Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
Impact of Purpose for Web Use on User Preferences
The Impact of Purpose for Web Use on User Preferences for Web Design Features Pavla Baierova Mary Tate Beverley Hope School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract A web site that appeals to all audiences is the “holy grail” of developers, but is not likely to be found. Therefore, organisations must decide what groups of users they want to target and gain a thorough knowledge of their needs and preferences. In this pilot study, we grouped users according to their purpose for using the Web and examined their preferences for web design features. We found that a user’s preference for web design features changed according to the user’s purposes for using the web. People using the web for entertainment valued enjoyability, accessibility and content quality most highly. People using the web for information acquisition ranked content quality, accessibility, and navigation and structure in the top three places. Keywords Electronic commerce, Web site quality, Web design.
Introduction There have been some previous studies on the range of purposes that users have for using the web. There have also been many studies on user preferences for various web design features. Surprisingly, there has been little research into the impact of user purpose for web use on user preferences for various design features. Is a purpose perspective worth examining? The challenge of web design research is to identify features that attract people to a web site, cause them to stay and motivate them to return. But what features attract users? People who surf the Web for evening entertainment are likely to value different features from those who access the Web to buy an airline ticket or to find new friends. This pilot study aims to help solve that confusion by examining and answering the question: What web design features are the most important for users with different purposes? The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we examine existing literature on purpose and web design features, and develop independent (purposes for web use) and dependent (web design features) variables. This section is followed by development of 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia
Page 1853
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
hypotheses. Then, we describe the design of the research and its findings. The results are discussed in the fifth section, followed by the limitations and implications for future research, and the conclusion.
Background Purposes for web use We review previous studies that consider the most common activities performed when people use the web, and studies that examine why people choose to use the Web, from the perspective of motivation theory theory. These are integrated into five purposes for using the Web, three of which are then used as a basis for our study. There is high degree of consensus in studies that examine what activities people most commonly perform on the web. Communication has been consistently identified as one of the most common activities performed. (D’Ambra & Rice 2001, O’Keefe & Cole 2000, Swaminathan, Lepkowsky-White & Rao 1999, Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler & Scherlis 1999). This is closely followed by information gathering, e-commerce and entertainment (O’Keefe & Cole 2000, Swaminathan et al 1999, Kraut, et al 1999). One perspective on purpose of Web use is an exploration of people’s motivations (purposes) for using the web. We have used studies specifically relating to motivation for web use, and more general, well established models such as the Technology Acceptance (TAM) model to derive our purposes. Motivation is in the centre of a stream of research, which applies media use and gratification theory to examine people’s purposes for using the Web. Stafford and Stafford (2001) identified 179 motivations for Web use that were subsequently reduced to five underlying motivations: searching, cognition, new and unique ideas, socialisation and entertainment. We have included searching, cognition, new and unique ideas, in our information seeking purpose, socialisation in our communication purpose, and entertainment in our entertainment purpose. In a more general context, motivation for technology use has been explored in detail in the development of the TAM and associated literature. (Davis, 1989, Davis et al. 1992, Venkatesh, 1999, Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000). This distinguishes between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity as an end in itself, which is related to the customer’s perception of the ease of use and playfulness of the activity (also referred to as enjoyment) Extrinsic motivation is defined as the performance of an activity because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes that are distinct from the activity itself, also called usefulness. Atkinson and Kydd (1997) examined intrinsic factors (ease of use, playfulness) and extrinsic factors (usefulness) associated with Web use. They found that motivation factors varied with purpose for web use, with intrinsic motivation being strongly related to Web use for entertainment purposes and extrinsic motivation being associated with work related purposes. Based on Atkinson and Kydd’s study, we have separated the information seeking purpose into two sub-sets, information seeking for personal interest and information seeking for work-related purposes. Eighmey (1997), in his study of users of commercial web sites, identified three significant motivational factors of Web use: entertainment value, personal relevance, and information involvement. The findings of Eighmey’s research on purpose are consistent with the studies
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1854
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
on the activities commonly performed by users – in other words research into user’s reported behaviour on-line is consistent with research into user’s reported purpose for being on-line. We included Eighmey’s entertainment motivation in our entertainment purpose, and his personal relevance motivation in our information seeking purposes. Purpose of Web use
Motives
Studies indicating the purpose O’Keefe & Cole (2000) Stafford & Stafford (2001) Eighmey (1997)
Acquisition of information for personal interests
• • • • •
Reading news Learning Products and services information Information about hobbies Search for unique ideas, or information
Acquisition of work-related information
• • • •
Education Research information Problems’ solutions Products and services information
Stafford & Stafford (2001) Eighmey (1997) Teo (2001) O’Keefe & Cole (2000) Kraut et al. (1997) Swaminathan et al. (1999)
Entertainment
• • •
Playing on-line games Listening or downloading music Having fun
Atkinson & Kydd (1997) Stafford & Stafford (2001) Eighmey (1997) D’Ambra & Rice (2001) O’Keefe & Cole (2000) Kraut et al. (1997) Swaminathan et al. (1999)
E-commerce
• • •
Shopping, Buying, Purchasing Selling Business transactions (e.g. banking)
O’Keefe & Cole (2000) Swaminathan et al. (1999) Teo (2001)
Socialisation and Communication
• • • • • •
Meeting new people or friends Chatting Communication with friends Dating Joining a group Social communication and interaction
Teo (2001) Stafford & Stafford (2001) D’Ambra & Rice (2001) O’Keefe & Cole (2000) Kraut et al. (1997) Swaminathan et al. (1999)
Table 1. Purposes for using the Web. To summarise, previous research has found that information acquisition, entertainment, ecommerce, and socialisation and communication are the most frequent purposes for using the Web found in the previous research. Studies by Atkinson and Kydd (1997) supported our separation of information acquisition for personal interests from work-related information acquisition. For this initial study, we opted to focus on our two information acquisition purposes, and our entertainment purpose, and we excluded e-commerce, communication and socialisation. This is because we wanted to be able to identify web design features that would be relevant for all our purposes. The e-commerce purpose, for example, has domain-specific design features such as transaction and payment capability that are not applicable to other purposes. We merged communication and socialisation motives into one category since they both involve a similar user interface and design features (e-mail, chatting, discussion forums).
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1855
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
Web design dimensions relevant for users We examined web design features relevant for users identified by studies on web features associated with user satisfaction, instruments measuring web quality from the users’ perspective, and research on user-centred interfaces. In the process of classification, we focus on web design features as they are perceived by users, not by designers or developers. We have selected purposes with comparable design features, and we have included in our classification design features from previous studies that are common for all three purposes. We have avoided domain-specific features such as transaction capability that applies almost exclusively to e-commerce sites. Research conducted by Rice (1997) explored web site features that led to user satisfaction. An on-line questionnaire placed on 87 sites revealed eight features: site content, enjoyable experience, site quality, uniqueness, easy-to-find information, excitement, visual attractiveness, and navigation. Kim (1999) found significant relationships between a user’s satisfaction, site attractiveness and site content. Similar results were found by Stafford and Stafford (2001). They identified four of the most important features as: easy location of information, quality of information, security, and visual attractiveness. Loiacono and Taylor (1999) concluded that site content and the functionality of a site have the most impact on user evaluation. Content, along with its quality, is repeatedly mentioned as an essential dimension also in other studies (Scharl & Bauer 1999, Gehrke & Turban 1999, Eighmey 1997). Content, functionality, navigation, visual attractiveness, enjoyment and playfulness were also identified as key features of web design quality in studies by Eighmey (1997) and Liu, Arnett, Capella, and Taylor (2001). Instruments developed to assess web quality perceived by users also indicate what is important for users. These studies add some features to those already identified, such as reliability, accessibility, privacy, and interactivity. Barnes (2001) developed WebQual 2.0. (following work by Liacono 2000). This instrument has three dimensions – site quality, information quality and interaction quality – that are divided into 10 subcategories: aesthetics, navigation, reliability, competence (knowledge), responsiveness (timeliness), access (ease of contact), credibility (trustworthiness), security, communication, and understanding of individual (empathy to provide right content, product or service). Similarly Aladwani and Palvia (2002) developed an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. The instrument measures web quality in four dimensions: content quality (information accuracy, usefulness, clarity, currency, uniqueness, originality), specific content (privacy policies, customer support, specific details about product/services), appearance (attractiveness, organisation, proper use of colours, fonts, graphics, language, graphics-text balance) and technical adequacy (navigation, links, reliability, customisation, speed, interactivity, speed, accessibility). Research on effectiveness of web sites completed our list by providing content presentation, structure and assistance features. According to Bell and Tang (1998), effective web sites comprise of the eight following features: accessibility, content, visual design, structure, friendliness, navigation, usefulness, and uniqueness. Some design features identified by previous studies in user preferences for e-commerce sites are e-commerce specific, but the rest support our classification. Srivihok, Ho, and Burstein (2000) revealed five features of user satisfaction: presentation, navigation, assistance, security, and usability. Wang, Tang, and Tang (2001) used web sites that market digital products and services to explore user satisfaction and specified seven features: customer support, security, ease of use, range of products/services, transaction and payment,
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1856
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
information content, and innovation. A study by Tilson et al. (1998), identified a number of e-commerce specific features, but other characteristics identified were consistent with other, more general studies, in particular, clear and easy navigation, search function, security, privacy, and appealing graphics. Criteria for user-centred Web design were developed by Abels, White, and Hahn (1997) and identified use (ease of use and navigation), content (unique, relevant and credible), structure (visible and well organised), linkage (live and relevant links), search capability, and appearance as the most important features. To summarise, we explored web features from the perspectives of web site quality and effectiveness, design of user-centered interfaces, and user satisfaction. The following web features were derived from the reviewed literature. We found that to meet user’s needs, a web site must to be easy to use (navigation and structure, accessibility, assistance), useful (content quality and content presentation) and playful (enjoyability, interactivity, uniqueness and originality, visual attractiveness). It must also provide security of transactions and ensure privacy of entered personal data. All the 11 features, and the previous studies that support them, are summarised in Table 2. We dropped reliability from the final list of features for ranking, as we considered this represented a basic expectation that a site would work for the purpose that it was intended, rather than being a specific identifiable design feature. Accessibility Barnes (2001) WebQual
Access
Aladwani & Palvia (2002)
Accessibility
Loiacono – WebQual™ (2000) Srivihok, Ho, & Burstein (2000) Rice (1997)
Response time
Stafford and Stafford (2001) Abels White, and Hahn (1997) Bell & Tang (1998)
Content quality
Navigation Search function Organisation Intuitiveness
Content quality
Easy accessibility Accessibility
Gehrke & Turban (1999)
Fast page loading speed
Interactivity Responsiveness
Interactivity
Interaction
Presentation
Easy-to-find information Navigation Easy location of information
Site content
Navigation, search capability Visible structure Navigation Structure
Relevant and credible content
Navigation / Orientation Visibility Efficient navigation
Content presentation Communication (appropriate format) Proper use of multimedia
Informational fitto-task
Navigation
Katz-Haas (1998)
th
Navigation and Structure Navigation
Quality of information
Design appeal
Standard of site content Minimal memory load
Feedback
Business content
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1857
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
Zhang & von Dran (2001) Eighmey (1997) Nielsen (1999b)
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
Easy to navigate, search tool Clear layout
Up-to-date, accurate information
Multimedia
Responsiveness
interactivity
Minimal download times
Ease of use Search tool, navigation Clear structure
Informational value Content focus
Table 2: Web design features Originality and Uniqueness WebQual Barnes (2001)
Visual Attractiveness
Enjoyability
Aesthetics
Aladwani and Palvia (2002)
Originality
Attractiveness
Loiacono WebQual™ (2000) Srivihok, Ho, & Burstein (2000)
Innovativeness
Visual appeal
Rice (1997)
Uniqueness
Security and Privacy Security
Assistance
Privacy policies
Customer support
Flow
Security
Visual attractiveness
Assistance
Other
Competence Understanding Credibility Customisation
Trust, Integrated communications Usability
Enjoyable experience, excitement
Stafford and Stafford (2001)
Visual attractiveness
Abels White, and Hahn (1997) Bell and Tang (1998)
Appearance
Ease of use
Visual design
Friendliness, Usefulness
Katz-Haas (1998)
Unique features
Standard of site graphics
Site is pleasant to use
Gehrke & Turban (1999) Zhang & von Dran (2001) Eighmey (1997)
Visual design
Security
Customer focus
Security of data
Explanatory text
Entertainment value
Nielsen (1999)
Security
Product and service price Marketing perception Credibility Credibility
Table 2 continued: Web design features - continued
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1858
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
Hypotheses Development Purposes for web use and preferences of web design features Since research on the impact of user purpose on preferred web features is sparse, our hypotheses are based mainly on studies of users preferences for specific web design features within the business domain of the site. We also build on the extensive TAM literature to set hypotheses about the relationship between purpose and web design features associated with usefulness, ease of use and playfulness. For our pilot study, the three purposes (entertainment, information acquisition for personal interests, and work-related information acquisition) that had the most commonality in identified design features were selected out of the five purposes identified from the literature were considered. The variables for the study are presented in Table 3. In this section, the variables we have identified that correspond to the purposes or web-design features in previous studies are included in parentheses. Independent variables - Purposes for using the Web
Dependent variables - Web design features relevant for users
P1: Acquisition of information for personal interests P2: Acquisition of work-related information P3: Entertainment
D1: Assistance D2: Accessibility D3: Content presentation D4: Content quality D5: Enjoyability D6: Interactivity D7: Navigation and structure D8: Security and privacy D9: Uniqueness and originality D10: Visual attractiveness
Table 3. The study’s variables. Users’ preferences of web design features across different domains were researched by Zhang, von Dran, Blake and Pipithsuksunt (2001). Participants in the study ranked the five most important features for a web-site, in six different domains, hree of which are relevant for our study. In financial, governmental, educational, and health & medical domains (P1, P2) users preferred accurate, up-to-date content (D4), easy navigation (D7) and a search tool (D7). The most relevant features for users in the entertainment domain (P3) were visual design (D10), navigation (D7), site responsiveness (D2) and multimedia (D3). Effectiveness of web site features in six industry sectors was explored by Bell and Tang (1998). This study concluded that entertainment and leisure web sites (P3) had the best level of graphics (D10), content, innovation and unique features (D9), but scored low on usefulness (D4), access (D2) and transaction utility (D7), and information services web (P1, P2) sites were rated high in usefulness (D4), content (D4) and structure (D7). Analysis of web usage was conducted by Korgaonkar and Wolin (1999), who examined web features in terms of personal (P1) and business purpose (P2) of web usage. According to their study, people using the Web for personal purpose sought mainly enjoyment (D5) and information (D4), whereas business purpose users emphasised information (D4), economic motivation (D4), and privacy and security concerns (D8).
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1859
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
The literature supported making a distinction between information acquisition for work and personal purposes, but this has not been explored in previous studies. It is the aim of this study to provide a comparison of users’ preferences for web design features across different purposes. In contrast to most of reviewed articles that rated or measured the quality of features, this study applies a ranking method, as the aim is to build on research that identifies what features are important, by studying their relative importance for users. Based on the literature we also grouped the features according to TAM dimensions of ease of use, and usefulness, and the new web-oriented dimension of playfulness (Venkatesh, 1999, Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000), we grouped our design features into those associated with extrinsic motivation (usefulness), and intrinsic motivation (ease of use and playfulness). We identified content quality (D4) and content presentation (D3) as the features that most contribute to usefulness; navigation and structure (D7), assistance (D1), and accessibility (D2) as the features that most contribute to ease of use; and enjoyability (D5), uniqueness and originality (D9), visual attractiveness (D10), and interactivity (D6) as the features that most contribute to playfulness. We hypothesised that web design features that increase perceived playfulness will be preferred by users with entertainment purpose and those that increase usefulness will be preferred by users with work related information acquisition purpose. Based on this, hypotheses 4 and 5 were developed. In summary, the reviewed studies suggest that people using the Web for entertainment tend to value most enjoyability (H3). People using the Web for information acquisition prefer content quality (H1). People using the web for IA for personal interest will rate enjoyability more highly than those using the web for IA for work-related purposes (H2).
Hypotheses H1: People using the Web for information acquisition (both work-related (P2) and for personal interest (P1)) will rank content quality as the most important feature. H2: People using the Web for information acquisition for personal interest (P1) will rank enjoyability more highly than those using the Web for work-related information acquisition (P2). H3: People using the Web for entertainment (P3) will rank enjoyability as the most important feature. H4: People using the Web for entertainment (P3) will rank the features that contribute to playfulness of the web site (enjoyability, interactivity, visual attractiveness, and uniqueness and originality) higher than users with the other two purposes. H5: People using the Web for work-related information acquisition (P2) will rank the features that contribute to usefulness of the web site (content quality, content presentation) higher than users with the other two purposes.
Methodology Research paradigms and choice of research methodology A survey research methodology was chosen. We used a self-designed, paper-based questionnaire (see Appendix) since a suitable instrument was not found in the literature. The questionnaire was anonymous and personal data were collected only to profile the sample.
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1860
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
We chose ranking as the method of collecting data on people’s preferences because the major objective of this study was to the identify the most important web design features users choose for each purpose.. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part included questions confirming that respondents qualified for participating in the survey. Question 3 (Name up to two web sites … ) was included to assess the internal validity of the instrument, as web sites selected by users were randomly checked to determine whether they could be used for the stated purpose. In Question 4, 10 web design features were listed. The respondents were asked to rank the features 1-10 (1 is the most important feature, 10 the least important one) based in their relative importance to the user when using the web for one of the three purposes studied. .
Sample and population The sample frame for this study were 150 volunteers from the wider Victoria University (VUW) community, which includes students, academics and general staff in a variety of occupations, who were experienced with using the Web. Choice of respondents was appropriate for two reasons. First, the unit of analysis are individuals experienced with using the Web and university community members are likely to have sufficient knowledge. Second, university members represent the population well in terms of a wide range of their motivations for using the Web and they are likely to use the Web for all purposes examined in the study. Three versions of the questionnaire were produced, one for each purpose for web use. The researchers checked with each respondent that they were regular users of the Web for the specific purpose covered by their questionnaire, and gave them the questionnaire with initial instructions to focus on that purpose when answering the questions. If they did not use the web for the nominated purpose, they had the option of choosing a different version of the questionnaire covering another purpose, or withdrawing from the study. The number of people answering questionnaires for each purpose included on the study is provided in Table 4. The profile of the sample in terms of gender and age is depicted in Table 5. Purpose for Web use
Frequency
Percent
Work-related information Information for personal interests Entertainment
50 51 49
33.3 34.0 32.7
Total
150
100.0
Table 4. Numbers of respondents for each purpose. Age
Frequency
Percent
Gender
Frequency Percent
Under 21 21-25
79 52
52.7 34.7
Female
88
58.7
26-50
4
12.7
Male
62
41.3
Total
150
100.0
Total
150
100.0
Table 5. Gender and Age distribution in the sample.
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1861
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
Results Descriptive statistical methods were used to analyse data. When reading tables and graphs, note that ranking was 1 for the most important feature to 10 for the least important feature, so the lowest mean indicates the most important feature. When we state that feature was ranked highly we refer to position in ranking order, not to high nominal score (mean). All five hypotheses were found to be supported by the data. The analysis is organised as follows. First, individual ranking orders for each purpose were examined and the first three hypotheses were tested (Tables 6-8). Then features were grouped and compared according to Technology Acceptance Model and TAM-based hypotheses were tested (Table 9). After that the overall ranking of the web features for all purposes was analysed (Table 10). Finally, ranking orders for the three purposes were compared in order to examine patterns or correlation between the categories (Table 11).
The most important features for each purpose Ranking orders of web features are presented separately for each purpose (Tables 6-8) in order to evaluate the first three hypotheses. H1: People using the Web for information acquisition (both work-related and for personal interest) will rank content quality as the most important feature. From Tables 6 and 7 it is clear that content quality was ranked by users with information acquisition purposes as the most important feature. This applies to both work-related and personal interest, though the means are different. Users with a work-related information acquisition (IA) purpose agreed more strongly that content quality was the most important feature (2.41) than users with a personal interest IA purpose (3.31). Web design features 1. Content quality 2. Accessibility 3. Navigation and Structure 4. Content presentation 5. Assistance 6. Visual attractiveness 7. Security and Privacy 8. Enjoyability 9. Interactivity 10.Uniqueness and originality
N
Mean
SD
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
2.48 3.22 3.58 4.40 5.86 6.38 6.70 7.26 7.36 7.82
1.73 2.06 2.28 2.19 2.35 2.39 2.76 2.34 2.09 2.02
Table 6. Acquisition of work-related information.
Web design features 1. Content quality 2. Accessibility 3. Navigation and Structure 4. Content presentation 5. Assistance 6. Enjoyability 7. Visual attractiveness 8. Security and Privacy 9. Uniqueness and originality 10. Interactivity
N Mean SD 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
3.31 3.84 4.16 4.47 5.71 5.71 5.84 6.98 7.37 7.71
2.40 2.55 2.71 2.29 2.97 2.41 2.44 2.66 2.31 2.22
Table 7. Acquisition of information for personal interests.
H2: People using the Web for information acquisition for personal interest will rank enjoyability as more important than those using the Web for work-related information acquisition. From Tables 6 and 7 we can see that users with personal interests IA purpose ranked enjoyability higher than users with work-related IA purpose. There is also a significant difference in means. This suggests that users browsing the Web for information for personal interest value the quality of provided content most, but at the same time want to enjoy time th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1862
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
spent on the web site - in contrast to users that browse for work-related information, who do not consider the enjoyability of the web site to be a high priority. H3: People using the Web for entertainment will rank enjoyability as the most important feature. Enjoyability was ranked as the most important feature by users with entertainment purpose (Table 8). The results also show that accessibility and content quality are highly valued by users with entertainment purpose and that they consider assistance and security and privacy as the least important. Web design features 1. Enjoyability 2. Accessibility 3. Content quality 4. Navigation and Structure 5. Visual attractiveness 6. Interactivity 7. Content presentation 8. Uniqueness and originality 9. Assistance 10. Security and Privacy
N
Mean
SD
49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49
3.57 4.08 4.43 4.61 4.78 5.57 5.92 6.41 7.73 7.86
2.00 2.95 2.59 2.64 2.49 2.89 2.28 2.66 2.39 2.21
Table 8. Entertainment purpose.
Results in the context of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) From the literature about TAM, we also assumed that web design features that increase perceived playfulness will be preferred by users with entertainment purpose and those that increase usefulness will be preferred by users with work-related IA purpose. In order to explore the data from a TAM perspective, we grouped the features according to their contribution to perceived usefulness, easiness to use, and playfulness (H4, H5). The only design feature that does not fit well with the TAM dimensions of playfulness and usefulness that we have included in our H4 and H5, is security and privacy. However, since users ranked security and privacy relatively low for all purposes, it is put aside for this part of the analysis. The results support both TAM-related hypotheses (Table 9, Graph 1). H4: People using the Web for entertainment will rank the features that contribute to playfulness of the web site (enjoyability, interactivity, visual attractiveness, and uniqueness and originality) higher than users with the other two purposes. In agreement with the hypothesis, all the features that contribute to playfulness were ranked more highly for entertainment purpose than for the IA purposes. Also users with IA for personal interests purpose ranked all features in the playfulness group, with exception of interactivity, more highly than users with work-related IA purpose. H5: People using the Web for work-related information acquisition will rank the features that contribute to usefulness of the web site (content quality, content presentation) higher than users with the other two purposes. Results of the ranking order for the usefulness group of features were the opposite of the playfulness group. Users with work-related information acquisition purpose ranked the
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1863
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
usefulness features considerably higher than users with entertainment purpose and slightly higher than users with personal interest IA purpose. This hypothesis was also supported. Purposes for Web use Work-related Information for Entertainment information personal interests Usefulness - Content quality - Content presentation Mean
2.48 4.40 3.44
3.31 4.47 3.89
4.43 5.92 5.18
Ease of use - Navigation and structure - Assistance - Accessibility Mean
3.58 5.86 3.22 4.22
4.16 5.71 3.84 4.57
4.61 7.73 4.08 5.47
Playfulness - Enjoyability - Uniqueness and originality - Visual attractiveness - Interactivity Mean
7.26 7.82 6.38 7.36 7.21
5.71 7.37 5.84 7.71 6.66
3.57 6.41 4.78 5.57 5.08
Table 9. Importance of the features grouped according to TAM.
3.44 3.89 4.22 5.18
4.57
5.08
5.47 6.66 7.21
Usefulness
Ease of use
Work-related information Information for personal interests Entertainment
Playfulness
Graph 1. Relative importance of TAM-based groups of features. Results for the easy to use group of features were very similar to the usefulness group. Users with work-related information acquisition purpose ranked these features higher than users with entertainment purpose and slightly higher than users with personal interest IA purpose,
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1864
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
although differences in ranking between purposes were smaller than for the playfulness and usefulness groups. Results of ranking by users with IA for personal interests purpose for all three TAM groups of features were nominally in between the results for the other two purposes, but closer to the work-related IA purpose. A similar pattern was found for ranking of single features (Table 10). Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research on TAM and web usage (Atkinson & Kydd 1997, Moon & Kim 2001).
Comparison of ranking orders between the purposes The overall ranking of the web features for all the purposes is shown in Table 10. The most important feature was found to be content quality, followed by accessibility and navigation and structure. At the other end, users ranked security and uniqueness and originality as the least important features. From the standard deviations it is possible to say that users were most in agreement about the importance of content presentation and content quality (as the important ones) and uniqueness and originality features (as the least important one). On the other hand, the responses varied most in terms of the importance of assistance, enjoyability, and security and privacy. The variance can be explained by the different importance of those features for users with different purposes for using the web. To examine how much preferences differ across the three purposes, we integrated the results and compared positions and means of all the features (Table 10). The ranking orders of both IA purposes are very similar in the first half of the list. Users value the quality of content, easy accessibility and clear navigation. In the second half, users with personal interests IA purpose emphasised enjoyability and visual attractiveness more whereas users with work-related IA purpose were more concerned about security and privacy. Means and standard deviations are considerably lower for work-related IA purpose than for personal interests IA purpose, which suggests that users with work-related IA purpose are more in agreement with each other. Users with personal interests IA purpose have a broader range of expectations – some users want information acquisition to be very enjoyable, while some do not see a difference in using the Web either for personal or work-related information search. The means of the features for personal interests IA purpose are thus almost always between the means for the other two purposes. In general, personal interests IA purpose rankings are closer to work-related IA purpose rankings than those of entertainment purpose. The ranking order of entertainment purpose is, as expected, more distinct from the information acquisition purposes. The results showed that users with entertainment purpose expect the web site to be enjoyable; however, this feature is followed by the same three features as for the other two purposes – accessibility, content quality and navigation and structure. Further down the list, users again prefer different features - those that make the web site playful (such as visual attractiveness or interactivity) and, unlike users with information acquisition purposes, they consider the assistance and security and privacy features as being the least important.
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1865
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
Total Web design features 1.Content quality 2. Accessibility 3. Navigation and Structure 4. Content presentation 5. Enjoyability 6. Visual attractiveness 7. Assistance 8. Interactivity 9. Security and Privacy 10. Uniqueness and originality
1 (3.40) 2 (3.71) 3 (4.11) 4 (4.92) 5 (5.53) 6 (5.67) 7 (6.42) 8 (6.89) 9 (7.17) 10 (7.21)
Purpose for Web use Work-related Information Entertainment information acquisition for acquisition personal interests 1 1 3 (2.48) (3.31) (4.43) 2 2 2 (3.22) (3.84) (4.08) 3 3 4 (3.58) (4.16) (4.61) 4 4 7 (4.40) (4.47) (5.92) 8 6 1 (7.26) (5.71) (3.57) 6 7 5 (6.38) (5.84) (4.78) 5 5 9 (5.86) (5.71) (7.73) 9 10 6 (7.36) (7.71) (5.57) 7 8 10 (6.70) (6.98) (7.86) 10 9 8 (7.82) (7.37) (6.41)
Table 10. A comparison of the ranking orders of the features across purposes.
Discussion The overall results of the study confirm previous studies – that four design principles are essential and constant through changing browsers and Internet technology: high download speed, a search mechanism for all larger sites (accessibility), clear structure and navigation supported by a site map, and content focus. (Nielsen, 1999b). However, the aim of this study was to examine the purpose perspective. When we analysed data separately for each purpose for using the Web, we found that the priority for these features differs across the three purposes. Not only were usability and content dimensions important, but also enjoyability of web site was ranked as being important for personal interests IA purpose and the most important for entertainment purpose.
Limitations and implications for future research The study’s main limitation was that it was limited in scope, considering only three out of five purposes, and using a relatively small sample of respondents who shared similar characteristics such as age or education attainment. The findings from this study should be verified with a larger and more variable sample (in terms of web expertise, age, education, culture) to increase the external validity of results and allow generalisation. In further research the author aims to explore all the five originally identified purposes and focus on other factors that affect users preferences for the different purposes, such as users’ demographics, or level of web expertise.
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1866
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
Conclusion Is a purpose perspective worth examining? This study examined how users’ preferences for web features change with their different purposes. When the literature on design features and purposes for web use was examined, we found that some features were very specific to one purpose (for example transaction capability and payment information are specific to ecommerce). Other features were common across a range of purposes. For those features, we examined the extent to which users priorities for different design features vary depending n their purposes for web use. We found that preference for web design features changes significantly with users’ various purposes. The research question – What web design features are the most important for users with different purposes?- was answered. Users with entertainment purpose consider enjoyability of the web site as the most important feature, whereas content quality is the most important for users with information acquisition purposes. We further distinguished between acquisition of work-related information purpose and that for personal interests and found that both consider content quality, accessibility, navigation and structure, and content presentation as the most important. However, for the former purpose users ranked the security and privacy feature more highly, whereas, for the latter one, users valued enjoyability and visual attractiveness more. When we put the findings in context of the Technology acceptance model (Davis 1989, Kim & Moon 2001), we found that users with entertainment purpose ranked features that contribute to playfulness of the web site (enjoyability, interactivity, visual attractiveness, and uniqueness and originality) more highly than other users. On the other hand, users with work-related information acquisition purpose ranked features that contribute to usefulness (content quality and content presentation) considerably higher than other users.
References Abels, E.G., White, M.D., & Hahn, K. (1997). Identifying user-based criteria for Web pages. Internet research, 7(4), 252-262. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time Flies When You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information Technology Usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694. Aladwani, A.M., & Palvia, P.C. (2002). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user perceived web quality. Information & Management, 39(6), 467-476. Atkinson, M. & Kydd, C. (1997). Individual Characteristics Associated with World Wide Web Use: An Empirical Study of Playfulness and Motivation. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 28(2), 53. Barnes, S. (2001). An Evaluation of Cyber-Bookshops: The WebQual Method. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 11-30. Bell, H., & Tang, N.K. (1998). The effectiveness of commercial Internet Web sites: a user's perspective. Internet Research, 8(3), 219-228.
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1867
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
D'Ambra, J., & Rice, R.E. (2001) Emerging factors in user evaluation of the World Wide Web. Information & Management, 38(6), 373-384. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-339. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132. Eighmey, J. (1997). Profiling user responses to commercial websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(3), 59-66. Gehrke, D., & Turban, E. (1999). Determinants of Successful Web Site Design: Relative Importance and Recommendations for Effectiveness. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society. Katz-Haas, R. (1998). Ten Guidelines for User-Centered Web Design. WWW document: http://stc.org/pics/usability/topics/articles/ucd_web_devel.html Kim, E. (1999). Model of an Effective Web. Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13th-15th, 523-526. Korgaonkar, P.K., & Wolin, L.D.(1999). A Multivariate Analysis of Web Usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(2), 53-68. Kraut, R., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, B. (1997). Why People Use the Internet. WWW document, http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/purpose.html Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S., & Scherlis, B. (1999). Information and Communication: Alternative Uses of the Internet in Households. Information Systems Research, 10(4), 287-303. Liu,C., Arnett, K.P., Capella, L.M., & Taylor, R.D. (2001). Key dimensions of Web design quality as related to consumer response. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(1), 70-82. Loiacono, E.T., & Taylor, N.J. (1999). Factors Effecting Perceptions of Web Site Quality. Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems. August, 13th15th, 529-532. Loiacono, E.T. (2000). WebQual™: a measure of web site quality. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Gorgia. Moon, J.M., & Kim, Y.G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information and Management, 38(4), 217-230.
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1868
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
The impact of purpose on user preferences for web design features
Nielsen, J. (1999a). Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing. Nielsen, J. (1999b). User interface directions for the Web. Communication of the ACM. 42(1), 65-72. O’Keefe, R.M., & Cole, M. (2000). From the user interface to the customer interface: result from a global experiment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 611-628. Rice, M. (1997). What Makes Users Revisit a Web Site? Marketing News, 31(6), 12-13. Scharl, A., & Bauer, C. (1999). Explorative analysis and evaluation of commercial web information systems. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), (534 -539). Charlotte, North Carolina. Srivihok, A., Ho, R., & Burstein, F. (2000). An Instrument for Web Measurement: End User Evaluation of Web Application Effectiveness. Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, December 2000. Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M.R. (2001) Identifying Motivations for the Use of Commercial Web Sites. Information Resources Management Journal, 14(1), 22-30. Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E. & Rao, B.P. (1999). Browsers or Buyers in Cyberspace? An Investigation of Factors Influencing Electronic Exchange. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2), 1-23. Teo, T.S. (2001). Demographics and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Research, 11(2), 125-137. Tilson, R., Dong, J., Martin, S., & Kieke, E. (1998) Factors and principles affecting the usability of four e-commerce sites. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Human Factors and the Web, Basking Ridge, NJ. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 239. Wang, Y., Tang, T., & Tang, J. E. (2001). An Instrument for Measuring Customer Satisfaction Toward Web Sites that Market Digital Products and Services. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 2(3), 1-19. Zhang, P., and von Dran. G. M. (2000). Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers: A Two-Factor Model for Website Design and Evaluation. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1253-1268. Zhang, P., von Dran, G.M., Blake, P., & Pipithsuksunt, V. (2001). A Comparison of the Most Important Website Features in Different Domains: An Empirical Study of user Perceptions. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, CA, August 10-13, Omnipress, pp. 1367-1372.
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia Page 1869
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
Impact of Purpose for Web Use on User Preferences
Appendix – The Questionnaire World Wide Web use and significance of web design features This questionnaire was prepared by Pavla Baierova, an Honours student in the School of Information System Management, Victoria University of Wellington under the supervision of Mary Tate, Lecturer. The aim of this study is to identify what web design features are preferred by people with different purposes for using the World Wide Web (Web). The questionnaire is to be completed by people who have been using the Web regularly (at least once a week on average) for at least one year. Completing the form will take 5-10 minutes. Filling out the questionnaire implies consent to participate in this research.
If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at:
[email protected]
Part 1: Personal information All information provided by you for this research is confidential. Information will only be used to create a general profile of the people who responded to this questionnaire. Please circle the most appropriate answer. 1. How often do you usually access the Web? Every day At least once a week At least once a month Less frequently than once a month
2. What is your age? Under 21 31-40
21-25
26-30 41-50
Over 50
3. Are you Male Female
7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia
Page
1870
Baierova, P., Tate, M. & Hope, B.
Impact of Purpose for Web Use on User Preferences
Version A: Part 2: Using the Web for acquisition of information for personal interests Focus on situations when you have used the Web for the purpose of acquiring information for your personal interests such as reading news, gathering information about your hobbies, or looking for a holiday destination. It is important that you distinguish this purpose for using the Web from other purposes such as acquiring work or study-related information, buying products, entertainment, or communication. 1.
2.
3.
Do you use the Web to acquire information for your personal interests? Yes
Please answer the following questions.
No
Please ask for a different version of the questionnaire.
How often on average do you use the Web to acquire information for your personal interests? Every day
At least once a week
At least once a month
Less frequently than once a month
Name (title or URL) up to two web sites that you prefer to visit (or that you have visited in past) when you want to acquire information for your personal interests (please name web sites containing information, not search engines such as google.com, altavista.com, or yahoo.com).
4. What web design features are the most important to you when you use the Web to acquire information for your personal interests? (Think about this particular purpose and rank all the following features from 1 for the most important feature to 10 for the least important feature. Do not rank two features with the same score; each must be unique. Refer to enclosed description if you are not familiar with any of the web design features being ranked.) Accessibility (Web pages download quickly and completely, no dead-end links) Assistance (Visible instructions and easily available help) Content presentation (How effectively is information presented) Content quality (Information relevance, credibility, accuracy, currency and scope) Enjoyability (Using a site is enjoyable, exciting, entertaining, playful) Interactivity (Ability to interact via the site with the organisation or other users) Navigation and Structure (Easy to locate information, consistent layout and structure) Security and privacy (Security of entered personal data, credit card numbers) Uniqueness and originality (A site is unique, innovative and original) Visual attractiveness (Visual appeal of a web site, it is pleasant and attractive)
Is there any other feature that you think is important (or any other comment)?
7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003, Adelaide, South Australia
Page 1871
Baerova, P & Tate, M
The impact of user purpose on preference for web design features
Part 3: Web site quality features description Accessibility:
4 Web pages download quickly and completely 4 Live and relevant links (no dead-end links) 4 Fast and easy to access all parts of a web site
Assistance:
4 Visible instructions 4 Help is easily available on every web page 4 Assistance when having trouble finding or using data 4 Easy recovery from mistakes or errors
Content presentation:
4 Content is communicated in the most appropriate format (effective combination of multimedia – text, pictures, sounds, animations) 4 Information is easy to understand (e.g. - presentation of information includes also pictures or graphs, the web site about music includes music samples, video) 4 Visible coverage and organisation of content
Content quality:
4 Relevancy, accuracy and credibility of information 4 Wide coverage and depth of information 4 Frequent updates of content
Enjoyability:
4 Using a web site is entertaining, exciting, enjoyable 4 A web site is playful (through interactive features, use of graphics, animations, menus…) 4 Ability to interact via the web site with the organisation or other users - the web site includes some of the interactive features: o Virtual community, On-line feedback form, or FAQ o Chat rooms, Discussion forums or/and Bulletin boards 4Fast response to e-mail inquiries
Interactivity:
Navigation and Structure:
4 It is easy to find information on the web site 4 Clear structure and consistent layout of web pages 4 Includes search capability and a site map 4 Clear organisation (hierarchy) of web pages into a web site 4 Relevant linkage between web pages 4 Easy navigation through navigation menus and bars 4 Consistency of navigation menus, bars and buttons
Security and privacy:
4 Encryption of user-entered data (log-on information, registration) 4 Security of data transfers, credit card numbers 4 Security and Privacy policies
Uniqueness and Originality:
4 A web site is innovative, unique 4 Originality of provided content
Visual attractiveness:
4 The web site as a whole is visually appealing and pleasant to look at (good use of colours, fonts, graphics, animations)
th
7 Pacific Asia Conference on Information systems, 10-13 July, 2003, Adelaide, South Australia
Page 1872
