Investigating attractiveness in web user interfaces

A theoretical framework for assessing the attractiveness of websites based on Adaptive Decision Making theory is introduced. The framework was developed into a questionnaire and used to evaluate three websites which shared the same brand and topic but differed in aesthetic design. The DSchool site was favoured overall and was best for aesthetics and usability. The subjective ratings of the sites were in conflict with the subject-reported comments on usability problems. Subjects were given two scenarios for their preference. They changed their preference from the DSchool to the HCI Group's site for the more serious (PhD study) scenario; however, design background students remained loyal to the DSchool. The implications of framing and halo effects on users' judgement of aesthetics are discussed.

[1]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Pleasure versus efficiency in user interfaces: towards an involvement framework , 2002 .

[2]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[3]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[4]  Martin Ludvigsen,et al.  Aesthetic interaction: a pragmatist's aesthetics of interactive systems , 2004, DIS '04.

[5]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[6]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe.  Heuristic Evaluation of Website Attractiveness and Usability , 2001, DSV-IS.

[7]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Theory of Personalization of Appearance: Why Users Personalize Their PCs and Mobile Phones , 2003, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[9]  P. Jordan,et al.  Pleasure With Products : Beyond Usability , 2002 .

[10]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Assessing Interaction Styles in Web User Interfaces , 2005, INTERACT.

[11]  Marti A. Hearst,et al.  The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces , 2001, CSUR.

[12]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity , 1999 .

[13]  R.I.A. Mercuri,et al.  Technology as Experience , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[14]  N. Tractinsky,et al.  What is beautiful is usable , 2000, Interact. Comput..

[15]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  Critical factors for the aesthetic fidelity of web pages: empirical studies with professional web designers and users , 2004, Interact. Comput..

[16]  Kevin Mullet,et al.  Designing Visual Interfaces: Communication Oriented Techniques , 1994 .

[17]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[18]  Johan Redström,et al.  From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things , 2002, TCHI.

[19]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  Designing emotionally evocative homepages: an empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factors and emotional dimensions , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  Carolyn Snyder,et al.  Web Site Usability: A Designer's Guide , 1997 .

[21]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[22]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  Augmenting fun and beauty: a pamphlet , 2000, DARE '00.

[23]  R. Hopkins.  Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art , 1994 .

[24]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites , 2004 .

[25]  B. Merrilees,et al.  Corporate Branding: A Framework for E-retailers , 2002 .

[26]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[27]  P. Fishwick.  Exploring Attributes of Skins as Potential Antecedents of Emotion in Hci , 2006 .

[28]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues , 1997, CHI.

[29]  Michael Burmester,et al.  Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software's appeal , 2000, CHI.