一个基于网络用户体验的综合模型

一个基于网络用户体验的综合模型 电子商务 专业 董晓喆 指导老师：章剑林 摘要：在本文中，我们提出一种综合性的方法用来描述网站使用的用户体验。从最基本的用户体验过程模型开始，在这个模型中有四个体验维度：感知有用性、易用性、娱乐性和视觉吸引力。这个模型在两个网域中进行实证测试：网上书店和网上旅行社。一个作为系统运用的一个预测值的系统使用意愿是被当作用户互动体验的一个结果来研究的。结果表明四个体验维度几乎是独立的被用户感知，而带有明显意愿使用网站的，感知有用性是主要的影响因素，其他的因素影响较少。探讨考虑了用户的所有需求和用户的使用意愿的交互式系统的研究结论。关键词：用户网站质量的感知； 用户体验； 电子商务1.引言用户满意是开发可用交互式系统的一个目标(ISO, 1998)。满意的概念是涉及与客观因素相对的用户的主观意思。满意度度量的实现是通过评估用户感知的因素如效率、有益性或易学性，或产品使用的意见。用户体验的设计，在过去的几年里已经逐渐成为开发交互式系统的一个目标，它所需要考虑的因素比起用户满意来说，范围更宽广。虽然用户体验长期以来受到广泛的使用，但是理论基础的研究并不是很深入。一些用来描述在线服务的用户体验的基本原则的方法已经被提出，Novak和 Hoffman (2000)用流量的概念(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)作为基本原则去解释哪些因素可以提供优质体验。虽然是以Novak和 Hoffman为蓝本，并解释了互联网使用过程的用户体验，但是这个方法对于在描述和理解特定系统的用户体验上的帮助较少。与此相反，我们在这里提出的以用户体验为目标的综合性方法用来描述单一交互式系统的用户体验，从而帮助明确特定的系统不能产生一个具有建设性的用户体验的原因，进而在设计中采取适当的纠正步骤。此外，Huang (2003)研究了在互联网背景下的流量体验，并对功能和娱乐方面的网络性能进行了区分。这项研究的主要结论是，一个网站的成功必须能够满足用户在信息和娱乐方面的需求。Hassenzahl (2005)针对上述需求，介绍了交互式产品的两个特性：工具性和非工具性。在工具性方面主要关注的是用户的任务、目标和有效性的实现。一个综合了这些方面的经典的模式是Davis(1989)技术接受模型。Davis认为交互式系统的有用性和易用性是工具性的重要部分。非工具性对用户行为方面的影响同样已经被研究了。Hassenzahl (2001)引入了娱乐性的概念包括了与系统达到用户目标没有明显相关度的性能维度，如独创性、创新性等。然而他并没有指明娱乐性对于用户来说到底是具有怎样的重要性(Hassenzahl, 2001)。在互联网背景下研究的内容主要集中在像是视觉吸引力或是美学方面。Schenkman和 Jnsson研究美学和网站偏好，发现用户美的感知对网站整体评价有很好的预测作用。V. D. Heijden (2003) 研究的技术接受模型 (Davis, 1989) 的延伸-视觉吸引力，用来解释个体接受与网站使用时，发现二者之间有着显著的影响。Lavie 和 Tractinsky (2004)发现在视觉吸引力方面，用户的感知包含两个主要的方面，就是“经典美学”和“表现美学”。综上所述，各种不同的非工具性如娱乐性和视觉吸引力已经运用于用户体验方面的研究。同时，以非工具性和工具性作为整体的网站用户体验的研究已经被整合用来全面理解用户的互动体验。2.网络用户体验：一种综合的方法Norman (1999)描述涵盖了用户与产品互动的所有方面的用户体验：对系统的体验是发生在与系统相互作用的过程中的。我们可以明确互动信息的处理是基本用户体验过程中的核心部分。一方面，信息的处理受到交互式系统质量的影响：在与系统相互作用的过程中，用户感知三个方面的特质。另一方面，信息的处理导致不同的体验结果，如用户的行为，例如系统的使用，判断或是引发的情感(Mahlke, 2002)。我们假设系统互动信息的处理是基于不同的体验维度。我们综合四个体验维度的内容：感知有用性和易用性、感知娱乐性和感知视觉吸引力。感知有用性(U)和易用性(EOU)是在Davis的技术接受模型(Davis, 1989)里定义的，是工具性的体现。Hassenzahl (2001)的娱乐性(HQ)的概念和V. D. Heijden (2003)的视觉吸引力(VA)的概念是作为非工具性方面来研究的。一个作为网站运用的一个重要的预测值的系统使用意愿(INT)是体验的一个结果。这些假设归纳在我们的用户体验模型，如图1。感知有用性感知视觉吸引力感知娱乐性感知易用性系统特性使用意愿系统的运用图1 用户体验模型（用灰色标记的概念，这里不做研究）整合体验的这些方面，可以得到网站使用意图的因素，引导出下列研究问题：Q1:感知有用性、易用性、娱乐性和视觉吸引力是网站运用的四个独立的体验因素吗？Q2:网站的使用意愿是由体验的这四个方面加权结合形成的吗？3.网站运用的体验实证研究实施一项对用户体验进行实证研究的实验，并回答这些研究问题。3.1方法210人参与了这项研究。样本的男女性别比例相当，平均年龄是28.8岁（最小15，最大64）。互联网水平从一般水平到高水平。网站的选择来源于一般的两个网域：网上书店和网上旅行社。从每个网域中各挑选了十个网站列入这次的研究。选择的主要标准是异质性。利用问卷调查的方式衡量体验的四个方面和使用意图。实际评测体验的四个方面和使用意图是建立在Venkatesh & Davis (2000), Hassenzahl (2001) 和 V.D. Heijden (2003)的研究上的。该问卷包括了24项，见表1。表1. 用户体验问卷范围 项目感知有用性 利用这个网站可能完成任务 利用这个网站能提高完成任务的效率 利用这个网站有利于完成任务 我发现这个网站对完成任务有用感知易用性 我发现能容易的利用这个网站做我想要它做的事 与这个网站互动需要很多的精力 我与这个网站的互动是清晰和可理解的 我发觉这个网站是容易使用的感知娱乐性 这个网站是标准的 这个网站是有创新性的 这个网站是令人兴奋的 这个网站是令人印象深刻的 这个网站是具有独创性的 这个网站是无聊的感知视觉吸引力 这个网站颜色的运用是有吸引力的 总体来说，我觉得该网站看起来是有吸引力的 这个网站的设计没有吸引力 这个网站的布局是有吸引力的使用意愿 如果可能的话，我有意愿再次使用这个网站 如果可能的话，我想我会再次使用这个网站 我会推荐我的朋友使用这个网站 出现类似的情形的话，我会再次使用这个网站这项研究进行了一个网上实验。经过简短的介绍，参与者被随机的分配到其中的一个网站。一个决定于网站域的典型的方案被提出。它包括要求参与者在十分钟内完成一个任务的简短的叙述。再者是问卷的形成。一些关于人口统计、互联网知识和个人相关域的问题将会添加在问卷的最后。3.2结果Q1:问卷的所有度量尺度的尺度特征显示Cronbach alpha系数可靠性高于0.88。问卷的U, EOU, HQ 和VA项目的因子分析（主成分，等值最大旋转）选择了四个相关因素。结合这四个因素解释了大约79%的总方差。Q2:使用意愿的概念化是在体验的四个方面的个人感知的基础上形成的。为了检验这一假设，运用回归分析法从体验的四个方面的价值预测使用意愿。表2显示了回归分析的结果。体验的四个方面成功的预测了使用意愿。综合这些方面解释了意愿的大约72%的方差。影响使用意愿的权重，存在差异，U有主要的影响，VA的影响最小。表2 关于INT的U, EOU, HQ 和 VA的回归分析标准 调整后的R 预测值 Beta Sig.INT .719 U .653 .001 EOU .377 .001 HQ .311 .001 VA .244 .0013.3讨论因素分析的结果表明，用户可以从始至终并几乎独立的感知体验的四个假设因素。回归分析预测的使用意愿表明感知预计的有用性对意愿来说有主要的影响。此外，体验的其余三个因素对使用意愿有重要的影响。结果表明，特别是网站非工具性因素的考虑提供了一种提高用户体验的潜在可能性。然而，这项研究存在的一个局限性，就是没有研究什么样的设计特点和功能能激励不同维度的用户体验。我们并没有控制实验中使用的会引起虚拟用户体验的系统的差异。实验中刺激物的选择依据是尽可能的能引发用户更为多元化的积极或是消极的反映。此外，我关注的仅仅是实验中体验的一个结果：使用。作为使用的指标，我们对用户对系统的使用意愿进行了了解。Davis等人 (1989)阐明使用意愿是使用的一个非常好的预测值。所引起的其他方面的作用，像是引发的情感、判断等将不做研究。4.结论所提出的方法似乎有希望能够对作为复杂现象的用户体验的概念做更好的诠释。描述了体验的四个方面是用户体验重要的部分，并进行了实证检验。阐述了它们对交互式系统的使用意愿的影响使用的预测值和用户体验的结果的例子。仍然有很多建立在我们用户体验研究过程中的问题没有被解答。我们认为当前整合的四个体验维度的概念对用户体验是具有重要性的。在商业网站的背景下，这些概念是可信赖的尤其是对于电子商务网站(Riegelsberger, Sasse 和 McCarthy, 2003)来说以及社会支持，如交流和合作。Angeli, Lynch 和 Johnson (2001)介绍了在这样的背景下交互式系统的社会性质概念。比较我们的模型与Norman (2004) 和 Jordan (2000)的架构表明了用户体验的其他方面可能是相关的。必须考虑体验各维度间的影响。进一步探讨了作为交互式系统的预测值的使用意愿的体验结果。判断和引发的情感可能是体验结果进一步延伸的方面。Hassenzahl (2001)研究了吸引力判断的内容，吸引力判断可以视为体验的另一结果的评估内容。通过问卷调查法测量在互动体验过程中引发的情感，如使用的乐趣。另一个复杂的问题仍然未被解决，就是在某些体验维度方面，什么样的设计特点和功能能提供积极的体验。然而，有用和易用的设计合理的解释(如Shneiderman, 1997)了这个问题，但是什么可以引起交互式系统感知娱乐性却没有被解答。就设计积极的体验上，用户体验的其他维度也会有相同的问题。尽管这些问题未被解决，但是我们相信在理论和方法的基础上，随着这个方法的进一步完善，未来将会对互动体验的设计有帮助。外文文献出处：Sascha Mahlke, An integrative model on Web user experience, IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, 2005.附外文文献原文An Integrative Model on Web User ExperienceABSTRACTIn this paper, we present an integrative approach to describe the user experience of website usage. Starting from a basic user experience process model four dimensions of experience are integrated in the model: perceived usefulness, ease of use, hedonic quality and visual attractiveness. The model is tested empirically in two web domains: online bookshops and travel agencies. The intention to use a system as a predictor of system usage is studied as one consequence of the users experience of interaction. The results suggest that all four aspects of experience are mostly independently perceived by the user and all contribute significantly to the intention to use a website while perceived usefulness had the major influence and the other experience dimensions had smaller effects. Consequences of the findings for developing interactive systems that take all of the users needs into account and that users so intend to use are discussed.KEYWORDSUsers perceived website quality； user experience； e-commerce1. INTRODUCTIONUser satisfaction is defined as one aim in developing usable interactive systems (ISO, 1998). The concept of satisfaction refers in contrast to other objectives to the subjective perspective of the user. Measures of satisfaction are defined to assess the users perception of aspects such as efficiency, helpfulness or learnability, or attitudes to the use of the product. The design of the user experience, which has increasingly become a goal in developing interactive systems over the last years, considers a wider scope than the aspects paid attention to with the concept of user satisfaction. But while the term user experience is widely used, the theoretical foundations are not very well understood so far.Some approaches have been made to describe the foundations of the user experience of online services, e.g. Novak and Hoffman (2000) used the flow concept (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) as basic principle to explain which factors make using the web a compelling experience. But while Novak and Hoffman modelled and explained user experience of Internet usage overall, this approach helps less in describing and understanding the user experience of a particular system. In contrast, the aim of the integrative approach to user experience we present here is to describe the user experience of a single interactive system and thus being helpful to identify why a particular system may not yield to a suggested user experience, and to pursue appropriate corrective steps in design.Also, Huang (2003) studied flow experiences in the Internet context and thereby differentiated utilitarian and hedonic aspects of web performance. The main result of the study was that a successful website must be able to satisfy both the information and entertainment needs of users. Hassenzahl (2005) describes two categories of interactive product qualities that target these needs: instrumental and non-instrumental qualities. Instrumental quality aspects focus on users tasks, goals and their efficient achievement. One classical approach that considers these aspects is Davis (1989) Technology Acceptance Model. Davis defines the usefulness and ease of use of an interactive system as important instrumental quality aspects.The influence of non-instrumental quality aspects on user behaviour has been studied as well. Hassenzahl (2001) introduced the concept of hedonic quality as comprising quality dimensions with no obvious relation to the task the user wants to accomplish with the system, such as originality, innovativeness, etc. Although not task-related he showed hedonic quality to be an important quality aspect for the user (Hassenzahl, 2001).In the website context studies focused primarily concepts like visual attractiveness or aesthetics. Schenkman and Jnsson studied aesthetics and preferences of websites and found that a very good predictor for the overall judgement of a website was the users perceived beauty. V. D. Heijden (2003) studied the concept of visual attractiveness as an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) to explain the individual acceptance and usage of websites and found a remarkable influence. Lavie and Tractinsky (2004) found that users perceptions consist of two main dimensions regarding visual attractiveness, which they termed classical aesthetics and expressive aesthetics.Recapitulating, different non-instrumental quality aspects like hedonic quality and visual attractiveness have been studied for there one. However, to study the user experience of websites as a whole non-instrumental and instrumental quality aspects have to be integrated to fully understand users experience of interaction.2. WEB USER EXPERIENCE: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACHNorman (1999) described user experience as encompassing all aspects of the users interaction with a product: the experience of the system happens during the interaction with the system. We define this processing of information about the interaction as the central part within the basic user experience process. On the one hand, this information processing is influenced by the qualities of the interactive system: the user perceives these qualities within the interaction with the system. On the other hand, this information processing leads to various consequences of experience, such as the behaviour of the user, e.g. the usage of the system, judgments or emotional outcomes (Mahlke, 2002).We assume that information about the interaction with the system is processed on different dimensions of experience. We integrated four concepts as experience dimensions: perceived usefulness and ease of use, perceived hedonic quality and perceived visual attractiveness. Perceived usefulness (U) and ease of use (EOU) are defined in Davis Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) and represent instrumental quality aspects. Hassenzahls (2001) concept of hedonic quality (HQ) and v. d. Heijdens (2003) construct of visual attractiveness (VA) are studied as non-instrumental quality aspects. The intention to use a system (INT) as an important predictor of website usage is one consequence of experience. These assumptions are summarized in our user experience model presented in figure 1.Figure 1. User experience model(Concepts that were not studied here are displayed grey)The integration of these aspects of experience as factors contributing to the intention to use (INT) a website leads to the following research questions:Q1: Are perceived usefulness, ease of use, hedonic quality and visual attractiveness four independently perceived aspects of the experience of website usage?Q2: Is the intention to use a website formed by combining and weighting the four aspects of experience?3. AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE EXPERIENCE OF WEBSITE USAGEAn experiment was conducted to study the user experience model empirically and answer the research questions.3.1 METHOD210 individuals participated in the study. The sample was balanced for gender and mean age was 28,8 years (Min 15, Max 64). Internet expertise varied from moderate to high. Websites were chosen from two domains of general interest: online bookshops and travel agencies. Ten websites from each domain were selected for inclusion in the study. The main criterion for selection was heterogeneity.A questionnaire was developed to measure the four aspects of experience and the intention to use. The four aspects of experience and the intention to use were operationalised based on studies of Venkatesh & Davis (2000), Hassenzahl (2001) and v.d. Heijden (2003). The questionnaire consisted of 24 items and is described in Table 1.Table 1. User experience questionnaireThe study was carried out as an online experiment. After a short introductory page the participants were randomly assigned to one of the investigated websites. Dependent on the domain of the website a prototypical scenario was presented. It consisted of a short cover story asking the participants to execute a task on the web sites within 10 minutes. Subsequently the questionnaire was presented. Some questions concerning demographics, Internet expertise, and personal relevance of the domain were added at the end of the questionnaire.3.2 ResultsQ1: The scale characteristics of all measurement scales of the questionnaire showed high reliability with Cronbach alpha coefficients higher than 0.88. A factor analysis (Principal Component, Equamax rotation) of the U, EOU, HQ and VA items of the questionnaire extracted four relevant factors. Together the four factors explain approx. 79% of the total variance.Q2: The intention to use is conceptualized as being formed on the basis of the individuals perception of the four aspects of experience. To check this assumption a regression analysis was performed in order to predict the intention to use from the factor values of the four aspects of experience. Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis. The four aspects of experience succeed all in predicting the intention to use. Together they explained approx. 72 % of the variance of the intention to use. The weight of contribution to the intention to use differs from U with the major influence to VA with the smallest effect.Table 2. Regression Analysis of U, EOU, HQ and VA on INT3.3 DiscussionThe results of the factor analysis show that users can perceive the four assumed experience aspects consistently and mostly independently. The regression analysis to predict the intention to use indicates that the perceived usefulness expectedly has a main influence on the intention. Also, the other three experience factors contribute significantly to the intention to use. The results demonstrated that especially the consideration of non-instrumental quality aspects of websites offers a potential to improve the user experience.However, one limitation of the study is that the question what design characteristics or features support the user experience on the different dimensions was not studied. We had no controlled variation of systems used in the experiment that should lead to a hypothesized user experience. The stimulus material used in the experiment was chosen in a way to elicit a wide variety of positive and negative reactions by the users.Also, we focused just on one consequence of experience in the experiment: usage. As indicator for usage we asked the users about their intention to use the systems. Davis et al. (1989) demonstrated that the intention to use is a very good predictor for usage. Other consequences like emotional outcomes, judgments, etc. were not studied.4. CONCLUSIONThe presented approach appears promising for a better understanding of the concept of user experience as a complex phenomenon. Four aspects of experience have been proposed to describe important parts of the user experience and were validated empirically. Their influence on the intention to use an interactive system as a predictor for usage and an example for a consequence of user experience has been demonstrated. Still many research questions that build up our research agenda on user experience are unanswered.We expect that next to the four experience dimensions we integrated so far further concepts may be of importance for the user experience. I