Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
which was not up-to-date, and the comments ended
up being in a “zigzag” order in the discussion. In
Image Exchange, the participants felt that they
could trust that the discussion was always up-to-
date with the service, and they could immediately
reply to a comment. However, Image Exchange
had limitations regarding the commenting view: It
was sometimes slow to view comments and there
was not any notification about new comments.
This affected the scores for “Commenting on mo-
bile” (p=0.140, not significant) and “Replying to
comments on mobile” (p=0.137, not significant).
listed the ease of use and simplicity as one of the
key design solutions of Image Exchange. They
would rather have less well-designed features
than many that are hard to use. The participants
enjoyed the use so much that they would even
recommend it to an interested friend (“I would
definitely recommend this service to an inter-
ested friend”, p=0.018). This seems to be an
important aspect in social Internet services as the
participants commented that it is important to
have their friends using the service.
Furthermore, the participants considered Im-
age Exchange and service to be rather excellent
(“This is a truly excellent service”, p=0.013) and
support the image that they want to show to the
others (“This service is in line with the image that I
want to show to others”, p=0.003). The participants
explained that they highly appreciated the visual
looks of Image Exchange and they described it
as “stylish”, “modern” and “beautiful”. Image
Exchange also managed to surprise the participants
positively from time to time (“This service often
surprises me positively”) and they commented that
Image Exchange was fun to use but the difference
was not significant in this question (p=0.066).
On the contrary, Gallery did not score well in
these questions: Although it was quite simple and
usable after a while, it did not manage to attract the
participants or get them excited. The participants
commented that it had unnecessary features and
the essential functions were sometimes cumber-
User Experience Evaluation
The results of the user experience evaluation are
shown in Figure 9, where the ratings evaluated
the social, utility, and enjoyment aspects of user
experience. The results show that Image Exchange
scored significantly better in 5 out of 6 questions.
Even though Image Exchange also scored better
in the task ratings measuring the usability of the
main features, a clearer difference is shown in
the ratings and participants' comments related to
user experience.
Particularly, the easiness of use (“I can easily
use this service whenever I want”, p=0.016) and
the design solutions of Image Exchange (“I get
enjoyment from the design solutions of this ser-
vice”, p=0.0004) attracted the participants as
clearly indicated by the results. The participants
Figure 9. The results of the user experience evaluation with standard deviation
Search WWH ::
Custom Search