Preference and Desirability Testing: Measuring Emotional
Response to Guide Design
Michael HawleyChief Design Officer, Mad*Pow
@hawleymichael
Paul DoncasterSenior User Experience Designer, Thomson Reuters
Why we should care
Why it’s not always as simple as asking:“Which option do you prefer?”
Methods to consider
Case Study: Greenwich Hospital
Case Study: WestlawNext
Summary/Comparison
Agenda
Why we should care
3
Impressions Count
Visceral Emotions
6
Fogg’s Behavior Model
http://www.behaviormodel.org/
Core motivators include:• Pleasure/pain• Hope/fear• Acceptance/rejection
7
Positioning Desirability Studies
http://www.xdstrategy.com/2008/10/28/desirability_studies/
“Which do you prefer?”
8
Quantity, granularity breed apathy
Poor articulation
“There’s just something
about it . . .”
“It reminds me of…”
“I ordinarily don’t like red, but for some
reason it works here . . .”
“It’s nice and clean.”
“It’s better than the
other ones.”
What Stakeholders Should Care About
“We should go with design C over A and B, because I feel it evokes
the right kind of emotional response in our audience that is
closer to our most important brand attributes.”
Methods to Consider
12
Present three different concepts or ideas to participants, and ask them to identify how two of them are different from the third and why.
13
Triading
Broad, experience-based questionnaires, that also include questions relating to visual appeal and aesthetics
• SUS (System Usability Scale)
• QUIS (Questionnaire for User Interface Satisfaction)
• WAMMI (Website Analysis and Measurement Inventory)
14
Qualitative Questionnaires
Show participants a user interface for a very brief moment, then take it away.
Participants recall their first impression, then moderator probes for meaning.
• Helpful for layout decisions, prominence of content, labels
• www.fivesecondtest.com
15
Attention designers:
You have
50 milliseconds
to make a good first impression
Quick Exposure Memory Tests
• Electroencephalography (EEG): Brain activity
• Electromyography (EMG): Muscles and Excitement
• Electrodermal Activity (EDA): Sweat, Excitement
• Blood Volume Pressure (BVP): Arousal
• Pupil Dilation: Arousal and Mental Workload
• Respiration: Negative Valence or Arousal
16
Physiological and Neurological
17
Dr. Pieter Desmet, Technical University of Delft
http://www.premo-online.com
PrEmo Emotional Measurement
18
http://www.microsoft.com/usability/uepostings/desirabilitytoolkit.doc
Product Reaction Cards
Case Study: Greenwich Hospital
19
Determine intended brand attributes (and their opposites)
20
Product Reaction Cards: Before You Begin
1. Leverage existing marketing/brand materials
2. Alternatively, stakeholder brainstorm to identify key brand attributes/descriptors using full list of product reaction cards as a start
3. Tip: “If the brand was a person, how would it speak to your customers?”
Methodology1. Include 60/40 split of positive and negative words
2. Target 60 words, optimized to test brand
3. Simple question: “Which of the following words do you feel best describe the site/design/product (please select 5):”
4. One comp per participant, or multiple comps per participant (no more than 3)
Participants1. Qualitative: Paired with usability testing
2. Quantitative: Target minimum of 30 per option if possible
21
Product Reaction Cards: Conducting
1. Calculate percentage of positive and negative attributes per design
2. Visualize overall sentiment of feedback using “word clouds” (see wordle.net)
22
Process - Analyzing
68% Positive
32% Negative
• Align the website with the character of the Hospital
• Update the site after nearly 10 years
• Counter impressions that Greenwich is more than just maternity and elder care
• Communicate that they are long-standing members of the community
23
Case Study: Greenwich Hospital Website Redesign
• 3 visually designed comps
• 50 people reacted to each comp (quantitative) via survey
• Additional feedback obtained via participant interviews (qualitative)
24
Case Study: Greenwich Hospital Website Redesign
Hello, I am requesting feedback on a website I am working on. Your answers let me know if the site is conveying the right feel.
1. What are your initial reactions to the web site?
2. Which of the following words best do you feel best describe the site (select 5):
Survey Questions
25
Three Different Visual Designs
26
Results: Concept 1
88% Positive
12% Negative
27
Results: Concept 2
87% Positive
13% Negative
28
Results: Concept 3
95% Positive
5% Negative
• Mix of qualitative and quantitative is key
o Qualitative helps provide color to the results
o Quantitative resonates with stakeholders and executives
• Position results as one form of input to decision-making process, not declaring a “winner”
• Simple, cost-efficient way to assess audience’s emotional response to a design
29
Lessons Learned
Case Study: WestlawNext
30
UX Research Team:Paul DoncasterDrew Drentlaw
Shannon O’BrienBill Quie
November Samnee
for Phase 1
• Use large sample sizes to establish a design “baseline,” from which to advance the design direction in subsequent iterations
• Isolate preference trends for specific page design aspects
• Determine tolerance for manipulation of the site “brand”
• Maintain tight security
Goals
Sessions were held in 4 cities over 5 days◦ Seattle
◦ Denver
◦ Memphis
◦ Minneapolis-St. Paul
4 sessions were held per day, with a maximum of 25 participants per session
1.5 hours allotted per study, most participants finished in less than 1 hour
319 participants successfully completed their sessions
Phase 1: Logistics & Execution
Participants completed the study at individual workstations at their own pace
All workstations included a 20” monitor, at 1024x768 resolution
Phase 1: Logistics & Execution
Memphis, TN, May 2009
35
1. Brief review of Westlaw critical screens 2. Positive/negative word selection to describe Westlaw
Positive/negative product descriptors
1. Each set of Element variations were viewed in full screen
2. Participant selects “top choice” by dragging a thumbnail image to a drop area
36
Homepage: Design Elements
37
Homepage: Design Elements (1)
1. All options viewed in full screen2. Participant selects “top choice” by dragging a
thumbnail image to a drop area
Visual Weight (6 options)
Use of Imagery (8 options)
Components (4 options)
Search Area (4 options)
Palette (10 options)
Homepage: Design Elements
1. 19 HP designs viewed in full screen (randomized)
2. All 19 options are presented again; participant assigns a rating using a 10-point slider.
3. Top 5 and Bottom 2 choices are positioned in order of rating values on one long, scrollable page.
Next to each design displayed, rates key aspects for each design on a 5-point scale
Homepage: Design Gallery
Repeat the process for Results List design:
New Results List
• Design Elements• Column Collapsing (4 options)
• Column Separation (2 options)
• Theme/Color (8 options)
• Design Gallery• 14 Results Lists designs (randomized)
• Key Aspects Rated• Color scheme
• Global Header
• Summary and Excerpt (list contents)
• Filters design (left column)
• Overall look and feel
Repeat the process for Document Display design:
New Document Display
• Design Elements• Tabs vs. Links (4 options)
• Background Separation (4 options)
• Margin Width (3 options)
• Font Size (12 options)
• Locate (2 options)
• Design Gallery• 9 Document Display designs (randomized)
• Key Aspects Rated• Color scheme
• Layout of content
• Text formatting
• Overall look and feel
50
“Based on the designs I’ve liked most today . . .”
Positive/negative design descriptors
Results were analyzed across 8 different sample filters• Job Title
• Age
• Testing Location
• Years of Experience
• Hours per Week Researching
• Organization Size
• Role (decision-maker status)
The top picks were surprisingly consistent across all of the ‘Top 5’ lists analyzed
High-level Results
52
Top Homepage Designs by Job Title
1
2
3
4
5
Overall (319)
Job Title. Top 5 out of 19 possible.
Associate (189) Librarian (37) Partner (81)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Solo Practitioner (5)
1
2
3
4
5
HP16
HP10
HP15
HP8
HP5
HP16
HP15
HP15
HP15
HP10
HP1
HP8
HP8
HP16
HP5
HP5
HP14
HP16
HP8
HP19
HP1
HP6
HP8
HP7
HP13
Home Page (19)◦ HP16 & HP15 designs consistently
placed in the Top 5 across all filters
Results List (14)◦ RL4 consistently placed in the Top 3
across all sample filters, and was the #1 choice for 80% of all participants
Document Display (9)◦ DD3 placed in the Top 5 across all
sample filters and was the #1 choice for 77% of all participants
Phase 1: High-level Results
54
Note, participants were asked to describe the current Westlaw before being shown the new designs.
Phase 1: Word Selection Results
Current Westlaw
1. Cluttered
2. Helpful
3. Comfortable
4. Efficient
5. Credible
New Designs
1. Attractive
2. Modern
3. Efficient
4. Helpful
5. Comfortable
5 design themes were derived from post-session discussions
• “New design(s) are better than current Westlaw”
• “Clean and Fresh”
• “Contrast is Important”
• “Prefer Westlaw Blue”
• “No Big Fonts Please”
The study narrowed the list of potential designs, and we better understood what design elements that Westlaw users liked and disliked.
Phase 1: High-level Results
56
Phase 2: September 2009
Kansas City, MO, Sept 2009
Goals
• Refine preferences for selected design directions
• Understand users personal reasons for liking their preferred choices
• Get closure on other design options for online and printed content
• Sustain tight security
Tool
• Same as in Round 1, with some minor revisions to accommodate specialized input
Phase 2: September 2009
Method◦ View, Rate, and Pick Top Choice for
Homepage (3 options) Result List (2 options) Document Display (2 options) “Why?”
◦ Simple preference selection for two unresolved UI design issues
Citing References: Grid display or List display? Out of Plan Indication design (6 options)
◦ Type formatting preferences for 3 different content types Font Face Font Size Margin Width
Phase 2: September 2009
Logistics◦ 3 cities (Philadelphia, Kansas City, Los Angeles)◦ 1 Day◦ 226 participants
Analysis◦ Filters (8 categories) were used to score the designs for each
visual preference
Results◦ Clear choices for top designs in each of all categories◦ “Why” feedback shed new light on designs under
consideration and helped focus “homestretch” design activities
Phase 2: September 2009
Home Page (3)◦ HP3 ranked #1in 94% of filter groups
(54% of total participants)
Results List (2)◦ RL5 ranked #1in 97% of filter groups
(58% of total participants)
Document Display (2)◦ DD7 ranked #1in 94% of filter groups
(61% of total participants)
Phase 2: High-level Results
61
The main concerns regarding Homepage Design HP3
◦ Search Box Too small How do I do a Terms-and-Connectors search?
◦ Browse Section How do I specify multiple or specific search content? Poor organization Poor label
◦ Need access to “often-used” content
◦ Need better access to help
Participant Comments: Homepage
Goals
◦ Get feedback on branding options from decision makers and those who influence purchase of the product
◦ Get closure on final outstanding design issues
Tool
◦ Same as in Rounds 1 & 2, with some minor revisions to accommodate specialized input
Phase 3: December 2009
Method◦ Wordmark/Branding
View wordmark color combinations and design elements against different backgrounds, pick top choice and provide comments
Make a final “Top Choice” from all selections
◦ Simple preference selection for outstanding UI design issues Header Space: Tile or No Tile? Notes Design
Location: Inline or Column? State: Open or Closed?
Headnote Icon design (4 variations)
Phase 3: December 2009
1
2
3
4
Your Most Liked
Your Least Liked
What color combination do you prefer? Please rank the 4 combinations below according to your preferences. To rank, click and drag an item from the left to a box on the right.
Logistics◦ 3 cities (Seattle, Denver, Boston) ◦ 1 Day◦ 214 participants
Analysis◦ Simple preference, no advanced filters
Results◦ Decision-makers confirmed that critical brand elements should
be retained
Phase 3: December 2009
Image Overall DM Votes
Sole Decision Makers
Decision Making Committee Member
Influence Decision Makers
138% (46/121)
9 14 23
236% (43/121)
11 15 17
321% (25/121)
9 6 10
46% (7/121)
2 1 4
Decision Makers’ Picks (1 of 2)
67
Measuring
Emotional Response
to Guide Design
Why it succeeded
• Quantitative & qualitative data to identify preference trends
• “Slicing” across identifiable filters
• Emphasis on “gut-level” reactions
• Intolerance for manipulation of product brand
• Rapid turnaround of data to all stakeholders
o Executive
o Design
o Development
69
Document Display
May 2009
Sept 2009
Feb 2010
At what cost(s)?
• We held off asking “why” until the second round
• If we had asked why in the first round, we might haveo avoided some of internal design battleso gotten more granular ammunition for communicating the design
vision to stakeholders
• “Need for speed” attained at the cost of detailed analysis
Retrospective
Recommendations for anyone thinking of undertaking something like this
• Procure a “Matt” to create and administer your tool
• Get a good technical vendor for on-site
• Report results in as close to real-time as possible on a wiki or other web-page
Retrospective
Summary/Comparison
72
Both groups valued support in design decision making
Align methodology with needs of the project
Research-inspired, not research-decided
73
Summary/Comparison
Additional Reading and Tools
74
Benedek, Joey and Trish Miner. “Measuring Desirability: New Methods for Evaluating Desirability in a Usability Lab Setting.” Proceedings of UPA 2002 Conference, Orlando, FL, July 8–12, 2002. http://www.microsoft.com/usability/uepostings/desirabilitytoolkit.doc
Lindgaard, Gitte, Gary Fernandes, Cathy Dudek, and J. Brown. "Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression!" Behaviour and Information Technology, 2006. http://www.imagescape.com/library/whitepapers/first-impression.pdf
Rohrer, Christian. “Desirability Studies: Measuring Aesthetic Response to Visual Designs.” xdStrategy.com, October 28, 2008. Retrieved February 10, 2010. http://www.xdstrategy.com/2008/10/28/desirability_studies
75
Additional Reading
User Focus. "Measuring satisfaction: Beyond the Usability Questionnaire." Retrieved February 10, 2010. http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/satisfaction.html
UserEffect. "Guide to Low-Cost Usability Tools." Retrieved May 12, 2010.http://www.usereffect.com/topic/guide-to-low-cost-usability-tools
Tullis, Thomas and Jacqueline Stetson. “A Comparison of Questionnaires for Assessing Website Usability.” Usability Professionals’ Association Conference, 2004.home.comcast.net/~tomtullis/publications/UPA2004TullisStetson.pdf
Westerman, S. J., E. Sutherland, L. Robinson, H. Powell, and G. Tuck. “A Multi-method Approach to the Assessment of Web Page Designs.” Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, 2007.http:// portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1422200
76
Additional Reading
Five Second Testhttp://fivesecondtest.com/
Feedback Army http://www.feedbackarmy.com
Wordlehttp://www.wordle.net
PrEmohttp://www.premo-online.com
77
Additional Tools