Visual impressions of mobile app interfaces

ABSTRACT

First impressions are formed very fast but they last. Consecutive approach-avoidance behavior is formed almost instantly and persists over time. The effect of the first impression of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) of desktop webpages on subsequent evaluation is well documented in the literature. Less research has focused on mobile interfaces. To cover this gap, this paper reports two studies. The first study confirmed the persistence of first impressions on mobile interfaces evaluation, although it suggested that exposure time may be longer. The second study extends previous work on automatic evaluation from desktop to mobile interfaces. The linking theme between the studies is that of visual complexity, which is a more objective, yet powerful, predictor of aesthetic evaluation. Using six automatic metrics (color depth, dominant colors, visual clutter, symmetry, figure-ground contrast and edge congestion), in study 2 we explained 40% of variation in subjective complexity scores and 36% of variation in aesthetics scores.

References

1. Aksentijevic, A. and Gibson, K.. Complexity equals change. Cognitive systems research (2012), 1--16.
2. Balinsky, H. Evaluating interface aesthetics: measure of symmetry. In Digital Publishing Conference (San Jose 2006), International Society for Optics and Photonics.
3. Balinsky, H. Y., Wiley, A. J., & Roberts, M. C. Aesthetic measure of alignment and regularity. In the 9th ACM symposium on Document Engineering (Munich 2009), ACM, 56--65.
4. Bauerly, M. and Liu, Y. Effects of symmetry and number of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. In the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (2006), 304--308.
5. Böhmer, M., Hecht, B., Schöning, J., Krüger, A., and Bauer, G. Falling asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle: a large scale study on mobile application usage. In the 13th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services (2011), ACM, 47--56.
6. Chae, M. and Kim, J. Do size and structure matter to mobile users? An empirical study of the effects of screen size, information structure, and task complexity on user activities with standard web phones. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 3 (2004), 165--181.
7. Chittaro, L. Designing visual user interfaces for mobile applications. In 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (2011), ACM, 331--332.
8. Choi, J. H. and Lee, H. J. Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: A structural model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 2 (2012), 129--142.
9. Donderi, D. C.. Visual complexity: a review. Psychological bulletin, 132, 1 (2006), 73--97.
10. Duncan, J. and Humphreys, G. W. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological review, 96, 3 (1989), 433--458.
11. Fei-Fei, L., Iyer, A., Koch, C., and Perona, P. What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene? Journal of vision, 7, 1 (2007), 1--29.
12. Harper, S., Jay, C., Michailidou, E., and Quan, H. Analysing the visual complexity of web pages using document structure. Behavious & Information Technology, 32, 5 (2013), 491--502.
13. Harper, S., Michailidou, E., and Stevens, R. Toward a definition of visual complexity as an implicit measure of cognitive load. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 6, 2 (February 2009).
14. Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., and Wieringen, P. C. 'Most advanced, yet acceptable': typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 1 (2003), 111--124.
15. Ivory, M. Y., Sinha, R. R., and Hearst, M. A. Empirically validated web page design metrics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (Seattle 2001), ACM, 53--60.
16. Lavie, T., and Tractinsky, N. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International journal of human-computer studies, 60, 3 (2004), 269--298.
17. Levi, D. M. Crowding---An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review. Vision Research, 48, 5 (2008), 635--654.
18. Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., and Noonan, P. An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. Transactions on computer-human interaction, 18, 1 (2011), 1--30.
19. Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., and Brown, J. Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impressoin! Behavior & information technology, 25, 2 (2006), 115--126.
20. Ling, C., Hwang, W., and Salvendy, G. A survey of what customers want in a cell phone design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26, 2 (March-April 2007), 149--163.
21. Miniukovich, A. and De Angeli, A. Quantification of Interface Visual Complexity. In the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (Como 2014), ACM, 153--160.
22. Moshagen, M. and Thielsch, M. T. Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 10 (2010), 689--709.
23. Oliva, A., Mack, M. L., Shrestha, M., and Peeper, A. Identifying the perceptual dimensions of visual complexity of scenes. the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (August 2004).
24. Pothos, E. M. and Ward, R. Symmetry, repetition, and figural goodness: An investigation of the weight of evidence theory. Cognition, 75, 3 (2000), B65--B78.
25. Purchase, H. C., Freeman, E., and Hamer, J.. An exploration of visual complexity. Digrammatic representation and inferences (2012), 200--213.
26. Purchase, H. C., Hamer, J., Jameson, A., and Ryan, O. Incesitigating objective measures of web page aesthetics and usability. In 12th Australasian user interface conference (AUIC 2011) (Perth 2011), Australian computer society, Inc., 19--28.
27. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., and Schwarz, N. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 1 (1999), 45--48.
28. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., and Winkielman, P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and social psychology review, 8, 4 (2004), 364--382.
29. Reber, R. Processing fluency, aesthetic pleasure, and culturally shared taste. In Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
30. Reinecke, K., Yeh, T., Miratrix, L., Mardiko, R., Zhao, Y., Liu, J., and Gajos, K. Z. Predicting users' first impressions of website aesthetics with a quantification of perceived visual complexity and colorfulness. In CHI (Paris 2013), ACM, 2049--2058.
31. Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., and Nakano, L. Measuring visual clutter. Journal of vision, 7, 2 (2007), 1--22.
32. Roth, S. P., Schmutz, P., Pauwels, S. L., Bargas-Avila, J. A., and Opwis, K. Mental models for web objects: Where do users expect to find the most frequent objects in online shops, news portals, and company web pages? Interacting with Computers, 22, 2 (2010), 140--152.
33. Sereno, S. C. and Rayner, K. Measuring word recognition in reading: eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7, 11 (2003), 489--493.
34. Smith-Gratto, K. and Fisher, M. M. Gestalt theory: a foundation for instructional screen design. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27, 4 (1998-99), 361--372.
35. Tractinsky, N., Cokhavi, A., Kirschenbaum, M., and Sharfi, T. Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of web pages. International journal of human-computer studies, 64, 11 (2006), 1071--1083.
36. Tractinsky, N. Visual Aesthetics. In Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis, eds., The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, Aarhus, 2013.
37. Tuch, Al. N., Bargas-Avila, J. A., Opwis, K., and Wilhelm, F. H. Visual complexity of websites: effects on users' experience, physiology, perfomance, and memory. International journal of human-computer studies, 67 (2009), 703--715.
38. Tuch, A. N., Presslaber, E. E., Stocklin, M., Opwis, K., and Bargas-Avila, J. A. The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70 (2012), 794--811.
39. Whittlesea, B. W. and Williams, L. D. Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 2 (1998), 141--165.
40. Wong, N., Carpendale, S., and Greenberg, S. EdgeLens: An Interactive Method for Managing Edge Congestion in Graphs. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (October 19-21, 2003), 51--58.
41. Wu, O., Chen, Y., Li, B., and Hu, W. Evaluating the visual quality of web pages using a computational aesthetic approach. In the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (2011), ACM, 337--346.
42. Wu, O., Hu, W., and Shi, L. Measuring the visual complexities of Web pages. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 7, 1 (2013), 1--34.
43. Zheng, X. S., Chakraborty, I., Lin, J. J. W., and Rauschenberger, R. Correlating low-level image statistics with users-rapid aesthetic and affective judgments of web pages. In SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2009), ACM, 1--10.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

    • Interaction paradigms

      • Graphical user interfaces