Home About the Journal Latest Work Current Issue Archive Special Issues Editorial Board
<< Previous Next >>

2022, 4(2): 132-152

Published Date:2022-4-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.vrih.2021.12.005

Designing generation Y interactions: The case of YPhone


With an increasing number of products becoming digital, mobile, and networked, paying attention to the quality of interactions with such products is also becoming more relevant. Although the quality of such interactions has been addressed in several scientific studies, little attention has been paid to their implementation in real life and everyday contexts.
This paper describes the development of a novel office phone prototype, called YPhone, which demonstrates the application of a specific set of Generation Y interaction qualities (instantaneous, playful, collaborative, expressive, responsive, and flexible) in the context of office work. The working prototype supports office workers in experiencing new types of interactions. It was set out in practice through a series of evaluations.
We found that the playful, expressive, responsive, and flexible qualities incur greater trust than the instantaneous and collaborative qualities. Such qualities can be grouped, although this may differ for different evaluated products, and researchers must be cautious about generalizations.
The overall evaluation was deemed positive, with some valuable suggestions provided regarding its user interactions and features.


Generation Y office workers ; Interaction qualities ; Interactive prototyping ; User evaluation

Cite this article

Wei LIU. Designing generation Y interactions: The case of YPhone. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, 2022, 4(2): 132-152 DOI:10.1016/j.vrih.2021.12.005


1. Arvola M. Interaction design qualities: theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Extending Boundaries. Reykjavik, Iceland, New York, ACM Press, 2010, 595‒598 DOI:10.1145/1868914.1868982

2. Hult L. Public information services: a study of use qualities in Internet-based encyclopedias. Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2003

3. Locher P, Overbeeke K, Wensveen S. Aesthetic interaction: a framework. Design Issues, 2010, 26(2): 70‒79 DOI:10.1162/desi_a_00017

4. Rullo A. The soft qualities of interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2008, 15(4): 1‒25 DOI:10.1145/1460355.1460359

5. Lundgren S. Interaction-related properties of interactive artifacts. Proc Ambience, 2011,112‒121

6. Löwgren J, Stolterman E. Thoughtful interaction design. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 2007 DOI:10.7551/mitpress/6814.001.0001

7. Lai J, Levas A, Chou P, Pinhanez C, Viveros M. BlueSpace: personalizing workspace through awareness and adaptability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2002, 57(5): 415‒428 DOI:10.1006/ijhc.2002.1028

8. The Microsoft Vision 2019. http://www.microsoft.com/office/vision

9. Carlson E. The lucky few: Between the greatest generation and the baby boom. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

10. Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Evenson S. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. San Jose California USA, New York, NY, USA, ACM, 2007, 493‒502 DOI:10.1145/1240624.1240704

11. Liu W, Byler E, Leifer L. Engineering design entrepreneurship and innovation: transdisciplinary teaching and learning in a global context. Design, User Experience, and Usability. Case Studies in Public and Personal Interactive Systems, 2020, 451‒460 DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-49757-6_33

12. Desmet P, Hassenzahl M. Towards happiness: Possibility-driven design. Human-computer interaction: The agency perspective. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, 3‒27

13. Desmet P M A, Pohlmeyer A E. Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International journal of design, 2013, 7(3): 5‒19

14. Strong R, B.Feather Gaver, scent, and shaker: supporting simple intimacy. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1996 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1996

15. Keller A I. For Inspiration only: Designer interaction with informal collections of visual material. 2005

16. Alavesa P, Pakanen M, Niemelä A, Huang W P, Väinämö S, Haukipuro L, Arhippainen L, Ojala T. Mobile augmented reality client as a UX method for living lab's user involvement tool. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference. Tampere Finland, New York, NY, USA, ACM, 2018, 135‒142 DOI:10.1145/3275116.3275147

17. Dresel M, Jochems N. A Distributed Virtual Reality Study Under COVID-19 Conditions–Comparing Continuous and Non-Continuous Locomotion Techniques in Mobile VR. Mensch und Computer, 2021, 406‒411

18. Benko H. The future of mixed reality interactions. In: Companion Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces. 2020 DOI:10.1145/3380867.3430136

19. Liu W, Pasman G, Taal-Fokker J, Stappers P J. Exploring “Generation Y“ interaction qualities at home and at work. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2014, 16(3): 405‒415 DOI:10.1007/s10111-013-0269-4

20. Cruz C S. Gen Y: How boomer babies are changing the workplace. Hawaii Business, 2007, 52(11): 38

21. Paton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2002

22. Preece J, Roger Y, Sharp H. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

23. Myers B, Hudson S E, R.Past Pausch, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2000, 7(1): 3‒28 DOI:10.1145/344949.344959

24. Nebeling M. Rapid prototyping of augmented reality & virtual reality interfaces. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Glasgow Scotland Uk, New York, NY, USA, ACM, 2019, 1‒6 DOI:10.1145/3290607.3298813

25. Kumar R. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage, 2018

26. Hassenzahl M. Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics, 2010, 3(1): 1‒95

27. Saffer D. Designing gestural interfaces: Touchscreens and interactive devices. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2008

28. Mathur N, Baldwin T, Cohn T. Putting evaluation in context: Contextual embeddings improve machine translation evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2019, 2799‒2808