & Thomas, J. (1988) Fun. SIGCHI Bulletin, 19 (3), 2124.
Castaeda, A., Muos-Leiva, F., & Luque, T. Web Acceptance Model (WAM): Moderating
effects of user experience. Information & Management 44, 384396.
Chen, C., (1998). Generalized similarity analysis and pathfinder network scaling, Interacting
with Computers, 10 (2), 107128.
Chen, C., & Kuljis, J., (2003). The Rising Landscape: A Visual Exploration of Superstring
Revolutions in Physics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 54 (5), 435446.
Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain vsualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 101, 53035310.
Chen, T., & Lee, M., (2006). Revealing Themes and Trends in the Knowledge Domains Intellectual Structure. In: A.Hoffman et al (Eds.), Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition
Workshop, PKAW 2006 (pp. 99107). Berlin: Springer.
Culnan, M., (1986). Management Information System, 19721982: A Co-citation Analysis.
Management Science, 32 (2), 156172.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319340.
Freeman, L., Borgatti, S., & White, D., (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of
betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13, 141154.
Hanneman, R., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA:
University of California, Riverside (published in digital form athttp://faculty.ucr.edu/~
hanneman/).
Hassenzahl, M. (2011). User Experience and Experience Design. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam,
Rikke Friis (eds.). Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Available online
at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/user_experience_and_experience_
design.html
Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products.
Human-Computer Interaction, 19 (4), 319349.
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User Experiencea research agenda. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 25 (2), 9197.
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in
technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30 (4), 781804.
Lee, M., & Chen, T., (2009). Trends in Ubiquitous Multimedia Computing. International
Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 4 (2), 115124.
McCain, K., (1990). Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space: A Technical Overview. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (6), 433443.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Enginnering. First Edition. San Francisco, USA: Elsevier. ISBN: 012-518406-9.
Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design. Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York:
USA: Perseus Books. ISBN: 0-465-05135-9.

24

CRDOBA-CELY: VISUALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS IN THE USER EXPERIENCE

Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V., (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pilkington, A., & Meredith, J., (2009). The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations
management 19802006: A co-citation analysis. Journal of Operations Management,
27 (3), 185202.
Porat, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2008). Affect as a Mediator between Web-Store Design and
Consumers Attitudes toward the Store. Affect and Emotion in HCI, Berlin: SpringerVerlag, pp. 142153.
Raghupathi, W., & Nerur, S., (2008). Research and Trends in Health Information Systems.
Methods of Information in Medicine, 47 (5), 435442.
Sanchez-Franco, M, J., & Roldan, J, L. (2005). Web acceptance and usage model. A comparison
between goal-directed and experiential web users. Internet Research, 15 (1), 214.
Sircar, S., Nerur, P., & Mahapatra, R., (2001). Revolution or Evolution? A Comparison of
Object-Oriented and Structured System Development Methods. MIS Quarterly, 25
(4), 457471.
Shang, R-A., Chen, Y-C., & Shen, L. (2005). Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations for consumers
to shop on-line. Information & Management, 42 (3), 401413.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with
Computers, 13 (10), 127145.
Wu, J-H., & Wang, S-C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of
the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42 (5),
719729.
White, H., & Griffith, B., (1982). Authors as markers of intellectual space: Co-citation in
studies of science, technology and society. Journal of Documentation, 38 (4), 255272.
White, H., (2003a). Author Co-citation Analysis and Pearsons r, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (13), 12501259.
White, H., (2003b). Pathfinder Networks and Author Co-citation Analysis: A Remapping of
Paradigmatic Information Scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 54 (5), 423434.
Zviran, M., Glezer, C., & Avni, I. (2006). User satisfaction from commercial web sites: The
effect of design and use. Information & Management 43, 157178.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Prof. Carlos Crdoba-Cely: Associate professor in the design department at the University of
Nario (Colombia). Currently doing doctoral studies at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia
(Spain) in multimedia engineering about user experience in learning systems.
Prof. Yadira Alatriste-Martnez: Professor of design department at the Metropolitan Autonomus
University, Mxico City (Mexico). Currently doing doctoral studies at the Polytechnic University
of Catalonia (Spain) in multimedia engineering about living lab and user experience.

25

The International Journal of Visual Design is one

of six thematically focused journals in the family
of journals that support the Design Principles and
Practices knowledge communityits journals, book
series, conference and online community. It is a section
of Design Principles and Practices: An International
Journal.
The journal explores processes and practices of
representation and communication using the medium
of the image. Areas of interest include communications
design, visual arts, illustration, photography, film and
video, graphic design, typography, interface design,
internet design, animation and computer simulations.
As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this
journal invites presentations of practiceincluding
documentation of visual designs accompanied by
exegeses analyzing visual design purposes, processes
and effects.
The International Journal of Visual Design is a peerreviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2325-1581