Jonathan Hook
email: jonathan.hook@ncl.ac.uk

Thomas Hjermitslev
email: thomashj@cs.au.dk

Ole Sejer Iversen
email: oiversen@cs.au.dk

Patrick Olivier
email: patrick.olivier@ncl.ac.uk

The ReflecTable: bridging the gap between theory and practice in design education

Keywords: Design, design games, video-led reflection, education, reflection, reflective practicum, off-loop reflection, learning-by-doing

The ReflecTable is a digital learning environment that explores how design games and video-led reflection might be combined to bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical components of design education. The concept seeks to leverage the qualities of exploratory design games and video to inspire design students to critically reflect upon the relationship between their evolving design practices and the theories and techniques they are taught in lectures, by allowing them to capture, review and reflect upon short videos of a design game. In this paper, we present the ReflecTable design and nine studies conducted during the course of its development. The studies suggest that the ReflecTable has the potential to support design students in understanding how theoretical concepts and methods relate to different design situations and their own evolving design practices.

Introduction

Educating students in the skilled and creative practice of design is a challenging task. Typically, the situations and challenges designers face are multifaceted, ill defined and, therefore, not easily addressed by the straightforward application of theories or guidelines [START_REF] Nelson | The Design Way -Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World[END_REF][START_REF] Rittel | Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning[END_REF]. Consequently, it is widely accepted that approaches to educating designers that focus upon the teaching of theoretical concepts alone are unlikely to equip students with the skills required to respond appropriately to the challenges faced by design practitioners. Instead, design educators characteristically seek to train their students to dynamically adapt and employ a repertoire of theories, techniques and skills in response to their reflective appreciation of an individual design situation; a competency that Donald Schön refers to as a designer's "artistry" [31, p. 13].

The artistry of design practice is not something that can be easily taught, as it hinges on the student developing an understanding of how the particular theories and techniques that they have been shown in lectures and tutorials relate to their own personal experiences of designing in response to a range of different situations and challenges. Purely theoretical education has been found to be ineffectual at facilitating this kind of learning, as novice designers do not have the necessary experience of design practice in order to develop these contextual and holistic understandings of what they are taught [31, p. 82]. However, the alternative, a focus on practical education through design projects, has also been found to fall short, in our own and others' experiences. While learning-by-doing allows students to develop personal experience of design practice, students are often given little opportunity or motive to reflect upon the relationship between the theories and techniques they are taught and the situations they encounter during their design projects [START_REF] Turns | Enhancing Design Education for Engineering Students: Supporting Planning, Tracking and Reflection[END_REF].

Fig. 1. The ReflecTable

Our response to this challenge, the ReflecTable (Figure 1), is a digital learning environment that seeks to support students in reflecting upon a condensed design process, which is completed while playing a group design game around a tabletop. Students playing the ReflecTable game are given a number of small buttons that can be pressed to capture short video clips of noteworthy moments in their design process. Following the completion of this game, the students are guided through a session of structured reflection on their design process, which involves reviewing and annotating the video clips captured using a bespoke tablet PC application. By leveraging qualities of both design games and video-led reflection, the ReflecTable seeks to provide design students with an environment that combines learning by doing with critical reflection about the relationship between design practice and theory.

In the remainder of this paper, we review previous work relating to the use of digital technology to support design practice and education, describe the design of the ReflecTable in detail and, finally, reflect upon our initial experiences of using the ReflecTable as part of the education of undergraduate design students. These experiences illustrate the design's potential as a means to support students in reflecting upon and, therefore, developing further understandings of the relationship between their evolving design practices and the design vocabulary and procedures (i.e. theoretical components) that they are taught as part of their education.

Related Work

Interactive Systems for Design Practice and Education

The use of digital technology to support design practice and education can be seen to be an important concern of the HCI research community. A range of previous research has led to the development of a number of novel interactive systems that support both the practices of designers and the education of design students.

Several interfaces have been developed by HCI researchers that seek to enhance the existing practices of designers through the application of digital technology. A number of hybrid interactive surfaces [START_REF] Kirk | Putting the Physical into the Digital: Issues in Designing Hybrid Interactive Surfaces[END_REF] have been proposed that aim to seamlessly integrate the workflows and physical artifacts of the traditional design studio with advantages of digital technology. These interfaces have used approaches such as computer vision [START_REF] Hartmann | Pictionaire: Supporting Collaborative Design Work by Integrating Physical and Digital Artifacts[END_REF][START_REF] Klemmer | The Designers' Outpost: A Tangible Interface for Collaborative Web Site Design[END_REF], tangibles and digital pen and paper technology [START_REF] Geyer | AffinityTable -A Hybrid Surface for Supporting Affinity Diagramming[END_REF][START_REF] Haller | Shared Design Space: Sketching Ideas Using Digital Pens and a Large Augmented Tabletop Setup[END_REF] to digitally augment the physical artifacts used during traditional design meetings (e.g. post-it notes) with functionality such as saving and versioning and support for the transition to later, digital, stages of the design process. Additionally, a number of designs have been proposed to afford lightweight integration of digital technology and digital media into design meetings [START_REF] Sokoler | Physically embodied video snippets supporting collaborative exploration of video material during design sessions[END_REF][START_REF] Sokoler | VideoTable: a tangible interface for collaborative exploration of video material during design sessions[END_REF] and the configurations of artifacts and space witnessed in the designer's traditional studio [START_REF] Binder | Supporting Configurability in a Mixed-Media Environment for Design Students[END_REF].

HCI researchers have also explored the development of interfaces that enhance collaboration and awareness amongst design teams. The Cooperative Artifact Memory system was developed to allow designers to share digital information about artifacts from a design process with their collaborators such as annotations, messages and web-links using a mobile phone application [START_REF] Vyas | Remarkable: Objects: Supporting Collaboration in a Creative Environment[END_REF]. Blevis et al. developed an interface that aimed to scaffold collaborative decision making in respect to both physical and digital design materials, which were associated together using barcodes [START_REF] Blevis | Designing Interactivity for the Specific Context of Designerly Collaborations[END_REF]. Additionally, work by Everitt et al. explored how the use of hybrid interactive surfaces (such as those mentioned previously) might support collaboration amongst designers in different geographic locations [START_REF] Everitt | Two Worlds Apart: Bridging the Gap Between Physical and Virtual Media for Distributed Design Collaboration[END_REF].

Of most relevance to the ReflecTable, however, are previous research projects that have explored how digital technologies might support designers, and design students, in documenting and reflecting on their design processes and practices. Nakakoji et al. proposed a tool that indexes videos of design meetings based upon sketches drawn on a whiteboard. Their system aimed to allow designers joining existing projects and teams to more easily use videos of design meetings to develop understandings of, and reflect upon, design decisions made previously by the existing design team members [START_REF] Nakakoji | Toward Unweaving Streams of Thought for Reflection in Professional Software Design[END_REF]. Geyer and Reiterer explored the use of the commercial note taking software Evernote to support design students documenting longitudinal design projects [START_REF] Geyer | Experiences from Employing Evernote as a Tool for Documenting Collaborative Design Processes[END_REF]. Swan, Tanase and Taylor explored the Digital Scrapbook system, which automatically collects digital materials from, e.g., design students' blogs and Flickr pages [START_REF] Swan | Design's Processional Character[END_REF]. In both of these studies, providing students with a mechanism to collate, document and review design project materials was found to inspire and support reflection on their design practices. In the latter case, the students' reflection on their practices using the Digital Scrapbook system was found to make students aware of the "Processional" nature of the design processes they conducted. Additionally, in the context of design research [START_REF] Zimmerman | Research through Design as a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI[END_REF], Dalsgaard and Halskov developed the Project Reflection Tool, which allows design researchers to document their practices as a series of events and notes, with the aim of supporting reflection on both design practice and broader research questions [START_REF] Dalsgaard | Reflective Design Documentation[END_REF].

A number of research projects have looked beyond the possibility of simply supporting the documentation of design processes, to explore instead how the designer's active manipulation of digital design materials might inspire reflection on design practice. The Amplifying Representational Talkback system aimed to inspire reflection during the design process by allowing designers to experiment with different two-dimensional arrangements of their digital design materials [START_REF] Nakakoji | Two-Dimensional Spatial Positioning as a Means for Reflection in Design[END_REF]. Additionally, the Freed system enabled design students to create multiple spatial representations of the collections of digital materials that are amassed during longitudinal design projects. This process was found to inspire design students to reflect on their design practices throughout the course of a design project, rather than simply upon its completion [START_REF] Mendels | A System for Creating Multiple Views of a Digital Collection during the Design Process[END_REF].

Using Design Games and Video to Inspire Reflection

In the following sections, we review a range of additional work on design games and the use of video as a means to inspire reflection, which influenced the ReflecTable design. The idea of playing games to study design practice derives from research in architecture and planning from the late eighties. At MIT, Harbraken and Gross [START_REF] Habraken | Concept design games[END_REF] developed Concept Design Games to study how design decisions and choices are made in a process of cooperation and negotiation among multiple stakeholders in interdisciplinary design projects. By identifying similarities between design collaboration and simple board games, Harbraken and Gross envisioned their own board games that isolated and focused on certain aspects of the design process. Games as a method to understand design was further developed in Participatory Design literature as a way to understand user collaboration in design [START_REF] Ehn | Work-oriented Design of Computer Artifacts[END_REF], to support design practitioners in their collaborative design processes [START_REF] Iversen | Design is a Game: Developing Design Competence in a Game Setting[END_REF] and to develop a repertoire of gaming possibilities for designers to be aware of when creating their own exploratory design games [START_REF] Brandt | Facilitating collaboration through design games[END_REF][START_REF] Brandt | Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in Participatory Design?[END_REF]. To some extent, games have also been used in design education. Buccerelli [START_REF] Bucciarelli | Delta Design Game[END_REF] identified gaming as a way to teach engineering design students about different roles in the design process. Iversen et al. discussed the educational benefits of design games [START_REF] Iversen | Design is a Game: Developing Design Competence in a Game Setting[END_REF]. They envisioned design games as a way to train design collaboration in a "safe" environment. With respect to this safe environment for design team training, design games have similarities with the notion of "Serious Play" developed by LEGO, where LEGO bricks are used to explore real life challenges in business development [START_REF] Rieber | The value of serious play[END_REF].

The value of design games as a means to support design education has, however, been questioned in recent Participatory Design literature. Törpel critically argued that what students learn from a design game might be limited by the different scales of students' design projects and real life design practice: "What in relatively small education projects can be experienced on a small-scale level could become substantial factors of success or drawback if practiced on a larger scale in professional design projects" [START_REF] Törpel | The design game in participatory design and design education: chances, risks and side effects[END_REF]. This challenge has been addressed by combining design games with video material from real life design situations. Buur and Søndergaard [START_REF] Buur | Video card game: an augmented environment for user centred design discussions[END_REF] developed an augmented board game in which video from real life design work was made accessible to the participants. In this augmented space, qualities from the design game were combined with real life design situations captured on video and brought into the design game using augmented paper sticks. Iversen & Buur [START_REF] Iversen | User Centred Design through the Keyhole: Video Design Case[END_REF] developed a Video Design Case in which design practitioners could reflect on their own design skills by collaboratively working with video clips from an industrial design case. The Video Design Case made design practitioners reflect on their own practice by mirroring their own design with the design activities displayed in the case material. Iversen & Buur found that video is a valuable approach for fostering reflection on design practice; however, the extent to which designers can familiarize themselves with videos of other designers' practices and cases may limit the reflection that can be spurred by the approach.

The ReflecTable extends this existing body of research by exploring how a novel system for video-led reflection on design practice might be combined with a gaming approach to reflection on design to address the particular challenge of bridging the gap between the theoretical and practical components of design education.

Fig. 2. The key components of the ReflecTable system

3

The ReflecTable

The ReflecTable is a digital learning environment that seeks to leverage qualities of both design games and video as means to inspire designs students to critically reflect upon the relationship between their evolving design practices and the theories and techniques they are taught in lectures. This is done by allowing them to capture, review and reflect upon short videos of their own design process in a design game. The ReflecTable (Figure 2) comprises three key elements: a paper-based design game that is played around a tabletop between groups of three to four design students, a video capture system that allows students to capture short video clips of noteworthy moments during their game by pressing a number of buttons and a tablet-based interface that allows students to review and reflect upon these videos upon the conclusion of the game.

The design game is comprised of two stages and six rounds (see Table 1 for an overview) and is played around a tabletop between groups of three to four design students. This game moves between divergence, utilizing turn taking inspired by Harbraken and Gross' silent game [START_REF] Hartmann | Pictionaire: Supporting Collaborative Design Work by Integrating Physical and Digital Artifacts[END_REF], together with convergence to emulate the phases of a real life design project [START_REF] Löwgreen | Thoughtful Interaction Design[END_REF]. In the following sections we describe the course of a typical ReflecTable session.

Table 1. An overview of the rounds of the design game

Round no. Description Stage A: Designing using paper, pens and post-its 1

Diverging by individually annotating artifactsi.e. pictures, notes and sketchesfrom their design domain. 2

Converging by drawing and naming relations between artifacts. 3

Transcending by sketching a design proposal based on the work in rounds 1 and 2. Stage B: Reflecting on the process using video 4

Browsing video and formulating a research question about the group's design process in stage 1.

5

Diverging by individually annotating video clips on the tablets. 6

Converging by relating and grouping clips on a shared tablet to answer the question from round 4.

Stage A: Designing on Paper

The aim of the first half of the design game is to co-develop a design in response to a design situation shared by the players (e.g. a brief set during a group project). The stage comprises three rounds, which each mimic a phase in a condensed design process. A game facilitator guides the group throughout the game, offering coaching to the players if, for instance, they become stuck, or need further advice. During this first half, a video camera is used to record an image of the table surface and a microphone records the discussion between players and the facilitator. Each player is given a button, which can be pressed at any time during the game, to record the previous 15 seconds of video. The players are instructed to press this button when something noteworthy has happened. For instance, a player might press their button when a particularly interesting idea arises or when s/he feels that something is worth remembering.

The group is asked to bring five artifacts (per player) to the game, which must relate to the design situation and be small enough to be placed and manipulated on the tabletop. In our experiments so far, people have brought a wide range of different artifacts including pictures from field studies, vision statements and scenario descriptions.

In the first round, the group is instructed to place their artifacts on the table for individual exploration by each of the players. The players are given post-it notes (a different color for each player) and are asked to write comments about any of the artifacts that they find to be in any way remarkable. At the end of the round, the players present these annotations to each other. The purpose of this round is to allow players to develop divergent interpretations of the artifacts, which will be used as the basis of a shared understanding of the design situation developed in later rounds. Consequently, the players are asked to complete this task without communicating with the other players. The players are given about 10 minutes to complete this round.

In the second round, the players are asked to collaboratively name and draw relationships between the artifacts, which have now been augmented with post-its. The players are instructed to arrange the artifacts and their comments on the table surface, so that they illustrate relationships and shared understandings of the materials and design situation developed by the group. The purpose of this round is to converge the players' individual interpretations of the design situation into a shared understanding, upon which they might base a design. The players are given about 20 minutes to complete this round.

The third round of the game involves transcending the ideas and relations discussed in the previous round, in order to propose a concrete design response. Firstly, the players are asked to collaborate in identifying three potential design openings, i.e., places in the network of relations between artifacts and notes that they feel have the potential to be the starting point for a promising design. Then, the players are given exactly 15 minutes to sketch and write-up (informally) a proposal for a concrete design response to the situation, based upon the ideas developed during the previous rounds.

Stage B: Structured Reflection on the Design Process

In the second half of the game, a tablet-based interface is used to scaffold reflection amongst the players about the design process conducted during the first stage. Each of the players is given a tablet PC (Acer Iconia Tab W500) with a bespoke interface that allows them to review, annotate and, finally, collate and compare the videos captured by pressing the buttons during the design game. Like the first stage, the second stage is structured around three rounds. The facilitator offers coaching and guidance throughout the three rounds.

In the fourth round, the first round of stage B, the interface displays a Panopticon video rendering, which allows the players to quickly view footage of the entire design game at a glance (Figure 3). This Panopticon rendering works by dividing a video into a number of clips of equal length, which are then arranged in a grid sequentially from left to right, (akin to a cartoon strip). All of these clips are played concurrently in a continuous loop. As they play, the videos slowly cycle towards the right, such that when a video has reached the end of its loop it is in the starting position of the video to its right. This movement of video clips allows the viewer to watch the video continuously, from a selected point, by simply following the passage of one square in the grid of videos.

This Panopticon video is overlaid with a number of color-coded markers, which each highlight a point in the video where a particular player pressed their button in order to indicate a noteworthy event. The players are able to touch these markers to view a larger version of the 15 seconds of video recorded before that particular button press, which is presented, with sound, in a pop-up window. Using this interface, the players are asked to collaboratively review the video clips created during the first stage. While reviewing these video clips, the players are asked to formulate a research question about their design process that they would like to explore during the remainder of the ReflecTable game. In the studies we have conducted so far, players have sought to answer questions such as "what in the process made us change direction?" and "can you see traces of our current design in this workshop?"

Fig. 3. A Panopticon of a design game

In the fifth round, the participants begin to explore the video clips from the design game, with the aim of answering their research question. During this round, the tablet interface is augmented with an additional text box and virtual keyboard, which enables the players to annotate selected video clips. Each player is asked to choose three video clips that offer insight into their research question, using the annotation functionality to note the rationale for each selection. As the purpose of this round is to allow the players to propose potentially divergent interpretations of each of the video clips, this annotation process is completed individually, with players coming together at the end of the round to present their selections to the other group members.

During the final round, the players collaborate around one of the tablets, to develop an answer to their research question by drawing and naming relations between the clips annotated in the previous round. The single tablet displays an interface (Figure 4) that shows each of the clips, surrounded by any annotations made by the players. Annotations are represented by virtual post-it notes, which are colored in order to identify the player who wrote them. These annotations, and the videos to which they relate, can be moved, rotated and resized on the interface using simple multi-touch gestures. Furthermore, a mode can be selected whereby the players are able to write and draw on the background of the screen, to illustrate connections between particular clips and annotations. This final activity seeks to scaffold the players in converging their individual understandings of the clips into an answer to their research question, which in turn represents a shared understanding of the design process conducted by the group.

Development and Exploratory Study

The ReflecTable was designed to explore how design games and video-led reflection might be combined to bridge the gap between theory and practice in design education.

We used a research-through-design approach [START_REF] Zimmerman | Research through Design as a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI[END_REF], whereby the iterative design and development of the ReflecTable game and hardware platform was used to scaffold our investigation of this research question. This design and development process occurred over the course of nine ReflecTable games, which were each played with three to four players. In the first six of these games, we focused on developing the game rules using a mock-up of the final setup. In the final three games, we tested the finished prototype of the ReflecTable setup, as described in the previous section. We documented each of these games using video, pictures and observational notes.

In order to explore if the evolving design game was supportive of students' reflection upon the relationships between design theory and practice, before commencing development of the final prototype, we studied two of the initial six games in further detail (games 2 and 3 in the series). As these games were played prior to the development of the final prototype, we used a mock-up system that allowed students to press buttons to record video clips. However, manual video editing was required to produce the video media for the second stage of the game. This meant that two time slots had to be scheduled and, as such, the two stages of the game were played two to three weeks apart. In the following sections, we describe the findings of this exploratory study. We present these initial exploratory findings as they provide valuable insight into the kinds of learning supported by the ReflecTable game, which was not changed substantially from the version used in this study to the final design.

The study was completed with two groups of undergraduate interaction design students, who were in their first semester. The design education of these students had been based primarily upon the work of Schön on reflective design practice [START_REF] Schön | Designing as a Reflective Conversation with the Materials of a Design Situation[END_REF][START_REF] Schön | The Reflective Practitioner[END_REF] as well as the theories of Löwgreen and Stolterman [START_REF] Löwgreen | Thoughtful Interaction Design[END_REF], and Nelson and Stolterman [START_REF] Nelson | The Design Way -Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World[END_REF]. To explore the learning outcomes from these two games, we gathered two kinds of qualitative data from the participants. On completion of stage B, we asked the participants to write three post-its about the group's outcome and present these to the other players. We then conducted short semi-structured interviews [START_REF] Flick | An introduction to Qualitative Research[END_REF] (six minutes on average) with each participant about their experiences of playing the game and what they thought they had learned. These interviews included a targeted question that sought to explore whether the students could relate their experiences of playing the ReflecTable game with concepts from Schön's theories of design. By asking the students to comment upon the relationship between their design process and one of the theories they had been taught, our intention was to gain insight into whether the game had supported them in learning to relate their experiences of practice to design theory. The questions asked were as follows:

1. What did you personally gain from playing the game? 2. What did you learn about designing by playing the game? 3. Can you recognize any of Schön's concepts in the game? 4. What do you think our intention is with this game?

We recorded and transcribed these interviews and, subsequently, analyzed them using two different coding procedures 1 . Firstly, an inductive approach was used, where we coded and grouped students' comments into themes and, secondly, a theoretical approach was used where we identified terms from design theoryprimarily Schön's theory -in the students' responses [START_REF] Braun | Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology[END_REF]. Table 2 shows an overview of the design concepts that we identified in the interviews as either an explicit statement (marked with '(x)') or an implicit description. An 'A' indicates that a concept was mentioned after the topic of Schön's theory had been broached in discussion (e.g. question three had been asked), while a 'B' is used where the players mentioned concepts beforehand.

Table 2. Design theory concepts identified in the interviews

Design terms

Players 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 Conversation with the materials A A(x) B A Design judgment A B B B Learning-by-doing A A A A B A Professional artistry A A(x) Reflection-in/on-action A(x) A(x) A(x) A(x) A(x) Reflective practice A B(x) A Repertoire B B A B A World-making A(x) A(x)

Learning Outcomes

Schön notes that it is hard to know exactly whether a student has been taught the "artistry" of design (i.e. the skill of being able to understand and apply a repertoire of theories and approaches sensitively and appropriately in practice) that the ReflecTable seeks to teach. However, he describes four dimensions of learning [31, pp. 168-170] that represent competencies that a student might possess in varying degrees. In the following sections, we discuss the students' responses to the semi-structured interviews in terms of these dimensions. We refer to the students using a system where the first number denotes the game/group and the second the player (e.g. "player 2-4" or "player 3-2").

Understanding Vocabulary. The first dimension that Schön described concerns the student's ability to know and use the vocabulary of their field. The student should not only be able to name the concepts that they have been taught, but demonstrate an understanding of the processes to which they refer and their relationship with design practice. The results of the study suggest that the ReflecTable can help students to gain a better understanding of the relation between the design vocabulary that they knew from lectures and their own design practices. In the interviews, all of the participants described how they had encountered one or more design concepts during the game. Table 2 illustrates how some students, such as player 3-2, were very good at using the vocabulary offhand, while others, such as player 3-4, were very good at identifying the concepts when prompted to do so. The most prominent design concepts that students demonstrated an understanding of when discussing the ReflecTable game were those of reflective conversation with materials and learning-by-doing. For example, player 3-1 discovered that designing is easier when you work actively with the artifacts or, in Schön's words, have a "reflective conversation with the materials of the design situation".

Researcher: What did you personally gain from participating in this design game? Player 3-1: Well, I probably realized, that I'm better at thinking creatively when I'm doing something [...] Because I've sometimes wondered 'Am I even thinking creatively enough' and stuff like that, when you're sitting by your computer and 'now, you should write a design proposal'. And then you try something like this, and you feel that, 'yes, you can do it'.

These are important insights because the metaphor of conversation embodies some of the most central pragmatic points in both Schön's theory of design and many of the other theories that the students are taught as part of their course. We believe that the students' ability to externalize connections between their practice and design theory in this way suggests a stronger understanding of the design vocabulary and its connection to design practice, as a result of playing the ReflecTable game.

Appropriating Procedures. The second dimension concerns a student's ability to apply design procedures sensitively and appropriately. Schön states that a competent student should not only know how to apply discrete techniques, but also to combine them and tailor them to the specific demands of a design situation. Every designer has what Schön terms a "repertoire" of design techniques, which they can apply appropriately and fluidly in their practice. Interestingly, students were spurred to reflect upon the role that the ReflecTable game itself, as a design method or technique, might play in their wider and future design practices. Five of the students described how particular aspects of the design game (e.g. the convergence and divergence of ideas in the group) could be put in their toolbox for later use. For example, one student explained that he felt his group could appropriate aspects of the ReflecTable game for use in their future design practices.

Player 3-3: All this you have shown us here is naturally a part of your own project, but it is also something that we can take parts of and take them out of their context, break them down a bit and use them as a tool in themselves. For example, we take a lot of pictures and group them, kind of like a new twist on the inspiration card workshop (see [START_REF] Madsen | Inspiration Card Workshops[END_REF]) that we already know.

Students were able to highlight a range of qualities of the ReflecTable design game that might be appropriated in their future practices. As for the ReflecTable itself, three of the four students in group 2 commented on the value of ReflecTable as a learningby-doing educational tool, while group 3 saw it as an idea generator because the process of playing and reflecting upon the game had helped them to come up with a new idea for their project.

Generalizing Cases and Critical Stance.

The third dimension describes a student's ability to generalize their experiences of design practices, as insight that will inform how they address future design situations, while the fourth dimension concerns a student's ability to critically appraise the traditions of the field to which they are being inducted. The students did not clearly exhibit such competencies when playing the ReflecTable game during our studies. However, we hypothesize that this might be because the students had only just begun their education and, as such, had limited practical and theoretical knowledge upon which to base discussions, reflections and critical evaluations of theory. We expect that more experienced students would have been better equipped to tackle these higher order issues when playing the ReflecTable game.

Discussion: Scaffolding Reflection on Design

The ReflecTable was designed to bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical components of design education, by stimulating design students to reflect upon a condensed design process conducted during a design game. Our initial studies of the ReflecTable suggested that it supports design students in understanding how the theoretical concepts (vocabulary) and methods (procedures) they are taught in lectures relate to different design situations and their own evolving design practices. In this section, we reflect further upon our experiences of using the ReflecTable throughout the course of all of the nine design games (including three using the final prototype) to examine how the different components of the ReflecTable contributed to the students' reflection on design practice. Consequently, we uncover insights that will guide and inform those wishing to design future interfaces that support reflection in design education and, potentially, other related domains.

Using 'Real Life' Design Artifacts and Situations

The ReflecTable game used artifacts and materials from real design challenges and situations faced by the players. These artifacts were found to form the basis of much of the discussion amongst participants, by representing and highlighting different perspectives and experiences upon the shared design problem. We found that the incorporation of real life materials and situations into the learning environment heightened the players' engagement with the game because they had a real stake in the project they were working with. Conversely, in situations where participants had already completed the idea generation phase of their project, we found that they tended to be less engaged with the game as its outcome would have a lesser affect on their work. Most crucially, the use of artifacts drawn from real design projects, allowed students to reflect upon aspects of their design processes, which might not have otherwise been broached in the limited setting of the design game. For instance, artifacts from field studies served to ground the game in an actual design setting, highlighting issues that might have been overlooked had the game been framed as a simple discussion of the problem at hand. Consequently, we argue that the use of real life artifacts and design situations proved to be an invaluable quality of the ReflecTable, as it situated the design game, and subsequent video-led reflection, in the context of the players ongoing, real life design practice. Törpel [START_REF] Törpel | The design game in participatory design and design education: chances, risks and side effects[END_REF] has argued that the educational value of design games might be limited by the difference between experiences developed while playing design games and those required of real world design practice. We believe that our use of students' own real life materials and situations to foster reflection on wider design practice, rather than just the condensed design process completed during the session, stands out as a potential way to rectify this potential limitation of design games.

The Buttons

Players were given buttons that could be pressed during the ReflecTable game, in order to capture the previous 15 seconds of video, for review in the second stage. By providing this lightweight video-capture system, our intention was to build upon previous work that leverages design documentation as a spur for reflection on the design process, by allowing design students to capture video of actual momentary experiences of designing for later reflection, in addition to artifacts and notes. Furthermore, by providing a mechanism to capture noteworthy moments in the design game, we sought to frame stage A itself as a reflective process, rather than simply an activity to be reflected upon during stage B. That is to say, the simple action of pressing the buttons was designed to inspire the students to engage in a higher form of reflection about what was interesting and important about their design process, while it was still ongoing. Throughout the studies, the students were found to use the buttons as we intended to mark moments that they wished to remember and discuss later in the session. Often, button presses would occur collaboratively, with a press proceeded by a discussion of the relative interest of an event. In some cases, the players' use of the buttons took on an unexpectedly performative quality, as the visible pressing of a button acted as an expression to the remainder of the group that an interesting or important event had occurred.

Schön describes "reflection-in-action" (i.e. reflection which occurs during the course of an activity such as designing) as often being spurred by an unexpected or surprising interruption of a normally automatic activity [32, p. 56]. We observed that the simple task of pressing a button when a noteworthy event occurred, and observing and discussing the button presses of others, interrupted the design process in such a way that scaffolded both individual and collective reflection-in-action. Therefore, we hypothesize that the buttons might have acted as more than simply a means to record video clips of noteworthy events from the design game, as the source material for later reflection, but rather, were an important stimulus for the students' reflection on the relationship between theoretical and practical aspects of design observed during the studies.

Video-Led Reflection

In the second stage of the ReflecTable game, the students were asked to formulate and explore a research question about their design practice, using the video clips captured of the condensed design process conducted during the previous stage. These clips were explored using a Panopticon video rendering, which allowed the players to see video footage of the moments surrounding each button press, the temporal relationships between button presses and, finally, a video overview of the whole design game, all at a glance on one interface. Consequently, we intended to provide the players with a powerful tool that allowed them to not only browse and view individual video clips, but also to evaluate, discuss and reflect upon them in the wider context of the whole design game.

Reviewing video clips in this way was found to offer participants a practical way to discuss each button press in the detailed context within which it occurred; therefore, fostering situated and holistic consideration of the key moments in the design process. By combining this post hoc reflection with the reflection-in-action fostered during the initial stage of the design game, the ReflecTable extends previous work that has sought to support designers in reflecting either in [START_REF] Mendels | A System for Creating Multiple Views of a Digital Collection during the Design Process[END_REF][START_REF] Nakakoji | Two-Dimensional Spatial Positioning as a Means for Reflection in Design[END_REF] or on [START_REF] Geyer | Experiences from Employing Evernote as a Tool for Documenting Collaborative Design Processes[END_REF][START_REF] Nakakoji | Toward Unweaving Streams of Thought for Reflection in Professional Software Design[END_REF][START_REF] Swan | Design's Processional Character[END_REF] the design process, but not both. We found that this combination of reflection in and on action, as part of a single design game, led to a valuable two stage reflective process that allowed participants to revisit initial moments of reflection (spurred by both playing the design game and the pressing of buttons) for further detailed and prolonged examination. Furthermore, by allowing students to reflect upon videos of their own practices, the ReflecTable also responded to the concerns of Iversen and Burr [START_REF] Iversen | User Centred Design through the Keyhole: Video Design Case[END_REF] that designers might struggle to empathize with, and hence reflect upon, videos of other designers and design cases that they are not involved in.

The participants who tried the prototype setup were generally enthusiastic about the potential of the Panopticon video rendering. However, we found that the Panopticon experience was limited by the horizontal camera position, which prevented participants from using it to examine the materials on the table in detail (i.e. to read the contents of post-it notes). We believe that using a top down camera might have rectified this problem. Furthermore, the initial design of the interface only allowed players to view the video clips captured during the session in high resolution. Therefore, players could not explore the context of a button press in detail, beyond the initial 15 seconds of video captured. While this issue could be resolved easily by allowing students to use the Panopticon rendering to explore the entire video as well as button presses, it is anticipated that such changes to the design might dilute the meaning of a button press during the design game and, therefore, its ability to provoke reflection amongst players.

5.4

The Frame and the Facilitator

The facilitator played a central role in the ReflecTable, guiding the students through the game, explaining the rules, answering questions and encouraging the players when they became stuck. The students found that, in these ways, the facilitator played an important role in supporting their learning during the game. For example, player 2-4 described the value of the "gentle provocations" that the facilitator gave to the group during the session, which, when combined with the frame of the design game, guided the players to a successful outcome.

Player 2-4: ... it is like 'now, you read some texts' and then we have some practice classes, where we have Stine [an older student] walking around and coaching a bit. But she only comes around to the group once and she is does not stand by us and provokes us gently and sets up some frames [for the group work].

The idea that the facilitator can observe the players designing, while playing the ReflecTable game, and interject to provide such gentle provocations (i.e. guidance and advice) highlights potential parallels between the facilitator's role during a ReflecTable session and Schön's notion of a coach. Schön described how the relationship between student and coach depends on an environment where the student "tries to do what she seeks to learn and thereby reveals what she understands or misunderstands", so that the coach might respond with appropriate guidance [31, p. 162]. By fostering reflective discussion amongst players about the design process conducted, the ReflecTable was found to push students to externalize their understandings of design practice. Consequently, the ReflecTable was found to act as a valuable mechanism to support the facilitator in appreciating both individual players' and whole groups' understandings of particular theoretical concepts; therefore, supporting his ability to provide informed and appropriate coaching to the students during the game.

However, we became concerned during the studies that the facilitator might have had too strong of an influence on the students' design practices. That is to say, we were concerned that rather than freely and intuitively applying their design practices during the game, students might have been preoccupied with living up to their perceived expectations of the facilitator (i.e. following their advice and the rules of the game unquestionably). For example, one player commented "Take a pen; I think he [the facilitator] would like you too". Therefore, we argue the presence of the facilitator, as coach, might in the case of some students actually prevent them from becoming immersed in the processes of reflection on design practice that the ReflecTable seeks to inspire.

Conclusions

In this paper, we have explored how the design of a digital learning environment might bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical components of design education. Our response to this challenge, the ReflecTable, builds upon previous work by combining video-led reflections and design work in a game set up, which enables students to comprehend both design theory and design practice in an interplay between understanding and doing design. The results of an initial exploratory study of the ReflecTable suggest that it has the potential to support design students in understanding how theoretical concepts and methods relate to different design situations and their own evolving design practices. Furthermore, our findings illustrate a range of valuable qualities of the ReflecTable design that might be drawn upon when developing future tools (e.g. the value of video as a means to combine both reflection-in and -on the design process).

In the future, we intend to extend this research by conducting a series of more extensive studies that compare the ReflecTable with other approaches to educating design students. We believe that such studies will help us better ascertain the effectiveness of both the ReflecTable and the combination of games and videoreflection as means to support design education.

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. The interface used in the last round of the game

The excerpts presented from these transcripts have been translated from Danish to English.


Job Mashapa
email: job.mashapa@nmmu.ac.za

Edna Chelule
email: edna.chelule@nmmu.ac.za

Darelle Van Greunen
email: darelle.vangreunen@nmmu.ac.za

Alida Veldsman
email: alida.veldsman@nmmu.ac.za

Managing User Experience -Managing Change

Keywords: User Experience, Usability; User Centred Design, Change Management, Requirements

Interactive products with innovative user interfaces are being designed while the user interfaces of existing products are being improved. The changes in user interfaces are being prompted by the need to design products that are useful, usable and appealing for an enchanting user experience to the people using the products. It is harmoniously agreed within the user experience domain that a change in the user interface of a product consequently affects the user experience of the people who use the product. Furthermore, user experience practitioners and academics acknowledge that user experience evolves over time. Paradoxically, there is lack of strategies for managing user experience as it evolves, or when a new user interface is introduced. Change in user experience is a process that needs to be managed for a positive user experience to be attained. Literature is awash with models aimed at guiding and managing change implementation. On the contrary, most of the change management models are aimed at managing change in organizations while neglecting managing the user experience of the people to which change is introduced. At the time of writing this paper, no evidence was found of an existing model aimed at managing user experience, both in theory and practice. Following the aforementioned premise, the purpose of this paper is to propose theoretical requirements for managing user experience of the people using interactive products. The paper commences with a conceptual background synthesis of related domain components required for managing user experience. Thereafter, the requirements for managing user experience are determined. After-which the requirements are presented in a User Experience Management Requirements (UXMR) framework. The paper culminates with proposed future work.

Introduction

Every product whether designed considering the requirements for user experience or not, stimulates some level of user experience to the users interacting with it [START_REF] Tyne | Corporate User-Experience Maturity Model[END_REF]. Users create cognitive expectations on a product's ease of use, usefulness and level of satisfaction based on their first impression of it [START_REF] Davis | Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology[END_REF], [START_REF] Zhang | The importance of affective quality[END_REF]. When a product is designed to comprehend these expectations, users' mental models and capabilities, it pleases them and arouses their senses positively [START_REF] Rogers | Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction[END_REF]. A product that meets or exceeds the expectations of the user provides a positive user experience. On the contrary, a product that fails to satisfy the expectations of the users result in a negative user experience [START_REF] Roto | Web Browsing on Mobile Phones -Characteristics of User Experience[END_REF]. Despite the publicity of designing products for positive user experience most applications on the market fail because of poor user experience [START_REF] Bian | Gestalt Psychology Theory Based Design of User's Experience on Online Trade Websites[END_REF], [START_REF] Liedtke | LIVING LAB: user-driven innovation for sustainability[END_REF], [8]. Users are often resistant to change in user interfaces, and would prefer a poor, but familiar, user interface to new and improved ones [START_REF] Constantine | Beyond User-Centered Design and User Experience: Designing for User Performance[END_REF]. With such, any changes in the user interface of a product should be designed and implemented in a manner that complements the needs of the users, enhances acceptance of the product and encourages a positive user experience. The development of user experience is not a once off thing, but a process involving various transitional phases over time spans of product use [START_REF] Kujala | UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience[END_REF], [START_REF] Abbasi | User Experience Evolution Lifecycle Framework[END_REF].

There exist many models to guide the product development lifecycle as compared and analysed by Davis et al. [START_REF] Davis | A strategy for comparing alternative software development life cycle models[END_REF]. However, at the time of writing of this paper, stipulated requirements for managing the user experience and subsequently promoting the development of positive user experience of the people using the products were lacking. The aim of this paper is to answer the research question that states:

What are the requirements for managing and improving the user experience of people using interactive products? The User Experience Management Requirements (UXMR) Framework was developed to answer the mentioned research question. The UXMR Framework serves as the basis for providing holistic requirements for managing user experience. The comprehensiveness of the Framework lies in its all-inclusiveness of planning for user experience improvement, managing user experience during implementation of product changes and providing guidance of how to sustain a positive user experience and making it last.

Section 2 presents the background to the paper. Literature of technology acceptance and usage are explored in section 2.1and the concept of user experience is introduced in section 2.2. Managing change requires an understanding of the change management processes as introduced in section 2.3. The paper proposes how change management techniques may be implemented as a component of the requirements for managing user experience. Section 3 presents the requirements for managing user experience through the User Management Experience Requirements Framework (UXMR). Section 4 provides some guidelines for the application of UXMR, whilst section 5 concludes with the significance of the UXMR Framework and future work to improve on the credibility and applicability of the Framework.

Background

Technology Acceptance and Usage

Although there are a number of benefits associated with the use of technology, the uptake of the services offered by the technologies is contingent upon the willingness of the people to accept and use the technologies [START_REF] Carter | Citizen Adoption of Electronic Government Initiatives[END_REF]. It is important for product developers to gain an understanding of the factors that influence users to accept and use their products. The adoption of technology depends on a variety of factors in a given environment. A number of researchers have explored and developed theories and models that aim at explaining user behaviour in relation to their acceptance of technology. Examples of such include the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [START_REF] Davis | Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology[END_REF], and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [START_REF] Venkatesh | User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View[END_REF]. TAM postulates that attitude to use a product results when the users perceive the product to be useful and easy to use. The UTAUT puts forward performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions and the determinants for technology acceptance and usage. Performance expectancy and perceived usefulness harmoniously concur that users will most likely accept and use a product that they believe to be useful in accomplishing their tasks. Effort expectancy is similar to perceived ease of use. When users find a product to be easy to interact with, they are more inclined to use that product quite often.

While these models play a vital role in determining what factors influence acceptance and usage of technology, they are inadequate in addressing user experience issues as a key determinant towards product use. McCarthy and Wright [START_REF] Mccarthy | Technology as Experience[END_REF] argue that people do not just use technology, but technology becomes imbedded in their lives. The authors highlighted the importance of considering the emotional, intellectual and sensual aspects of the users' interactions with technology. Thus, products that fit into the lives of people are pleasant to use and do not disrupt the activities of the users and provide a positive engagement between the users and the product. It is therefore important to be able to analyse, understand and manage the felt experiences of users as they interact with products. The following section investigates user experience and the nature thereof.

User Experience

In this section, the concept of user experience (UX) is explored. UX is defined, followed by a discussion of the factors that influences UX. The section concludes with a discussion on the evolutionary nature of user experience and an introduction to the User Experience Development Lifecycle Chart (UXDLC).

Defining user experience.

The complexity and multifaceted nature of user experience makes it difficult to present a conventional definition of user experience as witnessed by the various user experience definitions [allboutux.org1]. The complexity in defining user experience indicates how difficult managing user experience can be. In this paper, user experience is defined as a subjective judgement and feeling of the quality of a user's interaction with a product, to complete a specific task in a specific context [START_REF] Mashapa | User Experience Evaluation Metrics for Usable Accounting Tools[END_REF], [START_REF] Sutcliffe | Designing for User Engagement: Aesthetic and Attractive User Interfaces[END_REF]. The quality of a user's interaction with the product is judged based on the usefulness, usability and the level of satisfaction, whilst interacting with the product. An analysis of literature on user experience identified that user experience is determined by the expectations of the users prior to interaction with the product. Furthermore, it results from long or short-term interaction with a product; and it is an evaluation of the user expectations against how they feel as a result of the interaction with the product [START_REF] Roto | User experience white paper: Bringing clarity to the concept of user experience[END_REF], [START_REF] Obrist | User Experience Evaluation in the Mobile Context[END_REF], [START_REF] Hiltunen | Mobile User Experience[END_REF]. Various authors have looked at user experience from different domains such as games [START_REF] Calvillo-Gámez | Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience[END_REF] and mobile user experience in m-Learning [8]. Calvillo et al. [START_REF] Calvillo-Gámez | Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience[END_REF] state that a positive user experience, when a user is playing a video game, is achieved when the user feels to be in control of the game. Ownership and enjoyment result from both the hedonic and pragmatic qualities of the video game device as well as the gamming application. In mobile interaction, a number of core elements exist that determine the level of user experience. These elements include the aesthetic and visceral aspects of the device and the applications on the device as well as the availability of external variables to offer services. An example of the external variable will be the network infrastructure [8].

User experience can be positive or negative, depending on how well a product satisfies the user's expectations [START_REF] Rogers | Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction[END_REF], [START_REF] Roto | Web Browsing on Mobile Phones -Characteristics of User Experience[END_REF]. A negative user experience is when the user finds a product to be boring; difficult to interact with or does not fit the intended use. A positive user experience is developed when the user finds the product to be usable with pleasure and satisfaction [START_REF] Roto | Web Browsing on Mobile Phones -Characteristics of User Experience[END_REF]. While TAM and UTAUT lay fundamental components in understanding user behaviours towards technology acceptance and usage, the models left out important aspects of user experience as a core variable in product adoption. It is therefore vital to establish the factors that influence user experience. Understanding the factors that influence user experience, form the basis of determining requirements for managing user experience.

As depicted from the definition of user experience, it is not restricted to the period during product use but includes the expectations of the user before interacting with a product and the summation of quality of interaction over a long period of time. In addition, the definition of user experience reveals the elements of user experience. These elements are the hedonic and pragmatic qualities of a product, the psychological and physiological state of the user and the context in which the product is used [START_REF] Forlizzi | The Building Blocks of Experience: An Early Framework for Interaction Designers[END_REF], [START_REF] Arhippainen | Studying user experience: issues and problems of mobile services case ADAMOS: User experience (im)possible to catch?[END_REF], [START_REF] Mäkelä | Supporting Users' Creativity: Design to Induce Pleasurable Experiences[END_REF], [START_REF] Hess | 10 Most Common Misconceptions About User Experience Design[END_REF]. Understanding the time spans and elements of user experience is important in determining the factors that impact on user experience. One cannot manage what he / she does not know.

Factors influencing the user experience.

A variety of factors may influence users' experience with a product. The factors can be determined based on the elements of user experience and the process of designing for user experience. Determining these factors is essential in order to establish a resultant user experience and why a user would have a particular user experience [START_REF] Roto | User experience white paper: Bringing clarity to the concept of user experience[END_REF]. An understanding of the specific context in which a person has a particular user experience and the cause thereof is important in managing and improving user experience.

The user experience of a person depends on his or her previous experiences, motivation and the context of use. Future user experiences are influenced by the user's previous experiences and expectations of how things work. This corresponds with the user's mental model and is present even before the interaction starts. For instance when users are interacting with online mobile instant messaging applications, they expect to find where to type their message, an option for inserting emotions and the functionality for sending the message. If any of these functions are inaccessible, the users' expectations will be shattered, resulting in a negative user experience. The whole interaction between the user and system happens in a dynamic context (social, situational, locational etc.) that influences and is influenced by what the user does and experiences. The natural personal view explains how user experience is shaped over time, highly subjective and connected to the context. A user's current experience is dependent on the internal state of mind of the user, at that very moment. A user can interact with a system/product in many different situations with different states of mind. This can be positive, while in a good frame of mind and negative in another [START_REF] Roto | Web Browsing on Mobile Phones -Characteristics of User Experience[END_REF].

The factors that affect user experience are presented in Fig 1 . The User Experience Factor Diagram (UXFD) (cf. Fig 1) maps the factors influencing user experience to a respective period of product usage and time span/phase of user experience. The periods of product usage refers to the user experience before a user interacts with a product, during interaction and after a long period of repeated usage. The type of user experience namely anticipatory, momentary, episodic, cumulative or reflective determines the time span phases.

Anticipatory user experience results from the expectation of the user before interacting with the product. Momentary and episodic user experience relate to the feelings of the user during interaction with the product. Cumulative and reflective user experience arises as the user continues to interact with the product, thus discover and compare the product with their expectations or experience with similar products. Anticipatory user experience is directed by the factors that impact on user experience before the user interacts with the product. Such factors include the visceral aspects of the product.

Users are pleased with a product that is effective, efficient, safe and usable. If a user is using a video game and the system keeps freezing while the user is playing the game, then the user will experience a negative interaction with the product. User experience goes beyond the pragmatic and hedonic qualities of the product. It is also impacted by the physiological and psychological state of the user. Moreover, the social, physical and technological environment influences the users to enjoy their interaction with a product at one setting while they may have a negative user experience when the context varies.

Long-term user experience consists of cumulative user experiences and reflective user experiences. The factors affecting long-term user experience include the design process of the product. A product that is designed focusing on the needs, expectations and requirements of the users promote a bond of user loyalty to the product. Involving the users at every stage of product development and implementation creates a sense of belonging to the product thereby improving the user experience.

User experience, therefore, changes over time and is influenced by the internal state of mind of the user, the features of the product and the context in which the product is used. The development of user experience from anticipatory level to the reflective level is therefore a process. The next section describes evolutionary nature of user experience.

Evolutionary nature of user experience. The resultant relationship when a user interacts with a product is not static but composed of emotions subject to change over time as well as the context in which the product is used. Literature mentions the perceived pragmatic qualities of a product, user emotional reactions resulting from interacting with a product and perceived hedonic qualities of the product to influence the change in user experience and overall decision of the user about a product [START_REF] Kujala | UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience[END_REF], [START_REF] Abbasi | User Experience Evolution Lifecycle Framework[END_REF], [START_REF] Mahlke | Studying Antecedents of Emotional Experiences in Interactive Contexts[END_REF]. The visceral aspects of a product seem to have dominance in appealing to the sensory experience of the user only on purchasing a product. Such visceral aspects cease to be important to the user when the user interact with the product for a period of a month. Thereafter the touch and audition qualities of the product becomes a more important stimulus for the experiences. Fenko [START_REF] Fenko | Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user-product interactions[END_REF] and Mendoza [START_REF] Mendoza | Usability over time[END_REF] found out that the types of errors, error rate users make and the resultant user frustrations changes drastically over time. Thus, as users continue to use a product, certain aspects stimulating their user experience fade away and, as time progresses, other product attributes become more prominent determinants of user experience.

Abbasi et al. [START_REF] Abbasi | User Experience Evolution Lifecycle Framework[END_REF] developed a framework illustrating the evolution of user experience termed the User Experience Evolution Lifecycle (UXEL). The authors suggest that the user experience lifecycle consists of Phase1 -Designed UX, Phase 2-Perceived UX and Phase 3 -Actual UX. Their framework is aimed at guiding user experience requirements engineering and evaluating user experience at each of the evolutional stages. The UXEL contributed to the identification of actors involved in the evolution of user experience. It also helped in identifying the attributes of the actors at each phase of user experience development. However, the UXEL Framework is inadequate in that it does not show any aspects of change in user experience over time. Time span of user experience has been noted to be an important dimension in the development of user experience [START_REF] Roto | User experience white paper: Bringing clarity to the concept of user experience[END_REF], [START_REF] Fenko | Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user-product interactions[END_REF], [START_REF] Karapanos | Measuring the Dynamics of Remembered Experience over Time[END_REF], [START_REF] Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff | Dynamics of user experience: How the perceived quality of mobile phones changes over time[END_REF]. The UXEL Framework only focuses on user experience during the user's interaction with the product in the specified context of use and invocation of the hedonic stimulations. This paper is unique in such a sense that, it proposes a User Experience Development Lifecycle Chart (UXDLC) to illustrate how user experience evolves over time. The UXDLC is based on the components of the User Experience Factor Diagram (cf.

User Experience Development Lifecycle Chart (UXDLC).

The UXDLC begins with an unaware user. Unawareness refers to the user's lack of information either about the existence of a product, its instrumental qualities or hedonic attributes. The user is made aware of the product and its features. The UXDLC shows that awareness happens through the phases of the user experience development lifecycle. Awareness is created by product reviews, publicity about the product as well as the discovery of product features as users interact with it. As users continue to interact with the product, they discover new features and they reflect on them based on prior experience with similar products. A positive reflection is vital in building a lasting userproduct relationship Awareness creates anticipatory user experience. Users interacting with the product for the first time, develop anticipatory user experience based on the mental models created from the reviews and publicity they receive about the product and the visceral aspects of the product. Whereas the anticipatory user experience of the users with prior interaction with the product is modified as they utilise the product.

Anticipatory user experience directs the expectations of the user as they interact and utilise the product. As the users use the product, they discover product qualities and reflect on them in momentary and episodic user experience. Accumulation of momentary user experience during a task session forms the episodic user experience. Momentary and episodic user experience is fluid and subject to change based on the context of use and the psychological and physiological aspects of the user at a particular moment. Episodic user experience accumulates into cumulative user experience as a user continues to interact with the product. As users continue to interact with the product, they discover product features resulting in the development of reflective user experience.

With continued usage and technological advances, users discover more about the product and their needs grow and change over time. The need to grow and adapt the product to meet these needs arise, hence the experience loops back to anticipatory user experience.

Thus, user experience evolves from an unaware user to anticipatory user experience. Anticipatory user experience is modified into momentary and episodic user experience as the users interact with a product and utilise it. Continual use of a product results in long-term user experience (cumulative and reflective user experiences). New features and product enhancements, which the users may not be aware of creates anticipatory user experience.

Product designers and developers who wish to have loyal users should aim at developing products appealing to long-term user experience. An effective long-term user experience is achieved by managing anticipatory, momentary and episodic user experience. It is therefore important to manage the change in user experience development. The techniques for managing user experience are inferred from change management. Change management concepts are discussed next.

Change Management

Lately there has been a notable paradigm shift in the focus of product design, from designing for functionality and usability to designing for user experience. Designing for user experiences involves adding or/and improving product features, changing the visceral look and feel aspects of the product, its navigation and interaction styles and the overall user interface. The resultant of such is change in user experience of the people using the improved products. It was discussed that the development of user experience is a transitional process for the users, involving changes in the subjective and objective factors. Like any other process, the process of change in user experience needs to be managed for a positive user experience to be achieved. Thus this section begins by defining change management and then analysing existing models aimed at managing change. A synthesis of the change management models contributes towards the requirements for managing the user experience.

Defining change management. Change is a complex process and often involves a revolution and transformation of the old and customary ways of doing things, with unfamiliar styles characterised by uncertainty, fear and risk to the lifestyles of the people involved [31 -32]. Whenever a change is introduced into an organisation or society, it will ultimately affect the lifestyle of the people, organisational structure, tasks, job roles, processes and other related variables [START_REF] Creasey | Defining change management[END_REF]. Creasey [START_REF] Creasey | Defining change management[END_REF] differentiates change management from project management. He defines project management as methods, tools, skills and techniques to respond to change in project activities in order to meet project requirements while he defines change management as "the process, tools and techniques to manage the people-side of change to achieve the required business outcome". Thus, the processes, tools and techniques for managing the feelings of the people are examined through literature analysis.

Various models aimed at managing change and guiding implementation of change is available in literature [34 -38]. Most of these models focus on managing change in organisations. This study aims at disseminating the requirements for managing change in user experience from the existing change management models. The uniqueness of requirements for managing user experience lies in the subjective nature of user experience and the need to adopt a user centred approach to managing change, contrary to the organisational oriented change management approaches.

Analysis of change management models. An analysis of the various change management models shows that managing change consists of phases namely planning change, implementing change and managing change [35 -36]. Preparation for change involves cultivating a favourable environment for change while change implementation refers to the execution of change activities. On the other hand, managing change deals with controlling the change process in order for the change to go according to plan. Creating a change-ready environment includes an examination of the environment to be changed, formulating the change strategy and creating the urgency for change [START_REF] Kotter | The heart of change: real-life stories of how people change their organizations[END_REF][START_REF] Hiatt | ADKAR: a Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community[END_REF]. Activities for implementing change, include choosing change champions, communicating the change, imparting knowledge and the ability for people to change and creating a cultural fit for the change to last [37 -38]. Managing change deals with the integration of lessons learnt during the change by measuring the progress of the change effort and reinforcing the change [35, 37 -38]. These phases will be applied to propose the requirements for managing user experience.

User Experience Management Requirements Framework

The proposed User Experience Management Requirements (UXMR) Framework infers from change management models and factors affecting user experience. The UXMR Framework outlines the requirements for managing and improving the user experience of people using interactive products in a user centred approach. The user centred design philosophy has been the popularized approach aimed at designing products for positive user experience.

Fig. 3. User Experience Management Requirements Framework

The Framework is based on the three-phase change process and adopts a usercentred approach. The identified requirements are categorized into four categories namely: preparation (UXMR-I), implementation (UXMR-II), sustainment (UXMR-III), and monitoring and evaluation (UXMR-IV). It is important to note that the process of managing user experience is not as linear as presented in the diagram. Managing user experience is an iterative process. There is constant visiting and revisiting of each activity with the intention of perfecting the subsequent activities

Preparation: (UXMR -I)

Managing user experience requires preparing the people for the change, managing the change in user experience during implementation and sustaining the new user experience. Preparation involves cultivating a favourable change environment, creating a change-ready audience and formulating the vision and strategy for the change. Table 1 presents the UXMR -I components and the related activities.

The Preparation phase requires an examination of the users and the context in which the product is used as well as the formulation of the change strategy and vision. Examining the users, involves determining their priorities that will lead to a favourable user experience, their user profiles and socio cultural background. It is important to assess the users' previous change history, as this will influence the present user experience. A successful user experience management exercise requires a 'test of the wetness of the waters'. Testing the wetness of the waters involves facilitating an informal awareness vibe about the new product initiative, stirring up change urgency by making the users to see and feel the need to change. Assessing and determining the brand and how the changes will potentially affect the brand perception Further to scanning of the environment, user experience management preparation requires formulation of the implementation strategy and defining the vision. The user experience implementation strategy needs to align with the user and business requirements. This strategy needs to be supported by an agile change champions guiding team and cross-sectional representation of stakeholders. The guiding team is required to set the timeline and implementation plan for managing user experience. Measurable usability and user experience metrics for effectiveness, efficiency and enjoyment should be defined beforehand to ensure that the user and business requirements are meet. Clearly stipulated change management preparation requirements set the pace for a successful user experience implementation.

Thus, the output of the Preparation phase is a list of factors that may affect the user experience and a strategy on how to implement successful user experiences. The User Experience factor diagram presented in Figure 1 serves as a template guiding the preparation phase.

Implementation (UXRM -II)

The second set of requirements for managing the user experience involves managing the user experience during the implementation of the product changes. The components of requirements for managing the implementation of products for user experience are presented in Table 2. Employing persuasive techniques on the product so that the users will see and feel the need to change and embrace the new product with a positive user experience. Eliminating pockets of resistance hindering positive user experience and product acceptance UXMR-2.3: Knowledge Task Activities Passing on knowledge on how to use the product and the benefits of adopting the product Training users that they will be able to discover the product features by themselves and be able to reflect on such UXMR-2.4: Ability Task Activities Giving the users a platform to demonstrate that they are able to transform knowledge into action Promoting continuous and persuasive use of the product by observing the users as they interact with the product with the intention of improving their user experience

The requirements for managing user experience implementation are adopted from the ADKAR model [START_REF] Hiatt | ADKAR: a Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community[END_REF]. Managing user experience requires making the user aware of the product, creating a desire for them to use the product, imparting knowledge on how to use the product and providing a platform for the users to demonstrate the ability to use the product.

Awareness. Managing user experience requires making people aware of the product by involving them from the onset of product development through the product lifecycle. A product with its features comprehending the expectations of the users, promotes a positive user experience. Putting users at the centre and making users aware of the changes are pivotal in a process of managing user experience for designs that are intended to be accepted and enjoyed. Without awareness, many users would rather prefer a bad, but familiar design to a better but unfamiliar one. Therefore, users need to be aware of what is changing, the potential benefits resulting from revamping the old product or introducing a new product. However, awareness on its own does not result in product acceptance. There is need to create a desire for the users to use the product.

Desire. User awareness does not result in making users develop a need to use the applications. There is a need to establish a sense of urgency and do away with pockets of resistance in using and re-using the product. There is a need to adopt emotional trust by persuasive design techniques to create an affinity for the users to embrace the changes with a positive user experience. Persuasive design aims at influencing change in the behaviour of the users. Conversely, the users may be aware of the changes and have a desire to embrace the new initiatives but if they do not have knowledge about how to use the product, then the whole change initiative is susceptible to the tyranny of legacy systems failing to provide a favourable user experience.

Knowledge. Managing user experience requires imparting the users with knowledge on how to use the product. Users need to know the associated benefits of using the products hence creating an emotional need to use the product. It is only when the users have the knowledge about the product, which they will be able to discover the product features by themselves and begin to reflect on their user experience. The more knowledgeable the users become about the product, the more they are inclined to use it productively and become loyal to it. Knowledge has to be applied in practice by providing the users with the platform to demonstrate that they are able to use the product.

Ability. The users should be given a platform to demonstrate their ability to use the product. Ability is achieved through continual usage of the product. Continual usage promotes long-term user experience, thus a product must have captivating features that promote its usage and adoption by the users.

Sustainment: (UXMR -III)

Change preparation and implementation aims at managing the behaviours and subjective emotions, resulting in positive user experience of the users interacting with the product. An effective approach to managing user experience during change preparation and implementation will result in a positive user experience. However, humans are creatures of habit and users are consequently subjected to revert to their traditional ways of doing, thus letting go of the aimed user experience. Therefore, the change in user experience must be sustained and improved upon. Table 3 presents the components of requirements for managing user experience sustainment. Sustaining a lasting long-term user experience requires the celebration of shortterm user experience achievements, making the user experience stick and allowing continuous improvement of the user experience. User experience development consists of anticipatory user experience, momentary user experience, episodic user experience and long-term user experience. Long-term user experience is a result of the accumulation of the overall user experience over time. It is therefore important to sustain long-term user experience. In the process of sustaining long-term user experience, successful anticipatory user experience, momentary user experience and episodic user experience goals have to be recognized and awarded. Once the users have shown to develop an affinity for the product, the positive user experience has to be reinforced to make it stick. Persuasive, emotional and trust research, and agile user experience design processes have to be implemented to keep the users captivated by the product they interact with. Such techniques aim at nurturing free will behavioral changes by appealing to the social influence factors of the people.

Monitoring and evaluation: (UXMR -IV)

The process of monitoring and evaluation is central during managing user experience and has to be done during every stage. Monitoring and evaluation requires strategic communication, consolidation of lesson learnt as well as impact and outcome assessment of the process of managing user experience. Table 4 presents the requirement components of monitoring and evaluating user experience management.

Communicating the right message to correct people at the right time and contexts at every stage of implementation is an important requirement of managing user experience. Sending the wrong messages to the wrong people in the wrong context is a recipe for creating resistance and overall failure of managing user experience. Specific users have to be provided with contextually relevant information, only then will they positively accept the product being developed or introduced. The evaluation and measurement of the user experience is crucial to identify both hedonic and pragmatic user experience issues that may arise during product usage. Moreover, it is important to track lessons learnt in order to improve and manage user experience. This further helps to identify any loops missed and new requirements, which emerge from the users with an aim to unveil contingences of what has to be done for positive user experience to be achieved. Like any change management project, managing user experience requires an assessment of the impact and outcome process. The outcome is determined by comparing the business and user goals, metrics of user experience against the achieved user experience at a particular stage in managing user experience. Impact assessment thus entails evaluating the level of user experience of the product users at each stage of managing user experience.

The next section presents the users of the UXMR Framework and how the Framework works.

Application of the UXMR Framework

There exists a variety of guidelines and principles guiding the designing of products for user experience. However, the guidelines do not cater for managing change in user experience and the diverse factors that influence the user experience of the people. The target users of the proposed UXMR Framework are user experience practitioners and product developers. The Framework is aimed at guiding user experience practitioners on how to manage user experience by directing the designing processes of products for positive user experience. This is achieved through assessing the level of user experience of the target users, determining the factors that impact on user experience and providing interventions for improving the user experience. User experience practitioners will make use of the user experience factor diagram (c.f. Figure 1) to assess the factors that impact on user experience. A variety of user experience evaluation techniques may be used to determine the factors that influence user experience [www.allaboutux.org]. The findings are then used to develop a strategy for managing user experience. Practitioners will have to employ techniques for bringing awareness, creating desire, imparting knowledge and ability and sustaining the user experience.

During the process of managing user experience, there is continuous monitoring and evaluation to ensure positive user experience. For product developers, the UXMR Framework serves to provide user centred design directions for designing products for positive user experience. The model integrates change management practices in the product development life cycle in order to design products that comprehend the expectations and skills of the target users.

Conclusion

This paper introduced user experience and the factors impacting on user experience by presenting the user experience factor diagram. The evolutionary nature of user experience was highlighted resulting in the development of the User Experience Development Lifecycle Chart (UXDLC). The evolutionary nature of user experience requires the need to manage change in user experience. Change management approaches were examined and inferences to such were made to determine the requirements for managing user experience. The User Experience Management Requirements (UXMR) Framework was developed based on the UX factor diagram and UXDLC. The target users of the proposed UXMR Framework are user experience practitioners and product owners, designers and an organisation's management as a whole. Using the UXMR Framework, user experience practitioners may influence the design of products for positive user experience. By assessing the factors that impact on user experience and providing interventions for improving the user experience, a positive user experience can be achieved. The requirements for managing user experience serve as design directions for user experience designers who wish to design their products for positive user experience.

The UXMR Framework was derived from a purely theoretical foundation. To improve on its applicability the Framework should be tested empirically. The plan is to validate the Framework through expert reviews. Experts from both the domains of change management and user experience will be involved to determine the appropriateness and relevance of the proposed construct requirements for managing user experience. The UXMR Framework will be also be applied in a case study in the design of a specific product to validate its usefulness and applicability based on the recommendations for improvement from the various experts.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. User Experience Factor Diagram (Researcher's interpretation of literature)

  Fig 1). The UXDLC is presented in Fig 2.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. User Experience Development Lifecycle Chart (Researcher's interpretation of literature)

  Fig 3 presents UXMR Framework for managing user experience.

Table 1 .

 1 User experience managment preparation requirements UXMR -1.1: Scanning the environment Task Activities Discovery of users and their tasks User profiling, task analysis, assessing the level of user experience of the users Assessing previous change history Determining the resultant user experience of the users with respect to any previously introduced product. Analysing factors influencing user experience Analysing the context of product use Examining the physical, social, technological, social environment in which the product is used. Testing the wetness of the waters Facilitating an informal awareness vibe about the new product initiative, stirring up change urgency by making the users see and feel the need to change Identifying the challenges and feature requirements of the current product Determining what features of the product have to change, what new features have to be added based on the arising needs of the users. UXMR-1.2: Formulating the vision for change Task Activities Gathering a guiding team Selection and defining roles for sponsors, change champions, user experience strategists, and user representatives to spearhead the process of managing user experience Setting measurable user experience objectives Stating the metrics for measuring the hedonic and pragmatic aspects of the product , defining effectiveness, satisfaction and efficiency Defining the purpose and vision Stating clearing what successful user experience should be Identifying and recruiting stakeholders Selection of cross sectional representatives of primary, secondary and tertiary users of the product so as to maintain a balance between user needs and the values and mission of the organisation Crafting the change strategy and timeline Defining the means of implementing change that suites the users and the environment to create a cultural fit promoting positive user experience Brand strategy

Table 2 .

 2 User experiennce management implementation requirementsFormal communication on what aspects of the product are to be introduced or improved, how the change is going to affect the users, what aspects of the product will remain unchanged. Awareness of the potential benefits resulting from redesigning the product

	UXMR -2.1: Awareness
	Task	Activities
	Formal communication
	of the change initiative
	UXMR -2.2: Desire
	Task	Activities
	Creating an affinity for
	people to embrace
	change with positive user
	experience

Table 3 .

 3 User experience managment sustainment requirementsContinuous research to understand and address any emerging requirements, use of agile technologies to iteratively implement new features so as to satisfy an enchanting long term user experience.

	UXMR -3.1: Ensuring a lasting positive user experience
	Task	Activities
	Celebrating short terms	Recognising successful positive anticipatory, momentary and epi-
	achievements	sodic user experience goals
	Reinforcements	Promoting and ensuring an addictive point of no return positive
		user experience Employing persuasive techniques aimed at design-
		ing products for persuasion, emotion and trust.
	Continuous user experience
	improvement

Table 4 .

 4 User experienece managment : monitoring and evaluation requirements UXMR -2.1: Ensuring a lasting positive user experience Task Activities Strategic communication Sending the right message to the correct audience t the rightful context and time Measuring user experience Mapping transitional state to the desired outcome and evaluating the user experience level of the people at various phases during managing user experience. Iterative testing and implementation of recommendations found at each stage of the evaluation. Consolidation of lessons learnt Tracking any lessons learnt at each stage with the objective of improving on the process of managing user experience on next projects. Comparing what on hand with the initial plan to determine any variance so as to formulate what has to be done next to rectify the discrepancies

www.allaboutux.org