Working from home (WFH) remotely is a modality of working that requires the careful design of systems of rules and tools to enable people to exchange information and perform actions. WFH is expected to expand after the COVID-19 pandemic. How to assess and compare in a reliable way the experience of workers with different (sociotechnical) systems of WFH is a central point to supporting the diffusion of acceptable modalities of working. However, the concept of experience and how it can be measured in the domain in WFH is yet to be clearly characterized. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for scoping reviews, we systematically map the approaches used by researchers to assess WFH, identify which aspects are usually investigated, and examine how such aspects are usually measured in terms of questions and tools. Literature is collected using Scopus and Web of Science. Thirty-four records out of 323 focusing either on validating a scale, presenting theoretically the experience of workers or testing this empirically are included in the qualitative synthesis. The results highlight a lack of unified terminology and tools, with assessments of workers’ experience mainly characterized by survey approaches and qualitative questions. Clustering together the most investigated aspects in the literature and reviewing how these aspects are assessed, we propose a list of 10 relevant overarching dimensions and attempt to define workers’ experience in the domain of WFH remotely. This definition can be used as a tool by researchers aiming to assess the experience of workers in order to inform the design or redesign of the sociotechnical systems that enable WFH.

Introduction: Working from home (WFH) remotely is a modality of working that requires the careful design of systems of rules and tools to enable people to exchange information and perform actions. WFH is expected to expand after the COVID-19 pandemic, and how best to reliably assess and compare the experience of workers with different (sociotechnical) systems of WFH is central to the diffusion of acceptable modalities of remote working. However, the concept of experience and how it can be measured in the domain in WFH is yet to be clearly characterized.Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for scoping reviews, we systematically map the approaches used by researchers to assess WFH, identify which aspects are usually investigated, and examine how such aspects are usually measured in terms of questions and tools. Literature is collected using Scopus and Web of Science.Results: Thirty-four records out of 323 focusing either on validating a scale, presenting theoretically the experience of workers or testing this empirically are included in the qualitative synthesis. The results highlight a lack of unified terminology and tools, with assessments of workers’ experience mainly characterized by survey approaches and qualitative questions. Conclusion: Clustering together the most investigated aspects in the literature and reviewing how these aspects are assessed, we propose a list of 10 relevant overarching dimensions and attempt to define workers’ experience in the domain of WFH remotely. This definition can be used as a tool by researchers aiming to assess the experience of workers in order to inform the design or redesign of the sociotechnical systems that enable WFH.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought several changes in everyday life, one of them being the application of Remote Working (RW). RW is the new way of working, thanks to this new modality all workers, with certain work requirements, were able to carry out their work from home without having to go to the offce. Given the strict rules relating to lockdown, if this method had not been applied many people would not have been able to work and today many companies would probably be closed. But which advantages and disadvantages can RW have compared to classical work? Can it bring more inclusiveness and accessibility for every one or only for workers with specifc requirements (for example, for workers that need to take care of family members with disabilities)? This paper attempts to answer these questions. The University of Perugia in collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Development has created the "Job-satisfying" project. In this project 24 participants were divided into two groups (home-space group and offce-space group) and each of these had to complete some tasks and complete questionnaires. Generally, no signifcant difference emerged but some interesting results were encountered: those who took the experimentation from home, that have children, obtained higher scores relating to the sense of working autonomy, support from superiors and satisfaction of relationships at work. This data seems to argue that working from home can improve inclusiveness.

Smartphones and tablets now offer consumers unique advantages such as portability and accessibility. Developers are also working with a mobile-first approach, and are prioritizing mobile applications over desktop versions. This study introduces eGLU-box Mobile, an application for performing a drive usability test directly from a smartphone. An experimental study was conducted in which the participants were divided into two groups: an experimental group, which used the new mobile application from a smartphone, and a control group, which used the desktop application from a computer. The participants' behavior was assessed using explicit (self-report questionnaires) and implicit measures (eye movement data). The results were encouraging, and showed that both the mobile and desktop versions of eGLU-box enabled participants to test the usability with a similar level of UX, despite some minimal (although significant) differences in terms of satisfaction of use.