Effects of symmetry and number of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 275-287

  Bauerly, Michael ^a   Liu, Yili ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

WEBSITES;

AESTHETIC APPEALS; BUILDING BLOCKES; DESIGN AESTHETICS; INDEPENDENT VARIABLES; INTERFACE DESIGNS; SUBJECT MATTERS; SUBJECTIVE RATING;

ABSTRACTING;

EID: 41549110261     PISSN: 10447318     EISSN: 15327590     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10447310801920508     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bauerly, M., & Liu, Y. (2003). Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theories, Applications and Practice.
2. Bauerly, M., & Liu, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a symmetry metric for interface aesthetics. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3. Bauerly, M., & Liu, Y. (2006). Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, 670-682.
4. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
5. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Wiley.
6. Berlyne, D. E. (1975). Dimensions of perception of exotic and pre-Renaissance paintings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 151-173.
7. Bonsiepe, G. (1968). A method of quantifying order in typographic design. Journal of Typographic Research, 2, 203-220.
8. Boselie, F. (1992). The golden section has no special aesthetic attractivity! Empirical Studies of the Arts, 10, 1-18.
9. Buss, D. M. & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
10. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf and Harterl.
11. Danchak, M. M. (1976). CRT displays in power plants. Instrumentation Technology, 23, 29-36.
12. Galitz, W. O. (2002). The essential guide to user interface design: An introduction to GUI design principles and techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
13. Grobelny, J., Karwowski, W., & Drury, C. (2005). Usability of graphical icons in the design of human-computer interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 18, 167-182.
14. Hekkert, P., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 109, 617-629.
15. Kant, I. (1952). The critique of judgment (J. C. Meredith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1790)
16. Keister, R. S., & Gallaway, G. R. (1983). Making software user friendly: An assessment of data entry performance. Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting Proceedings.
17. Kim, J., Lee, J., & Choi, D. (2003). Designing emotionally evocative homepages: An empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factors and emotional dimensions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 899-940.
18. Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
19. Landis, D., Slivka, R. M., & Jones, J. M. (1967). Evaluation of large scale visual displays (NTIS No. AD 651 372). Griffis Air Force Base, NY: Rome Air Development Center.
20. Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Pscyhological Science, 1, 115-121.
21. Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269-298.
22. Liu, Y. (2003a). The aesthetic and the ethic dimensions of human factors and design. Ergonomics, 46, 1293-1305.
23. Liu, Y. (2003b). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46, 1273-1292.
24. Locher, P. J. (1996). The contribution of eye-movement research to an understanding of the nature of pictorial balance perception: A review of the literature. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14(2), 143-163.
25. Locher, P. J., Stappers P. J., & Oberbeeke, K. (1998). The role of balance as an organizing design principle underlying adult's compositional strategies for creating visual displays. Acta Psychologica, 99(2), 141-161.
26. Nasar, J. L. (1988). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Ngo, D. C. L. (2001). Measuring the aesthetic elements of screen design. Displays, 22(3), 73-78.
28. Ngo, D. C. L., Teo, L. S., & Byrne, J. G. (2003). Modelling interface aesthetics. Information Sciences: An International Journal, 152(1), 25-46.
29. Nodine, C., Locher, P. & Krupinski, E. (1993). The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219-227.
30. Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion and design: Attractive things work better. Interactions, 9(4), 36-42.
31. O'Hare, D. P. A., & Gordon, I. E. (1977). Dimensions of the perception of art. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 66-70.
32. Sears, A. (1993). Layout appropriateness: A metric for evaluating user interface widget layout. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19, 707-719.
33. Streveler, D. J., & Wasserman, A. I. (1984). Quantitative measures of the spatial properties of screen designs. INTERACT '84 Conference Proceedings.
34. Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. CHI '97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems.
35. Tullis, T. S. (1981). An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic, and color information displays. Human Factors, 23, 541-550.
36. Tullis, T. S. (1983). The formatting of alphanumeric displays: A review and analysis. Human Factors, 25, 657-682.
37. Tullis, T. S. (1984). A computer-based tool for evaluating alphanumeric displays. Proceedings of INTERACT '84 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
38. Tullis, T. S. (1988a). Screen design. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 377-411). North-Holland, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
39. Tullis, T. S. (1988b). A system for evaluating screen formats: Research and application. In H. R. Hartson & D. Hix (Eds.), Advances in human-computer interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 214-286). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
40. Wilson, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 165-180.