|
Editor's Notes
In our 12th issue of Usability News:
Usability News is distributed to over 5000 usability professionals, developers, managers, and researchers in over 60 countries. We welcome your feedback and comments. Contributions, suggestions, and submissions for future issues should be directed to barbara.chaparro@wichita.edu.
SURL Home Page: www.surl.org
Usability News: www.usabilitynews.org
Designing for usability: www.optimalweb.org
The Effects of Contrast and Density on Visual Web Search
Summary: This study evaluated the effects of white space on visual search time. Participants were required to search for a target word on a web page with different levels of white space, measured by level of text density. Screens were formatted with one of four types of graphical manipulation, including: no graphics, contrast, borders and contrast with borders under two levels of overall density and three levels of local density. Results show that search times were longer with increased overall density but significant differences were not found between levels of local density. Only the use of contrast was found to be significant, resulting in an increase in search time.
Early interface design studies were conducted on achromatic alphanumeric displays (Tullis, 1984; 1997). However, web design graphics pose new formatting possibilities to investigate. Since the multi-functionality of web design often increases the overall density of the display, spatial layout is an important design component and empirical research should evaluate the effects of alternative layouts on user performance.
Display information can be grouped in a variety of formats and the format will affect the extracted information and the interpretation of those elements (Tullis, 1997). Grouping can provide aesthetic appeal, structure and meaning to a screen format and can be achieved by white space, color, graphical boundaries, highlighting and contrasting display features. For example, Thacker (1987) found that displayed information with a border around it was reported to be easier to read, better in appearance, and preferable. However, too many lines and borders on a screen also create clutter and can be distracting (Galitz, 1997).
Another variable affecting the efficiency of a visual search is the overall density of the displayed material. Overall density is a percentage of the characters present in relation to overall space available. When a display size is held constant, adding more characters will increase the overall density. As a site contains an increasing amount of information, there is often an increase in overall density per page. The literature from visual search tasks and the use of simple and complex displays indicates that increasing display items will increase time and errors for target location (Tullis, 1984).
Another similar variable affecting visual search is the local density of the material. Local density represents the number of other characters in proximity to a character and is a measure of how tightly packed the information is on the screen. Local density and overall density are positively correlated. CRT research examined the difference between single spaced and double spaced text. It was discovered that single spacing of text requires more eye fixations per line and therefore fewer words are read per fixation, which increases reading time (Kohler, Duchnicky & Ferguson, 1981). The empirical research indicates that there is a level of local density that is optimal and densities above or below that level would degrade performance.
Many design guidelines do not discuss the difference between local density and overall density. What is commonly discussed is the use of white space. White space is the term often used to refer to blank space on a screen that does not contain text, graphics or other objects; however, it may contain color depending on the background of the screen (Mayhew, 1992). It is common for graphic design recommendations to suggest that sufficient white space should be used. It is suggested that white space helps to structure a screen, group information and guide the eye (Nielsen, 2000). It is further recommended that white space be used for spatial separation of information even if boundary delimiters are employed (Mullet & Sano, 1995).
However, research teams studying web usability have found that white space may not be beneficial and have noted when there was more white space that users were less successful at finding information, and that they rated sites lower for the ability to find things easily, for ease of searching, overall appearance, ease of use and productivity (Spool et al., 1997).
This study investigates the effects of visual grouping (none, contrast background, border, and border with contrast) and density (low, medium and high local density and medium and high overall density) on search time, error rate and subjective preference.
Method
Participants
Ten participants (6 females and 4 males) were recruited through an online university recruiting program. Participants ranged in age from 18-40, with an average age of 26. Undergraduates received course extra credit for their participation and only experienced computer and internet users were selected. Experience was defined as computer and Internet usage on a weekly basis for a minimum of one year.
Materials
A Dell Optiplex computer was used with a 17” monitor set at a 1024 X 768 resolution. Participants were seated at a desk at a viewing distance of 60 cm from the monitor. The displays were presented in a simulated a web browser which recorded user clicks and time.
Four conditions of grouping (none, contrast background, border, and border with contrast) and density (low, medium and high local density and medium and high overall density) were manipulated to produce 24 different web pages, each containing a series of textual links. For each of the 24 display conditions, 10 examples containing different text links were created. Therefore, a total of 240 displays were created for the experiment, each with a different order of link presentation.
The medium overall density condition contained a 4 X 4 configuration of blocks for a total of 16 blocks. The high overall density condition contained a 6 X 4 configuration of blocks for a total of 24 blocks. Altering the amount of space between each block varied the local density. Due to the complexity of the screen layout combined with the number of trials, a range of densities were defined for each density condition. The ranges were chosen based on previous studies. Medium overall density screens ranged from 14-16%. High overall density screens ranged from 21-22%. Figures 1-4 show examples of four of the conditions. Each link was assigned a number and a random number generator was used to determine the target for each screen.
Figure 1. High overall density, medium local density screens contained 6 rows by 4 columns.
Figure 2. Condition for High Overall Density, High Local Density, No graphics
Figure 3. Condition for Medium Overall Density, Medium Local Density, and Background Contrast
Figure 4. Condition for Medium Overall Density, Low Local Density, and Border
Procedure
Participants were instructed to find target words on a series of web pages. Upon detecting the target, participants clicked on the target. A new screen then appeared which displayed the words “correct,” or “incorrect” based on performance. Participants who responded incorrectly then returned to the previous screen to search for the correct target. Upon detecting the correct target the participants returned to a beginning page and selected the next trial until all trials had been completed.
After all trials were completed participants were shown a page listing the different conditions and were allowed to look at online examples of each condition. They then listed their top 3 condition preferences as well as their least preferred condition. Participants were also asked to explain any search strategies they employed.
Results
A 4 x 3 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the effects of grouping type, local density and overall density on search times. Results revealed a main effect for overall density and for grouping type. Overall high density screens (M = 1.100, S.D. = .391) had higher search times than the medium overall density screens (M = .933, S.D. = .360) p < .01). No significant effects were found for local density.
For the grouping variable, only contrast background was found to be significantly different from the other grouping variables, resulting in a longer search time (See Figure 5). No significant effects were found for any of the interactions.
Figure 5. Search times for by type of grouping
At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to indicate the layouts they liked the best and which they liked the least. Preference data showed that the high overall density was the least preferred screen presentation in that 9 of the 10 participants selected this as their least preferred condition. There was not a consensus on the most preferred layout.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of density and grouping on the user performance as measured by search time. This information is important in order to design effective graphical user interfaces and is particularly relevant as interfaces becomes smaller with the trend toward mobile computing devices; and, as applications are required to provide large amounts of data to numerous users as in the instance of portals.
As the overall density increased, so did the search time, which is consistent with previous findings (Tullis, 1997). Preference data showed that the high overall density was subjectively the least preferred screen presentation. This is consistent with research that subjective ratings relate to alignment and the closeness of the display arrangement (Tullis, 1997).
Displays with a background contrast had longer search times than for screens which used 1) no graphic 2) only border or 3) both border and contrast combination. It is interesting to note that the search times for the contrast condition and the border and contrast were not similar. In both the border condition and the contrast and border condition, all text was included in a blocked space. However, in the contrast condition, every other block contained the color (see Figure 3). Participants reported that locating the target was difficult in the contrast display when the target was both (1) not in a colored grouping, or, in other words had the appearance of being in a “white box,” and (2) was located in the uppermost right hand corner. Participants noted that they would tend to see the word when located in the blue area but not as quickly when located in the white corner. These findings support the guideline that suggests color is a poor delineator of screen elements and a border should be used to set off adjacent areas of different colors (Galitz, 1997).
These findings are relevant to the design of displays with a large amount of data relative to the display size. Because it is often recommended that white space be used, less data can be presented. However, these results demonstrate that there is no difference between using white space and using a contrast background or border to group information.
References
Galitz, W.O. (1997). The essential guide to user interface design. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kohler, P.A., Duchnicky, R.L. & Ferguson, D.C. (1981). Eye movement measurement of readability of CRT displays. Human Factors, 23 , 517-527.
Mayhew, D.J. (1992). Principles and guidelines in software user interface design. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mullet, K. & Sano, D. (1995). Designing visual interfaces: Communication oriented techniques. Mountain View, CA: Prentice Hall.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing. Spool, J.M., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C. & DeAngelo, T. (1997). Web site usability: A designer’s guide. North Andover, MA: User Interface Engineering.
Thacker (1987). Tabular displays: A human factors study. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
Tullis, T.S. (1984). Predicting the Usability of Alphanumeric Displays. Doctoral dissertation, Rice University, Houston, TX. 172 pages.
Tullis, T.S. (1997). Screen design. In M. Helander, T.K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu. (Eds.), Handbook of human computer interaction (2nd ed., pp.503-531). NY: Elsevier.
Reading Online Text: A Comparison of Four White Space Layouts
by
Barbara Chaparro,
J.
Ryan Baker, A. Dawn Shaikh,
Spring Hull, &
Laurie Brady
Summary: In this study, reading performance with four white space layouts was compared. Margins surrounding the text and leading (space between lines) were manipulated to generate the four white space conditions. Results show that the use of margins affected both reading speed and comprehension in that participants read the Margin text slower, but comprehended more than the No Margin text. Participants were also generally more satisfied with the text with margins. Leading was not shown to impact reading performance but did influence overall user preference.
Research investigating the proper amount of “white space” on a web page has produced mixed results (Chaparro & Bernard, 2001; Spool, 1997). The latest recommendation by the National Cancer Institute (2003) is to limit the amount of white space on pages that are used for scanning and searching. Few recommendations, however, are provided for the amount of white space for online text passages such as short stories, news articles, or online novels.
To examine the effects of white space on reading performance, this study compared four white space layouts that manipulated margins and leading. A margin was defined as the white space surrounding the text passage on the left, right, top, and bottom. For purposes of this study, margins on a web page were manipulated such that 10 mm of white space surrounded the text (Margin) or 2 mm of white space surrounded the text (No Margin). Leading was defined as the vertical distance from the baseline of one line of text to the baseline of the next line (i.e., space between lines of text). This space was manipulated to have 5 mm between lines (Optimal) or 4 mm between lines (Sub-Optimal). Participants read online text passages from each of the four possible white space layout combinations: (1) Margins & Optimal Leading; (2) Margins & Sub-Optimal Leading; (3) No Margins & Optimal Leading; and (4) No Margins & Sub-Optimal Leading. Figures 1 through 4 (below) show examples of each of the four white space conditions.
Figure 1. Margins, Optimal Leading
Figure 2. Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading
Figure 3. No Margins, Optimal Leading
Figure 4. No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading
Participants
Twenty college students (10 male, 10 female) with normal or corrected vision participated in the study and received compensation of $25. One female participant was unable to complete more than half of the study and was eliminated from the analysis. Eighty-nine percent of the participants reported visiting web sites daily and 10.5% reported visiting web sites only a few times per week. Primary online activities reported included e-mail, browsing, searching for information, and instant messaging. Eleven percent of the users reported reading online 24 – 40+ hours per week, 26% reported reading 7 – 24 hours per week, and 63% reported reading 0 – 6 hours per week.
Materials
Text passages used in this study were chosen from SAT and ACT practice examinations and contained approximately 800 words each (M = 802.00, SD=59.68). The passages were presented in a graphical format to incorporate the white space layout features discussed above. Passages were randomly presented using a Visual Basic 6.0 program which captured reading time, and were presented on a Dell Inspiron 5100 Laptop with a 15” display running 1400 x 1050 screen resolution. Passages were also presented on two consecutive pages; users clicked on an arrow at the bottom of each page to advance to a subsequent page or return to a previous page. No scrolling was required. Users read the passages at a distance of approximately 50 cm.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to read two passages from one of the four conditions. In each condition, they spent approximately 20 minutes reading two documents. They were asked to read each document at their own pace. After reading each passage, the participant was given eight comprehension questions about the passage. Participants were permitted to go back to the passage to look up the answers to the questions, but were advised that they only had 5 minutes to do so. After reading both documents, the participants completed a questionnaire regarding their reading satisfaction. Participants then took a short break and then repeated the procedure for the other conditions. After all four conditions were completed participants were shown a sample page with images of the four conditions and asked to state their preference as to which layout they liked best. The order of the conditions and passages was counterbalanced across participants.
Results
Reading performance
Reading time was averaged across passages for each condition and converted to words per minute. Comprehension scores were computed as a sum score out of a total eight possible. A two-way within subjects ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of margins for reading speed (F(1,17) = 3.61, p =.07), with passages in the No Margins condition read faster than those with Margins. There was no main effect for leading or interaction between margins and leading.
Examination of the comprehension scores also revealed a main effect of margins (F(1,17) = 8.34, p = .01). Comprehension of the Margins was higher than that of the No Margins. This indicates that while the participants read the Margin passages slower, they comprehended more than when reading the No Margin passages. There was no main effect for leading or interaction between margins and leading.
Table 1. Mean (SD) Reading Performance Across Conditions
|
|
Margins, Optimal Leading |
Margins, SubOptimal Leading |
No Margins, Optimal Leading |
No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading |
| Reading Speed (WPM) |
176.73(38.39) |
182.34(56.43) |
185.42(50.08) |
200.94(62.04) |
| Comprehension |
5.17(1.08) |
5.06(1.38) |
4.28(1.32) |
4.58 (1.36) |
Figure 5. Effect of Margins on Reading Speed and Comprehension.
Satisfaction
Results revealed a significant main effect of Margins on satisfaction. Users favored the Margin condition, reporting lower levels of physical fatigue during reading and greater satisfaction with the layout for the presentation of textbook, leisure, and news material. Results also showed a significant Margin x Leading interaction for questions related to satisfaction with the overall layout and perceived eyestrain. Post-hoc analysis showed that in both cases, the No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading condition was significantly less satisfying and more strenuous.
Preference
Results from a Friedman X2 test showed a significant preference for the Margins, Optimal Leading condition (X2 (3, N = 18) = 8.80, p < .05). Post-hoc analysis showed this condition to be significantly preferred over the No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading condition. Preference for each condition (percent of participants choosing each layout as their first choice) is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Preference of white space passages. M-OL= Margins - Optimal Leading; M-SL = Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading; NM-OL = No Margins, Optimal Leading; NM-SL = No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading
Discussion
Results from this study showed that the manipulation of the Margin white space affected both reading speed and comprehension; participants read the Margin text slower, but comprehended more than the No Margin text. In general, the results favored the use of Margins. The manipulation of Leading did not seem to impact reading performance, but did result in lower satisfaction with the layout and perceived eyestrain when paired with No Margins. Forty-seven percent of participants chose the Margins, Optimal Leading layout as their favorite, while 50% of the participants chose the No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading text as their least favorite. The second preferred combination was the No Margin, Optimal Leading condition. Interestingly, those that chose this condition as the best layout said that they liked the spacing between the lines and indicated the font looked larger and was easier to read. So, while leading did not affect reading performance, it did appear to influence user preference.
The use of white space for online reading is important as the number of people using online textbooks and materials continues to grow at a steady rate (“Another non-traditional option,” n.d.). Figure 5 shows an example of two websites offering short stories. As shown, each utilizes a different amount of white space. The top example is very typical of a selection from a short story site and uses very little margin. Based on the results of this study, it is possible that reader comprehension may be reduced for this passage. Designers should be aware of the potential influence of white space on reading performance. Future research needs to be done to examine the role of white space in online reading. While this study investigated the use of margins and leading, future studies could examine the impact of such variables in multi-column displays and with various line lengths.
http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/shorts/caskpoe.html
http://www.short-stories.co.uk/
Figure 5. Examples of white space used on two short story websites.
Acknowledgement: This study was funded by a grant from Microsoft Corporation.
References
Another non-traditional option: Is online learning right for you? (n.d.). Retrieved July 8, 2004 from the Greater Philadelphia Newspapers Web site: http://www.phillyburbs.com/educationguide/online.shtml.
Chaparro, B. and Bernard, M. (2001). Finding Information
on the Web: Does the Amount of White Space Really Matter? Proceedings of the
Tenth Annual Usability Professionals’ Association Conference. (also
available at
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/
2W/whitespace.htm)
De Groote, S. L., & Dorsch, J. L. (2003). Measuring use patterns of online journals and databases. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 231-240.
National Cancer Institute (2003). Research-based web design and usability guidelines. Retrieved on January 28, 2004, from the National Cancer Institute’s Usability.gov Web site: http://www.usability.gov
Spool, J. M., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C., & DeAngelo, T. (1997). Web Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide, User Interface Engineering. North Andover MA.
Paper or Pixels: What are People Reading Online?
Summary: This study evaluated the reading habits of Internet users across five document types - journal articles, news, newsletters, literature, and product information. Internet users completed an online survey indicating how likely they were to read a document online or on paper. Journal articles were primarily reported to be read in printed form, while documents such as online news, newsletters, and product reviews were reported to be read mainly online. Users reported that they tend not to use online sources for reading literature. Primary factors determining whether a document was printed or read online were size, importance, and intended purpose of document.
The number of libraries and websites now offering online access to textbooks, journals, news, and general information is steadily increasing. The number of learners using online textbooks and materials was expected to reach 2.2 million in 2003 (“Another non-traditional option,” n.d.). In April of 2003, 148 of the 150 top-selling newspapers in America were online (Berger, 2003). In addition, universities are offering up to ten times the number of online journals as print journals (De Groote & Dorsch, 2003). Web pages offering product information and reviews are in the millions when doing basic Google™ searches. Websites such as East of the Web (www.eastoftheweb.com) contain over 1500 short stories available for online reading. Declines in hosting and software costs have lead to an overabundance of online newsletters and e-zines as well (Marcus, 1997).
De Groote and Dorsch (2003) reported that many studies have found a preference among medical professionals for accessing documents online using online databases. Results from their survey of medical professionals’ online reading habits further indicated that many medical personnel either prefer to read the entire full-text journal online or print it to read. However, documents other than academic journals were not considered. Some medical professionals report spending an average of 4.4 hours per week reading journal articles (Saint et al., 2000). Many university libraries are reporting a decline in the usage of print journals and magazines as more readers access the full-text articles online (De Groote & Dorsch, 2001). Despite the apparent increase in online reading, many users report using personal printers to print online articles for reading (De Groote & Dorsch, 2001). Similar trends are happening in other professions. Rho and Gedeon (2000) reported that 96% of their participants (university researchers and research students) located articles using the web, and a majority of the participants preferred to only skim part of academic journal articles online and then print to read from paper; however, as few as 3% reported reading the entire article online.
Reasons for not reading articles online vary. Hornbæk and Frøkjær (2003) reported users found navigation difficult when using online documents, and they preferred the tangibility of paper documents. Other explanations included perceived slower reading speeds, lower comprehension, and increased fatigue. Torre, Wright, Wilson, Diener-West, and Bass (2003) found two main barriers to reading electronic publications among physicians: (1) inability to read anywhere and (2) preference for print media. De Groote and Dorsch (2003) reported the following reasons for using printed documents: better quality graphics; document portability; ability to highlight the article; original formatting retained; and more legible tables. Reasons for preferring online publications included: quicker and easier to locate; 24-hour access; lower cost; access from home/office, efficiency; and convenience.
This paper explores the online reading habits for five document types across a variety of participants. Reasons for reading online or on paper are also assessed.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were solicited by an email invitation to complete an online survey. The invitation was sent to a variety of e-mail lists including lists for hobbyists, the UTEST list (sponsored by Clemson University), and other professional listservs. Student participants were recruited through psychology classes for course credit. A total of 330 respondents (221 females, 109 males) completed the survey. Ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 73 years (M = 33).
Participants were from a variety of professions, including students (36.4%), technology (14.2%), education (12.1%), self-employed (5.2%), homemakers (4.8%), executive/managerial (4.2%), medical/dental (3.3%), and other professions (19.8%). The participants were also an educated group with 41.2% reporting a post graduate or higher level of education and 47% reporting at least some college or a four-year degree.
Over 49% of respondents reported reading online for 2-6 hours per week, while 13% reported reading online 7-14 hours per week, and almost 7% indicated they spend 15 hours or more per week reading online. A total of 61.8% of respondents described their comfort level as “very comfortable” when asked, “How comfortable are you locating information, such as an online document, using the Internet?”
Materials
A short survey was designed to collect information on online reading habits and demographics. The survey consisted of 19 questions and was delivered via the Internet. The survey questions were based on previous surveys as well as the results of pilot testing. Participants were asked to indicate their online reading habits for five document types: academic/journal articles, news articles, literature (short stories, textbooks, etc), newsletters or e-zines, and product information or reviews.
Procedure
Participants chose one of five options to indicate their reading habits for each document type: (1) read online only; (2) print document to read on paper only; (3) read online first, then print to read on paper again; (4) scan online first, then print to read on paper in more detail; and (5) do not use online sources for this document type. Participants were also asked to include all factors that determine whether they read a document online and on paper. Participants were asked if they preferred magazine subscriptions in paper, online, or both. Finally, demographic information was collected. The survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the results of all responses for each document type. When reading academic/journal articles online, only 20.3% reported reading them online while 70.4% reported printing the document. Most respondents (47.9%) reported that they “scan online first, then print to read on paper in more detail.” The majority of respondents reported reading online news (68.2%) and newsletters (72.7%) exclusively online (Figure 1). Additionally, 64.8% of respondents indicated they preferred to read product information and reviews online rather than printing (29.4%). Online literature (such as textbooks and short stories) did not share this pattern. Over 56% of participants reported not reading literature online at all. Few participants across all document types indicated that they preferred to print the document to read on paper only. Participants still prefer to get journals and magazines in print form (66.1%) rather than online (13.6%). A few indicated they prefer to get subscriptions in both print and online form (20.3%).
Table 1. Users’ online reading habits based on document type.
| Journal Article | News | Literature | Newsletters | Product Info | |
| Read online only. | 20.3% | 68.2% | 18.5% | 72.7% | 64.8% |
|
Print document to
read on paper only. |
7.3% | 2.4% | 9.4% | .9% | .6% |
|
Read online
first, then print to read on paper again. |
15.2% | 10% | 3.6% | 4.2% | 17.6% |
|
Scan online
first, then print to read in more detail. |
47.9% | 11.8% | 12.4% | 6.7% | 11.8% |
|
I do not use
online sources for this document type. |
9.4% | 7.6% | 56.1% | 15.5% | 5.2% |
Figure 1. Percentage of participants who read online for each document type.
Reader Comments
An analysis of the open-ended comments revealed major factors that influence the decision to print a document or to read it online. These have been summarized in Table 2.
Size. Interestingly, the major reason participants gave for deciding to read a document from print OR to read it online was the size of the document. Respondents repeatedly noted that long documents were printed while short documents (1-5 pages) were easier to read online.
Purpose of document. Respondents noted that the purpose and importance of the document was a determining factor. If the purpose was for research, presentations, or supporting a point, the respondents reported they preferred to print it. If the document was for entertainment they favored reading it online.
Ease of navigation. Ease of navigation was mentioned as a major factor in determining to read online; in that users were inclined to print the document if navigating within the document was difficult. They also indicated they would print if the navigation back to the document was challenging. Users also included too much scrolling as a downside to reading online.
Convenience. The convenience of reading online (including ease of locating document and time efficient) was a major reason to read online as well. Participants favored using online documents because they could read them anytime. Locating documents online was viewed as more time efficient since a trip to the library or bookstore was not necessary.
Quality of document. The quality of the document when rendered in online format was seen as a deterrent for reading online, as several participants noted that if the quality was poor they would seek out a printed version.
Complexity of document. Factors influencing the decision to read documents in print included the need to refer to the document at a later time and the complexity of the document. Participants noted a preference for reading complex documents on paper. Participants specifically noted the ability to highlight and make comments as a positive attribute of paper documents.
Portability. Portability of the document was mentioned as a benefit of printed material. In addition, several participants commented on the feel of paper in hand and the comfort attained by reading a paper document.
Table 2. Major reasons given for reading online and on paper
| Major reasons for reading online | Major reasons for reading on paper |
|
Size (174
responses) Importance/interest in document (113) Purpose of document (76) Quality of online document (52) Convenience (49) Navigation (49) Type of information (45) |
Size (133
responses) Importance of document (96) Need for future reference (88) Purpose of document (59) Ability to highlight or comment on (46) Complexity of the document (38) Comfort reading and tangibility (35) Portability (30) |
DISCUSSION
The results of this survey suggest that users of online material prefer to read text online rather than on paper. Guidelines such as the Research-Based Web Guidelines (2003), recently published by the National Cancer Institute, recommend that designers “provide an alternate form of all documents, resources, or files that can be printed in their entirety." They add that "many users prefer to read text from a paper copy of a document," and "they find this to be more convenient, and it allows them to make notes on the paper.”
Participants in this survey indicate that printing documents is based primarily on the type of document and the intended purpose of the document. Specifically, academic articles are reported to be most likely printed, especially if they are large in size and important to the reader. Many news related sites, such as cnn.com and bbc.com, offer printer-friendly versions. The respondents in this survey indicated they typically read this type of information online with only 24.2% utilizing print options. In the domain of academic/journal articles, results from this survey indicate there is a clear need for print versions of the online material. The majority of respondents used online sources to locate academic articles, but then 70.4% reported printing the document to read on paper. These results are similar to those found by Rho and Gedeon (2000). This preference indicates the need for additional research on what formats (e.g., pdf, html, etc.) are preferred by users.
Future research should be conducted on methods that would increase the likelihood and comfort level of participants reading online. As with previous studies, major reasons participants chose to read from print was the intended purpose for the document, the need to reference in the future, and the ability to highlight and comment on the paper. Users may not be comfortable storing documents in electronic formats for future reference. The ability to highlight and comment in paper documents is one that has few parallels in the digital arena. However, Adobe Acrobat features such as highlight and digital annotation do not seem to be widely used, and actual usage patterns of these and other features should be studied further.
Note: A poster based on this work will be presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 48th (2004) Annual Meeting
REFERENCES
Another non-traditional option: Is online learning right for you? (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2004 from the Greater Philadelphia Newspapers Web site: http://www.phillyburbs.com/educationguide/online.shtml.
Berger, S. (2003, April 16). Newspapers in the digital
world. Retrieved on January 28, 2004, from Compu-KISS Web site:
http://www.compukiss.com/populartopics/research_infohtm/
NewspapersintheDigitalWorld.htm
De Groote, S. L., & Dorsch, J. L. (2001). Online journals: Impact on print journal usage. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89, 372-8.
De Groote, S. L., & Dorsch, J. L. (2003). Measuring use patterns of online journals and databases. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 231-240.
Hornbæk, K., & Frøkjær, E. (2003). Reading patterns and usability in visualizations of electronic documents. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10(2), 119-149.
Marcus, J. (1997). Full text focus: E-Text is here to stay. Database, 20(6), 66-68.
National Cancer Institute (2003). Research-based web design and usability guidelines. Retrieved on January 28, 2004, from the National Cancer Institute’s Usability.gov Web site: http://www.usability.gov
Rho, Y., & Gedeon, T. D. (2000). Reading patterns and formats of academic articles on the web. SIGCHI Bulletin, 32(1), 67-71.
Saint, S. et al. (2000). Journal reading habits of internists. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15, 881-884.
Torre, D., Wright, S., Wilson, R., Diener-West, M., & Bass, E. (2003). Family physicians’ interests in special features of electronic publications. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 337-340.
Online Banking: Why People Are Branching Out
Summary: Results from a questionnaire designed to query online banking behavior are reported. The most frequent activities reported were checking account balances and viewing or paying bills. Purchasing insurance, CDs, and applying for a loan or credit card were the most infrequent online activities. Respondents indicated that convenience and saving time were the biggest incentives to bank online. Quick access to information, clear feedback, and simple terminology were identified as the most important features of an online banking site. Implications for designers of online banking sites are discussed.
Technological advances in the banking industry have revolutionized how people manage their finances. In 1995, online banking was introduced to the public. This form of banking enables access to financial information via the Internet using personal computers, hand-held devices, kiosks, Web TVs, and cellular phones. Customers now have greater access to information, the ability to receive helpful updates and advice while reaping the benefits of convenience (Business Communications, 2000).
Banking web sites offer a variety of information and services including: opening an account; checking account balances; downloading statements; viewing or paying bills online; transferring funds between accounts; transferring funds to accounts outside the bank; purchasing CDs or securities; administering brokerage or retirement accounts (IRA, 401K, etc.); applying for a credit card; checking credit card balances; applying for a loan; checking loan status; and purchasing insurance (Business Communications, 2000).
Online financial activity has increased steadily as more and more Internet-capable households use Internet banking (Powell, 2001). The Pew Internet and American Life Project (2002) reported 37 million Americans banked online in 2002, a significant increase from 14 million in 2000. The current study reports survey results from a group of experienced online banking customers.
METHOD
Participants
Thirty-nine participants (20 Male, 19 Female), ages 18 – 60 volunteered for the study. On average, the participants reported using the internet 4 or more years.
Materials
A questionnaire was developed and administered to individuals who currently bank online. Frequency of online banking behaviors were assessed using a comprehensive list of transactional activities identified by Business Communications (2000). The same list of activities was used for categorizing behaviors typically conducted online or in person/telephone. Reasons for not conducting activities online and factors contributing to initial decision to bank online were also assessed. The last portion of the questionnaire addressed importance ratings of online banking design features. A list of design guidelines generated by Serco Usability Services (2000) along with general usability design guidelines were included (Tullis, 1995; Nielsen, 1996; Nielsen, 1999).
RESULTS
Tables 1 - 8 summarize the results of the questionnaire. The two most important reasons why respondents reportedly decided to bank online were convenience and saving time (Table 2). They also identified several activities that contributed to their decision; these included the ability to look up information on accounts and transfer funds between accounts. This was consistent with individuals reporting the most frequent activity conducted on a weekly basis was checking their account balances (Table 4).
The second most frequent activity conducted on a monthly basis was viewing or paying bills. Gomez (2002) reported similar findings that 66% of online bankers wanted to pay bills/track debits online. Based on reports by Gomez, multiple banks have reevaluated their bill payment strategies and eliminated online billing fees. For example, Bank of America no longer charges customers to utilize online bill payment services (Gomez, 2002). This new strategy was implemented to aid in customer retention. Individuals become highly invested when setting up the billing service; this typically results in increased switching costs and customer retention (Ramsaran, 2003). Sanjay Gupta, an e-commerce executive for Bank of America, reported their banking site received 60 million hits per month and had a 50% growth in online customers in 2003 (Ramsaran, 2003). Banks may be losing potential customers by charging for bill payment services. Several participants indicated a desire to use these services but were reluctant due to fees.
The most important design feature identified in this research was "quick access to information you are looking for" (Table 8). Given the high frequency of users wanting basic account information, it is recommended that account activity and balances should be immediately accessible after login. This recommendation is supported by Gomez (2002), who is recognized by the largest financial institutions in the United States for providing benchmarking information on Internet banking services.
Clear and simple terminology was rated as a very important design element for banking sites. Failure to achieve this can dissuade potential banking customers. A usability study of an online banking site by SURL found users to be confused by the term "Payee" (i.e., users wondered "Is that me or the company I am paying?"). As a result, it is recommended to use more meaningful terminology when setting up an individual or company. For example, “Account number for whom you are paying:” may be more meaningful than “Payee account”.
Results from this study showed that "feedback on acceptance or rejection of information", "indicating a function has been completed", and "identifying/fixing mistakes" were rated as very important design features for a banking site. Including these features may avoid confusion related to online forms in the transaction process. Other design recommendations for forms include clearly indicating required fields, placing legible error messages in a highly visible area, and providing feedback on how to proceed when completing a transaction (Diemen, 2000).
Several activities were reported to be preferred to be done in person (or over the telephone) rather than online (Table 6). These included opening an account, purchasing insurance, CDs or securities, administering brokerage or retirement accounts, and applying for a credit card or loan. The most important factors that contributed to conducting activities in person instead of online were preferences for dealing with people face-to-face, sites not offering enough information, perceived risk, and confusing terminology (Table 7). A number of banks have attempted to address these issues by implementing interactive capabilities such as secure chat and e-mail help (Ramsaran, 2003).
Table 1: Factors influencing participants choosing a bank
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
|
The bank offered online banking |
10 |
26 |
|
Their Web site contained the information I was looking for |
7 |
18 |
|
I liked the functionality the banking site offered |
6 |
15 |
|
Their Web site was easy to use |
4 |
10 |
|
I liked the way the site looked |
1 |
3 |
|
None of the above |
27 |
69 |
Table 2: Activities most important when deciding to bank online
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
|
Look up information on checking or other deposit accounts |
35 |
90 |
|
Transfer funds between deposit accounts |
24 |
62 |
|
Use the bill payment service |
15 |
39 |
|
Look up information on a loan, credit card , or line of credit |
13 |
33 |
|
Make payments on a loan, credit card or line of credit |
12 |
31 |
|
Download account information |
11 |
28 |
|
Use Web or email customer service |
6 |
15 |
|
Curiosity - no specific use |
- |
- |
Table 3: Importance rating for reasons why people decided to bank online
|
|
Very Important |
|
Banking online saves me time |
80% |
|
I can do my banking when it is convenient for me |
62% |
|
Control over finances |
44% |
|
Availability of information |
26% |
|
Saving money |
23% |
|
More bank services available online |
21% |
|
Can do my banking in private |
18% |
Table 4: Frequency of banking activities typically conducted online
|
|
Median |
|
Check account balance |
Weekly |
|
View or pay bills |
Monthly |
|
Download statements |
Less than once a month |
|
Transfer funds between accounts at the same bank |
Less than once a month |
|
Check credit card balances |
Less than once a month |
|
Pay credit card bills |
Less than once a month |
Table 5: Banking activities NEVER conducted online
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
|
Purchase insurance |
39 |
100 |
|
Purchase CDs or securities |
37 |
95 |
|
Administer brokerage or retirement accounts |
37 |
95 |
|
Apply for a loan |
36 |
93 |
|
Apply for a credit card |
34 |
87 |
|
Check loan status |
32 |
82 |
|
Transfer funds to accounts at other banks |
28 |
72 |
Table 6: Banking activities most likely to be conducted online and in person/telephone
|
ONLINE |
Percent |
IN PERSON/TELEPHONE |
Percent |
|
Check account balance |
95 |
Open an account |
92 |
|
Transfer funds to accounts at the same bank |
92 |
Purchase insurance |
85 |
|
Download statement |
87 |
Purchase CDs or securities |
82 |
|
Check credit card balances |
87 |
Apply for loan |
80 |
|
View or pay bills |
72 |
Administer brokerage or retirement accounts |
72 |
|
Check loan status |
69 |
Apply for credit card |
69 |
Table 7: Reasons to conduct banking activities in person/telephone rather than online
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
