More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Attractive phones don't have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability

Authors:

Jeffrey M. Quinn,

Tuan Q. TranAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Pages 353 - 362

https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753380

Published: 10 April 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Participants sometimes rate products high in usability despite experiencing obvious usability problems (low effectiveness or efficiency). Is it possible that this occurs because high product attractiveness compensates for low effectiveness/efficiency? Previous research has not investigated the interplay between attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency to determine whether attractiveness accounts for additional variance in usability ratings beyond that which is explained by effectiveness and efficiency. The present research provides the first test of this idea. Using data from usability testing, we demonstrate that attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency each has an independent influence on usability ratings and, in the present research, attractiveness had the largest impact. We report results of quantitative analyses that suggest multiple mechanisms could be responsible for the relationship between attractiveness and usability.

References

[1]

ANSI (2001). Common industry format for usability test reports (ANSI-NCITS 354-2001). Washington, DC: American National Standards Institute.

[2]

Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4, 114--123.

Digital Library

[3]

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173--1182.

[4]

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189--194). London: Taylor & Francis.

[5]

Ben-Bassat, T., Meyer, J., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). Economic and subjective measures of the perceived value of aesthetics and usability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13, 210--234.

Digital Library

[6]

Butler, A. B., Scherer, L. L., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2003). Effects of solution elicitation aids and need for cognition on the generation of solutions to illstructured problems. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 235--244.

[7]

Butt, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 346--360.

Digital Library

[8]

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197--253.

[9]

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306--307.

[10]

Chawda, B., Craft, B., Cairns, P., Rüger, S., & Heech, D. (2005). Do attractive things work better? An exploration of search tool visualizations. Proc. HCI 2005, 2, 46--51.

[11]

Clore, G. L., & Schnall, S. (2005). The influence of affect on attitude. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 437--489). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[12]

Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 99--116.

[13]

Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2000). Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? CHI Letters, 2, 345--352.

Digital Library

[14]

Hornbæk, K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 79--102.

Digital Library

[15]

Hornbæk, K., & Law, E. L. (2007). Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures. Proc. CHI 2007, 617--626.

Digital Library

[16]

Isen, A. M. (2001). An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 75--85.

[17]

Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 437--442.

[18]

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233--265). New York: McGraw-Hill).

[19]

Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Proc. CHI 1995, 292--293.

Digital Library

[20]

Ling, C., Hwang, W., & Salvendy, G. (2007). A survey of what customers want in a cell phone design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26, 149--163.

Digital Library

[21]

Nielsen, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. Retrieved December 14, 2009 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html

[22]

Nielsen, J., & Levy, J. (1994). Measuring usability: Preference versus performance. Communications of the ACM, 37, 66--76.

Digital Library

[23]

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250--256.

[24]

Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Digital Library

[25]

Norman, D. A., & Ortony, A. (2006). Designers and users: Two perspectives on emotion and design. In S. Bagnara & G. Crampton Smith (Eds.), Theories and practice in interaction design (pp. 91--103). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[26]

Quinn, J. M. (in preparation). The aesthetic appeal of mobile phones: Users' ratings usually decline over time.

[27]

Quinn, J. M. Moderators of the attractiveness-usability relationship. Unpublished data.

[28]

Quinn, J. M., & Weller, D. R. (2009). When users judge a mobile phone's usability, which features matter? Proc. Usability Professionals' Association.

[29]

Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364--382.

[30]

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513--523.

[31]

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422--445.

[32]

Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. CHI 97 Electronic publications: Papers. http://sigchi.org/chi97/proceedings/paper/nt.htm

Digital Library

[33]

Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127--145.

Cited By

Bhatia APohl HHirzle TSeifi HHornbæk K(2024)Using the Visual Language of Comics to Alter Sensations in Augmented RealityProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642351(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642351
Kruzikova AMuzik MKnapova LDedkova LSmahel DMatyas V(2024)Two-factor authentication timeComputers and Security10.1016/j.cose.2023.103667138:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103667
Garcia II JHimang MHimang CDensing GAlit MBurgos NBongo MOcampo L(2023)An Extended Technology Adoption Model with Perceived Visual Attractiveness to Assess Academic Web PortalsTrends in Higher Education10.3390/higheredu20100102:1(152-167)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu2010010
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Attractive phones don't have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods

Recommendations

Does size matter?: investigating the impact of mobile phone screen size on users' perceived usability, effectiveness and efficiency.
MobileHCI '13: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services

Given the wide adoption of smartphones, an interesting debate is taking place regarding their optimal screen size and specifically whether possible portability issues counterbalance the obvious benefits of a larger screen. Moreover, the lack of ...
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 ...
A usability evaluation of the Google Home with non-native English speakers using the system usability scale

Advancements in multidisciplinary research have made voice user interfaces (VUIs) become a reality in both research and commercialisation. Although the existing research has indicated that VUIs are useful in people's daily lives (e.g., personal assistant),...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2010

2690 pages

ISBN:9781605589299

DOI:10.1145/1753326

General Chair:
Elizabeth Mynatt
Georgia Institute of Technology
,
Program Chairs:
Geraldine Fitzpatrick
Vienna University of Technology
,
Scott Hudson
Carnegie Mellon University
,
Keith Edwards
Georgia Tech
,
Tom Rodden
University of Nottingham

Copyright © 2010 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 April 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

CHI '10

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '10: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 10 - 15, 2010

Georgia, Atlanta, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025

Sponsor:
sigchi

ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

37
Total Citations
View Citations
1,709
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)25
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bhatia APohl HHirzle TSeifi HHornbæk K(2024)Using the Visual Language of Comics to Alter Sensations in Augmented RealityProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642351(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642351
Kruzikova AMuzik MKnapova LDedkova LSmahel DMatyas V(2024)Two-factor authentication timeComputers and Security10.1016/j.cose.2023.103667138:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103667
Garcia II JHimang MHimang CDensing GAlit MBurgos NBongo MOcampo L(2023)An Extended Technology Adoption Model with Perceived Visual Attractiveness to Assess Academic Web PortalsTrends in Higher Education10.3390/higheredu20100102:1(152-167)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu2010010
Perrig SUeffing DOpwis KBrühlmann F(2023)Smartphone app aesthetics influence users' experience and performanceFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2023.111384214Online publication date: 14-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1113842
Liu YZhang JShen SLu K(2022)More Information, Greater Appreciation: The Correlation between Background Information and Aesthetic Judgment of Tourist CraftsBehavioral Sciences10.3390/bs1207021712:7(217)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12070217
Buker TSchmitt TMiehling JWartzack S(2022)What’s more important for product design – usability or emotionality? An examination of influencing factorsJournal of Engineering Design10.1080/09544828.2022.214290233:8-9(635-669)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2022.2142902
Buker TSchmitt TMiehling JWartzack S(2022)Exploring the importance of a usable and emotional product design from the user’s perspectiveErgonomics10.1080/00140139.2022.210169466:5(580-591)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2101694
Bschaden ASchulz JStroebele-Benschop N(2022)The sustainability halo effect: Does the provision of sustainability information of a snack affect sensory and health perception, and willingness to pay?Future Foods10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100143(100143)Online publication date: Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100143
Buker TMiehling JWartzack S(2021)Improving Products by Combining Usability and EmotionsDesign Methodology for Future Products10.1007/978-3-030-78368-6_5(85-103)Online publication date: 14-Dec-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78368-6_5
Koelle MAnanthanarayan SBoll SBernhaupt RMueller FVerweij DAndres JMcGrenere JCockburn AAvellino IGoguey ABjørn PZhao SSamson BKocielnik R(2020)Social Acceptability in HCI: A Survey of Methods, Measures, and Design StrategiesProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3313831.3376162(1-19)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3313831.3376162
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents