1. 1 What is usable is usable Master Thesis Presentation Marijn Kampf 26 august 2004 15:15 – 16:15

2. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 2 / 19 Agenda Introduction Critique of Tractinsky Experiment I Experiment II Discussion & Conclusions Questions

3. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 3 / 19 Introduction Relations between aesthetics and usability Aesthetics and “traditional” Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Critique on Tractinsky

4. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 4 / 19 Previous research Kurosu and Kashimura (1995) -Apparent vs. inherent usability -Introduced ATM displays Tractinsky (1997) -Replication in different cultural settings Tractinsky (2000) -Added functionality -Aesthetics affected post-use perceptions of aesthetics and usability. Actual usability did not.

5. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 5 / 19 Tractinsky’s experiment (2000) Aesthetic and usability manipulation 3 stages -Pre test stage -9 interfaces pre experiment rating -Test stage -Assigned to aesthetic level -Participants practice with ATM -Assigned to usability level -Participants perform ATM tasks -Post test stage -Post experiment rating

6. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 6 / 19 Critique on Tractinsky Influence participants by showing all interfaces Pre and post question consistency Questionnaire Usability manipulation -Delay in processing time -Buttons not always operating -Shortcut unavailable

7. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 7 / 19 Research questions H 1 : Post-experimental measures will not indicate strong correlations between perceived aesthetics and perceived usability if the participants see only one screen design H 2 : A better actual usability will correspond to a better perceived usability Using a more elaborate measure of aesthetics and perceived usability

8. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 8 / 19 Method 83 participants 2 x 2 groups design -Aesthetics -Usability Procedure -Randomly assigned to one of four conditions -Pre-test questionnaire -Practice tasks / Actual tasks -Post-test questionnaire High aestheticsLow aesthetics

9. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 9 / 19 Results Actual usability variable Manipulation check -Two-way ANOVA’s effect on completion times -Usability factor (F 1,78 = 236.975; p < 0.001) -Aesthetics interface (F 1,78 = 6.725; p = 0.011) Regression analysis perceived post-usability: -51.8% variance (R 2 adj = 49.9%; F 3, 78 = 27.9; p <.001) -Post-classic aesthetics (t 78 = 6.471; beta =.529; p <.001) -Perceived pre-usability (t 78 = 3.522; beta =.288; p =.001) -Task times (t 78 = -3.271; beta = -.257; p =.002)

10. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 10 / 19 Discussion H 1 : Post-experimental measures will not indicate strong correlations between perceived aesthetics and perceived usability if the participants see only one screen design H 2 : A better actual usability will correspond to a better perceived usability Using a more elaborate measure of aesthetics and perceived usability

11. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 11 / 19 Conclusions Actual usability does have an effect on perceived usability with our usability manipulation Judged aesthetics had an effect on perceived usability The aesthetics effect on perceived usability may have been due to the effect on actual usability Judged Aesthetics Perceived Usability Actual Usability

12. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 12 / 19 Experiment II H 1 : Aesthetics do not influence the perceived usability if aesthetics do not influence actual usability Create designs which differ on classic and expressive aesthesis dimensions

13. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 13 / 19 Differences first experiment Procedure -Additional questions Scales Method -83 participants (26 downloadable version) Design -2 x 2 between groups -Classic aesthetics -Expressive aesthetics HighLow High Expressive aesthetics Low Classic aesthetics

14. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 14 / 19 Results Manipulation check -No effect on average completion times of interface conditions -Manipulated classic aesthetics -Failed to manipulate expressive aesthetics Found effect of expressive aesthetics on perceived post- usability, not from classic aesthetics.

15. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 15 / 19 Results Regression analysis Influence on perceived post-usability Variance explained: 61.3%; R 2 adj = 58.8%; F 5, 77 = 24.407; p <.001 -Pre-perceived usability (t 77 = 5.710; beta =.437; p <.001) -Post-classic aesthetics (t 77 = 5.402; beta =.480; p <.001) -Pre-expressive aesthetics (t 77 = -4.000; beta = -.439; p <.001) -Expressive aesthetics factor (t 77 = -3.012; beta = -.225; p =.004) -Post-expressive aesthetics (t 77 = 2.316; beta =.270; p =.023)

16. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 16 / 19 Discussion H 1 : Aesthetics do not influence the perceived usability if aesthetics do not influence actual usability Create designs which differ on classic and expressive aesthesis dimensions

17. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 17 / 19 General discussion & conclusions Discussion Limited experiment -Can an ATM be aesthetic? Results 1st experiment contradict Tractinsky -Usability manipulation might explain differences Functional and “box” aesthetics -Functional: Form follows function What is usable is usable Conclusion Aesthetics could influence both actual and perceived usability

18. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 18 / 19 Questions Are there questions or comments?

19. Marijn Kampf Master Thesis Presentation 19 / 19 References [BANHAM_1972] Reyner Banham; Theory and design in the first machine age; 1972; Pages 320-321 [KUROSU_1995] Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura; Apparent Usability vs. Inherent Usability Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability; Association for Computing Machinery; CHI 95 - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1995 [LAVIE_2004] Talia Lavie and Noam Tractinsky; Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites*1; International Journal of Human-Computer Studies; Volume 60; Issue 3; March 2004; Pages 269-298 [LINDGAARD_2003] Gitte Lindgaard and Cathy Dudek; What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction?; Interacting with Computers; Volume 15; Issue 3; June 2003; Pages 429-445 [NIELSEN_1993] Jakob Nielsen; Usability Engineering; Morgan Kaufmann; 1993; [NORMAN_2002] Don A. Norman; Emotion and design: Atrractive things work better; Interactions Magazine; Volume 4; July/August 2002; Pages 36-42; http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Emotion-and-design.htmlhttp://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Emotion-and-design.html [NORMAN_2003] Don A. Norman; Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things; Basic Books; 23-Dec-03; Chapter 1; http://www.jnd.org/ED_Draft/CH01.pdfhttp://www.jnd.org/ED_Draft/CH01.pdf [PARK_2004] Su-e Park, Dongsung Choi and Jinwoo Kim; Critical factors for the aesthetic fidelity of web pages: empirical studies with professional web designers and users; Interacting with Computers; Volume 16; Issue 2; April 2004; Pages 351-376 [SCHAIK_2004] Paul van Schaik and Jonathan Ling; The effects of screen ratio and order on information retrieval in web pages; Displays; In Press, Corrected Proof; Available online 10 February 2004; [SNIJDERS_2003] Tom A.B. Snijders; Multilevel Analysis in M. Lewis-Beck, A.E. Bryman, and T.F. Liao (eds.); The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods; Volume 2; 2003; Pages 673-677; http://stat.gamma.rug.nl/snijders/MultilevelAnalysis.pdf http://stat.gamma.rug.nl/snijders/MultilevelAnalysis.pdf [TRACTINSKY_1997] Noam Tractinsky; Aesthetics and Apparent Usability: Empirically Assessing Cultural and Methodological Issues; Association for Computing Machinery; CHI 97 - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1997; [TRACTINSKY_2000] N. Tractinsky, A. S. Katz and D. Ikar; What is beautiful is usable; Interacting with Computers; Volume 13; Issue 2; December 2000; Pages 127-145