Integrating Visualization and Multi-Attribute Utility Theory for Online Product Selection

Effectively selling products online is a challenging task. Today's product domains often contain a dizzying variety of brands and models with highly complex sets of characteristics. This paper addresses the problem of supporting product search and selection in domains containing large numbers of alternatives with complex sets of features. A number of online shopping websites provide product choice assistance by making direct use of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). While the MAUT approach is appealing due to its solid theoretical foundations, there are several reasons that it does not fit well with people's decision making behavior.This paper presents an approach designed to better fit with people's natural decision making process. The system is called VMAP for Visualizing Multi-Attribute Preferences. VMAP provides on one screen both a multi-attribute preference tool (MAP-tool) and a product visualization tool (V-tool). The product visualization tool displays the set of available products, with each product displayed as a point in a 3D attribute space. By viewing the product space, users can gain an overview of the range of available products, as well as an understanding of the relationships between their attributes. The MAP-tool integrates expression of preferences and filter conditions, which are then immediately reflected in the V-tool display. In this way, the user can immediately see the consequences of his expressed preferences on the product space.The VMAP system is evaluated on a number of factors by comparing users' subjective ratings of the system to those of a more traditional MAUT product selection tool. The results show that while VMAP is somewhat more difficult to use than a traditional MAUT product selection tool, it provides better flexibility, provides the ability to more effectively explore the product domain, and produces more confidence in the selected product.

[1]  Jim Blythe,et al.  Visual exploration and incremental utility elicitation , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[2]  Gregory W. Fischer,et al.  Experimental Applications of Multi-Attribute Utility Models , 1975 .

[3]  William R. Darden,et al.  Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value , 1994 .

[4]  Jürgen Koenemann,et al.  A comparative usability evaluation of user interfaces for online product catalog , 2000, EC '00.

[5]  Greg Linden,et al.  Interactive Assessment of User Preference Models: The Automated Travel Assistant , 1997 .

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

[7]  Markus Stolze,et al.  Soft navigation in electronic product catalogs , 2000, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[8]  Thomas K. Landauer,et al.  Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction , 1988 .

[9]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Visual information seeking: tight coupling of dynamic query filters with starfield displays , 1994, CHI '94.

[10]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Chapter 4 – The Usability Engineering Lifecycle , 1993 .

[11]  W. Buxton.  Human-Computer Interaction , 1988, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[12]  B. Thomas,et al.  Usability Evaluation In Industry , 1996 .

[13]  Boi Faltings,et al.  SmartClients: Constraint Satisfaction as a Paradigm for Scaleable Intelligent Information Systems , 2004, Constraints.

[14]  Giuseppe Carenini,et al.  Constructed Preferences and Value-focused Thinking: Implications for AI research on Preference Elicitation , 2002 .

[15]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  Projection Method For Uncertain Multi-Attribute Decision Making With Preference Information On Alternatives , 2004, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[16]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[17]  Mogens Allan Niss,et al.  Goals of Mathematics Teaching , 1996 .

[18]  R. Angier,et al.  The structure and synthesis of the liver L. casei factor. , 1946, Science.

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

[20]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Readings in information visualization - using vision to think , 1999 .

[21]  Taro Yamane.  Statistics: An Introductory Analysis , 1965 .

[22]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Enriching buyers' experiences: the SmartClient approach , 2000, CHI.

[23]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[24]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[25]  James R. Lewis,et al.  IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[26]  Tom Lanning,et al.  Parallel bargrams for consumer-based information exploration and choice , 2001, UIST '01.

[27]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Problem-Focused Incremental Elicitation of Multi-Attribute Utility Models , 1997, UAI.

[28]  Henry Lieberman,et al.  Intelligent profiling by example , 2001, IUI '01.

[29]  Tom Lanning,et al.  Multidimensional information visualization through sliding rods , 2000, AVI '00.

[30]  Pratyush Kumar,et al.  Evaluating example-based search tools , 2004, EC '04.

[31]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[32]  James R. Lewis,et al.  Psychometric Evaluation of the PSSUQ Using Data from Five Years of Usability Studies , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Terence R. Smith,et al.  A geographic knowledge representation system for multimedia geospatial retrieval and analysis , 1997, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[34]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[35]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Multimedia Explanations in IDEA Decision Support Systems , 1998 .