Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 11

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2017F408

Citation: Proceedings of the 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 11, pages 1249–1256 (2017)

Full text

Abstract. Experiential attributes are a possible way of explaining user's experiences during interaction. Recently presented set of 23 aesthetic categories of interaction was established with a purpose to explain users' aesthetic experiences. This recent work focused on touch devices, such as smartphones and tablets, and concluded with the need to study further the goodness of established categories. The study, reported in this paper, continues to explore the consistency and aesthetic relations of these categories by comparing their goodness of explaining users' aesthetic perceptions on two different devices: a smartphone and a laptop computer. Experimental research design with 2x2 conditions was used. Two of the conditions consisted of completing the same interaction episode on two different devices. The other two conditions consisted of passive watching the screen recordings of previous interactions on the screens of the same devices. In conclusion, the aesthetic categories of interaction were found capable of explaining users perceptions across devices, but further study was suggested.

References

1. T. Djajadiningrat, S. Wensveen, J. Frens and K. Overbeeke, “Tangible products: Redressing the balance between appearance and action,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 2004. pp. 294–309. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0293-8
2. L. Hallnäs, J. Redström, “Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(3), 2001. pp. 201–212. http://doi.org/10.1007/PL00000019
3. W. N. W. Hashim, N. L. M. Noor, W. A. W. Adnan and F. M. Saman, “Graceful interaction design: Measuring emotional response towards movement quality,” International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), 2011 pp. 13–17. http://doi.org/10.1109/iUSEr.2011.6150528
4. W. N. W. Hashim, N. L. M. Noor and W. A. W. Adnan, “A framework for graceful interaction: Applying Laban effort theory to define graceful movement quality,” In Proceedings - 2010 International Conference on User Science and Engineering, i-USEr 2010 pp. 139–144. http://doi.org/10.1109/IUSER.2010.5716739
5. M. Hassenzahl, “Aesthetics in interactive products: Correlates and consequences of beauty,” Product Experience, 2008, 287–302. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50014-9
6. M. Hassenzahl, M. Burmester and F. Koller, “AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität,” Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung, pp. 187–196. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9
7. P. Hekkert, “Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design,” Psychology Science, 48(2), 2006, pp. 157–172.
8. E. Karapanos, “Quantifying Diversity in User Experience,” unpublished PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2010.
9. L. Kukk, “Evaluating user’s aesthetic experience during interaction,” unpublished master’s thesis, Tallinn University, 2017.
10. R. Laban and F. C. Lawrence, “Effort: economy of human movement,” MacDonald and Evans, 2nd Edition, 1973
11. B. Laugwitz, T. Held and M. Schrepp, “Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire,” USAB 2008, LNCS 5298, Springer-Verlag 2008, pp. 63–76.
12. T. Lavie and N. Tractinsky, “Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites,” Human-Computer Studies, (60), 2004, pp. 269–298.
13. E. Lenz, S. Diefenbach and M. Hassenzahl, “Exploring relationships between interaction attributes and experience,” In Proc. DPPI 2013, pp. 126–135. http://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513520
14. Y. Lim, S.-S. Lee and K. Lee, “Interactivity attributess: a new way of thinking and describing interactivity,” Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2009. http://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518719
15. G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, D. Sen, L. Sumegi and P. Noonan, “An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages,” ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 18(1), 2011. http://doi.org/10.1145/1959022.1959023
16. J. Löwgren, “Five things I believe about the aesthetics of interaction design,” The study of visual aesthetics in human-computer interaction pp. 1–8, 2008.
17. A. Miniukovich, “Computational aesthetics in HCI: towards a predictive model of graphical user interface,” PhD thesis, University of Trento, 2016.
18. M. Moshagen, “A short version of the visual aesthetics of websites inventory,” Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(12), 2013, pp. 1305–1311. http://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.694910
19. M. Moshagen and M. Thielsch, “Facets of visual aesthetics,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10), 2010, pp. 689–709. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.05.006
20. M. Mõttus, E. Karapanos, D. Lamas and G. Cockton, “Understanding aesthetics of interaction: a repertory grid study,” In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI), 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2996755
21. N. Noor, W. Hashim, W. Wan Adnan and F. Saman, “Mapping graceful interaction design from dance performance,” Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services SE 29, 2014, Vol. 8512, pp. 301–311. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07227-2_29
22. D. Rocchesso, S. Serafin, F. Behrendt, N. Bernardini, R. Bresin, G. Eckel et al., “Sonic interaction design: sound, information and experience,” in extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2008. pp. 3969–3972. http://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358969
23. T. Schiphorst, N. Motamedi and N. Jaffe, “Applying an aesthetic framework of touch for table-top interactions,” in Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems, TABLETOP ’07, Second Annual IEEE International Workshop, 2007, pp. 71–74. http://doi.org/10.1109/TABLETOP.2007.20
24. A. Sonderegger, J. Sauer and J. Eichenberger, “Expressive and classical aesthetics: two distinct concepts with highly similar effect patterns in user–artefact interaction,” Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(11), 2014, pp. 1180–1191. http://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.853835
25. A. N. Tuch, S. P. Roth, K. Hornbæk, K. Opwis and J. A. Bargas-Avila, “Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI,” Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2012, pp. 1596–1607. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.024
26. W. N. Wan Hashim, N. L. Md Noor and W. A. Wan Adnan, “The Design of Aesthetic Interaction: Towards a Graceful Interaction Framework,” in Icis 2009, pp. 69–75. http://doi.org/10.1145/1655925.1655938