Economic and subjective measures of the perceived value of aesthetics and usability

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 210-234

  Ben Bassat, Tamar ^a   Meyer, Joachim ^a   Tractinsky, Noam ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Auction; Market value; Preferences; Screen design; Usability; User evaluation

Indexed keywords

AESTHETICS; BIDS; ECONOMIC METHODS; PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES;

COMPENSATION (PERSONNEL); DATA ACQUISITION; ECONOMICS; LOGIC DESIGN; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 33749593610     PISSN: 10730516     EISSN: 10730516     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1165734.1165737     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. COPPINGER, V., SMITH, V., AND TITUS, J. 1980. Incentives and behavior in English, Dutch and second-bid auctions. Econ. Inquiry 18, 1-22.
2. EINHORN, H. J. AND HOGARTH, R. M. 1981. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Ann. Rev. Psych. 32, 53-88.
3. Fox, J. A., HAYES, D. J., AND SHOGREN, J. F. 2002. Consumer preferences for food irradiation: How favorable and unfavorable descriptions affect preferences for irradiated pork in experimental auction. J. Risk and Uncertainty 24, 75-95.
4. FRØKJÆR, E., HERTZUM, M., AND HORNBÆK, K. 2000. Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Hague, The Netherlands, ACM Press, New York, NY (April), 345-352.
5. HASSENZAHL, M. 2003. The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, M. A. Blythe, A. F. Monk, K. Overbeeke, and P. C. Wright, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6. HASSENZAHL, M. 2004. The interplay of beauty, goodness and usability in interactive products. Hum. Comput. Inter. 19, 4, 319-349.
7. JORDAN, P. W. 1998. Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics 29, 1, 25-33.
8. KAGEL, J. H. 1995. Auctions: A survey of experimental research. In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth, Eds. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
9. KARAT, J. 1997. Software valuation methodologies. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. Helander, Ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 689-704.
10. KARAT, J. 2003. Beyond task completion: Evaluation of affective components of use. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, J. A. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
11. LAVIE, T. AND TRACTINSKY, N. 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Inter. J. Hum. Compu. Studies 60, 3, 269-298.
12. LINDGAARD, G. AND DUDEK, C. 2003. What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interacting with Computers 15, 3, 429-452.
13. LINDGAARD, G., FERNANDES, G. J., DUDEK, C., AND BROWNET, J. 2006. Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behaviour and Information Technology 25, 2, 115-126.
14. MEYER, J. AND SEAGULL, F. J. 1996. Where human factors meets marketing. Ergonomics in Design 4, 3, 22-25.
15. MILGROM, P. 1989. Auctions and bidding: A primer. J. Econ. Persp. 3, 3, 3-22.
16. NIELSEN, J. AND LEVY, J. 1994. Measuring usability: Preferences vs. Performance. Comm. ACM 37, 4, 66-75.
17. NORMAN, D. A. 2002. Emotion and design: attractive things work better. Interactions 9, 4, 36-42.
18. NORMAN, D. A. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, NY.
19. ROTH A. E. AND OCKENPELS, A. 2000. Last minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auction: Theory and evidence from a natural experiment on the Internet. National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 7729.
20. SCHENKMAN, B. N. AND JONSSON, F. U. 2000. Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour & Information Technology 19, 5, 367-377.
21. SHACKEL, B. 1991. Usability - context, framework, design and evaluation. In Human Factors for Informatics Usability, B. Shackel and S. Richardson, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 21-38.
22. SHOGREN, J. F., SHIN, S. Y., HAYES, D., AND KLIEBENSTEIN, J. B. 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Amer. Econ. Rev, 84, 255-270.
23. SU, L. T. 1998. Value of search result as a whole as the best single measure of information retrieval performance. Inform. Proc. Manag. 34, 5, 557-579.
24. TRACTINSKY, N. 1997. Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically cultural and methodological issues. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 1997 Conference on Human Factors in Computing System. Atlanta, ACM Press New York, NY (March), 115-122.
25. TRACTINSKY, N. 2004. A few notes on the study of beauty in HCI. Hum. Comput. Inter. 19, 4, 351-357.
26. TRACTINSKY, N. AND LAVIE, T. 2002. Aesthetic and usability considerations in user's choice of personal media players. In Proceedings of the 16th British HCI Conference. London, UK (Sept.), 70-73.
27. TRACTINSKY, N. AND ZMIRI, D. 2006. Exploring attributes of skins as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI. In Aesthetic Computing, P. Fishwick, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 805-421.
28. TRACTINSKY, N., KATZ, A. S., AND IKAR, D. 2000. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers 13, 127-145.
29. VAN DER HEIJDEN, H. 2003. Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Information and Management 40, 6, 541-549.
30. VICKREY, W. 1961. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finance 16, 8-37.