Towards a theory of user judgment of aesthetics and user interface quality

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.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bernier, M. J. 1996. Establishing the psychometric properties of a scale for evaluating quality in printed educational materials. Pat. Educat. Counsel. 283--299.
• 2: Bloch, P. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. J. Market. 59, 16--29.
• 3: Jan O. Blom , Andrew F. Monk, Theory of personalization of appearance: why users personalize their pcs and mobile phones, Human-Computer Interaction, v.18 n.3, p.193-228, September 2003 [doi>10.1207/S15327051HCI1803_1]
• 4: Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2002. Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness (Revised ed.). Rider, London, UK.
• 5: 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.
• 6: Antonella De Angeli , Alistair Sutcliffe , Jan Hartmann, Interaction, usability and aesthetics: what influences users' preferences?, Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, June 26-28, 2006, University Park, PA, USA [doi>10.1145/1142405.1142446]
• 7: Oscar De Bruijn , Antonella De Angeli , Alistair Sutcliffe, Customer experience requirements for e-commerce websites, International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology, v.3 n.4, p.441-464, July 2007 [doi>10.1504/IJWET.2007.014442]
• 8: Dion, K., Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. 1972. What is beautiful is good. J. Personal. Soc. Psych. 24, 285--290.
• 9: J. P. Djajadiningrat , C. J. Overbeeke , S. A. G. Wensveen, Augmenting fun and beauty: a pamphlet, Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing augmented reality environments, p.131-134, April 2000, Elsinore, Denmark [doi>10.1145/354666.354680]
• 10: Lars Hallnäs , Johan Redström, From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.9 n.2, p.106-124, June 2002 [doi>10.1145/513665.513668]
• 11: Jan Hartmann , Alistair Sutcliffe , Antonella De Angeli, Investigating attractiveness in web user interfaces, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 28-May 03, 2007, San Jose, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1240624.1240687]
• 12: Hassenzahl, M. 2002. The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 13, 479--497.
• 13: Marc Hassenzahl, The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product, Funology: from usability to enjoyment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 2005
• 14: Marc Hassenzahl, The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products, Human-Computer Interaction, v.19 n.4, p.319-349, December 2004 [doi>10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2]
• 15: Mare Hassenzahl , Axel Platz , Michael Burmester , Katrin Lehner, Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software's appeal, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.201-208, April 01-06, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/332040.332432]
• 16: IBM. 2000. Ease of use: Design principles. http://www.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/Publish/6. (20 November 2000).
• 17: ISO. 1997. ISO 9241: Ergonomic requirements for office systems with visual display terminals (VDTs). International Standards Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 18: Melody Y. Ivory , Marti A Hearst, The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.33 n.4, p.470-516, December 2001 [doi>10.1145/503112.503114]
• 19: Jinwoo Kim , Jooeun Lee , Dongseong Choi, Designing emotionally evocative homepages: an empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factors and emotional dimensions, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.59 n.6, p.899-940, December 2003 [doi>10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.06.002]
• 20: Talia Lavie , Noam Tractinsky, Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.60 n.3, p.269-298, March 2004 [doi>10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002]
• 21: Lindgaard, G. and Dudek, C. 2003. What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interact. Comput. 15, 3, 429--452.
• 22: Lynch, P. J. and Horton, S. 2001. Web Style Guidelines (2nd ed.). Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
• 23: John McCarthy , Peter Wright, Technology as Experience, The MIT Press, 2004
• 24: Meiners, M. L. and Sheposh, J. P. 1977. Beauty or brains: Which image for your mate? Personal. Social Psych. 3, 262--265.
• 25: Merrilees, B. and Fry, M. L. 2002. Corporate branding: A framework for e-retailers. Corp. Reput. Rev. 5, 213--225.
• 26: Kevin Mullet , Darrell Sano, Designing visual interfaces: communication oriented techniques, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995
• 27: Jakob Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1993
• 28: Jakob Nielsen, Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity, New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999
• 29: Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. SIGCHI Bulletin (April: special issue), 249--256.
• 30: Norman, D. A. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.
• 31: 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.
• 32: 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.
• 33: Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• 34: Marianne Graves Petersen , Ole Sejer Iversen , Peter Gall Krogh , Martin Ludvigsen, Aesthetic interaction: a pragmatist's aesthetics of interactive systems, Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, August 01-04, 2004, Cambridge, MA, USA [doi>10.1145/1013115.1013153]
• 35: Byron Reeves , Clifford Nass, The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996
• 36: 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.
• 37: Shusterman, R. 1992. Pragmatist Aesthetics, Living Beauty, Rethinking art. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
• 38: Jared M. Spool , Tara Scanlon , Carolyn Snyder , Will Schroeder , Terri DeAngelo, Web site usability: a designer's guide, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1998
• 39: A. Sutcliffe, Assessing the Reliability of Heuristic Evaluation for Website Attractiveness and Usability, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'02)-Volume 5, p.137, January 07-10, 2002
• 40: Alistair G. Sutcliffe, Heuristic Evaluation of Website Attractiveness and Usability, Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Interactive Systems: Design, Specification, and Verification-Revised Papers, p.183-198, June 13-15, 2001
• 41: 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.
• 42: Noam Tractinsky, Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.115-122, March 22-27, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, United States [doi>10.1145/258549.258626]
• 43: Tractinsky, N., Shoval-Katz, A., and Ikar, D. 2000. What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput. 13, 2, 127--145.
• 44: 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.
• 45: Turner, J. C. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: User-centered design

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation); Theory and methods

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
Aesthetics, interaction styles, judgment and decision-making, usability