Interactivity, usability and aesthetic as predictors of undergraduates’ preference for university library websites

Adeyinka Tella

doi:10.7553/86-2-1905

Adeyinka Tella UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, DEPT. OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, FACULTY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SCIENCES, PMB 1515, & Department of Information Science, University of South Africa ILORIN, KWARA STATE, NGERIA http://orcid/org/0000-0002-5382-4471

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7553/86-2-1905

Keywords: , Interactivity, Usability, Aesthetic, Undergraduates’ Preference for University Library Websites, Website Patronage, Website Access

Abstract

The study examined interactivity, usability and aesthetics as predictors of undergraduates’ preference for university library websites. A total of 134 final year undergraduates registered for a course in Web Design and Management from two departments in two different universities represented the sample for the study. A researcher-designed questionnaire was used to gather data from the respondents which were analysed to test the three developed hypotheses. The results suggest that all three factors correlate with preference for university library websites. The students’ perceptions and ratings of interactivity versus usability and interactivity with aesthetics were low. The three independent variables (interactivity, usability and aesthetics) jointly explained 51% of the variations in the preference for university library websites. Each of the features makes significant contributions to the prediction of university website preference. All the factors are significant to the prediction of preference for university library websites. The results call for the improvement of interactivity in order to have high correlation with usability and aesthetics and thereby increasing the preference by users for university library websites.

References

Babbie, E. 2013. The basics of social research. 6th Edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Brady, E. (2013). The Sublime in Modern Philosophy: Aesthetics, Ethics, and Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. (2002). Usability for the web: Designing web sites that work. San Francisco, CA.: Morgan Kaufmann.

Chen, K., & Yen, D. C. (2004). Improving the quality of online presence through interactivity. Information Management, 42(1), 217–226.

Creswell, W. J. (2014). Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage.

Coyloe, J.S. & Thorson, E. (2001). The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77.

de Chernatony, L. (2010). From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Gutierrez-Garcia, E. (2008). Corporate Communication in Corporate Covernance: Why Should it be Managed Strategically? The Spanish Case” Euprera 2008 Congress Institutionalizing Public Relations and Corporate Communications, 16- 18 October 2008, Milan.

Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B. C., & Chua, W. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on Website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34–59.

Jiang, Z. J.,WeiquanWang,W., Tan, B. C. Y., & Yu, J. (2016). The Determinants and Impacts of Aesthetics in Users’ First Interaction with Websites. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 229–259.

Jeng, J. (2006). Usability of the digital library: An evaluation model. Ph.D. dissertation,

Rutgers University.

Joo, S., Lin, S., and Lu, K. 2011. A Usability Evaluation Model for Academic Library Websites: Efficiency, Effectiveness and Learnability. Journal of Library and Information Studies,9 (2), 11-26.

Hammill, S. (2003). Usability testing at Florida International University Libraries:

what we learned. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 4(1), 21-40.

Keng, C. J., & Lin, H. Y. (2006). Impact of tele-presence levels on Internet advertising effects. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(1), 82-94.

Kothari, C. R. 2013. Research methodology: theory and techniques, 2nd Revised Edition. New Delhi: New-Age, Publishers.

Lavie, T., Tractinsky, N., 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269-298.

Lee, J., Park, H., & Wise, K. (2013). Brand interactivity and its effects on the outcomes of advergame play. New Media & Society, 1461444813504267.

Lee, K. P. (2004). A study on the improvement plan by analyzing user interaction pattern with the RISS. Technical Report KR2004-17, KERIS, Seoul.

Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., and Noonan, P. An Exploration of Relations Between Visual Appeal, Trustworthiness and Perceived Usability of Homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18, (1), 15-20.

Liu, S. (2008). Engaging Users: The Future of Academic Library Web Sites. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 69(1), 6-26.

Liu, Y., & Shrum, L.J. (2002). What Is Interactivity and Is It Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31, (4), 54-64.

Lowry, P. B., Spaulding, T., Wells, T., Moody, G., Moffit, K., & Madariaga, S. (2006). A Theoretical Model and Empirical Results Linking Website Interactivity and Usability Satisfaction. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06), IEEE (2006), 123a–123a.

McMillan, S. J., and Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role ofdirection of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.

Mentes, S.A. and Turan, A.R. (2013). Assessing the usability of university websites: an empirical study on Namik Kemal University. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (3), 61-69.

Müller, B., & Chandon, J. (2004). The impact of a world wide web site visit on brand image in the motor vehicle and mobile telephone industries. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(2), 153-165.

Neelotpaul, B. (2011). A study on interactivity and online branding. Advances in Management, 4(1), 20–29.

Oulanov, A., & Pajarillo, E. J. Y. (2002). CUNY Web: usability study of the webbased

GUI version of the bibliographic database of the City University of New York (CUNY). The Electronic Library, 20(6), 481-487.

Polger, M.K. (2011). Student Preferences in Library Website Vocabulary. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 618. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/618

Powell, T.A. (2000). The complete reference for web design, Berkeley, McGraw-Hill Press

Reinecke, Katharina, Tom Yeh, Luke Miratrix, Rahmatri Mardiko, Yuechen Zhao, Jenny Liu, & Krzysztof Z.

Renee, G., Jason-Chiu, M.S. LyZhang, M.S. & Young, S.D. (2016). A Literature Review: Website Design and User Engagement. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technology, 6(3), 1–14.

Gajos. (2013). Predicting Users First Impressions of Website Aesthetics with a Quantification of

Perceived Visual Complexity and Colorfulness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 2049–2058. New York: ACM Press.

Sauro, J. 2015. SUPR-Q: A Comprehensive Measure of the Quality of the Website User. Experience. Journal of Usability Studies, 10 (2), 68-86.

Shackel, B. (1991). Usability - context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. In B. Shackel & S. Richardson (Eds.), Human factors for informatrics u s a b i l i t y (p p.21-37). Camb r i d g e: Cambridge University Press.

Sindhuja, P.N. and Surajith, G.D. (2009). Impact of the factors influencing website usability on user satisfaction, The IUP Journal of Management Research, 8 (12), 54-66

Sonderegger, A., and Sauer, J. The Influence of Design Aesthetics in Usability Testing: Effects on User Performance and Perceived Usability. Applied Ergonomics, 41 (2) 403–410.

Song, J.H. and Zinkhan, G.M. 2003. Features of web site design, perceptions of web site quality, and patronage behavior. ACME 2003 Proceedings, 106-114.

Tella, Adeyinka. (2019). The determinants of library and information science

undergraduate students’ first impression of university library websites. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9769-4

Thielsch, M.T. & Moshagen, M. (2015). Visual Aesthetics of Websites Inventory - Short Version 1.0. Available at: http://www.thielsch.org/download/VisAWI/VisAWI_Manual_EN.pdf (Accessed 23April, 2017).

Voorveld, H. A., van Noort, G., & Duijn,M. 2013. Building brands with interactivity: The role of prior brandusage in the relation between perceived Website interactivity and brand responses. Journal of Brand Management, 15 (3), 25–40.

Webb, K., Schaller, M., & Hunley, S. (2008). Measuring library space use and preferences: charting a path toward increased engagement. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(4), 407- 422. doi: 10.1353/pla.0.0014.

Yoo, C. Y. & Stout, A. (2001). Factors Affecting Users' Interactivity with the Web Site and the Consequences of Users' Interactivity.” In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Charles R. Taylor, ed. Villanova, PA: American Academy of Advertising.

Yusof, U.K., Khaw, L.K., Hui, Y.C. & Neow, B.J. (2010). Balancing between usability and aesthetics of web design”, Information Technology, 1(3), 1-6.

Zhang, Tao, Ilana Stonebraker & Marlen Promanm (2016). Understanding library users’ preferences and expectations of online help. Reference Services Review 44.3 (2016): 362-374.

Zhang, T., Stonebraker, I., & Promann, M. (2016). Understanding library users’ preferences and expectations of online help. Reference Services Review, 44(3), 362-374, https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-12-2015-0054.