Jan Hartmann
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
The article introduces a framework for users' design quality judgments based on Adaptive Decision Making theory. The framework describes judgment on quality attributes (usability, content/functionality, aesthetics, customisation and engagement) with dependencies on decision making arising from the user's background, task and context. The framework is tested and refined by three experimental studies. The first two assessed judgment of quality attributes of websites with similar content but radically different designs for aesthetics and engagement. Halo effects were demonstrated whereby attribution of good quality on one attribute positively influenced judgment on another, even in the face of objective evidence to the contrary (e.g., usability errors). Users' judgment was also shown to be susceptible to framing effects of the task and their background. These appear to change the importance order of the quality attributes; hence, quality assessment of a design appears to be very context dependent. The third study assessed the influence of customisation by experiments on mobile services applications, and demonstrated that evaluation of customisation depends on the users' needs and motivation. The results are discussed in the context of the literature on aesthetic judgment, user experience and trade-offs between usability and hedonic/ludic design qualities.
- Bernier, M. J. 1996. Establishing the psychometric properties of a scale for evaluating quality in printed educational materials. Pat. Educat. Counsel. 283--299.Google Scholar
- Bloch, P. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. J. Market. 59, 16--29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Blom, J. and Monk, A. 2003. Theory of personalization of appearance: Why users personalize their PCs and mobile phones. Human-Comput. Interact. 18, 3, 193--228. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2002. Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness (Revised ed.). Rider, London, UK.Google Scholar
- De Angeli, A., Lynch, P., and Johnson, G. I. 2002. Pleasure versus efficiency in user interfaces: Towards an involvement framework. In Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. W. S. Green, and P. W. Jordan, Eds. Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 97--111.Google Scholar
- De Angeli, A., Sutcliffe, A. G., and Hartmann, J. 2006. Interaction, usability and aesthetics: What influences users' preferences? In Proceedings of DIS 06, Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- De Bruijn, O., De Angeli, A., and Sutcliffe, A. G. 2007. Customer experience requirements for e-commerce web-sites. Int. J. Web Engin. Tech. 3, 4, 441--464. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dion, K., Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. 1972. What is beautiful is good. J. Personal. Soc. Psych. 24, 285--290.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Djajadiningrat, J. P., Overbeeke, C. J., and Wensveen, S. A. G. 2000. Augmenting fun and beauty: A pamphlet. In Proceedings of Designing Augmented Reality Environments (DARE 2000) (Elsinore, Denmark). 131--134. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hallnäs, L. and Redström, J. 2002. From use to presence: On the expression of aesthetics of everyday computational things. ACM Trans. Comput.-Human Interact. 9, 2, 106--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hartmann, J., Sutcliffe, A.G., and De Angeli, A. 2007. Investigating attractiveness in web user interfaces. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'07) (San Jose, CA). ACM, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hassenzahl, M. 2002. The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 13, 479--497.Google Scholar
- Hassenzahl, M. 2003. The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. M. Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, and P. C. Wright, Eds. Kluwer, Dortrecht, 31--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hassenzahl, M. 2004. The interplay of beauty, goodness and usability in interactive products. Human-Comput. Interact. 19, 4, 319--349. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., and Lehner, K. 2000. Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software's appeal. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'2000) (The Hague Apr. 1--6). T. Turner, G. Szwillus, M. Czerwinski, and F. Paterno, Eds. ACM, New York, 201--208. Google ScholarDigital Library
- IBM. 2000. Ease of use: Design principles. http://www.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/Publish/6. (20 November 2000).Google Scholar
- ISO. 1997. ISO 9241: Ergonomic requirements for office systems with visual display terminals (VDTs). International Standards Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Ivory, M. and Hearst, M. 2001. The state of the art in automated usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 33, 4, 173--197. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kim, J., Lee, J., and Choi, D. 2003. Designing emotionally evocative homepages: An empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factors and emotional dimensions. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud. 59, 6, 899--940. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lavie, T. and Tractinsky, N. 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud. 60, 3, 269--298. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lindgaard, G. and Dudek, C. 2003. What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interact. Comput. 15, 3, 429--452.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lynch, P. J. and Horton, S. 2001. Web Style Guidelines (2nd ed.). Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
- McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. 2005. Technology as Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meiners, M. L. and Sheposh, J. P. 1977. Beauty or brains: Which image for your mate? Personal. Social Psych. 3, 262--265.Google Scholar
- Merrilees, B. and Fry, M. L. 2002. Corporate branding: A framework for e-retailers. Corp. Reput. Rev. 5, 213--225.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mullet, K. and Sano, D. 1995. Designing Visual Interfaces: Communication Oriented Techniques. SunSoft Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. Academic Press, Orlands, FL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. 2000. Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. New Riders, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. SIGCHI Bulletin (April: special issue), 249--256.Google Scholar
- Norman, D. A. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Overbeeke, K. C., Djajadiningrat, J. P., Hummels, C. C. M., and Wensveen, S. A. G. 2002. Chapter 7. In Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability, W. S. Green, and P. W. Jordan, Eds. Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 97--111.Google Scholar
- Park, S., Choi, D., and Kim, J. 2004. Critical factors for the aesthetic fidelity of web pages: Empirical studies with professional web designers and users. Interact. Comput. 16, 2, 351--376.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Petersen, M. G., Iversen, O. S., Krogh, P. G., and Ludvigsen, M. 2004. Aesthetic interaction: A pragmatist's aesthetics of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS 2004). ACM, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reeves, B. and Nass, C. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. CLSI/Cambridge University Press, Stanford CA/Cambridge, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schaller, D. T., Allison-Bunnell, S., Chow, A., Marty, P., and Heo, M. 2004. To FlashFlash or not to FlashFlash? Usability and user engagement of HTML vs. FlashFlash. In Proceedings of the Museums and the Web 2004 International Conference. Available on-line at http://www.eduweb.com/ToFlashFlashornot.pdf.Google Scholar
- Shusterman, R. 1992. Pragmatist Aesthetics, Living Beauty, Rethinking art. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Spool, J. M., Scanlon, T., Snyder, C., Schroeder, W., and De Angelo, T. 1999. Web Site Usability: A Designer's Guide. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sutcliffe, A. G. 2002a. Assessing the reliability of heuristic evaluation for website attractiveness and usability. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 35), (Hawaii, Jan. 7--10). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1838--1847. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sutcliffe, A. G. 2002b. Heuristic evaluation of website attractiveness and usability. In Proceedings: 8th Workshop on Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems (Glasgow, Ireland, June 13--15). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 188--199. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sutcliffe, A. G. and De Angeli, A. 2005. Assessing interaction styles in web user interfaces. In Proceedings of Human Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2005) (Rome, Italy). Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 405--417. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tractinsky, N. 1997. Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 97 Conference Proceedings, S. Pemberton, Ed. (Atlanta, GA, May 22--27) ACM, New York, 115--122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tractinsky, N., Shoval-Katz, A., and Ikar, D. 2000. What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput. 13, 2, 127--145.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tractinsky, N., and Zmiri, D. 2006, Exploring attributes of skins as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI. In Aesthetic Computing, P. Fishwick, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 405--521.Google Scholar
- Turner, J. C. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Towards a theory of user judgment of aesthetics and user interface quality
Recommendations
Improving performance, perceived usability, and aesthetics with culturally adaptive user interfaces
When we investigate the usability and aesthetics of user interfaces, we rarely take into account that what users perceive as beautiful and usable strongly depends on their cultural background. In this paper, we argue that it is not feasible to design ...
Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use
Designing a highly preferred product or system is a crucial issue for better information-services and product sales. We attempted to understand the process of users' preference-making based on usability and aesthetics. In the present study, we examined ...
Exploring the boundary conditions of the effect of aesthetics on perceived usability
A growing body of usability research suggests that the aesthetics of a system affects users' perceptions of the usability of that system. But the causal relationship between aesthetics and usability and the direction of that relation have not been ...
Comments