Perceived Usability, Attractiveness and Intuitiveness of Responsive Mobile Tourism Websites.
Download as PPT, PDF0 likes204 views
The document presents research on the perceived usability, attractiveness, and intuitiveness of responsive mobile tourism websites, focusing on differences between desktop and mobile experiences. Key findings indicate that while mobile users face challenges with usability, a balance between aesthetic elements and user-centered design is crucial for improving their overall experience. Three research hypotheses assessing usability differences between website versions were rejected, suggesting that responsive design may compromise user experience despite potential usability benefits.
Perceived Usability, Attractiveness and Intuitiveness of Responsive Mobile Tourism Websites.
- 1. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 1 Perceived Usability, Attractiveness and Intuitiveness of Responsive Mobile Tourism Websites. Aleksander Groth, Daniel Haslwanter Management Center Innsbruck, Austria Department Management, Communication & IT (MCiT) aleksander.groth@mci.edu, dan.haslwanter@mci4me.at http://www.mci.edu
- 2. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 2 Agenda • Theoretical background. • Methodology. • Results. • Discussion.
- 3. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.
- 4. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 4 Responsive Web Design (RWD) (I) • Methodology introduced to help realizing the vision of a "One Web" (Gardner, 2011). • A RWD approach alters the layout of the website based upon the viewport of the device, transforming static websites into responsive, adjustable, and fluid layouts, which are much more flexible in handling elements and automatically rearrange them accordingly (Bohyun, 2013).
- 5. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 5 Responsive Web Design (RWD) (II) • RWD effectively adjusts the content and layout to the context of the device and ensures that users have a better and richer viewing experience (Gardner, 2011).
- 6. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 6 Usability & Mobile Devices (I) • “The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” - ISO 9241-11 • Usability therefore stands as a basic evaluation criterion of a technical system (Brau & Sarodnick, 2006) - a very functional ‚way-of-doing-things‘.
- 7. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 7 Usability & Mobile Devices (II) • Mobile devices are considered personal, portable, and immediate. (Wessels et al., 2011) • With the appearance of smartphones, an increasing number of users are accessing the mobile Internet via their phone on-the-go, leaving more stationary and familiar settings, like at home or at work (Church & Oliver, 2011).
- 8. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 8 Usability & Mobile Devices (III) • Nielsen and Budiu (2013) compared conversion rates when studying e-commerce websites, defining them as “the percentage of visiting users who end up taking a desired action, observing differences, depending on the used device”. • Results showed that desktop computers have a 3.5% rate compared to mobile phones with only 1.4%.
- 9. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 9 Usability & Mobile Devices (IV) • Explanations by Nielsen and Budiu (2013): – Mobile user experience must be horrible, as mobile sales could be 2.5 times higher if mobile websites would be as easy to use as desktop sites. – Assumption that there is no commitment to invest in mobile design because mobile users do not account for very much business.
- 10. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 10 Attractiveness & Intuitiveness (I) • An experience that is created when using a system has also implications for certain non- functional aspects within a user interaction (Hassenzahl, Kort, Law, Roto, & Vermeeren, 2009). • “A person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service.” - ISO 9241-210
- 11. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 11 Attractiveness & Intuitiveness (II) • Studies show that the attractiveness of a product does play an important role in perceiving usability (Chawda, Craft, Cairns, Heesch, & Rüger, 2005) • In mobile computing, attractiveness does have the highest influence on usability ratings, followed by effectiveness and efficiency (Quinn & Tran, 2010) • This implies that an attractive phone could have a high usability rating, even when scoring low on either effectiveness or efficiency.
- 12. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 12 Attractiveness & Intuitiveness (III) • Developers design interfaces and create emotions, harvesting on already learned interaction gestures (Tanimura & Ueno, 2013). • Responsive design can be seen here as a natural extension, acknowledging the change in user behaviour.
- 13. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 13 Attractiveness & Intuitiveness (IV) • Intuitive interaction is defined as a non-challenging cognitive process and can be narrowed down to mainly information-based activities within a specific context of a task, goal, user, environment, and technical system (Hurtienne, Mohs, Meyer, Kindsmüller, & Habakuk Israel, 2006). • A technical system may be classified as intuitive, whenever an either natural or non-conscious utilization with (or without) a user’s pre-experience leads to an effective interaction (Diefenbach & Ullrich, 2011).
- 14. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 14 METHODLOGY.
- 15. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 15 Research Hypotheses The research hypotheses were: •H1: There is a general difference in the perceived usability of the two websites between desktop computers and smartphones. •H2: A stricter approach to responsive design will have an effect on the perceived usability of the participants. •H3: A stricter approach to responsive design will have an effect on the user experience of the participants.
- 16. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 16 Websites Website A Website B
- 17. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 17 Test setting (Rubin, 1994)
- 18. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 18 Applied Measures • Perceived Usability – System Usability Scale, (Brooke J., 1996) • Perceived Satisfaction & Promotion – Net Promoter Score, (Reichheld, 2003) • Perceived Intuitiveness – INTUI, (Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S., 2010) • Perceived Attractiveness – AttrakDiff2, (Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F., 2003)
- 19. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 19 Usability Study • 20 Participants (14 male and 6 female - age-group 16-29) • Two websites – www.tirol.at (strict adherence to RWD) and www.oetztal.com (minor adherence to RWD) • Two sessions – one on smartphone and one on desktop computer • A/B testing, (Brau & Sarodnick, 2006; Sauro & Lewis, 2012) • 10 tasks, five on each website version • Two weeks break between the sessions
- 20. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 20 Methodology Day 1 Day 2 2 weeks Smart A Smart B Web A Web B Group 1 (10 persons) Group 2 (10 persons) Web A Web B Smart A Smart B Group 1 (10 persons) Group 2 (10 persons)
- 21. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 21 Tasks overview • Within the experiment, participants had to accomplish five tasks: – three information-seeking and – two function-based. – All five were classified according to their levels of difficulty (easy, medium, difficult) and the degree of scrolling (easy, medium, heavy). • None of the participants had any previous experiences with the selected websites (Raptis et al., 2013).
- 22. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 22 Tasks in detail • Task 1: Subscribe to the newsletter of the website (easy, light scrolling) • Task 2: Inform yourself about the Aqua Dome. Please note down the address and phone number. (easy, light scrolling) • Task 3: Inform yourself about the Hiking Tours in Tirol - “Adlerweg”. / Inform yourself about the Hiking Tours in Ötztal - “Ötztal-Trek”. Please note down, how much elevation / how many kilometres the tour comprises. (medium, light scrolling) • Task 4: Inform yourself about the National Parks. What is the duration in hours of the hiking tour to the Trelebitschsee / Frischmannhütte in the National Park “Hohe Tauern”? (difficult, medium scrolling) • Task 5: Please book a vacation using your own criteria on the website, using a budget of 1500€. Define your trip first using the following attributes: Date of Arrival/Departure, City/Village, Category, and Number of adults/children. (difficult, heavy scrolling)
- 23. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 23 RESULTS.
- 24. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 24 Results – Perceived Usability SUS Figure 1: Figure from a comparison of the adjective ratings, acceptability scores, and school grading scales, in relation to the average SUS score. (Bangor et al., 2009, p. 121) Website version Geometric mean Standard deviation Lower bound (95 %) Upper bound (95 %) Website A - Smartphone 64.06 19.97 58.03 76.72 Website A - Desktop Computer 73.58 15.15 68.27 82.48 Website B - Smartphone 62.91 19.29 56.67 75.03 Website B - Desktop Computer 77.35 15.21 71.80 85.95
- 25. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 25 Perceived Satisfaction & Promotion Net Promotor Score (NPS) Website Version NPS SD Mean (95 %) Website A - Smartphone -40 2.52 6.0 Website A - Desktop Computer -5 1.94 7.1 Website B - Smartphone -45 2.82 5.4 Website B - Desktop Computer -10 1.72 7.3
- 26. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 26 Results – Perceived Intuitiveness (I) INTUI
- 27. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 27 Results – Perceived Intuitiveness (II)
- 28. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 28 AttrakDiff2 Results - Perceived Attractiveness (I)
- 29. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 29 AttrakDiff2 Results - Perceived Attractiveness (II)
- 30. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 30 H1 • Measure: – Website version on perceived usability (SUS) – Website version on effortlessness (INTUI) • Post-hoc (Fischer LSD): Significant differences between Website B- Smart and Website B-Desktop (p=0.022), but none between the versions of website A (p=0.158). • Post-hoc (Bonferoni): Significant differences between the Website B- Smart and Website B-Desktop (p=0.006), but none between the versions of website A (p=1.000). • H1 rejected
- 31. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 31 H2 • Measure: – Website version on perceived usability (SUS) – Website version on effortlessness (INTUI) • Post-hoc (Fischer LSD): No significant differences between the smartphone versions of A and B (p=0.829). • Post-hoc (Bonferoni): No significant differences between the smartphone versions of A and B (p=1.000). • H2 rejected.
- 32. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 32 H3 • Measure: – Website version on overall Intuitiveness (INTUI) – Website version on magical experience (INTUI) • Kruskal-Wallis for INT: No significant differences between the versions were found (p=0.256). • Kruskal-Wallis for X: No significant differences between the versions were found (p=0.065). • H3 rejected
- 33. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 33 DISCUSSION.
- 34. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 34 Summary of results
- 35. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 35 Conclusion (I) • Strong reductions on visual features can have negative consequences for the user experience and may fail to create emotion. • On the other hand, reductions can lead to improved usability and increased overall satisfaction. • RWD is a possible way to enhance perceived usability, but a noticeable trade-off towards being too pragmatic (or boring) is likely to be created and smartphone users will be negatively affected by it.
- 36. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 36 Conclusion (II) • The increasingly growing mobile user group needs to be addressed with greatest care, employing a user-centred design process that relies on established models and guidelines. • The challenge of successfully implementing a mobile website will be to find an adequate balance between aesthetical aspects and efforts to optimize the usability and compatibility according to a device’s requirements.
- 37. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 37 Thank you! Aleksander Groth & Daniel Haslwanter Department Management, Communication & IT Management Center Innsbruck Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria Phone: +43 512 2070 -3523, Fax: -3599 www.mci.edu/mcit
Editor's Notes
- #5: Websites without optimizations for mobile devices simply shrink the website to fit the viewable area. This method requires the user to zoom into the website (using touch) in order to read the content properly.
- #6: Keep experience in our minds.
- #25: Applying the adjective rating scale from Bangor et al. (2009) both desktop website scores were rated “Good”, while the smartphone version scores were between “OK” and “Good”. In relation to a comparative SUS study crossing different domains, desktop web interfaces average on 68.2 while mobile phones average on 65.9.