A comparative analysis of style of user interface look and feel in a synchronous computer supported cooperative work environment

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the style of a user interface (i.e. its look and feel) has an effect on the usability of a synchronous computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) environment for delivering Internet-based collaborative content. The problem motivating this study is that people who are located in different places need to be able to communicate with one another. One way to do this is by using complex computer tools that allow users to share information, document, programs, etc. As an increasing number of business organizations require workers to use these types of complex communication tools, it is important to determine how users regard these types of tools and whether they are perceived to be useful. If a tool, or interface, is not perceived to be useful then it is often not used, or used ineffectively. As organizations strive to improve communication with and among users by providing more Internet-based collaborative environments, the users' experience in this form of delivery may be tied to a style of user interface look and feel that could negatively affect their overall acceptance of the collaborative environment. The significance of this study is that it applies the technology acceptance model (TAM) as a tool for evaluating style of user interface look and feel in a collaborative environment, and attempts to predict which factors of that model, perceived ease of use and/or perceived usefulness, could lead to better acceptance of collaborative tools within an organization.

[1]  Younghwa Lee,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies , 1999 .

[3]  William H. Money,et al.  Application of the technology acceptance model to a knowledge management system , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[4]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  An evaluation of the reliability and validity of Davis' perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use instrument , 1996 .

[5]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1 , 1992 .

[6]  Vannevar Bush,et al.  As we may think , 1945, INTR.

[7]  John C. Thomas,et al.  Metaphor and the Cognitive Representation of Computing Systems , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Letatia Bright Ducksworth,et al.  Supporting Computer-Mediated Collaboration through User Customized Agents , 2001 .

[9]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  How User Perceptions Influence Software Use , 1997, IEEE Softw..

[10]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication , 1992, MIS Q..

[11]  Said S. Al-Gahtani,et al.  Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: Factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology , 1999, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[12]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation , 1992, CSCW '92.

[14]  Jeff A. Johnson,et al.  The Xerox Star: a retrospective , 1989, Computer.

[15]  Michael Weber,et al.  CSCW tools: concepts and architectures , 1994, Computer.

[16]  D. Norman,et al.  User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction , 1988 .

[17]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  GroupWare for Real-Time Drawing: A Designer's Guide , 1995 .

[18]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages , 1983, Computer.

[19]  Neal G. Shaw.  Capturing the Technological Dimensions of IT Infrastructure Change: A Model and Empirical Evidence , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Computer-supported cooperative work: history and focus , 1994, Computer.

[21]  Fred D. Davis.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[22]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[23]  Ivan E. Sutherland,et al.  Sketchpad: a man-machine graphical communication system , 1899, AFIPS '63 (Spring).

[24]  Eric Harslem,et al.  Designing the STAR User Interface , 1987, ECICS.

[25]  L. Cronbach.  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[26]  Ken Eason,et al.  The process of introducing information technology , 1982 .

[27]  A. Venkatesh,et al.  An emerging distributed work arrangement: an investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home , 1992 .

[28]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  From Technically Possible to Socially Natural Groupware , 1998 .

[29]  R. Jayasuriya,et al.  A review of the construct of computer experience , 1999 .

[30]  Kathleen M. Swigger,et al.  The virtual collaborative university , 1997, Comput. Educ..

[31]  Ruth E. Lang,et al.  Extending WWW for Synchronous Collaboration , 1995, Comput. Networks ISDN Syst..

[32]  Peter Schulthess,et al.  Multimedia application sharing in a heterogeneous environment , 1995, MULTIMEDIA '95.

[33]  Subhasish Dasgupta,et al.  User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2002 .

[34]  J. C. R. Licklider,et al.  Man-Computer Symbiosis , 1960 .

[35]  Victor Lopez,et al.  Real-Time Collaboration over the Internet: What Actually Works? , 1999 .

[36]  Shu-Sheng Liaw,et al.  An Internet survey for perceptions of computers and the World Wide Web: relationship, prediction, and difference , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[37]  J. Nunnally.  Psychometric Theory (2nd ed), New York: McGraw-Hill. , 1978 .

[38]  Saul Greenberg.  Real Time Distributed Collaboration , 2002 .

[39]  Susan E. Yager.  Using information technology in a virtual work world: characteristics of collaborative workers , 1999, SIGCPR '99.

[40]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test† , 1996 .

[41]  Timothy Paul Cronan,et al.  On the Test-Retest Reliability of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Scales , 1993 .

[42]  Oliver Laitenberger,et al.  Evaluating the usefulness and the ease of use of a Web-based inspection data collection tool , 1998, Proceedings Fifth International Software Metrics Symposium. Metrics (Cat. No.98TB100262).

[43]  Girish H. Subramanian,et al.  A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Measurement , 1994 .

[44]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption , 2000, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[45]  Vijay Machiraju,et al.  A Survey on Research in Graphical User Interfaces , 1996 .

[46]  Charles R. Litecky,et al.  Internet-based collaboration software: a study of impacts on distributed collaborative work , 1999 .

[47]  Philip Bobko,et al.  Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. , 1994 .

[48]  Jeff Johnson,et al.  The Xerox Star: an influential user interface design , 1995 .

[49]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Future research in group support systems: needs, some questions and possible directions , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[51]  E. Ziegel.  A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics , 1994 .

[52]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The New Hacker's Dictionary , 1991 .

[53]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Interface metaphors and user interface design , 1988 .

[54]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Design for individuals, design for groups: tradeoffs between power and workspace awareness , 1998, CSCW '98.

[55]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[56]  Bernadette Szajna,et al.  Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Validation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument , 1994, MIS Q..