Baran: An Interaction-centred User Monitoring Framework

Mohammad Hashemi, John Herbert


User Quality of Experience (QoE) is a subjective entity and difficult to measure. One important aspect of it, User Experience (UX), corresponds to the sensory and emotional state of a user. For a user interacting through a User Interface (UI), precise information on how they are using the UI can contribute to understanding their UX, and thereby understanding their QoE. As well as a user’s use of the UI such as clicking, scrolling, touching, or selecting, other real-time digital information about the user such as from smart phone sensors (e.g. accelerometer, light level) and physiological sensors (e.g. heart rate, ECG, EEG) could contribute to understanding UX. Baran is a framework that is designed to capture, record, manage and analyse the User Digital Imprint (UDI) which, is the data structure containing all user context information. Baran simplifies the process of collecting experimental information in Human and Computer Interaction (HCI) studies, by recording comprehensive real-time data for any UI experiment, and making the data available as a standard UDI data structure. This paper presents an overview of the Baran framework, and provides an example of its use to record user interaction and perform some basic analysis of the interaction.


  1. Buthpitiya, S., Luqman, F., Griss, M., Xing, B., and Dey, A. K. (2012). Hermes - A Context-Aware Application Development Framework and Toolkit for the Mobile Environment. In Advanced Information Networking and Applications.
  2. Cao, A., Chintamani, K., Pandya, A., and Ellis, R. (2009). Nasa tlx: Software for assessing subjective mental workload. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1):113- 117.
  3. Dey, A., Abowd, G., and Salber, D. (2001). A conceptual framework and a toolkit for supporting the rapid prototyping of context-aware applications. HumanComputer Interaction, 16(2):97-166.
  4. Forlizzi, J. and Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, DIS 7804, pages 261-268, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  5. Hart, S. G. (2006). Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9):904-908.
  6. Hashemi, M. and Herbert, J. (2014). Uixsim: A user interface experience analysis framework. In 2014 Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modeling and Simulation, 2014 Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling, and Simulation, pages 29-34. IEEE.
  7. Hassenzahl, M. (2005). The thing and i: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In Blythe, M., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A., and Wright, P., editors, Funology, volume 3 of Human-Computer Interaction Series, pages 31-42. Springer Netherlands.
  8. Hassenzahl, M. (2008). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 19(4):319-349.
  9. Hassenzahl, M. and Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience a research agenda. In March-April 2006, pages 91-97.
  10. Moldovan, A.-N., Ghergulescu, I., Weibelzahl, S., and Muntean, C. (2013). User-centered eeg-based multimedia quality assessment. In Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2013 IEEE International Symposium on, pages 1-8.
  11. Riva, O. (2006). Contory: A middleware for the provisioning of context information on smart phones. In Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP/USENIX 2006 International Conference on Middleware, Middleware 7806, pages 219-239, New York, NY, USA. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
  12. Schmidt, A., Aidoo, K. A., Takaluoma, A., Tuomela, U., Laerhoven, K. V., and de Velde, W. V. (1999). Advanced Interaction in Context. HUC 7899 Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, pages 89-101.
  13. Schrepp, M., Held, T., and Laugwitz, B. (2006). The influence of hedonic quality on the attractiveness of user interfaces of business management software. Interact. Comput., 18(5):1055-1069.
  14. Sourina, O., Liu, Y., Wang, Q., and Nguyen, M. K. (2011). Eeg-based personalized digital experience. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-computer Interaction: Users Diversity - Volume Part II, UAHCI'11, pages 591- 599, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.
  15. Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., Law, E. L.-C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J., and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2010). User experience evaluation methods: Current state and development needs. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, NordiCHI 7810, pages 521-530, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  16. Yau, S. S. and Karim, F. (2004). A context-sensitive middleware for dynamic integration of mobile devices with network infrastructures. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 64(2):301-317.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Hashemi M. and Herbert J. (2015). Baran: An Interaction-centred User Monitoring Framework . In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems - Volume 1: PhyCS, ISBN 978-989-758-085-7, pages 52-60. DOI: 10.5220/0005239600520060

in Bibtex Style

author={Mohammad Hashemi and John Herbert},
title={Baran: An Interaction-centred User Monitoring Framework},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems - Volume 1: PhyCS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems - Volume 1: PhyCS,
TI - Baran: An Interaction-centred User Monitoring Framework
SN - 978-989-758-085-7
AU - Hashemi M.
AU - Herbert J.
PY - 2015
SP - 52
EP - 60
DO - 10.5220/0005239600520060