1. - -An Experimental Study on the Correlation betweenthe User Experience Design Factors andthe Emotional Linguistic Evaluation- Focused on the Smart Device Applications - 2013 12 27

2. . 3. - - ( ) . , , , , ,- i - 4. , , , . , . . , . , . . , , . 2 . 3 , (affinity diagram1)) 12 , , . 4 3(, , ) . 3 ( 1) Affinity Diagram : Kawakita Jiro or KJ Diagrams Method, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, (2003)- ii - 5. ) , (+, -) (+, -) 7 (Likert, 1932) . (Computerbased Response time : ) (+, -), ( : +, -) . (Task) , , . ( ) . (+, -), ( : +, -) 7 (Likert, 1932) . . (, , ) , , ( ), ( ) .- iii - 6. , , , (, , ) () ( ) ( ) , .1 , (Clinic test) . . 6(: SKT B tv, KT olleh TV, LGT U+ tv G, : Google play Movie,IMDb, CRACKLE IT'S ON) 100 , KT olleh TV , GooglePlay Movie App . , . , . . , . ( : 1) ( : 2) , , ( , ) 2(KT olleh TV App / Google Play Movie App) 2(/)(22 factorial design) . 120- iv - 7. 30, 4(Between Subjects Design: Independent GroupsDesign) 20~45 (Bias) 1:1 (1:1Computer Based Survey) . ( ) KT olleh TV Google Play Movie App . , ( ) KT olleh TV Google PlayMovie App . 4 (, , ) . , (, ) , . , 2(KT olleh TV App / Google Play Movie App) 2(/) (22 factorial design) , , , . .- v - 8. < H1> .1-1> , , .1-2> , , - - .< H2>Google Play Movie App() KT olleh TV App() (, , -, -) .- vi -2-1> , .2-2> , .2-3> , .2-4> , 9. .< H3> , .3-1> .3-2> .3-3> .3-4> , , ( , ) . , , , , ( , ) . . < H1-2> . , , ( , ) (significance probability: p-value) P=0.000- vii - 10. < H1> . (KT olleh TV) (Google Play Movie App) < H2> . . . (Google play Movie) (KT olleh TV) (Google play Movie) (+1> -0.57 >-1) (+1> -0.50 >-1) . (KTolleh TV) (+1> -0.74 >-1) (+1>-0.55 >-1) . , , , ( , ) . , . . . , . - viii - 11. , . . , , . . . , , (Pearson's correlation coefficient) R=0.197, R=0.362,R=0.290 . R=0.362 , R=0.290 < H3> < H3-1~3> . , , F 0.358 . . , , , . , , . .- ix - 12. , . , .: , , , * 2013 12 .- x - 13. xv xvii 1 11.1 11.1.1 11.1.2 71.1.3 131.2 161.3 19 2 202.1 202.1.1 242.1.2 262.1.3 312.1.3.1 362.1.3.2 362.1.3.3 372.2 (Kano Model) 372.2.1 (Kano Model) 382.2.2 (Kano Model) 39- xi - 14. 2.3 402.3.1 402.3.2 422.3.3 472.4 482.4.1 : 482.4.2 : 552.4.3 : 632.4.4 692.5 752.6 792.6.1 792.6.2 802.6.3 7 832.6.4 842.6.5 872.6.6 91 3 983.1 983.2 993.2.1 993.2.2 1003.2.3 1033.2.4 1063.2.5 107- xii - 15. 3.2.6 1083.3 1103.3.1 1 1103.3.2 2 1103.3.3 3 111 4 1134.1 1134.1.1 1134.2 1154.2.1 1154.2.2 1174.2.3 1184.3 1254.3.1 1 1254.3.2 2 1264.3.2 3 127 5 1285.1 1285.2 132 133 136 140- xiii - 16. ABSTRACT 145ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 159- xiv - 17. < 1-1> ICT 2< 1-2> (mental models, Indi Young, 2008) 15< 2-1> 22< 2-2> 27< 2-3> 28< 2-4> 30< 2-5> 33< 2-6> (UX: User eXperience) 34< 2-7> 35< 2-8> 41< 2-9> 4 16 (=) 46< 2-10> 53< 2-11> (Richins,1997) (CES) 57< 2-12> 59< 2-13> 60< 2-14> 118 product reaction cards 62< 2-15> 64< 2-16> 65< 2-17> 67< 2-18> 68< 2-19> 69< 2-20> 71< 2-21> 6 75< 2-22> eMETT Profile 76< 2-23> 81- xv - 18. < 2-24> 81< 2-25> 82< 2-26> 7 85< 2-27> 7 86< 2-28> 7 87< 2-29> -- 92< 3-1> 100< 3-2> 2X2 (Between Subjects Design) 102< 3-3> 106< 4-1> 114< 4-2> (-) 117< 4-3> (-) 117< 4-4> (-) 118< 4-5> -- 119< 4-6> -- 119< 4-7> , , (, ) 119< 4-8> -- KT olleh TV app 120< 4-9> -- KT olleh TV app 121< 4-10> , , KT olleh TV app 121< 4-11> -- Google 122< 4-12> -- Google 122< 4-13> , , Google 122< 4-14> -- Google 123< 4-15> Google-KT 124< 4-16> Google-KT 124< 4-17> Google-KT 125- xvi - 19. < 1-1> 2< 1-2> (Richard L. Nolan) 4 5< 1-3> 5< 1-4> IT 4 Era Era 6< 1-5> 8< 1-6> (User eXperience) 11< 1-7> ICT 12< 1-8> - 15< 1-9> 17< 1-10> 18< 1-11> 19< 2-1> 20< 2-2> 23< 2-3> 24< 2-4> 26< 2-5> 34< 2-6> (Kano Model) 38< 2-7> 42< 2-8> ABC 43< 2-9> 44< 2-10> UX/UI 45< 2-11> 45< 2-12> (=) (cognitive style) 46< 2-13> NPL 4 50< 2-14> 51< 2-15> 52- xvii - 20. < 2-16> , 54< 2-17> 8 : PAD 56< 2-18> (Izard) 58< 2-19> 59< 2-20> 68< 2-21> 77< 2-22> 78< 2-23> 7 83< 2-24> 84< 2-25> 85< 2-26> 86< 2-27> (RT) 88< 2-28> (RT) 88< 2-29> 90< 2-30> 90< 2-31> 90< 2-32> 94< 2-34> 94< 2-35> 94< 3-1> 98< 3-2> 103< 3-3> 104< 3-4> 106< 3-5> 109< 4-1> -- 118< 4-2> -- 120< 4-3> -- 121< 4-4> -- 123- xviii - 21. < 5-1> 129< 5-2> (Customer Satisfaction Model) 129- xix - 22. - 1 - 1 1.1 1.1.1 . , , . < 1-1>2) . . 3) (, Consilience), , , . , . , . 2) Stefan Moritz, Service Design Practical Access to an evolving field, Koln:KISD, 2005, p49.3) , , 1998 23. < 2-1> < 1-1> ICT(Information & Communication Technology) - 2 - . (1960) ? (System) (1950) ? (Interface) (1970) ? (Interaction) (1980) , ? (Design Behavior) (1990) ? (Experience) (2000) ? (Emotion) (2010) ? (Meaning) 24. (Stefan Moritz, 2005) 4) 1850 1860 , 18 19 , , . 1960 , 1965 , 1990 . 2000 , . IT . (Richard L. Nolan) 4 . . 1 (Initiation) , 2 (Expansion) . 3 (Control) . 4 (Integration) , . IT . < 1-2> (Data Process Era) (Micro Era) (Network Era) 4 . 1960 1980 (EDPS: Electronic Data Processing System) 4) Stefan Moritz. Service Design Practical Access to an evolving field, Koln:KISD, 2005, p49.- 3 - 25. (Data Process Era) , 1980 1990 PC (Micro Era) .1990 (Network Era) (Richard L. Nolan) . . < 1-3>5) 1 1988 1996 , 2 1996 (CDMA:Code division multiple access) . 3 2002 12 2000, (CDMA2000: Code division multiple access, W-CDMA:Wideband Code division multiple access ) . 4 2013 WiMax(WorldwideInteroperability for Microwave Access), WiBro(Wireless Broadband) 3 .5) , ? !, , (KETI),www.keti.re.kr, http://www.epnc.co.kr/atl/view.asp?a_id=9493,ep&c News, 2012- 4 - 26. < 1-2> (Richard L. Nolan) 4 < 1-3> - 5 - 27. < 1-4> IT 4 Era Era - 6 - 28. 1.1.2 1990 1990 . . . . . , .6) .6) , < >, , , 2007, 75p- 7 - 29. < 1-5> () ()() (Maslow, 1934) - 4 . , . . (EXPERIENCE: ) . , . . - 8 - 30. . ( ) (, , , ) ( ) . . (Meaning) . , , , . . < 1-5>7) (Norman, 1990) (Maslow,1934) (Markowitz, 2006) (Carlson andWilmot, 2006) . < 1-3> < 1-4> . , . . 1960 (System) 1950 (Interface) (ICT:Information and Communications Technology) 7) Don Norman et al.,,1990,- 9 -Sanders, Maslows hierarchy of needs, 1992,Carlson and Wilmot, Markowitzs hierarchy, 2006 31. . 1970 (Interaction) ,1980 (Design Behavior) . 1990 (Experience) , 2000 (Emotion) . 2010 (Meaning) , (Communication) . (UX: UsereXperience) . < 1-6>8) 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 , .8) http://fvortal.cimerr.net/ux, http://www.dt.co.kr/contents.html?article_no=2013012502011860746001- 10 - 32. < 1-6> (User eXperience) - 11 - 33. < 1-7> ICT(Information and Communications Technology) - 12 - 34. 1.1.3 . . (Peter F. Drucker, 1998) " , ." . , . , , . . 1990 . . , , , , . , , . . , , . - (P. N. Johnson-Laird, 1983) (propositional representations) (mental imagery) (mental model) . (propositional representations) . , - 13 - 35. , CES(Customer Emotions Set. 1997) . . . 3 (mental models, Indi Young, 2008) < 1-2> . < 1-2>9) (mental models, Indi Young, 2008) , (Motivation) , . (propositional representations) (mental imagery) (propositional representations) , , .9) , < : >, , 2009, p29- 14 - 36. < 1-8> - (P. N. Johnson-Laird, 1983) < 1-2> (mental models, Indi Young, 2008) - 15 - , , FGI Card Sorting Card Sorting 37. - 16 -1.2 , . , . , . . , , , . . < 1-10> . 1 . 2 () () . 3 . . 6( : SKT B tv, KT olleh TV, LGT U+ tv G, : Googleplay Movie, IMDb, CRACKLE IT'S ON) 100 , KT olleh TV , Google Play Movie App . KT olleh TV App 38. Google Play Movie App 4 . 4 , , , , .< 1-10> - 17 - 39. < 1-11> - 18 - 40. - 19 -1.3 3 . , , , .< 1-12> 41. 2 < 2-1> (Bernd Schmitt, 2003) - 20 -2.1 (Bernd Schmitt) < 2-1> 5 , ,, , . 2 . . , .10) (interaction) . (involve) .10) John Dewey, , Perigee Books, 1943, p. 143. 42. (UX: User eXperience) . , , , , , , , . , , , , , ,, , , , , . , . , . . (emotional design) . (UserInterface) '' . (User eXperience) .< 2-1> - 21 -HCI () , , ( )ISO 9241-210 , NN Group , Wikipedia , , 43. Gube Saffer - 22 - Garrett - , (, , cognition) (mechanism, process) (product, representation) (, representation) . (, , cognition) '' , . '' (, representation) . (cognitiveprocess)11) (mental representation) , , , . (cognitive process)12) 7 , , , , , , . (Cognitive Psychology) . () (homo sapiens). . (Thinking), (Memory), (Concept Formulation), (Perception), (Problem Solving), (Judgment Process) 11) The Model Human Processor : An Engineering Model of Human Performance (S.K.Card et., al, 1986)12) , , , 2009, 592p 44. < 2-2> . (human factors), (mental model), (affordance), (T. Winograd) . (T.Winograd) . . 1980 . (human factors) . (humanfactors) , . , . , . , . , , - 23 - 45. . . , , .< 2-3> (cognitive process)2.1.1 (An Experience) , , , . 5 , (Aware) (Arouse), (Acquire), (Use), (Discard) (An Experience)13) . (An Experience) 13) , < >, , , 2010- 24 - 46. (Reflect) . (Reflect) , (meaning) . (Reflect) (StoryExperience) . . (2010) . (Experiencee), (An Experience), (Story Experience), (Co-Experience) . (Sub-conscious Life Context), (Aware), (Arouse), (Acquire), (Use), (Discard), (Reflect) . (UserExperience Space Model - UXSM) (An Experience Sphere) (Spiral Stages of User Experience) .14) (Previousexperience), (Present experience), (Future experience) . (Positiveexperience) (Negative experience) . . . (Brand experience), / (Product/service experience) .14) , < >, , , 2010- 25 - 47. < 2-4> (User Experience Space Model - UXSM)2.1.2 (User experience) (Desmet and Hekkert, 2007). (User experience) , , . . . 36 . , , . < 2-2>15) . 15) , < > , Vol.2010 No.10, 2010- 26 - 48. . (Query technique) . (Focus group interview) (Nominal group technique) , , . (OBrien, 2010; Hassenzahl,2010). (Verbal assessment) (Rating) (Ranking) .< 2-2> - 27 - (Query technique)Group Focus group interview (Rubin, 1994) Nominal group technique (Delbecq, 1986)Individual Interview (Nielsen, 1993) Questionnaire and survey (Nielsen, 1993) (Verbal assessment) Rating (Meister, 1985) Ranking (Meister, 1985)< 2-3>16) (Nonverbal assessment) , (Instrumental self-report) ZEMT(Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique) (Pictorial assessment), 16) , < > , Vol.2010 No.10, 2010 49. . (Bradely and Lang, 1994) , , , (Expressive reaction) . . , (Sperry and Fernandez, 2008) .< 2-3> - 28 - (Nonverbalassessment)Instrumental self-report Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique(ZMET)(Zaltman and Coulter, 1995) Pictorial assessment(Bradley and Lang, 1994) Mood board(Baxter, 1995)Expressive reaction Facial expression(Russell, 2003) Posture expression(Atkinson et al., 2004) Vocal expression(Bachorowski, 1999) (Observationtechnique)Direct Contextual inquiry(Johnes and Marsden, 2005) Shadow tracking( , 2005) Peer shadowing (, 2009)Indirect Diary(Rubin, 1994) Experience sampling method(ESM)(Hektner et al., 2007) Controlle 50. < 2-3> . < 2-2> , . (Contextualinquiry), (shadow tracking), (Peer shadowing) . (Experience sampling method), . , (Longitudinal study) (Karapanos et al., 2009). (rapport) . (Northwestern University) (Janice Nadler) (rapport) " " . (subjectivity), (contextuality), (holistic) . < 2-4>17) .17) Jared Spoo, 2007: http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/03/16/the-difference-between-usability-and-user-experience- 29 - 51. - 30 - Context ()Task, , , ***, (2012) , , (2008) (Usability), (Affect)***, (User Value) UX Park et al. (2011) , ***, Moon et al. (2010) , Metrics Tullis and Albert (2008) Emotion***Sampling Hole and Williams(2008) ***Emocard Desmet (2007) Survey Focus Group Interview( FGI) UX Amir (2004) Interview, Observation Arhippaninen and Thti(2003) UX (Law et al.,2009;Law and Van Schaik,2010). (Recognition), ***(Emotional Judgment) UX *** (Aesthetic experience) (experience of meaning)*** (emotional experience)(Contextual Inquiry) Roto (2006),Desmet and Hekkert(2007) Alben (1996),Hassenzahl andTractinsky(2006) (Usability), ***(Affect), (User Value) Park et al.(2011)< 2-4> 52. < 2-4> , . HCI(Human Computer Interaction) , (cognitive) . , (User eXperience) . (UsereXperience) (Emotion), (Context), (Cognitive) . (Emotion) . .2.1.3 (UX: User eXperience) 90 2000 , < 1-7> (Don Norman) 1993uxmatter.com . (UX: UsereXperience) , . (UX: User eXperience) . (User Interface) . (UX: User eXperience) , , , , , - 31 - 53. . (UX: User eXperience) , , . (UX: User eXperience) . (UX: User eXperience) . 18) 8 ( , , , , , , , ) , 11 ( , , , PUI , GUI , PUI ,GUI , , , , ) . . , , , (subjectivity), (contextuality), (holistic) . . 19) . , , , , , , , < 2-5>20) 18) , < : , >- 32 -, HCI 2008, 2008.2, 851-856, 6 pages19) , < >, , 2012.5, 1356-1362, 7 pages20) , < >, , 2012.5, 1356-1362, 9 pages 54. . , , , , .UX - 33 -Gerpott et al. (2001)Aydin and Ozer (2005)Context Context Sharma (2002)Aydin and Ozer (2005) , , Wallin et al. (1997)Lee et al. (2001) , , Sharma (2002)Aydin and Ozer (2005) , , Wallin et al. (1997)Hellier Janda (2000) , , Wallin et al. (1997)Hellier Janda (2000) , , Gerpott et al. (2001)Kuo et al. (2009)< 2-5> (UX: User eXperience) (James, J. Garrett) The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond, 2nd Edition (, , , , ) (UX: User eXperience) . 55. < 2-6> (UX: User eXperience) (James, J. Garrett, 2013) 5 < 2-5> - 34 -: - (, , , )- - - , - , - , (Tone&manner): , , - - - - : , - - - - - : , - - - - - : - - - < 2-6>21) (James, J. Garrett) , < 2-6> 5 .21) (James, J. Garrett), , 2013 56. - 35 - ( ) (Consistency) (Intuition) (Aesthetic) (Personalization)(,, ) ( , ) (Minimal Action) (Perceived usefulness) (Perceived ease of use) (self-efficiency)( , ) , , , ( ), , , , , , , , , , ( ), , ( ), , ( )< 2-7> (James, J. Garrett) , , , 76 12 . , , , , , 57. , , , , , ., , , , , . , , , , . ,, , , , , , , .2.1.3.1 () . , , , . . .2.1.3.2 () , - 36 - 58. . , ( ) . ISO 9241-11(1998) (Guideanceon Usability) : , . .2.1.3.3 () , .2.2 (Kano Model) (Kano Model) , . (Kano Model) , - 37 - 59. - 38 - .< 2-6> (Kano Model)(Kano Model)2.2.1 (Kano Model) (Kano Model) , . , . , , . . 60. . , . .2.2.2 (Kano Model) (Kano Model) . , , , . (Kano Model) . (Kano Model) , , .- 39 - 61. - 40 -2.3 2.3.1 (affect) (emotion) (mood) (Westbrook, 1987; Cohen & Areni, 1991). (2008) . , , , . . . () , , , , , , . , , . () 80% . . , , , . . , . . 4~8 . () () (, 2004), 4 (Joy, 62. Happiness, Anger, Sadness) . < 2-8>22) .< 2-8> (, 2007) - 41 -DescaretsWilliamJamesPlutchik(1980)Panksepp(1982)Ekman(1992)Damasio(1994)()()()() Joy JoyHappinessHappiness() () () Rage Anger Rage Anger Anger() () () Sadness Grief Sadness Sadness Sadness() ()Fear FearFear,PanicFear FearSurprise Surprise() ()LoveAdmirationLoveAcceptance(joy+acceptance)() () Disgust Disgust Disgust() () Desire DesireAnticipationExpectancy7 4 7 5 5 8 4 6 5 (, emotion) . . , , , , , .22) Philip Harland(2002), Ungerer & Schmid (1996), (2004)*() , , , , , , . 63. 2.3.2 . < 2-7>23) , . , , . < 2-8>24) ABC (2009) . , . .< 2-7> (Katz) 23) , < : >, . 2010, pp99-100.24) , , < : >, . 2010. pp99-100.- 42 -Katz, 3 , 1960 64. < 2-8> ABC ABC (2009) , , , . , .- 43 - 65. < 2-9> (Donald Norman, 2004) . , . . < 2-10>25), < 2-11>26) , , . (cognitive style) . (Carl Jung, 1921) , '', '', ' ' . < 2-12> .25) . < >, , . 2006. PP31-33 26) Technology Acceptance Model. Davis(1989), Information as an economic goods. Bates(1998)- 44 - 66. < 2-10> UX/UI < 2-11> - 45 - 67. < 2-12> (=)(cognitive style) 16 (=) .< 2-9> 4 16 (=)ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJISTP ISFP INFP INTPESTP ESFP ENFP ENTPESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ- 46 - 68. MPTI(Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)27) --28)(McKenney-Keen Model, 1974) . ''(preceptive), ''(receptive) , ''(sysmetic) ''(intuitive) MPTI(Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) . 4 - , , 4 .2.3.3 . 3(, , ) . , 3(, , ) . 7 ( 1. ), . ( ) 27) Katharine Cook Briggs, , 196228) Peter. G. W. Keen, , 1981- 47 - 69. . ( 2. ) . , , , , .- 48 -2.4 2.4.1 : (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) (John Grinder) (Richard Bandler) , , . , (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) (Milton Erickson) , (Fritz Perls) , (Virginia Satir) . (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) (empirical evidence) , . (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) . (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, 70. ) , , . .(Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) , (, , , , ) . . (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) (linguistic) (verbal) (non-verbal) . , (programing) . (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) 1990 , ,, , , , , . (Neuro-LinguisticProgramming; NLP, ) , (Visual): 75%, (Auditory): 15%, (Kinesthetic): 7%, (Olfactory)/(Gustatory): 3% . 200 , , , , , , , , , , ,, (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ) . , , , .< 2-13> (NPL) 4- 50 - 72. < 2-14> (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) < 2-15> . , , . .- 51 - 73. < 2-15> (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; NLP, ). , , . , < 2-10> , < 2-16>, .< 2-10> (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) - 52 -(Visual) 75%(Auditory) 15%(Kinesthetic) 7%(Auditory Digital). . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . 74. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . , .- 53 - 75. < 2-11> (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) < 2-16> , - 54 -(Visual Constructed) (VisualRemembered) (AuditoryConstructed) (AuditoryRemembered) (KinestheticConstructed), , (AuditoryDigital) 76. 2.4.2 : PAD(Pleasure-Arousal-Domination) . (Pleasure) (Arousal) (Donnovan & Rossiter, 1994). (Domination) ., (Holbrook) (Batra, 1987) , . , PAD(Pleasure-Arousal-Domination)29) . , , , , , , . (Havlena) (Holbrook, 1986) (Mehrabian) (Russell, 1974)PAD (Plutchik, 1980) PAD (Plutchik, 1980) . CES(Consumption Emotion Set) (Richins,1997) . CES(Consumption Emotion Set) , (Richins, 1997) . CES(ConsumptionEmotion Set) (anger), (discontent), (worry), (sadness),(fear), (shame), (envy), (loneliness), (romantic love), (love), (peacefulness), (contented), (optimism), (joy), (excitement), (surprise) 16 set 2~329) (Mehrabian and Russell), PAD (pleasure-arousal-dominance) , 1974- 55 - 77. < 2-17> 8 : PAD (pleasure-arousal-dominance) , (guilty), (proud), (eager), (relieved) 4 46 . (awed), (carefree), (comforted), (helpless), (impatient), (longing), (nostalgic), (protective), (wishful) 9 . .- 56 - 78. < 2-11> (Richins,1997) (CES: Consumption Emotion Set) - 57 -(anger) (frustrated), (angry), (irritated)(discontented) (unfulfilled), (discontented)(worry)(nervous), (worried), (tense)(sadness)(depressed), (sad), (miserable)(fear)(scared), (afraid), (panicky)(shame)(embarrassed), (ashamed), (humiliated)(envy)(envy), (jealous)(loneliness)(lonely), (homesick) (romantic love)(sexy), (romantic), (passionate)(love) (loving), (sentimental), (warm hearted)(peacefulness)(calm), (peaceful)(contented)(contented), (fulfilled)(optimism)(optimistic), (encouraged), (hopeful)(joy)(happy), (pleased), (joyful)(excitement)(excited), (thrilled), (enthusiastic)(surprise)(surprise), (amazed), (astonished) (Other Items)(guilty), (proud), (eager), (relieved)(awed), (carefree), (comforted), (helpless), (impatient), (longing), (nostalgic),(protective), (wishful) 79. (Izard, 1977) 10 . , , , /, , , , , /, 10 , (differentialemotion scale: DES) .< 2-18>. (Izard) (DES: Differential Emotions Scale) , , (Watson, Clark) (Tellegen, 1998) . , PANAS(positiveaffect negative affect scale) . - 58 - 80. , PANAS(positive affect negative affect scale) .30) (Watson) (Tellegen) (circumplex structure) < 2-19>31) .< 2-19> < 2-12> 1. Enthusiastic 7. Sleepy 11. Nervous 15. At Rest2. Excited 8. Drowsy 12. Jittery 16. Placid3. Strong 9. Sluggish 12. Jittery 17. Calm4. Peppy 10. Dull 13. Fearful 18. Relaxed5. Elated - 14. Distressed -6. Active - - -30) , < >, , Vol.5 No.1, 2004- 59 -, , 200231) Watson & Tellegen, , Psychological Bulletin. 98, 1985, p. 221. 81. , , (SemanticDifferential: SD) , , , .< 2-13> - 60 -(Richins, 1997)CES(Consumption Emotion Set) 46 9 (Holbrook),(Barta,1987) (Semantic Differential:SD)(Gardener,1985)- (intense), (stimulus- specific)- (Ekman, 1982) (Ortony)(Collins, 1988) (nonvalenced) , (Batra) (Ray, 1986) 13 (Wundt, 1897)(pleasant)- (unpleasant),(excitement)- (inhibition),(strain)-(relaxation) (Averill, 1975)(Bush, 1972)717 , 558 , (evaluation), (activation),(uncontrol), (depth) , (Bush, 1972) 2187 264 - ,, , ,,(1994) -, , -,- , 82. - 61 -,, 1994;,, 1990, , , , - , ,, 1994-, - , (Burke, 1989) , (Plutchilk,1980), , , , , , , 8 8 , (Izard, 1977) 10 (, , , /, , ,, , /, )(differential emotion scale: DES)10 (Watson)(Clark)(Tellegen,1998) PANAS (positive affectnegative affect scale),(Donnovan &Rossiter, 1994)(Holbrook)(Batra, 1987)(Havlena)(Mehrabian)(Russell, 1974)(guilty), (proud),(eager), (relieved)PAD(Pleasure-Arousal-Domination)(Damasio,2003: pp)A collection of changes in body and brainsystem that respond to specific contexts ofones perceptions, actual or recalled, relativeto a particular object or event. (Hansen,2005)supports the separation of emotions andfeelings, emphasized by Damasio, from aconsumer research perspective and suggestsapplying this understanding of emotions. 83. , (Joey Benedek and Trish Miner, 2002) 11832) .< 2-14> Selected words from the set of 118 product reaction cardsMeasuring Desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab settingThe complete set of 118 Product Reaction Card- 62 -Accessible( )Desirable()Gets in the way()Patronizing( )Stressful( )Appealing()Easy to use( )Hard to use( )Personal()Time-consuming( )Attractive()Efficient()High quality()Predictable( )Time-saving( )Busy()Empowering( )Inconsistent( )Relevant()Too technical( )Collaborative()Exciting()Intimidating( )Reliable( )Trustworthy( )Complex()Familiar()Inviting( )Rigid( )Uncontrollable( )Comprehensive()Fast()Motivating()Simplistic( )Unconventional(, )Confusing()Flexible()Not valuable( )Slow()Unpredictable( )Connected()Fresh()Organized()Sophisticated()Usable( )Consistent()Frustrating( )Overbearing( )Stimulating( )Useful()Customizable()Fun()Overwhelming()StraightForward()Valuable( )32) Joey Benedek and Trish Miner, 2002 84. 2.4.3 : , . , , .33) () ' ', ' ' . '' () < 2-15> , , , , , , , , , . , , ,, . . (1985) (, , , , ), , , , . (1985) , . (1989) (1991) (1989) , , . (1991) , . , . .33) , 1937; , 1984; , 1985; , 1985; ,1989; , 1991- 63 - 85. - 64 -(1937/75)(), , ,, , ,, , , ,, ()-()-()-()(1985): , , , , (1985) (1989) < 2-15> 86. (1997)34) , , , , , < 2-10~16>35) .< 2-20> * < 2-16> (, 2007) - 65 -, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 34) , < >, , Vol.26 No.3, 200735) , < >, , , 2008 87. - 66 -, /,/, /,/,//,/,,/, /, /,, //, /,/, , , //, /,/, , ,, ,, /, /,, ,, , ,, , , , , ,, , ,,, , /, /, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /, /, , , , , , , , , , , , , 88. < 2-17>36). , (), (), (), (), (), (), () .< 2-17> (, 2007) (sensibility)(), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , - 67 -(), , , , , ,, , , , , , (), , , , , ,, , , , , ,, (), , , , , ,, , , , , , , (), , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , (), , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , ,(), , , , , ,, , , , , , (), (), (), (), (), (), (), () 7 (Semantic Differential: SD) . < 2-18>37) .36) , < >, , , 2008 89. < 2-18> (, 2007) () , , , ()- 68 -, ,, , , () , , ,, (), ,, , (), ,, , , ,() , , , , (), ,, , (), ,, , , , , , , , 5 (Semantic Differential: SD) . < 2-19>38) .37) , < >, , , 200838) , < >, , , 2008 90. < 2-19> (, 2007) , , , , - 69 - , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,, , ,,, , , , , , , , , 2.4.4 , , , , , 91. . 1 , 2013 10 20 31 39) 100 , 78 . 7 122 , (, , , , ) 109 . 5(, , , , ) 24 . 5(,, , , )40) (Likeret Scales)41) .- 70 -39) (simple random sampling): 40) , < > , 201341) Resis Likert, (attitude) , , , , 1932 92. - 71 -(1227)1( )2( )3( )4()5( )6( )7( )....... .... . . ........... .................. . .......... ...... . . ... .................. . ........ ................ ........ ........ ...< 2-20> 93. - 72 -(109) ....................... ..... ............................ . ................................... ......... ....... ......... .................... ... .. ... (~ .) (~ .)..................... ........ .. ........................ ........ .. ... 94. - 73 - . . ..... . .. .... ..... . . . . . . . . .(34) ............. . ............ . ... . ........ .. . . .......................... 95. - 74 -2.5 , (Ekman, P., 1999) (Facial Expressions) (Ekman andFriesen, 1976)42) . (http://www.paulekman.com) . (Ekman, P., 1999) , , FACS(Facial ActionCoding System)43), eMETT Profile (Ekman Micro Expression Training ToolProfile)44), SETT(Subtle Expression Training Tool) , . (Ekman,P., 1999) , , 6 , , , , , , . (Ekman, P., 1999) . .45) (Facialexpression megamix, Andrew W. Young et, al., 1997) , 15 35(Andrew W. Young et, al.,1997)46) , 49(eMETT Profile (Ekman Micro Expression TrainingTool Profile) . 6247) .< 2-21> (Ekman, P., 1999) 6 Fear Anger Sadness Disgust Joy Surprise47) Joumana Medlej aka Cedaseed,- 75 -2007 http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/index.htm 97. - 76 -LowerUpperFear Anger Disgust Joy Neutral Sadness SurpriseFearAngerDisgustJoyNeutralSadnessSurprise< 2-22> (Ekman, P., 1987)eMETT Profile (Ekman Micro Expression Training Tool Profile) 98. < 2-21> Personal observation Desmond Morris: Body talk Center for nonverbal studies (2007)- 77 - 99. (Dr. Pieter Desmet, 2009) (PrEmo Emotional Measurement)48) , (http://www.premo-online.com) 49) .< 2-22> 48) Schematic form of the Product Emotion Measurement Instrument (PrEmo) developed byPieter Desmet, (Desmet 2002). Original the PreEmo is a digital instrument, with animated (moving) cartoon-figures. Wechose to work with this schematic model.49) (Dr. Pieter Desmet, Technical University of Delft 2009) http://www.premo-online.com (PrEmo EmotionalMeasurement)- 78 - 100. - 79 -2.6 1980 21 , 148 , , . , . (Law and van Schaik, 2010) . Finstad(2010) , Hazlett et al.(2007) (emotional response) , (Hassenaahl and Ullrich,2007) (Mandryk, 2006) . . .2.6.1 (subjectivity), (contextuality), (holistic) . 101. PAD(Pleasure-Arousal-Domination)50) . PAD(Pleasure-Arousal-Domination) (Pleasure) 51) (, , , , , , ) () . (Domination) 52) ( : , , , , ) () . (Arousal) (, , , , ) , 53) () . (+) , (-) . (+), (-) .2.6.2 , (KJ : Jiro Kawakita, 1920 =Affinity Diagram) (SemanticDifferent) < 2-23>~< 2-25> , , 50) (Mehrabian and Russell) PAD (pleasure-arousal-dominance) , 197451) (Donald Norman), , 200452) (Donald Norman), , 200453) (Donald Norman), , 2004- 80 - 102. - 81 - . , ( ), , ,, , ,, , , (Positive)+4(Strong) , +3 , , +2 , +1 (Neutral)0(Weak), ,, -1 , -2 , ,, , -3, , , , , (Negative)-4(Strong)< 2-23> , ( ), , ,, , (Positive)+4(Strong) +3 , , +2, , ,, , ,, , +1 , , (Neutral)0(Weak), , ,, , -1 , ,, , -2, , , -3 (Negative)-4(Strong)< 2-24> 103. - 82 - , ( ) (Positive)+4(Strong) , , +3 , +2 , , ,, , +1 , , , (Neutral)0(Weak) , ,, -1 , , , -2, , -3 , , (Negative)-4(Strong)< 2-25> 104. 2.6.3 7 7 , 1 7 . 1 7 . (KJ : JiroKawakita, 1920 =Affinity Diagram) (Semantic Differential:SD) . (Computer base survey) .< 2-23> 7 - 83 - 105. 2.6.4 7 () () . 4 U . () 4~5 . , .< 2-24> - 84 - 106. < 2-26> 7 - 85 - 6.37 (Positive)(Strong)5.90 6.23 5.30 6.17 5.20 6.13 5.17 5.90 5.13 5.77 4.80 5.53 4.50 5.43 4.37 3.60(Weak)3.73 2.70 4.10 2.70 4.30 2.57 4.33 2.53 4.63 2.33 4.83 2.27 5.30 2.17 5.47 1.93 5.60 1.87 (Negative)(Strong)5.73 < 2-25> 107. < 2-27> 7 - 86 - 6.00 (Positive)(Strong)5.63 5.90 5.43 5.87 5.07 5.83 5.00 5.83 4.90 5.80 4.70 5.60 4.63 5.40 4.27 3.27(Weak)3.53 3.10 4.77 2.90 4.80 2.57 5.00 2.43 5.10 2.43 5.27 2.23 5.03 2.20 5.30 2.07 (Negative)(Strong)5.33 < 2-26> 108. < 2-28> 7 - 87 - 6.23(Positive)(Strong)5.80 6.10 5.33 6.03 5.20 6.00 5.13 6.00 5.10 5.97 4.80 5.73 4.77 5.47 4.73 3.70(Weak)3.90 2.67 4.93 2.53 4.97 2.47 4.97 2.30 4.97 2.10 5.27 2.10 5.40 2.10 5.47 1.90 (Negative)(Strong)6.17 2.6.5 , , . , , , , , (Freeman & Forster, 1985), (Crain & Forder, 1987) . . 109. .< 2-27> (RT) < 2-28> (RT) - 88 - 110. KT Google -, - . . . . , . KT olleh TV . . . Googleplay Movie KTolleh TV . . < 2-29~31> .- 89 - 111. < 2-27> (RT) < 2-27> (RT) < 2-27> (RT)- 90 -< 2-29> < 2-30> < 2-31> 112. 2.6.6 (Google play Movie, KT olleh TV) - - . . . < 2-32~354> . . . KT olleh TV , . . Google play Movie , .- 91 - 113. < 2-29> -- Google play Movie app KT olleh TV app - 92 - 10 12 8 7 8 10 10 8 6 7 6 4 8 6 4 4 4 4 8 4 3 4 2 4 6 4 3 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 4 - - 1 2 - - 2 4 - - 1 - - - - 2 2 - - - - - - - -- - 2 - - - - - - - -- - 2 - - - - - - - - 60 60 30 30 30 30 14 16 6 10 7 8 10 14 6 5 6 4 8 6 5 5 5 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 3 3 4 2 4 4 2 1 4 2 4 4 2 1 - - 2 2 4 2 1 - - - - 2 2 - - - - - - - -- - 2 - - - - - - - - 60 60 30 30 30 30 114. - 93 - 19 17 7 9 4 10 10 12 7 7 4 4 6 11 6 4 4 4 6 4 2 4 4 4 6 2 2 3 4 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 - - 2 - - 2 2 - - - - 1 - - 2 2 - - - - - - -- - 2 - - - - - - - 60 60 30 30 30 30 16 22 9 7 6 8 10 10 8 5 6 5 8 8 5 4 4 3 6 6 4 4 4 2 6 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 1 2 4 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 - - 1 1 2 2 2 - - 1 - - 2- - 2 - - 1 - - 2 60 60 30 30 30 30 115. < 2-23> 7 < 2-23> 7 < 2-23> 7 < 2-32> < 2-33> < 2-34> - 94 - 116. (Google play Movie, KT olleh TV) - - . , , , < 2-32> . .< 2-27> (RT) < 2-23> 7 - 95 -< 2-29> < 2-32> 117. , , (KT olleh TV) < 2-30> , < 2-33> . .< 2-27> (RT) < 2-23> 7 < 2-30> < 2-33> - 96 - 118. , , (Google play Movie) , < 2-34> . . . . .< 2-27> (RT) < 2-23> 7 < 2-31> < 2-34> - 97 - 119. < 3-1> - 98 - 3 , , (, , ) .3.1 , ( ) (KT olleh TV App) (Google Play Movie App) . , ( ) (KT olleh TV App) (Google Play Movie App) 120. . 4 (, , ) . , .- 99 -3.2 3.2.1 2013 10 2~420~45 . 2( 1. ?, 2. ?) , SKT B tv, KT olleh TV, LGTU+ tv G Google play Movie, IMDb, CRACKLE IT'SON . (KT olleh TV App) 100 47 47% . (Google play Movie App) 100 72 72% . . 121. < 3-1> - 100 - SKT B tv 33 33%KT olleh TV 47 47%LGT U+ tv G 20 20% 100 100% Google play Movie 72 72%IMDb 21 21%CRACKLE IT'S ON 7 7% 100 100%3.2.2 , . . , , . 2 . 3 , (affinity diagram)54) 12 , , . 4 3(, , ) . 3 ( ) , (+, -) 54) Affinity Diagram - Kawakita Jiro or KJ Diagrams Method, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, 2003 122. (+, -) 7 (Likert, 1932) . (Computerbased Response time : ) (+, -), ( : +, -) . (Task) , , . ( ) . (+, -), ( : +, -) 7 (Likert, 1932) . . (, , ) , , ( ), ( ) . , , (, , ) - 101 - 123. ( ) ( ) , . , . . 6( : SKT B tv, KTolleh TV, LGT U+ tv G, : Google play Movie, IMDb, CRACKLEIT'S ON) , (KTolleh TV App) , (GooglePlay Movie App) . ( ) ( ) 2(KT olleh TV App / Google Play Movie App) 2(/) . 120 . 30, 4 (Between Subjects Design: Independent Groups Design) 20~45 (Bias) . 2013 11 25~ 12 19 .< 3-2> 2X2 (Between Subjects Design) Google play Movie App KT olleh TV App A-1 Subject (30) A-2 Subject (30) B-1 Subject (30) B-2 Subject (30) : 120 (Total Subject:120)- 102 - 124. 3.2.3 (KT olleh TV App) (Google Play Movie App) . , .< 3-2> . , . . . . . . . .< 3-2> - 103 - 125. < 3-3> - 104 - 126. < 3-3> - 105 - 127. 3.2.4 , ( ) (KT olleh TV App) (Google Play Movie App) . , ( ) KT olleh TV App GooglePlay Movie App . 4 (, , ) . , .< 3-4> - 106 - 128. 3.2.5 1 , (Clinic test) . . 6(: SKT B tv, KT olleh TV, LGT U+ tv G, : Google play Movie,IMDb, CRACKLE IT'S ON) 100 , (KT olleh TV App) , (Google Play Movie App) . , . , . . , . ( : 1) ( : 2) , , ( , ) 2(KT olleh TV App /Google Play Movie App) 2(/) (22 factorialdesign) . 120 30, 4(Between Subjects Design: Independent Groups Design) 20~45 (Bias) 1:1 (1:1 Computer BasedSurvey) .- 107 - 129. 3.2.6 ( ) (KT olleh TV App) (Google Play Movie App) . , ( ) (KT olleh TVApp) (Google Play Movie App) . 4 (, , ) . , (, ), < 3-5> .- 108 - 130. < 3-5> - 109 - 131. - 110 -3.3 . . (KT olleh TV App) (Google Play Movie App) .3.3.1 1 < H1> .1-1> , , .1-2> , , -- .3.3.2 2 < H2>Google Play Movie App() KT olleh TV App() (, , -, -) . 132. 2-1> , .2-2> , .2-3> , .2-4> , .- 111 -3.3.3 3 < H3> , .3-1> . 133. 3-2> .3-3> .3-4> , , ( , ) .- 112 - 134. 4 - 113 -4.1 3 . , , , Cronbach's . (Correlative Analysis) (KT olleh TVapp/Google Play Movie), (/) . . p < H3-1~3> . , , F 0.358 . < H3-4> . , , , .- 127 - 149. - 128 - 5 5.1 , . . , , . , . , , . , . < 5-1> (-) . (+) , . . . 150. < 5-1> (Kano Model) . (Kano Model) . , (Kano Model) .< 5-2> (Customer Satisfaction Model)- 129 - 151. (KT olleh TV App) (Google play App) (Kano Model) . . (KT olleh TV App) (Google play App) . . (KT olleh TV App) (Google play App) . (KT ollehTV App) . (KT ollehTV App) . (Google play App) , . (KT olleh TV App) (Google play App) (KanoModel) . (Googleplay App) . - 130 - 152. . . (KT olleh TV App) , , . , , . (Kano Model) . (Kano Model) . . , .- 131 - 153. 5.2 . ? . , . . .- 132 - 154. . < > , Vol.19, No.2, 2006. . < : >, Vol.2, No.2, 1999. . < > , Vol.13, No.1, 2010. . < >, , Vol.4, No.1, 2007. . < >,, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2007.. < >, , 2010.. < >, - 133 -, 2006.. < >, ,Vol.1 No.1, 1998.. < >, , 2004.. < >, , 1993. . , , 1997.. < >, , V ol 6, 1991., < >, ,p.37-42, 1997., < >, , Vol. 14, No 2, 2000,p. 43~62. , < : >, Vol. 7, No 1, p 107~123, 1993. , < >, , Vol. 13, No1, 1998, p 105~131. , < >, , Vol. 5, No1, 2004, p 69~92. 155. , < >, , Vol. 22,- 134 -No 4, 2003, p 935~946.Elmar Sauerwein. , International WorkingSeminar on Production Economics, Vol. 1, 1996, p 313~372.British Design Innovation. , 2004.Commission of the European Communities. "Design as a Driver of User-centered Innovation". (2009).Cooper, Rachel. & Press, Mike. , West Sussex: JohnWiley & Sons, 1995.Cox, George. ,UK HM Treasury, 2005.Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. , Journal of personality and socialpsychology Vol. 64, No3, 1993, p. 431-441.Banse, R., & Scherer, K. R. , Journal ofpersonality and social psychology, Vol. 70, 1996, p. 614-636.Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. New York; Oxford University Press, 2000.Brave, S., & Nass, C. , 2003,p. 81-96.Lawrence Erlbaum, Erlbaum. Castellano, G., Kessous, L., & Caridakis, G., LNCS, 4868, 2008, p.92-103.Creusen, E. H., & Schoormans, P. L. , Journal of product innovation management, Vol. 22, No 1, 2005, 63-81.Cutrell, E., & Guan, Z. , CHI, 2007.Davis, G. , Taylor &Francis, p. 315-319,Desmet, P. , Doctorial Thesis. Iris, M., Robert, B., Loren, M., Frank,W., & James G. 1995. American physiological association, Vol. 5, No 2, p. 175-190. 156. Izard, C.E. , 1977, New York.Kuroshu, M., & Kashimura, K. , Proceedings ofthe CHI conference on human factors in computing, 1995, p.292-293.Lang, P. J. Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment, Computer applications 1980,p.119-137, Ablex publishing, greenwich. Lindgaard, G. Austrian journal of emergingtechnologies and society, Vol. 5, No 1, 2007, p. 1-14.Lindgaard, G., Fernades, G., Dudek, C., & Brown, J. , Behavioral & information technology,- 135 -Vol. 25, No 2, 2006, p. 115-126.Mahlke, S., & Minge, M. , Affect and emotion in HCI, LNCS, 4868, 2008, p. 51-62.Norman, D. , Basic Books, 2004. p. 21-34.Park, J. M., & Lee. K. P. , KEER2007, Sapporo, Japan, 10, 2007.Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. , People and computers-design for life,Proceeding of HCI 2004.Russell, J. A. Affect Grid. , Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57, No 3, 1989, 493-502.Schere, K. R. , Oxford universitypress, New York, 2001, p. 92-120.http://www.keti.re.krhttp://www.epnc.co.kr/atl/view.asp?a_id=9493http://fvortal.cimerr.net/uxhttp://www.uxmatter.comhttp://www.paulekman.comhttp://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/index.htmhttp://www.premo-online.comhttp://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2007/03/16/the-difference-between-usability-and-user-experience 157. [ - 1:1 Computer Based Survey ] - - ? 1:1 . , . 10~15 . . 33() ( 8541) .- 136 -.2013 11 158. - - 137 - 1.NO 7 6 3 4 3 2 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 159. - - 138 - 2.NO 7 6 3 4 3 2 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 160. - - 139 - 3.NO 7 6 3 4 3 2 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 161. [ - 1:1 Computer Based Survey ] - - ? . . , . 10~15 . . 33() ( 8541) .- 140 -.2013 11 162. 4-A-s. - 141 - A-s / NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 - -QA-1> Google play Movie app . 163. 4-A-f. - 142 - A-f / NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 - -QA-1> Google play Movie app . 164. 4-B-s. - 143 - B-s / NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 - -QB-1> KT olleh TV app . 165. 4-B-f. - 144 - B-f / NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 - -QB-1> KT olleh TV app . 166. ABSTRACTAn Experimental Study on the Correlation betweenthe User Experience Design Factors andthe Emotional Linguistic Evaluation- Focused on the Smart Device Applications -- 145 -Choi, Young HyunPh.D. DissertationMajor in Design TheoryInternational Design School for Advanced Studies (IDAS)Hongik UniversityAs smart devices are getting more and more distributed rapidly thesedays, knowledge-oriented creation service industry became important.Facing the trend and era, the importance and necessity of the studies onthe individual experiences such as user-oriented search, selection,experience, disposal, and re-use and the global experiences which combineall these individual experiences rather than supplier-oriented production,distribution, use, and disposal are gaining awareness and attentions.In this study, among the experiences that one might get by usingmulti-media contents app services on smart devices, there must besuccessful and unsuccessful experiences. And depending on such 167. experiences (experience design factor), how the emotional expression ofusers who experienced such things change and what kind of correlationcan be found were researched. The following tests were conducted for thepurposes of this study. First, the tool to measure user-oriented emotional expression wasdeveloped.First, documentary research was conducted for the resource ofuser-oriented emotional expression after his/her experience. The languagesource which is expressed by emotional language by user was studied inmany different point of views. In order to review documents which coveremotional language in this study, emotional adjectives, documents aboutverb systems, documents for emotional adjectives in terms of consumers'behaviors viewpoint in marketing field, and lastly, psychologicalneuro-linguistic programming viewpoints were studied. The emotionallanguage resource which was collected for the second study wasreconstructed based on the user-oriented experience emotional languages,emotional words which are used frequently in reality were added. Thethird study was to find the traits of evaluating experience design factor.The traits of evaluating experience which were collected by documentaryreview were classified into esthetic appreciation, value in use, andsatisfaction by 12 different experience experts through affinity diagram. Inthe fourth study, to evaluate emotional languages which expressexperiences, the language resource which is the experience design factorwas reconstructed fit to the three traits (esthetic appreciation, value in use,- 146 - 168. and satisfaction). For the emotion language resource prepared for evaluatingthe three traits, a tool to evaluate emotion directly by adopting 7-pointLikert Scale (1932) was developed with the horizontal axis of emotiondirections (positive +, negative -) and the vertical axis of intensity (strong+,weak-) before the experiment-stimulating materials are suggested. For thelanguage resources which were selected by the developed direct emotionmeasuring tool, the tool was converted by applying Computer-basedResponse time, the horizontal axis with emotion directions (positive+,negative-) and the vertical axis with emotion reaction time (required timeto make decision: instant reaction +, delayed reaction -) to map emotionlanguage. Experiment stimulating materials provide with two differentexperiences like successful and unsuccessful ones while performing task.The acquired emotion states were improved and developed to evaluateemotion language by the direct evaluation and previously measured map.The results of evaluating the experienced emotions were developed inmathematical methods to make comparative analysis possible between twogroups (successful/unsuccessful experience stimulus). The direct evaluationof emotional states converted the tool into the user-oriented measuring toolwith the horizontal axis of emotion directions (positive +, negative -) andthe vertical axis with emotion reaction time (required time to makedecision: instant reaction +, delayed reaction -) by using 7-point LikertScale (1932). The experienced emotion evaluation adopted the mathematicalmethods to compare and analyze two groups (successful/unsuccessfulexperiences). For the direct evaluation of the state of emotion, theuser-oriented measuring tool was developed with emotion directions(positive +, negative -) and emotional reaction time (required time to make- 147 - 169. decision: instant reaction +, delayed reaction -) by 7-point Likert Scale(1932). In emotion language evaluation, the users was made to select thesuggested emotional language in each trait of experience design factor.Through this experiment, user's state of emotion for his/her experimentcould be measured numerically in each trait of experiment emotion (estheticappreciation, value in use, satisfaction) with the developed emotionallanguage-measuring tool. Through it, the gaps between recognizedexperiment emotion and actually-experienced experience emotion could bemeasured. By using these, the change of emotion state was identifiedbefore/after experience. The tool to measure experiment emotion wasdeveloped to manage user's experience emotion easily and continuously inorder to improve his/her experience. The mathematical methods wasapplied to compare and analyze the experienced emotion evaluation fortwo groups (successful/unsuccessful experiences). For the direct evaluationof the state of emotion, the user-oriented measuring tool was developedwith emotion directions (positive +, negative -) and emotional reaction time(required time to make decision: instant reaction +, delayed reaction -) by7-point Likert Scale (1932). In emotion language evaluation, the users wasmade to select the suggested emotional language in each trait of experiencedesign factor. Through this experiment, user's state of emotion for his/herexperiment could be measured numerically in each trait of experimentemotion (esthetic appreciation, value in use, satisfaction) with the developedemotional language-measuring tool. Through it, the gaps betweenrecognized experiment emotion and actually-experienced experience emotioncould be measured. By using these, the change of emotion state wasidentified before/after experience. The tool to measure experiment emotion- 148 - 170. was developed to manage user's experience emotion easily andcontinuously in order to improve his/her experience. In the emotionlanguage evaluation, users were made to select emotion language suggestedin each trait of experience design factor for their emotions acquired aftertheir experience. Through this experiment study, the state of user emotionfrom his/her experience in each trait was measured in a numerical mannerby emotion language measuring tool. The gaps between recognized emotionand experienced emotion for the successful/unsuccessful experiences wereconfirmed. From these results, emotional state changes before (recognized)/after (actually experienced) service experience were identified. To manageuser emotion easily, a tool to measure emotion language for experiencewas developed to improve service users experience. Second, by using the emotional language-measuring tool for userexperience, the correlation between emotional evaluation (direct) in termsof the experience design factors such as esthetic appreciation, value inuse, and satisfaction and language (indirect) was studied. For this study,experiment group (stimulated by unsuccessful experience) and controlgroup (stimulated by successful experience) were classified.Experiment-stimulating materials were developed. Experiment design andexperiment study were conducted.To select stimulating materials, the preliminary online survey wasgiven to the 100 subjects in a sample group about 6 multi-media contentsservice app (domestic app: SKT B tv, KT olleh TV, LGT U+ tv G, overseasapp: Google play Movie, IMDb, CRACKLE IT'S ON). KT olleh TV was- 149 - 171. selected as a representative domestic app and Google Play Movie App wasselected as a representative overseas app. These apps were adopted asdependent variables in this experiment in order to represent theirexperience design factor. The experiment with these was designed forgroup comparative study. In this study, successful and unsuccessfulexperiences were adopted as control variables. The experiment wasdesigned in the way to control successful and unsuccessful experiences. Inthe controled situation, a movie was searched and then replayed. In thissituation, the first control was to make the subject experience fail to searchthe movie, which was intentionally designed. The second control was tomake the subject experience fail to replay the movie. For the experimentgroup (unsuccessful experience: factor 1) and control group (successfulexperience: factor 2), for the purpose to study the correlation betweenemotion directions for the independent variables such as estheticappreciation, value in use, and satisfaction (app service, manufacturer) andtheir intensities changes, the experiment design adopted 22 factorialdesign; 2 (KT olleh TV App / Google Play Movie App) 2 (successful /unsuccessful experiences). The number of subjects in the experiment samplewere 120 subjects in 4 groups in total (Between Subjects Design:Independent Groups Design) with 30 subjects in a group. The targetsubjects were smart phone users in 20 to 45s. The experiment samplegroup was selected to reduce data collection bias through study effect. 1:1Computer Based Survey which is controllable was conducted. The firstcontrol group experienced a successful experience with Job's movie(successful search and replay with smooth manipulation). The secondcontrol group experienced a unsuccessful experience with KT olleh TV and- 150 - 172. Google Play Movie App. the user-oriented experience emotions before/aftersuch experiences were measure numerally through the direct emotion-measuringtool and language-measuring tools. The second experiment groupwas an unsuccessful experience design (fail to search and replay Jobsmovie). before using KT olleh TV and Google Play Movie apps, theemotion that they had was measured numerically by direct-emotionmeasuring tool and language-measuring tool from user's point of view. Asabove, the subjects were classified into total 4 groups. The subjects'direct-emotion measurement and emotion language measurement werereviewed in the trait of experience design factor (esthetic appreciation,value in use, and satisfaction). In order to review the correlation betweenthe emotions of recognized experiences and the emotions aftersuccessful/unsuccessful experiences, preliminary experiments (validity andreliability) were executed. This experiment was conducted after confirming- 151 -significant difference. Third, the hypothesis for the designed experiment models and theresults of verificationThe hypothesis of this study is about the factor design (22 factorialdesign) of 2 (KT olleh TV App / Google Play Movie App) 2(successfulexperience/unsuccessful experience). The successful and unsuccessfulexperiences were considered affecting significantly to the experience designfactors such as esthetic appreciation, value in use, and satisfaction. Thedetails are as follows. 173. Depending on successful or unsuccessful experiences, there might besignificant differences among emotional changes in the traits of experiencedesign factor.Hypothesis 1-1>In user experience design factors such as esthetic appreciation, value inuse, and satisfaction, there might be significant emotion changes in- 152 -unsuccessful experience.Hypothesis 1-2>There might be similar pattern between the emotional changes measuredfrom successful and unsuccessful experiences in terms of user experiencedesign factors such as esthetic appreciation, value in use, and satisfactionand the outcome of language measured.There might be significant difference between the experience emotionsamong user groups of Google Play Movie App (overseas) and KT olleh TVApp (domestic) which were recognized in terms of the traits of experiencedesign factors such as esthetic appreciation, value in use, and satisfaction.Hypothesis 2-1>As the groups which have positive emotion recognized for theirexperiences have higher level of positive emotion, they will have lessnegative emotion in terms of esthetic appreciation which is stimulated by 174. - 153 -unsuccessful experience.Hypothesis 2-2>As he groups which have positive emotion recognized for theirexperiences have higher level of positive emotion, they will have lessnegative emotion in terms of value in use which is stimulated byunsuccessful experience.Hypothesis 2-3>As he groups which have positive emotion recognized for theirexperiences have higher level of positive emotion, they will have lessnegative emotion in terms of app service satisfaction which is stimulatedby unsuccessful experience.Hypothesis 2-4>As he groups which have positive emotion recognized for theirexperiences have higher level of positive emotion, they will have lessnegative emotion in terms of manufacturer satisfaction which is stimulatedby unsuccessful experience.In each experience design factor, there might be correlation betweenpositive or negative directions of emotion and its level of seriousness whenmeasuring emotion recognized from the experience.Hypothesis 3-1> 175. In esthetic appreciation, the trait of experience design factor, there mightbe correlation between positive or negative directions of emotion and itslevel of seriousness when measuring emotion recognized from theexperience.Hypothesis 3-2>In value in use, the trait of experience design factor, there might becorrelation between positive or negative directions of emotion and its levelof seriousness when measuring emotion recognized from the experience.- 154 -Hypothesis 3-3>In satisfaction, the trait of experience design factor, there might becorrelation between positive or negative directions of emotion and its levelof seriousness when measuring emotion recognized from the experience.Reviewing the results of this study, the emotions for the experiencedesign factor which were recognized by using the same multi-mediacontents service apps was measured, targeting control group whichexperienced successful experiences and experiment group which experiencedunsuccessful experiences through direct and language measurements. Themeasured values had similar patterns. The language measurement wasproved useful. Thereafter, was accepted. In addition,emotion change for esthetic appreciation, value in use, and satisfaction (appservice and manufacturer) showed significant difference with p=0.000 ofp-value in terms of successful/unsuccessful experiences of the samemulti-media contents service app. was accepted. Among 176. user groups for KT olleh TV and Google Play Movie App, there wassignificant difference among recognized experiences. Thereafter, was accepted. Particularly, significant results was acquired betweenrecognized experiences and unsuccessful experiences. Reviewing the resultsof this experiment comprehensively, even though a group experience appservice which provides the same experience design factor, the experimentgroup which experienced unsuccessful experience showed more negativeemotion in direct emotion and emotional language measurements. Theinteresting results of study was from the comparative study betweenGoogle play Movie and KT olleh TV. The overseas app service (Googleplay Movie) of which recognized experience emotion is quite high showedmanufacturer satisfaction (+1> -0.57 >-1) and value in use (+1> -0.50 >-1)when the user experienced unsuccessful experiences from it. It was quitestrong negative emotion. On the other hand, domestic app service (KTolleh TV) showed manufacturer satisfaction (+1> -0.74 >-1) and value inuse (+1> -0.55 >-1) when the user experienced unsuccessful experiencesfrom it. The user's negative emotion has been changed into very strong- 155 -one.It turned out that as the recognized experience emotion was stronger,negative emotion occurred from unsuccessful experience was stronger evenfor the same stimulus. The recognized experience emotion was main factorto cause the intensity of negative emotion. And there were differentseverities of negative emotion generated for the trait of experience designfactor (app service and manufacturer). As the experience emotionrecognized for the same service is higher, negative emotion generated was 177. rather weaker. As the experience emotion recognized for the app islower, negative emotion was stronger in app service satisfaction after actualunsuccessful experience. As the experience emotion recognized is higher,negative emotion generated in manufacturer satisfaction was stronger. Itmeans that as the user's expectation for the manufacture is higher, strongnegative emotion is generated in terms of manufacturer satisfaction. On theother hand, in case of domestic app which is expected lower, the usertended not to express complains about manufacturer but app service. Inother words, negative emotion occurred for the satisfaction of essential andcore service was found strong. However, it was rather moderate than thecase that as the positive emotion recognized before use was higher,emotion recognized from unsuccessful experience was lower. But when theuser expects much about the manufacturer but experiences unsuccessfulexperience, negative emotion for the manufacturer satisfaction was strong.The experience emotion recognized before actual experience was checked toaffect the experience emotion after actual experience. In this phenomenon, itturned out through interviews with the subjects that the experienceemotions recognized before actual experience reflect cultural, social, andlocal traits in common. What have to be considered importantly whendeveloping experience design factor were checked through the interviews.Therefore, through this study, value in use which is one of the experiencedesign factors was confirmed very important. Futhermore, there wassignificant difference between the emotion recognized before actualexperience and the emotion recognized after actual experience. Additionally,through direct evaluation of emotion language, the coefficients of correlationbetween emotional directions (positive or negative) for esthetic appreciation,- 156 - 178. value in use, and satisfaction) and emotion intensities were 0.197, 0.362,and 0.290. As a result the correlation between the two variables wereconfirmed. The coefficient for value in use was R=0.362 which was thehighest positive correlation. Next, the satisfaction had R=0.290 coefficient. was adopted. When experience design factor is planned tobe developed and managed in the prospective practical works, it must bevery important to control the user's unsuccessful experience. Based on thecorrect and right understanding for the recognized emotion before actualexperience, experience design factor will need to be developed. This studywas conducted in order to develop and manage experience design factorswhich provide with positive experience emotion more comfortably by usingdirect emotion and language-measuring tools.For the prospective following studies, we recommend empirical studies tomeasure emotional changes from the beginning, middle, final stimulus intimely manner. These will be able to be used to manage user's experiencein terms of time order at practical sites. Another suggestion for theprospective studies, emotion change according to user's recognition anduser's familarity to use. Lastly, studies on the experiment managementamong groups according to individual trait, function, service use, andfamilarity to use are worth to be recommended.- 157 - 179. Keyword: Trait of Experience Design Factor, Esthetic Appreciation, Valuein Use, Satisfaction, Direct Emotion-measuring Tool,Unsuccessful Experience, Successful Experience, RecognizedExperience*A Dissertation submitted to the Committee of International Design School For AdvancedStudies(IDAS) of Hongik University in Partial Fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Ph.D- 158 -of Design Studies in December, 2013. 180. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTFor the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of Power.(Corinthians 4:20) .( 4:20) , . , , , . , . ., .- 159 -