Preference ranking of screen layout principles

Proceedings of the 2010 British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, BCS-HCI 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 81-87

  Salimun, Carolyn ^a   Purchase, Helen C ^a   Simmons, David R ^b   Brewster, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Aesthetics measures; Preference; Screen design

Indexed keywords

AESTHETICS; AESTHETICS MEASURES; APPROPRIATE DESIGNS; PAIRED COMPARISON; PREFERENCE; PREFERENCE RANKING; SCREEN DESIGN; SCREEN LAYOUT;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 85061796631     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.14236/ewic/hci2010.12     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Bauerly, M., and Liu, Y. 2006. Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International Journal of Human-ComputerStudies 64,8, 670-682.
2. De-Angeli, A., Sutcliffe, A., and Hartmann, J. Interaction, usability and aesthetics: what influences users’ preferences?2006. In Proceedings ofthe 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems,ACM, 271-280.
3. Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., and Benford, S. Ambiguity as a resource for design.2003. In Proceedings ofthe SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,ACM, 233-240.
4. Goldstein, E. B. 2007. Sensation and Perception Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
5. Hassenzahl, M. 2004. The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products. Human-Computer Interaction 19,4, 319 • 349.
6. Krenz, R. D. 1964. Paired Comparisons as Applied to Seeding Cropland to Grass. Journal of Farm Economics 46,5, 1219.
7. Kurosu, M., and Kashimura, K. Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability.1995. In Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems,ACM, 292-293.
8. Lavie, T., and Tractinsky, N. 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-ComputerStudies 60,3, 269-298.
9. Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., and Browñ, J. 2006. Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behaviour & Information Technology 25,2, 115-126.
10. Ngo, D. C. L., Teo, L. S., and Byrne, J. G. 2003. Modelling interface aesthetics. Information Sciences 152, 25-46.
11. Norman, D. 2002. Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions 9,4, 36-42.
12. Pandir, M., and Knight, J. 2006. Homepage aesthetics: The search for preference factors and the challenges of subjectivity. Interacting with Computers 18,6, 1351-1370.
13. Parizotto-Rebeiro, R., and Hammond, N. 2005. Does Aesthetics Affect WKH 8VHU¶V 3HUFHSWLRQV RI 9/(¶V” Workshop on motivation and affect in educational software.
14. Peter Dunn-Rankin, G. A. K., Susan R. Wallace, Shuqiang Zhang. 2004. Scaling Methods, Psychology Press.
15. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., and Schwarz, N. 1998. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. American Psychological Society 9,1, 45-48.
16. Schenkman, B. N., and Jonsson, F. U. 2000. Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour & Information Technology 19,5, 367-377.
17. Szabo, M., and Kanuka, H. 1999. Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity, and focus on recall learning, study time, and completion rates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 8,1, 23-42.
18. Tractinsky, N. Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues.1997. In The SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,ACM, 115-122.