Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

9B_1_Trust in web gis a preliminary investigation of the environment agencys wiyby website with non-expert users

645

Published on

Session 9B, Paper 1

Session 9B, Paper 1

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
645
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Trust in Web GIS: A Preliminary Investigation of the Environment Agency’s WIYBY website with non-expert users Artemis Skarlatidou, Muki Haklay, Tao Cheng and Nicola Francis Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London GIS Research UK 2010 - 16 April 2010 -
  • 2. Contents of Presentation <ul><li>Trust Concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Research Framework/Aims </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Case Study and Experimental Design </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions and Future Experiments </li></ul>
  • 3. Why trust is important in Web GIS? <ul><li>Existing Web GIS instruct, advise users and provide information and analysis, which according to Fogg (2003) are amongst these situations where computers’ credibility/trustworthiness matters. </li></ul><ul><li>Online trust studies - mainly for e-commerce </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- influence the intentions to engage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- the use and acceptance of these systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- enhance cooperative behaviours </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- influence the perceived User Experience (Shneiderman, 2000; Fogg, 2001…) </li></ul></ul>
  • 4. Trust Concepts
  • 5. Trust Concepts/Trustee Attributes <ul><li>Different Trustee Attributes in Literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not a systematic Approach is taken for trust investigations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two categories of attributes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceptual Attributes (e.g. reputation of source) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Functional Attributes (e.g. aesthetics, usability) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trust-oriented Interface Design </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trust Cues (e.g. colours used, logos, pictures, videos, blogs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvement of functional attributes </li></ul></ul>
  • 6. Research Framework and approach <ul><li>Trust never examined in Web GIS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>unclear what elements influence trustworthiness </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Aim : To understand what influence trust perceptions of non-expert users in Web GIS – what attributes are important? </li></ul><ul><li>How: Investigation of different interfaces with non-expert users using HCI methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Usability Testing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperative Approach followed discussing trust issues while using the website </li></ul></ul>
  • 7. Case Study <ul><li>What’s In Your Back Yard (WIYBY) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web GIS application provides environmental spatial and non-spatial data and maps </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk and uncertainty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Previous studies (Alsop, 2008; Francis, 2009) found several usability problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preliminary Expert Evaluations found several trust-related problems associated with the system’s functionality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. external links, vocabulary, information about map accuracy, unpleasant maps, problematic menu – 102 prob. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 8. Methodology <ul><li>Usability Testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-test Questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Post-test Questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(perceived usability, aesthetics, perceived trustworthiness, User Experience and Trust Cues/trust expectations) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Think Aloud Data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional Quantitative Data for Usability Metrics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Actual Usability – Success Rate Formula (Nielsen, 2001) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time spent on each task and input events (clicks) - (mental effort) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 9. Experimental Design/ Recruitment <ul><ul><li>10 participants were recruited </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>additional experiments with another 10 showed the same results – but also the same results were found with the second application </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Condition: no GIS training or education (non-experts) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Trust perceptions of experts and non-experts can differ significantly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Familiarity with web-mapping (not constrained) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No Gender or other conditions as there are no studies which report any trust implications </li></ul></ul>
  • 10. Experimental Design / Tasks <ul><li>Scenario-based to help people realise the risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Post-Questionnaire open questions showed that all people were aware of the risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>After providing a scenario users were asked to find the following information for two areas: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SW19 3BJ Fulham & Hammersmith </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flood Risk Air pollution – pollutants most dangerous </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How risk of flood can be reduced Quality of Drinking Water </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Landfill sites </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Distance from nearest landfill site </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 11. Experimental Design Post-Test Questionnaires <ul><li>Open Questions ( user problems, suggestions for improvement and trust perceptions) </li></ul><ul><li>Perceptual and Functional Attributes according to previous studies </li></ul><ul><li>Likert Scale inter-related Items (1:S. Disagree to 5:S. Agree) – including duplicates and negatives </li></ul>
  • 12. Usability and Aesthetics / Examples <ul><li>Built based on: </li></ul><ul><li>Previous Expert Evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>Well-established heuristics and previous studies (e.g. Flavian, 2005; Nivala et al. 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>General Usability Items </li></ul><ul><li>- I found the website easy to use </li></ul><ul><li>- The website worked as it was expected </li></ul><ul><li>GIS Usability Items </li></ul><ul><li>- Map was of an appropriate size </li></ul><ul><li>- Legend was not easy to understand </li></ul><ul><li>- Map legend was problematic and affected my trust towards the maps </li></ul><ul><li>- It was easy to understand how to select/deselect layers </li></ul><ul><li>Aesthetics </li></ul><ul><li>- The colours of the website were easy on the eye </li></ul><ul><li>- The maps were not aesthetically pleasant </li></ul>
  • 13. Trust Cues & User Experience <ul><li>Trust Cues (mainly based on literature e.g. Cheskin Report, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>- Branding: There were sufficient logos and branding to increase my trust of the website.. </li></ul><ul><li>- Expectations: A blog or forum to connect people from similar areas would be an improvement in the website and would increase trust. </li></ul><ul><li>User Experience </li></ul><ul><li>- Engaging </li></ul><ul><li>- I will use the website in the future </li></ul><ul><li>- Not Stressful </li></ul>
  • 14. Perceived Trustworthiness <ul><li>Previous studies focus mainly on e-commerce so irrelevant items </li></ul><ul><li>Fogg & Tseng (1999) for credibility assessment </li></ul><ul><li>- I trust all the information provided </li></ul><ul><li>- EA is a credible source </li></ul><ul><li>- The website is credible </li></ul><ul><li>- The website is transparent </li></ul>
  • 15. Results <ul><li>3 males and 7 females </li></ul><ul><li>Most were students 18-24 </li></ul><ul><li>No GIS-knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Computer Skills (Intermediate 5 or Advanced 4) </li></ul><ul><li>Frequency of using web-mapping apps (Frequently 6, Occasionally 3, Never 1) </li></ul>
  • 16. Results <ul><li>The users failed in 21/60 tasks </li></ul><ul><li>Success Rate:61% </li></ul><ul><li>Less than 30 minutes </li></ul>Tasks UT Success Rate Table – Participants & Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1a)(i) S S S S S S S S S S 1a)(ii) F F F F F F F F S S 1b)(i) S S S S PS S S S S S 1b)(ii) F F F F F F F F F F 2a) F F F S S S S S S S 2b) S S S S PS PS S PS PS S
  • 17. Results <ul><li>Perceived Usability Low (7/10 think website was not easy to use and 8/10 that needs improvement!) – Recall that actual usability was relatively high, 61% success rate </li></ul><ul><li>The majority of users agreed with problems found by experts </li></ul>
  • 18. Results
  • 19. Results <ul><li>All users think that the map visualisation needs improvement! </li></ul>
  • 20. Results <ul><li>9/10 trust the information provided although they think the website was not transparent!! </li></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>“ I would trust information coming from a Government Agency on principle” </li></ul>
  • 21. Results
  • 22. Results
  • 23. Conclusions <ul><li>Measuring the Perceived Usability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Influence User Experience (e.g. future engagement) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Not particularly easy to use, would probably rather use an alternative information source” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 24. Conclusions <ul><li>Users recognised and mentioned almost all trust-related problems! </li></ul><ul><li>Thought the website not transparent! </li></ul><ul><li>Yet they trusted it! (no comments of suspicion for maps!!) </li></ul><ul><li>Most comments about maps focus on aesthetics </li></ul><ul><li>Trust perceptions and functional attributes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Halo effect” (Fogg,2003)? (Academic and Governmental sources) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People blame themselves? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are finally perceptual attributes stronger in Web GIS context? </li></ul></ul>
  • 25. Future Work <ul><li>We can’t say that whatever you design people will trust it </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But what is most important to them in terms of a trust-based interface design? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trust-oriented Interface Design will be examined in a controlled environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Different Interfaces are currently under development for the case of the site selection of a nuclear waste repository </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Testing different conditions and ask users to rate which interface they trust more </li></ul></ul>
  • 26. Thank you! Any Questions? <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

×