Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2399016.2399059acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing ICT user groups

Published: 14 October 2012 Publication History

Abstract

A questionnaire to assess attitude towards information and communication technology (ICT) and experience with it is developed and evaluated. With 30 items user attributes are collected on six factors. With this questionnaire, individual users can be clustered in accordance with an existing ICT taxonomy. A revised version is proposed after the validation of the first questionnaire. This screening instrument is meant to complement existing methods of assessing competency with technology. Furthermore, the possibility to classify users within the ICT taxonomy provides additional means to analyze data from interaction experiments and to screen prospective participants for usability tests and scientific experiments.

References

[1]
Angeli, A., Hartmann, J., and Sutcliffe, A. The effect of brand on the evaluation of websites. In Proc. INTERACT (2009), 638--651.
[2]
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., and Delamont, S. Ethnography: Post, past, and present. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28, 5 (1999), 460--471.
[3]
Aykin, N., and Aykin, T. Individual differences in human-computer interaction: a survey. Computers and Industrial Engineering 20, 3 (1991), 373--379.
[4]
Bardini, T., and Horvath, A. The social construction of the personal computer user. Journal of Communication 45, 3 (1995), 40--65.
[5]
BBFN Benefit. BBFNplus: Breitbandfestnetz Customer Segmentation, Deutsche Telekom, internal report.
[6]
Bourdieu, P. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1998.
[7]
Burnett, G., and Ditsikas, D. Personality as a criterion for selecting usability testing participants. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Information and Communications Technologies (2006), 599--604.
[8]
Chen, C., Czerwinski, M., and Macredie, R. Individual differences in virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51, 6 (2000), 499--507.
[9]
Chin, J., Fu, W.-T., and Kannampallil, T. Adaptive information search: Age-dependent interactions between cognitive profiles and strategies. In Proc. CHI (2009), 1683--1692.
[10]
Cooper, A. The Inmates are Running the Asylum. SAMS Publishing, Indianapolis, 1999.
[11]
Cooper, J., and Kugler, M. The digital divide: the role of gender in human-computer interaction. In The Human Computer Interaction Handbook, A. Sears and J. Jacko, Eds., 2 ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, 2008, 763--776.
[12]
Czaja, S., and Lee, C. The impact of aging on access to technology. Universal Access in the Information Society 5 (2007), 341--349.
[13]
Dahm, M. Broad study on the usability of mobile phones. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Humans and Computers (2005), 249--254.
[14]
Dillon, A., and Watson, C. User analysis in HCI: the historical lesson from individual differences research. Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45, 6 (1996), 619--637.
[15]
Dillon, A., and Watson, C. User analysis in hci: the historical lessons from individual differences research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45 (1996), 619--637.
[16]
Doolittle, P., Terry, K., and Mariano, G. The effects of working memory capacity on learning and performance in multimedia learning environments. In Cognitive effects of multimedia learning, R. Zheng, Ed. IGI Global, Hershey, 2009, 17--33.
[17]
Dourish, P. Responsibilities and implications: Further thoughts on ethnography and design. In Proc. Conf. Designing for the User Experience (2007). art. nr. 25.
[18]
Durkheim, E. Rules of Sociological Method: And selected texts on sociology and its method (edited by Steven Lukes). Free Press, New York, 1982.
[19]
Fairweather, P. How older and younger adults differ in their approach to problem solving on a complex website. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Computers and Accessibility (2008).
[20]
Fern, X., Komireddy, C., Grigoreanu, V., and Burnett, M. Mining problem-solving strategies from HCI data. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 17, 1 (2010), 3:1--3:22.
[21]
Fjeld, M., Schluep, S., and Rauterberg, M. Action-driven quantification of task-solving behavior. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (EPCE), D. Harris, Ed. Ashgate, Hampshire, 1999, 253--261.
[22]
Hermann, F., Niedermann, I., Peissner, M., Henke, K., and Naumann, A. Users interact differently: Towards a usability-oriented taxonomy. In Interaction Design and Usability, HCII 2007, J. Jacko, Ed., no. 4550 in LNAI. Springer, Heidelberg, 2007, 812--817.
[23]
Hu, L., and Bentler, P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Journal of Communication 6 (1999), 1--55.
[24]
Jokinen, K. und Hurtig, T. User expectations and real experience on a multimodal interactive. In Proc. Interspeech (2006), 1049--1052.
[25]
Knoblauch, H. Fokussierte Ethnographie. sozialersinn 2, 1 (2001), 123--141.
[26]
Laberge, J., and Scialfa, C. Predictors of web navigation performance in a life span sample of adults: Aging and human performance. Human Factors 47, 2 (2005), 289--302.
[27]
Long, F. Real or imaginary: The effectiveness of using personas in product design. In Proc. Irish Ergonomics Society Annual Conf. (2009), 1--10.
[28]
Naumann, A., Hermann, F., Peissner, M., and Henke, K. Interaktion mit Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie: Eine Klassifikation von Benutzertypen. In Mensch & Computer 2008: Viel Mehr Interaktion, M. Herczeg and M. Kindsmüüller, Eds. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München, 2008, 37--45.
[29]
Naumann, A., Wechsung, I., and Hurtienne, J. Multimodal interaction: A suitable strategy for including older users? Interacting with Computers 22, 6 (2010), 465--474.
[30]
Nielsen, J. Usability Engineering. Academic Press, San Diego, 1993.
[31]
Nielsen Claritas. Nielsen Claritas: PRIZM NE Marketing Segmentation, 1995.
[32]
Norman, D. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, 2004.
[33]
Norman, K. The Psychology of Menu Selection: Designing Cognitive Control at the Human/Computer Interface. Greenwood Publishing, Westport, 1991.
[34]
Oviatt, S. Multimodal interfaces. In The Human Computer Interaction Handbook, A. Sears and J. Jacko, Eds., 2 ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, 2008, 413--432.
[35]
Pruitt, J., and Adlin, T. The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Franciso, 2006.
[36]
Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, Glencoe, 1962.
[37]
Sinus Sociovision. Sinus Sociovision: Sinus Milieus Deutschland, 2007.
[38]
Suchman, L. Human-machine communication. In Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Action, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, 125--175.
[39]
TNS. TNS Infratest: Best Ager Typologie, 2005.
[40]
Venables, W., and Ripley, B. Modern Appied Statistics with S, 4 ed. Springer, New York, 2002.
[41]
Wechsung, I., Schulz, M., Engelbrecht, K.-P., Niemann, J., and Möller, S. All users are (not) equal - the influence of user characteristics on perceived quality, modality choice and performance. In Proc. IWSDS Workshop on Paralinguistic Information and its Integration in Spoken Dialogue Systems (2011), 175--188.
[42]
Wedel, M., and Kamakura, W. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Kluwer, Amsterdam, 2000.
[43]
Weiss, B., Möller, S., and Schulz, M. User differences in evaluating multimodal HCI. In Proc. ACHI (2012), 354--359.
[44]
Wolters, M., Georgila, K., MacPherson, S., and Moore, J. Being old doesn't mean acting old: Older users' interaction with spoken dialogue systems. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 2, 1 (2009), 1--39.
[45]
Wolters, M., Georgila, K., Moore, J., Logie, R., MacPherson, S., and Watson, M. Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems. Interacting with Computers 21, 4 (2009), 276--287.
[46]
Ye, N., and Salvendy, G. Quantitative and qualitative differences between experts and novices in chunking computer software knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 6, 1 (1994), 105--118.
[47]
Zhang, X., and Chignell, M. Assessment of the effects of user characteristics on mental models of information retrieval systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52, 6 (2001), 445--459.
[48]
Ziefle, M. Instruction format and navigation aids in mobile devices. In Usability and Human Computer Interaction for Education and Work, A. Holzinger, Ed. Springer, Berlin, 2008, 339--358.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Assessing ICT user groups

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    NordiCHI '12: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design
    October 2012
    834 pages
    ISBN:9781450314824
    DOI:10.1145/2399016
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    • IT University of Copenhagen

    In-Cooperation

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 14 October 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. assessment
    2. evaluation
    3. taxonomy
    4. user classification

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    NordiCHI '12
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    NordiCHI '12 Paper Acceptance Rate 84 of 341 submissions, 25%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 01 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2019)Talker Quality in Interactive ScenariosTalker Quality in Human and Machine Interaction10.1007/978-3-030-22769-2_3(67-106)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2019
    • (2019)Theory: Foundations of Quality in Natural and Synthesized SpeechTalker Quality in Human and Machine Interaction10.1007/978-3-030-22769-2_1(1-21)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2019
    • (2015)Evaluating embodied conversational agents in multimodal interfacesComputational Cognitive Science10.1186/s40469-015-0006-91:1Online publication date: 18-Aug-2015
    • (2015)Using Individual and Collaborative Challenges in Behavior Change Support Systems: Findings from a Two-Month Field Trial of a Trip Planner ApplicationPersuasive Technology10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_15(160-171)Online publication date: 2015
    • (2014)Demographic user characteristic sampling for model-based usability evaluationProceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational10.1145/2639189.2639196(171-174)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2014
    • (2013)Assessment 3.0 meets engineering sciences2013 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)10.1109/ICL.2013.6644667(623-630)Online publication date: Sep-2013

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media