Impacts a product's or application's perceived:UtilityUsabilityCredibility
If users have a positive impression of the design aesthetics, they are more likely to overlook or forgive poor usability or limited functionality. With a negative impression, users are more likely to find fault with an interaction, even if a product’s overall usability is good and the product offers real value.
High desirability feeds into the motivational factors that help trigger target behavior.
High desirability feeds into the motivational factors that help trigger target behavior.
The simplicity of the question doesn’t work well with larger numbers of design options, especially if some are highly similar
People can have a difficult time articulating what it is about a design they like or dislike
The whys are important for stakeholder acceptance (branding guidelines)Business sponsors and stakeholders often want substantial customer feedback to assure them a given direction is correct.
TriadingQualitative interview technique that reveals constructsElicits attributes that are important to users in their vocabularyResearcher asks the participant to identify how two of the three examples are different from the thirdIn typical user research interviews, a researcher asks participants about their thoughts on a defined list of topics. The disadvantage of this approach is that the researcher may be inquiring about topics that are of little value or significance to the experience of the participants. Generally, participants will dutifully answer questions about any topics we ask them about, without thinking more broadly, going beyond the limits our questions impose, or interrupting us to tell us about dimensions that may be more relevant to them. Participants assume researchers are interested in studying the particular topics they’ve included in their interview scripts and don’t raise other issues that might be more pertinent to their overall experience with a product or potential design.Triading is a method that allows a researcher to uncover dimensions of a design space that are pertinent to its target audience. In triading, researchers present three different concepts or ideas to participants and ask them to identify how two of them are different from the third. Participants describe, in their own terms, the dimensions or attributes that differentiate the concepts. Participants follow this process iteratively—identifying additional attributes they feel distinguish two of the concepts from the third until they can’t think of any other distinguishing factors. By repeating this process across multiple participants, researchers can see trends that define audience segments or personas.The benefit of this process is that it uncovers dimensions of a particular domain that are important to the target audience rather than the researcher or designer. In addition, the dimensions participants identify are generally emotional aspects that it is important for experience designers to consider. For example, participants may describe differences in groups as “warm” versus cold” or business-like” versus fun.” Designers can then use the most relevant or common dimensions as inspiration for further design and exploration.
Benefits – straightforward and easy to administer on a large scaleNegatives – if you want to pick more than a clear winner but rather understand the emotional connections/reactions to each design this will not lend itself to that.
Obvious examples are consumer electronics or other retail productsAlso appropriate for applications in healthcare, insurance, financial, travel, etc.
Sensors track participants’ physiological measurements to particular designs. Changes in suggest a particular emotional response.Paired with attitudinal and self-reporting surveys measurements give a multifaceted view of emotional reactions to a design
Respondents are being asked: "To which extent do the feelings expressed by the characters correspond with your own feelings towards the stimulus?“Building on the responses of many people allows you to abstract valuable data pertaining to the emotional performance of your website, product, service.
“My initial reaction to this web site is that it seems kind of plain. There is not much going on in the page, and the colors seem kind of drab.”“This is a nice looking website. It is well designed, well laid out, and is appealing to look at. It makes me want to continue to navigate the site to learn more. “
“Men don’t really go with children… where there’s a baby, there must be a mother.”“My initial reaction to the website is that it seems very clean and modern. I like the layout, it looks like its easy to find information.”
“I felt love. I saw a mother holding a child…that’s pretty touchy. The site looks good, and it makes the hospital trustworthy.”“My initial reaction was that the hospital is represented by a caring, warm and friendly website.”
*** review no big fonts **
Evolution of how the document separates from the header and tools, and related topics on right
In order of ascending practicality
In order of ascending practicality
Preference and Desirability Testing: Measuring Emotional Response to Guide Design Michael Hawley Chief Design Officer, Mad*Pow Paul Doncaster Senior User Experience Designer, Thomson Reuters
Agenda Why we should care Why it’s not always as simple as asking:“Which option do you prefer?” Methods to consider Case Study: Greenwich Hospital Case Study: WestlawNext Summary/Comparison
An important role of visual design is to lead users through the hierarchy of a design as we intend For interactive applications, a sense of organization can affect perceived usability and, ultimately, users’ overall satisfaction with the product Functional Desirability
Poor articulation “It reminds me of…” “It’s nice and clean.” “There’s just something about it . . .” “I ordinarily don’t like red, but for some reason it works here . . .” “It’s better than the other ones.”
What Stakeholders Should Care About “We should go with design C over A and B, because I feel it evokes the right kind of emotional response in our audience that is closer to our most important brand attributes.”
Determine intended brand attributes (and their opposites) 21 Product Reaction Cards: Before You Begin Leverage existing marketing/brand materials Alternatively, stakeholder brainstorm to identify key brand attributes/descriptors using full list of product reaction cards as a start Tip: “If the brand was a person, how would it speak to your customers?”
Methodology Include 60/40 split of positive and negative words Target 60 words, optimized to test brand Simple question: “Which of the following words do you feel best describe the site/design/product (please select 5):” One comp per participant, or multiple comps per participant (no more than 3) Participants Qualitative: Paired with usability testing Quantitative: Target minimum of 30 per option if possible 22 Product Reaction Cards: Conducting
23 Process - Analyzing Calculate percentage of positive and negative attributes per design Visualize overall sentiment of feedback using “word clouds” (see wordle.net) 68% Positive 32% Negative
Counter impressions that Greenwich is more than just maternity and elder care
Communicate that they are long-standing members of the community
24 Case Study: Greenwich Hospital Website Redesign
25 Case Study: Greenwich Hospital Website Redesign
3 visually designed comps
50 people reacted to each comp (quantitative) via survey
Additional feedback obtained via participant interviews (qualitative)
Survey Questions Hello, I am requesting feedback on a website I am working on. Your answers let me know if the site is conveying the right feel. 1. What are your initial reactions to the web site? 2. Which of the following words best do you feel best describe the site (select 5):
Sessions were held in 4 cities over 5 days Seattle Denver Memphis Minneapolis-St. Paul 4 sessions were held per day, with a maximum of 25 participants per session 1.5 hours allotted per study, most participants finished in less than 1 hour 319 participants successfully completed their sessions Phase 1: Logistics & Execution
Participants completed the study at individual workstations at their own pace All workstations included a 20” monitor, at 1024x768 resolution Phase 1: Logistics & Execution Memphis, TN, May 2009
Brief review of Westlaw critical screens Positive/negative word selection to describe Westlaw 36 Positive/negative product descriptors
Each set of Element variations were viewed in full screen Participant selects “top choice” by dragging a thumbnail image to a drop area 37 Homepage: Design Elements
Visual Weight (6 options) Use of Imagery (8 options) Components (4 options) Search Area (4 options) Palette (10 options) Homepage: Design Elements
19 HP designs viewed in full screen (randomized) All 19 options are presented again; participant assigns a rating using a 10-point slider. Top 5 and Bottom 2 choices are positioned in order of rating values on one long, scrollable page. Next to each design displayed, rates key aspects for each design on a 5-point scale Homepage: Design Gallery
Home Page (19) HP16 & HP15 designs consistently placed in the Top 5 across all filters Results List (14) RL4 consistently placed in the Top 3 across all sample filters, and was the #1 choice for 80% of all participants Document Display (9) DD3 placed in the Top 5 across all sample filters and was the #1 choice for 77% of all participants Phase 1: High-level Results
Note, participants were asked to describe the current Westlaw before being shown the new designs. 55 Phase 1: Word Selection Results
5 design themes were derived from post-session discussions
Same as in Round 1, with some minor revisions to accommodate specialized input
Phase 2: September 2009
Method View, Rate, and Pick Top Choice for Homepage (3 options) Result List (2 options) Document Display (2 options) “Why?” Simple preference selection for two unresolved UI design issues Citing References: Grid display or List display? Out of Plan Indication design (6 options) Type formatting preferences for 3 different content types Font Face Font Size Margin Width Phase 2: September 2009
Logistics 3 cities (Philadelphia, Kansas City, Los Angeles) 1 Day 226 participants Analysis Filters (8 categories) were used to score the designs for each visual preference Results Clear choices for top designs in each of all categories “Why” feedback shed new light on designs under consideration and helped focus “homestretch” design activities Phase 2: September 2009
Home Page (3) HP3 ranked #1in 94% of filter groups (54% of total participants) Results List (2) RL5 ranked #1in 97% of filter groups (58% of total participants) Document Display (2) DD7 ranked #1in 94% of filter groups (61% of total participants) Phase 2: High-level Results
The main concerns regarding Homepage Design HP3 Search Box Too small How do I do a Terms-and-Connectors search? Browse Section How do I specify multiple or specific search content? Poor organization Poor label Need access to “often-used” content Need better access to help 62 Participant Comments: Homepage
Goals Get feedback on branding options from decision makers and those who influence purchase of the product Get closure on final outstanding design issues Tool Same as in Rounds 1 & 2, with some minor revisions to accommodate specialized input Phase 3: December 2010
Method Wordmark/Branding View wordmark color combinations and design elements against different backgrounds, pick top choice and provide comments Make a final “Top Choice” from all selections Simple preference selection for outstanding UI design issues Header Space: Tile or No Tile? Notes Design Location: Inline or Column? State: Open or Closed? Headnote Icon design (4 variations) Phase 3: December 2010
What color combination do you prefer? Please rank the 4 combinations below according to your preferences. To rank, click and drag an item from the left to a box on the right. Your Most Liked 1 2 3 4 Your Least Liked
Logistics 3 cities (Seattle, Denver, Boston) 1 Day 214 participants Analysis Simple preference, no advanced filters Results Decision-makers confirmed that critical brand elements should be retained Phase 3: December 2010
Benedek, Joey and Trish Miner. “Measuring Desirability: New Methods for Evaluating Desirability in a Usability Lab Setting.” Proceedings of UPA 2002 Conference, Orlando, FL, July 8–12, 2002. http://www.microsoft.com/usability/uepostings/desirabilitytoolkit.doc Lindgaard, Gitte, Gary Fernandes, Cathy Dudek, and J. Brown. "Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression!" Behaviour and Information Technology, 2006. http://www.imagescape.com/library/whitepapers/first-impression.pdf Rohrer, Christian. “Desirability Studies: Measuring Aesthetic Response to Visual Designs.” xdStrategy.com, October 28, 2008. Retrieved February 10, 2010. http://www.xdstrategy.com/2008/10/28/desirability_studies 76 Additional Reading
User Focus. "Measuring satisfaction: Beyond the Usability Questionnaire." Retrieved February 10, 2010. http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/satisfaction.html UserEffect. "Guide to Low-Cost Usability Tools." Retrieved May 12, 2010.http://www.usereffect.com/topic/guide-to-low-cost-usability-tools Tullis, Thomas and Jacqueline Stetson. “A Comparison of Questionnaires for Assessing Website Usability.” Usability Professionals’ Association Conference, 2004.home.comcast.net/~tomtullis/publications/UPA2004TullisStetson.pdf Westerman, S. J., E. Sutherland, L. Robinson, H. Powell, and G. Tuck. “A Multi-method Approach to the Assessment of Web Page Designs.” Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, 2007.http:// portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1422200 77 Additional Reading
Five Second Testhttp://fivesecondtest.com/ Feedback Army http://www.feedbackarmy.com Wordlehttp://www.wordle.net PrEmohttp://www.premo-online.com 78 Additional Tools