I've gone through a whole list of scientific papers to understand what science knows today about the influence aesthetics / beauty and usability have on each other. I then tried to turn those horrendously boring papers into something that resembles an entertaining format, cut it down to a 20 min presentation and presented it at IxDA Sydney in September 2014.
You might even learn something here - so please tread lightly ;-)
7. • A selective timeline of the history of research
• Frustrations with academic papers
• Defining and measuring web site aesthetics
• What we really KNOW today about how aesthetics
and usability influence each other
• How to spell the word “aesthetics”
8. • What is beautiful is good; Dion K., Berscheid, E., Walster, E., 1972
• What is good is beautiful - face preference reflects desired personality; Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Berrett, D. I., 2006
• Apparent usability vs. inherent usability - Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Kurosu, M. and Kashimura, K., 1995
• Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues; Tractinsky, N., 1997
• What is beautiful is usable; Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., Ikar, D., 2000.
• The Beauty of Simplicity; Karvonen, K., 2000.
• Emotional design; Norman, D., 2003.
• Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites; Lavie, T., Tractinsky, N., 2003.
• The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products, Hassenzahl, M., 2004.
• Organizational website usability and attractiveness effects on viewer impressions, Braddy, P. W., Meade A. W., Kroustalis, C. M., 2005.
• Attention web designers: you have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression; Lindgaard, G. et al., 2006.
• Aesthetics and credibility in web site design; Robins, D. and Holmes, J., 2007.
• The influence of prototype fidelity and aesthetics of design in usability tests: effects on user behaviour, subject evaluation and emotion; Sauer, J. and Sonderegger, A., 2008.
• The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability; Sonderegger, A., Sauer, J. 2009.
• Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI; Tuch, A., 2012.
• User interface design and the halo effect: some preliminary evidence; Soper, D. S., 2014
• … and a few others I just leaved through.
11. 1. Original study is wild and ‘out there’
2. Some researchers run with it
3. Egos arise and fight each other
• Everybody wants to make it simple
• Everybody wants the best headline
• Someone, at some point, will do it properly
• Most use ‘convenience samples’, i.e. their students
14. “ ”
Beauty is within the
subject, not the object
IMMANUEL KANT(1724-1804) - once again, not a quote, I’m
just paraphrasing here
Philosophical approach
Subjective perception
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg
19. The study:
• Preliminary study: 50 ‘stimulus objects’ rated on
‘unattractive’, ‘moderately attractive’ and ‘attractive’
• 60 participants: rate each stimulus on various
character traits
20. The outcome:
Attractive people:
• had more socially desirable traits
• were expected to get better jobs
• have happier marriages
• were possibly NOT better parents for some reason
21. The halo effect
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/images/uploads/6a00d83451b74a69e20120a5dbb520970c.jpg
Cognitive bias where one
particular trait, especially good
characteristics, influences or
extends to other qualities of the
person.
Biases one’s decision with a
tendency to focus on the good.
24. The study:
• Generated 26 ATM
layouts. Experts assessed
them as high or low
beauty and high or low
usability.
• 252 students were asked:
how beautiful are they?
how easy are they to use?
25. The outcome:
• High correlation between apparent usability and
apparent beauty
• This correlation was higher than between beauty and
usability as judged by experts
• Therefore: beauty influences apparent usability more
than actual usability does
28. Aesthetics and apparent
usability - empirically
assessing cultural and
methodological issues
Tractinsky, 1997
29. With guns ablazin’
• Strongly criticised Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman for
their exclusive focus on usability
• Are usability tests distracting from what really
influences purchase decisions and user acceptance?
30. The study:
• Adjusted the Japanese ATM layouts for Israeli audience
• Ran them past some folks in Israel in 3 study setups
34. Claims
• Usability and aesthetics influence each other due to
• Popular stereotyping
• Halo effect
• Affective immediate response
So his questions were:
• Is anything else influenced apart from usability?
• What happens after actually testing it?
35. The study
• 9 ATM layouts and 3 scales (‘aesthetics’, ‘ease of use’,
‘amount of information on screen’)
• Participants rated, then tested, and then rated again
36. Result
• ‘Real’ usability performance was not influenced by
aesthetics
• Post-use satisfaction = post-use perceived usability
+ post-use perceived aesthetics
• Real usability performance didn’t influence post-use
assessment in any way. Only aesthetics did.
40. The study:
• 5-part study series
• Generate a bunch of reliable scales
• Test them by applying them and number crunching
the outcome
• … and see what else he could learn about causality
41. Results about metrics
Two groups that measure aesthetics:
Classical aesthetics:
• aesthetic
• pleasant
• clean
• clear
• symmetrical
Expressive aesthetics:
• creative
• using special effects
• original
• sophisticated
• fascinating
42. Results about causality
• Perceived usability is correlated to classical
aesthetics, not so much to expressive aesthetics
• ‘Clear design’ is part of both ‘classical aesthetic’ and
the general understanding of ‘usability’
• This in turn shows that users struggle to clearly
distinguish between the two concepts
47. The study
• 2 very ugly and 2 very beautiful MP3 skins
• Study 1: participants looked at them and
assessed them with AttrakDiff 2
• Study 2: looked at them, assessed them, then
used them, and assessed them again.
48.
49. Overall results
• Pragmatic qualities (like usability) predict
‘goodness’, but NOT beauty
• HQI (and a bit of HQS) predicts beauty
• Beauty is not strongly affected by using the
product
50.
51. Isn’t that contradi…
• Tractinsky had proven that beauty influenced
usability
• Hassenzahl had proven that beauty and usability
were completely independent
52. What had happened?
Hassenzahl: Tractinsky’s usability manipulation was
not successful.
Tractinsky: not available for comment
55. Attention web
designers: you have 50
milliseconds to make a
good first impression
Lindgaard et al. 2006
56. The study
• Study 1: Showed ugly and beautiful web sites for
500ms each, participants rated them from ‘very
unattractive’ to ‘very attractive’
• Study 2: showed the same images, but only for
50ms
57. The overall result
• 50ms exposure is enough to form an opinion
• 50ms opinions are more variable than 500ms
opinions
• This opinion can then persist for some time after
• She claims although the reaction is ‘visceral’ in the
Norman sense, it’s not ‘visceral beauty’ because the
judgement is more a “I like or I don’t like”
59. Let’s wrap this up.
!
With one more study.
!
A REALLY BIG ONE.
60. Is beautiful really usable? Toward
understanding the relation
between usability, aesthetics and
affect in HCI
Tuch et al. 2012
61. His problems with studies
• Researchers assume they know the direction of
causality
• Manipulating one condition without the other is hard
• Resarchers used completely different measuring
scales
• Researchers looked for dumb causalities, not for
boundary conditions
62. With boundary conditions, we describe the
possibility that different degrees of usability
and aesthetics manipulation may affect the
aesthetics-usability relationship differently.
TUCH ET AL., 2012
”
“
63. • Displayed an online
shop
• Tasks were to buy items
• The fastest would get
iPods
64. What made his study
different
• Manipulation of usability: simple IA changes, no
change to aesthetics at all
• Manipulation of aesthetics: different colours, use of
imagery, no change to usability at all
68. Results 1/3
Aesthetics Usability
• Aesthetics did NOT influence perceived usability
BEFORE use. No halo effect.
• Aesthetics did also NOT influence perceived usability
AFTER use. No ‘what is beautiful is usable’ effect.
• Perceived usability was only affected by the actual
experienced usability.
69. Results 2/3
Usability Aesthetics
• Experienced usability DID influence perceived
aesthetics AFTER use, particularly HQI and classical
aesthetics. So it’s ‘What is usable is beautiful’.
• Experienced usability did NOT impact HQS or
expressive aesthetics after use
70. Results 3/3
Pre and post test comparison
• Pre and post perceived usability ratings are not
related
• Usability only affects aesthetics AFTER use
71. … but …
• The change in the usability condition was strong,
while the aesthetic change might have been weak
• They used a goal-oriented task in a pressure
situation. What if:
• Goal-directed pressure tasks put emphasis on
usability?
• Open, ‘relaxed’ tasks put emphasis on
aesthetics?
75. So, what have we learned
• In cognitive psychology, boundary conditions for phenomena are more likely than
simple causalities
• Be aware of task bias:
• Goal-oriented tasks = participants put more attention on usability
• Open tasks = participants put more attention on aesthetics
• Usability influences overall perception of the product, but so does affective
response to good (or bad) aesthetics - so improve both!
77. • When you’re testing usability, you probably also test
aesthetics
• When you ask about aesthetics, you probably also get
answers about usability
• When you ask about overall experiences, you get a
mix of both and people will not be able to distinguish
properly
78. Thank you!
MATTHIAS SCHRECK • SENIOR DESIGNER • ATLASSIAN • @SARDIONERAK
!
SLIDES AVAILABLE AT WWW.SLIDESHARE.NET/MATTYSCHRECK