1. Designing Business-To-Consumer (B2C) Interface Metaphors: An Empirical Investigation John D. Wells Washington State University William L. Fuerst University of Kansas The First Annual Workshop on HCI Research in MIS December 14 th, 2002 Barcelona, Spain

2. Overview What are metaphors? Using a war metaphor to explain the concept of an argument Interface metaphors Desktop metaphor Why is it worth studying?  Heterogeneity of interaction domains (i.e., eCommerce)  Heterogeneity of users (i.e., customers)

3. Supporting Literature Interface Metaphors Domain Familiarity Information Presentation

4. Interface Metaphors "the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another" (Lackoff and Johnson 1980, p. 5). Metaphors are human derived models that apply tangible, concrete, recognizable objects (i.e., source domain) to abstract concepts and/or processes (i.e., target domain) (Baecker, et al., 1995). The use of concrete objects creates an interface metaphor that contains a structure that is visually representative of the interaction domain that facilitates a user’s understanding of the interface (Erickson 1990).

5. Domain Familiarity Mental Models: Design Model, User’s Model, and System Image (Norman 1990) Expert/Novice Perspective Experts can effectively interpret metaphors with either abstract OR concrete attributes (Gentner 1988) Novices rely on metaphors with concrete attributes to understand a target domain (Gillen et al. 1995)

6. Information Presentation Consumer information processing and decision- making (Bettman, 1979) Cognitive Fit Theory suggests that there is a strong link between how information is represented in an interface and the effectiveness with which users interpret/use the information (Vessey, 1991) Depending on the nature of the task, how spatial (i.e., graphical) and symbolic (i.e., textual) information are presented to the user is an important consideration (Vessey and Galletta 1991)

7. Research Model Concrete Interface Metaphor Mode of Interface Abstract Interface Metaphor Strong Familiarity Domain Familiarity Weak Familiarity Symbolic Information Spatial Information H4a Concrete Interface Metaphor Mode of Interface Abstract Interface Metaphor Strong Familiarity Domain Familiarity Weak Familiarity Symbolic Information Information Retention H3a H3b H4b, H4c Spatial Information H2 H1

8. Problem Domain Hypothetical Vacation Resort This problem domain was attractive because… the possibility of subjects possessing specific domain knowledge about the resort was eliminated. subjects could be polarized into two domain familiarity groups: strong and weak it was generalizable to other business domains (e.g., airlines, restaurant, etc.).

9. Mode of Interface Context-Oriented (i.e., Concrete) Content-Oriented (i.e., Abstract)

10. Domain Familiarity Instantiate using the concept of Mental Models Pre-test questionnaire administered to over 900 potential subjects Quantitative scores were used to created 3 groups: high, medium, low The middle group was discarded to create 2 artificially dichotomous groups: Strong and Weak

11. Information Retention (and Recall) A primitive, fundamental requirement for consumer information process (Johnson & Bettman, 1984) Relationship to information presentation and decision-making (Bettman, 1979) Used in IT-oriented information presentation studies (e.g., graphs vs. tables) (Umanath & Scamell, 1988) Effective operationalization 30 questions (15 symbolic, 15 spatial)

12. Analysis of Results Overall Information Retention Averages Results Related to Research Hypotheses

13. Average Information Retention Scores Note: (#.##) – denotes 2-day retention scores

14. ANOVA Results for Overall Information Retention Scores Source of VariationSum of SquaresDFMean SquareF-RatioProb. > F Domain Familiarity20.04545119.102271.4091.2386 Mode of Interface418.919091468.2840929.4463.0001 Error1195.00008414.226 C-Total1674.863687 DF*Interface40.899061 2.8756.0936

15. ANOVA Results for Overall Information Retention Scores (2-Day Re-Test) Source of VariationSum of SquaresDFMean SquareF-RatioProb. > F Domain Familiarity76.409091 5.4909.0215 Mode of Interface445.50001 32.0145.0001 Error1168.90918413.916 C-Total1710.863687 DF*Interface20.045451 1.4405.2334

16. Research Model Concrete Interface Metaphor Mode of Interface Abstract Interface Metaphor Strong Familiarity Domain Familiarity Weak Familiarity Symbolic Information Spatial Information H4a (p=.062) Concrete Interface Metaphor Mode of Interface Abstract Interface Metaphor Strong Familiarity Domain Familiarity Weak Familiarity Symbolic Information Information Retention H3a (p=.506) H3b (p=.178) H4b (p=.0001), H4c (p=.002) Spatial Information H2 (p=.0215) H1 (p=.0001) Note: Based on Re-Test results

17. Symbolic Information Retention Note: Based on Re-Test results

18. Spatial Information Retention Note: Based on Re-Test results

19. Limitations Laboratory Setting Domain of Applicability Task Type Need for Replication

20. Contributions Theoretical Interface Metaphors (Methodological) Cognitive Fit and Mental Models Pragmatic Domain of Use Information Presentation

21. Future Research Different Independent Variables Task Type Information Search, Purchase transactions Products vs. Services Intangibility Different Dependent Variables Productivity, Accuracy, Satisfaction Replication in Different Problem Domain

22. Q & A

23. Detailed Summary of Hypothesis Testing Information Retention Research HypothesisSame Day2-Day Lag #1 An interface metaphor that is based on concrete business domain attributes will enable a user to retain significantly more information when compared to an interface metaphor that is based on abstract business domain attributes. #2: A user who possesses strong familiarity of the business domain will retain significantly more information than a user who possesses weak familiarity of the business domain #3a: When using an interface metaphor based on abstract business domain attributes, the amount of symbolic information retained by SDFs will be significantly MORE than the amount of symbolic information retained by WDFs. #3b: The amount of symbolic information retained by WDFs when using an interface metaphor based on concrete business domain attributes will be significantly MORE than the amount of symbolic information retained by WDFs when using an interface metaphor based on abstract business domain attributes. #4a: When using an interface metaphor based on abstract business domain attributes, the amount of spatial information retained by SDFs will be significantly MORE than the amount of spatial information retained by WDFs.  #4b: The amount of spatial information retained by WDFs when using an interface metaphor based on concrete business domain attributes will be significantly MORE than the amount of spatial information retained by WDFs when using an interface metaphor based on abstract business domain attributes. #4c: The amount of spatial information retained by SDFs when using an interface metaphor based on concrete business domain attributes will be significantly MORE than the amount of spatial information retained by SDFs when using an interface metaphor based on abstract business domain attributes. - Significant at  =.05  - p =.062