skip to main content
10.1145/1868914.1868991acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

The impact of concept (re)presentation on users' evaluation and perception

Published:16 October 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Early product concept evaluation, which is based on descriptions or conceptual sketches instead of functional prototypes or design models, has many practical advantages. However, a question at hand is whether the format of representation impacts the results of empirical "user studies". A study with two different design concepts and 326 participants revealed that global product evaluation (i.e., goodness) and high-level product perceptions (i.e., pragmatic quality, hedonic quality) are not influenced by differences in the concept (re)presentation (text, pictures, video, functional prototype). Only the assessment of interaction characteristics, such as its speed, was affected.

References

  1. Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32, 5 (1986), 554--571. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Diefenbach, S., Hassenzahl, M., Kloeckner, K., Nass, C. and Maier, A. (2010). Ein Interaktionsvokabular: Dimensionen zur Beschreibung der Ästhetik von Interaktion. In H. Brau, S. Diefenbach, K. Göring, M. Peissner, and K. Petrovic (Eds.) Usability Professionals 2010, 27--32. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hassenzahl, M. The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products. Human-Computer Interaction, 19 (2004), 319--349. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ince, I. F., Salman, Y. B., and Yildirim, M. E. A user study: the effects of mobile phone prototypes and task complexities on usability. In Proc. ICIS 2009, ACM Press (2009), 300--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Lim, Y., Pangam, A., Periyasami, S., and Aneja, S. Comparative analysis of high- and low-fidelity prototypes for more valid usability evaluations of mobile devices. In Proc. NordiCHI 2006, ACM Press (2006), 76--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Rudd, J., Stern, K., and Isensee, S. Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. interactions 3, 1 (1996), 76--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Sellen, K. M., Massimi, M. A., Lottridge, D. M., Truong, K. N., and Bittle, S. A. The people-prototype problem: understanding the interaction between prototype format and user group. In Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 635--638. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The impact of concept (re)presentation on users' evaluation and perception

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      NordiCHI '10: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries
      October 2010
      889 pages
      ISBN:9781605589343
      DOI:10.1145/1868914

      Copyright © 2010 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 October 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader