Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Conceptual Models for Better Quality of Portfolio Web Site Experience Jesenka Pibernik, Bojan Kanižaj, Lucija Frljak University of Zagreb Faculty of Graphic Art, Getaldićeva 2, Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] Abstract - The article analyzes the quality of user experience (QoE) for particular category of websites, i.e. Portfolios. Portfolios represent an interesting blend of creativity and development techniques. Graphic designers blend great design practices and good coding techniques in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing usable web portfolio. In trying to impress possible employers graphic designers are in some cases more concerned with showing off their expertise rather than focusing on the user experience. The article explores the correlation between visual interests and computer competences of the user with the quality of experience of the particular website. The research is based on a subjective survey research of users and discusses the results of what type of portfolio web site’s conceptual model/programming tool is more suitable with regard to user’s interest and competences. It was shown more competent users are generally more critical about the quality of experience, and value pragmatic over hedonic quality of the product. Keywords - Conceptual Models, Portfolio Web Site, User Experience I. INTRODUCTION The aim of a web portfolio is to present the designer’s best works, which will in turn help them attract clients and find work [1]. In the context of web portfolios for graphic designers, the target audience are most often other graphic designers, students of graphic design, employers at marketing agencies and design studios, and any other employers in need of design. We can conclude that the primary characteristic of this target audience is a relatively good grasp of computer, especially graphic, programs and that we are talking mostly about people who appreciate visual art and have personal attitudes towards it. After the goal for the web page and the intended audience have been established, work can begin on designing a personal web page which, in order to be successful, must adhere to certain guidelines. In presenting a personal web page there are numerous keys to success, from clear communication, functionality and usability, through the selection of works and easy access to contacts, to creativity and personality [2]. The aim of this article is to prove that the addition of personality to a digital portfolio is advisable and useful in making the designer stand out, but it may also result in a completely different effect, depending on the set goals, the target audience and the choice of program tools for the creation of the web portfolio [3]. Although many web pages, especially personal portfolio pages, appear completely unique at first sight, they possess an inner structure that can be totally traditional. Using known structures increases the likelihood that users will intuitively connect with the web page . In order to analyze user experience differences between different conceptual models and programming tools for web portfolios, two web portfolios of identical content and structure, but different concept, were created [4]. The web pages were made with the same goal and for the same target audience. Two different program tools and two content display modes were used in the making of the web pages: • gallery display: begins with the main display which contains smaller images – so-called thumbnails – which represent individual work. Gallery display is common, flexible and easy to maintain and upgrade. It provides good balance to represenation, which is professional and easy to use. The program tool Html/CSS was used, accessible at http://lucijafrljak.net63.net/ • conceptual display: requires a good concept for the result to be original. The web page created for the purpose of this article is based on photo montages that are partly animated. The photo montages were assembled from parts of previous works by the author, while the links on the initial page, which are conceptual, are also user-interactive photo montages. The conceptual display of the author’s personal web page also boasts atypical navigation incorporated in the design of the page. Such navigation is interactive, mouse-triggered photo montage which reduces the page’s usability for a certain type of audience. Disadvantages could be reduced usability, maintenance and upgrading, but if designed well, such a page will stick out among the competition. The Adobe Flash program tool in combination with the Action Script programing language was used, accessible at http://lucijaf.pondi.hr/ The structure of both web portfolios consists of the initial page which leads onto four main categories; about the author, contacts, news and portfolio, which is further subdivided into graphic design and illustrations. This structure makes up the skeleton of the web page and all other elements are later upgraded in detail around it with the help of mental mapping, i.e. developing the idea of design through conceptual or mental maps. II. METHOD There are three main perspectives in the estimate of web pages in relation to the user [5]. One of the perspectives is esthetics or presentation, that is, the graphic design of the web page which defines the impression the page gives. The design of the web page needs to be attractive while allowing users the perception and use of its contents. User satisfaction is only one measure of usability, and for usability to be properly evaluated, effectiveness (whether users are able to perform tasks/goals) and efficiency (how long the user takes to perform task/goal) also need to be taken into account [6]. It is widely agreed on that QoE is specific to the user and to the application under consideration, among other things. There are several definitions of user experience. They all suggest that for a given application in a given usage context, the quality will vary for different users or user groups. There are several user-centered models for web site design [7] and numerous works on user experience evaluations [8] [9] [10]. This article seeks to explore if there is a connection between the user’s visual interests and their computer skills with the quality of experiencing a certain web page. It is expected that the obtained results will serve to better understand the target audience and their needs, as well as to help with further upgrades and selection of more acceptable technologies in the design of personal web pages. We therefore hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1_ users who prefer classic art are visually more inclined to a traditional web portfolio display (gallery display), while users who prefer modern art give better ratings to a conceptual display (hedonic quality). Hypothesis 2_ users with stronger computer skills visually prefer the conceptual display over the traditional one because it brings freshness and visual surprise in comparison with the traditional display (hedonic quality). Hypothesis 3_ users with average computer skills will prefer gallery display over conceptual display because good usability is important to them (pragmatic quality). III. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The experiment consisted of two parts: a questionnaire and usability measure with the system usability scale (SUS) [11]. The experiment was run in a computer laboratory, on Intel Pentium personal computers, Microsoft Windows operating system, 17” monitors, Mozzila web browsers, with groups of 15-20 participants who worked independently. The participants were asked to answer a questionnaire and then to inspect one portfolio web site followed by SUS questionnaire. After that, they had to visit the other web site and answer the SUS questions for that web site. A. Questionnaire – User Skills The entrance poll consisted of three types of questions according to the type of answer sought, and these were factbased questions – general information about the user (age, sex, occupation) and their technical skills (how long they have been using the Internet and how many hours per day), as well as questions about the user’s interests (type of art they prefer: classic or modern). The questions in the questionnaire itself are such as to offer users answers in advance. The user’s artistic preferences are determined according to which type of artwork they like (paintings by famous artists, film genres, book genres). B. Measuring Usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS) For research purposes the questionnaire method was chosen as the method of subjective evaluation of the web page’s usability from the user perspective. Subjective evaluations from the user’s perspective (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups) show what the user feels like when using the web page / user interface. The SUS is a 10 item questionnaire with 7 Likert scale response options, developed by John Brooke at Digital Equipment Corp. in 1986 as a tool in usability engineering. Data from over 500 different studies show that SUS is a valid questionnaire for evaluating web page and interactive system usability which also provides the most valid results [12]. The questionnaire contained questions which examine attitudes (attitude type) according to the SUS (system usability scale) questionnaire: 1. I think that I would like to use this system frequently. 2. I found the system unnecessarily complex. 3. I thought the system was easy to use. 4. I found the various functions in this system were well integrated. 5. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly. 6. I felt very confident using the system. 7. I found the system very cumbersome to use. 8. I found the system visually attractive. 9. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system. 10. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system. IV. EXPERIMENTS The questionnaire was completed online, with 65 participants, 23 of which were men and 42 were women. Of these, 43 were between 19 and 30 years of age, 4 were between 31 and 45 years old, while 3 were over 45 years old. Respondents were a target group for this type of product: students and employees in the area of graphic design and graphic technology. The validity of the results, as well as the success of the evaluation via questionnaire, alongside wellconstructed and meaningful questions, depends on the number of completed questionnaires - also known as the response rate, or questionnaire feedback rate. The response rate to the questionnaire was sufficient for a statistically valid analysis. A. Respondents’ technical skills Results showed that most respondents have been using computers and the Internet for a long time: 61% of respondents have been using the Internet 4-9 years, and 34% of respondents for more than 10 years; they have been spending several hours a day on the Internet: 39% of respondents spend 3-5 hours a day on the Internet and 34% up to 2 hours a day, while 21% of respondents spend 6-10 hours a day on the Internet. Respondents use different programs, mostly Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Photoshop and Illustrator. For the question what they do actively and occasionally, 25 respondents answered that they do photography, 17 do visual art, 30 do graphic design, 20 do web design, 9 do film or moving graphics, and 12 do not do anything of the above. TABLE I. GRADE AVERAGE FOR THE GALLERY VS CONCEPTUAL WEB PAGE ACCORDING TO ASSERTIONS BASED ON YEARS AND HOURS OF INTERNET USE. SUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. SUS GALLERY CONCEPTUAL - 3 years 4‐9 years 10+ years - 3 years 4‐9 years 10+ years 4.6667 1.3333 6.6667 6.0000 6.6667 6.3333 2.3333 5.3333 1.6667 6.6667 3.9286 1.9286 6.2500 6.0000 5.8929 5.2143 1.5357 4.7857 1.6667 5.8214 3.3529 2.5294 5.7059 4.1176 5.0588 4.2941 2.7059 3.4706 3.5882 5.5882 4.3333 3.0000 6.0000 5.0000 5.3333 5.6667 4.6667 6.0000 4.3333 6.0000 3.9355 3.2258 5.0968 5.0000 5.3226 4.8065 5.0645 5.5806 3.0645 5.4194 3.2941 3.0588 4.6471 4.5882 4.7647 4.2941 4.7059 5.0588 2.8235 5.4118 GALLERY CONCEPTUAL -2h 3-5 h 6-10 h 10+h -2h 3-5 h 6-10 h 10+h 1. 4.0000 3.1667 4.2727 4.5000 4.0588 3.6957 4.0000 3.1667 2. 2.0000 2.0556 2.3636 2.0000 2.5882 2.8696 3.5455 4.1667 3. 6.3529 5.8333 6.0000 6.5000 5.4118 5.0870 5.2727 4.5000 4. 5.4706 4.2778 5.1818 4.5000 4.6471 5.0435 4.8182 5.1667 5. 6.0000 5.5000 5.2727 6.0000 5.1176 5.2609 5.1818 5.1667 6. 5.5294 4.5000 4.7273 5.5000 4.8824 4.6087 4.6364 4.8333 7. 1.4118 1.9444 2.3636 5.5000 3.2941 5.1304 4.1818 5.1304 8. 5.0000 3.7222 4.4545 4.0000 4.8824 5.5652 5.0909 5.5000 9. 2.4118 3.4444 4.3636 3.0000 3.3529 2.4348 3.7273 3.3333 10. 5.8235 5.5000 6.0909 6.5000 5.0588 5.5217 5.9091 5.5000 Figure 1. Grade averages for SUS assertions for two portfolios Respondents’ artistic inclinations On the basis of their choice from offered works of art, book genres and film genres, respondents were divided into two groups: modern art aficionados (p1) 55% and classical art aficionados (p2) 45%. V. RESULTS For analysis purposes, in questions with multiple answers (sex, time spent daily on the Internet, years of Internet use, artistic preferences) and assertions with the Likert scale, the answers were numerically coded. For 10 SUS scale assertions average values were calculated, depending on the variable. In order to determine whether the average SUS scale assertion grade differed significantly, from a statistical point of view, depending on variables, a variance analysis was conducted. The dependence of SUS scale assertion grade on the type of web page (gallery and conceptual display) was checked through a chi-square test. All statistical test were conducted on a 0.5 significance level. The variance test showed there were no statistically significant difference between assertion grades based on respondents’ sex. VI. DISCUSSION Generally, users found conceptual web site system visually attractive but unnecessarily complex and very cumbersome to use (Fig 1.). In order to verify whether the assertion grades depended on the web page (gallery/ conceptual), a chi-square test was conducted . The test showed that there was no difference for assertions no. 4, 6, 9 and 10. depending on the years of Internet use (Table 1): Anova variance test showed a statistically significant difference for assertions no. 4 and 9 between users who have been using the Internet less than 3 and over 10 years for an gallery web page, and for assertions no. 3 and 9 between users who have been using the Internet less than 3 and over 10 years for a conceptual web page. Users with longer experience in using the Internet have a lower opinion of content integration and learnability for both web portfolios than those with less experience. Depending on number of hours spent daily on the Internet (Table 1) Anova variance test showed a statistically significant difference for assertion no. 7 between users who have been using the Internet less than 2 and more than 10 hours a day for a gallery web page, and for assertions no. 2 and 7 between users who have been using the Internet less than 2 and more than 10 hours a day for a conceptual web page. Users who spend more time on the Internet per day (6-10 hours) have a better opinion of the usability of both web portfolios than those who spend less than 2 hours a day on the Internet. It is also interesting to observe that most respondents who use only basic programs such as Word and Powerpoint consider a conceptual web page unnecessarily complex, unlike respondents who use a wider range of programs. The same holds true for respondents who spend more than 10 hours a day on the Internet: 40% partly agree that a conceptual web page is unnecessarily complex, while 54% of respondents who spend up to 2 hours a day on the Internet think the page is not unnecessarily complex. Depending on visual preferences, persona 1 (p1 ) > modern art, persona 2 (p2) > "classical" art results show that modern art aficionados rate more highly the visual attractiveness of both web portfolios than classical art aficionados. There is statistical difference between answers to questions no. 1, 7 and 9 between users who like modern art and users who prefer classical art. Given the very few differences in the grade average for both web portfolios we can conclude that the respondents’ artistic preferences did not exert a significant influence on the assessment of hedonic quality. From the above stated measurement results we can conclude the following: Hypothesis 1 - was partially confirmed. Hypothesis 2 - was confirmed. Hypothesis 3 - was proven wrong. VII. CONCLUSION The research is based on a subjective survey of users and discusses the results and what type of portfolio web site conceptual model/programming tool is more suitable with regard to users and their computer competences. Users with longer Internet experience who are spending more hours daily using their computers are more competent and use both technologies easier than average users. They are generally more critical of the quality of experience. They found conceptual system cumbersome to use, unnecessarily complex and at the same time visually attractive. They would prefer gallery over conceptual system. However, if average user is analyzed, conceptual wins in more categories. Average user would like to use conceptual system frequently, found the various functions in this system were well integrated, felt confident using the system and found the system visually attractive. Research showed that Flash technology is still a good choice for creating a web portfolio, provided that the design is intended for a wider audience. If, however, the intended public is a group of experts with ample experience in using the Internet, it is advisable to use newer technologies but keeping in mind the hedonic element of user experience. This paper has presented a new experimental approach to understanding the diversity in website perceptions between people. The proposed method has several advantages. First, it follows a pragmatic approach to user modeling by distinguishing users based on their computer competences and how they perceive products rather than on abstract demographic and psychographic information. Second, the method can be used in different phases of the product development, for instance using concept sketches, but also for benchmarking between competitor products. REFERENCES [1] I. Clazie, Creating Your Digital Design Portfolio, Switzerland: RotoVision SA, 2010. [2] C. Eccher, Professional Web Design: Techniques and Templates, Course Technology, USA, 2011. [3] J.W. Palmer, Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information Systems Research, Vol. 13, No.2, 2002, pp. 151-167. [4] J.J. Garrett, The Elements of User Experience: User – Centered Design for the Web and Beyond. USA, New Riders, 2011. [5] S. Lee, R. J. Koubek, The effects of usability and web design attributes on user preference for e-commerce web sites. Computers in Industry, Vol. 61, No.4, 2010, pp. 329-341. [6] Finstad, K. The Usability Metric for User Experience. Interacting with Computers, Vol. 22, No.5, 2010, pp.323-327. [7] J, Wiedemann , Web Design: Portfolios, Taschen, Köln, 2005. [8] A. Sears, A. Jacko, J. (ed), The Human – Computer Interaction Handbook. Lawrwnce Erlbaum Associates, Taylor &Frances Group, 2008. [9] P. R. Ross, & S. A. G. Wensveen, Designing aesthetics of behavior in interaction: using aesthetic experience as a mechanism for design. International Journal of Design, Vol. 4, No.2, 2010, pp. 3-13. [10] M. Hassenzahl, N. Tractinsky, User experience – a research agend. Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 25, No.2, 2006, pp.91-97. [11] J. Brooke, SUS - A Quick And Dirty Usability Scale.URL: http://www.itu.dk/courses/U/E2005/litteratur/sus.pdf. (9.4.2012.) [12] J. Sauro, Measuring Usability with the System Usability Scale . URL:http://www.measuringusability.com/sus.php and procedure (9.4.2012.)