Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2016, 12(11), 2875-2885

doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2016.02310a

An Empirical Study of User

Experience on Touch Mice
Jyh-Rong Chou
OPEN ACCESS I-Shou University, TAIWAN

 Received 19 January 2016Revised 26 May 2016Accepted 21 June 2016

The touch mouse is a new type of computer mouse that provides users with a new way
of touch-based environment to interact with computers. For more than a decade, user
experience (UX) has grown into a core concept of human-computer interaction (HCI),
describing a user’s perceptions and responses that result from the use of a product in a
particular usage context. This paper presents an empirical study of UX on touch mice via
the user experience questionnaire (UEQ) survey, the purpose of which is to uncover how
target users perceive the selected touch mice after interacting with them. A total of 20
university students were recruited as target users to participate in the UX test to
perform defined tasks with the 6 selected touch mice under the Windows 8 operating
environment. The experimental results can help researchers understand how users
perceive and value such new type of computer mouse, thus ensuring positive UX and
leading to more desirable touch mice.

Keywords: user experience, touch mouse, user experience questionnaire (UEQ),

empirical study

INTRODUCTION

A computer mouse is a peripheral device used to control a cursor in two

dimensions in a graphical user interface (GUI). It typically features two buttons and
a scroll wheel, which can also act as a third button. Over the past few decades, the
computer mouse has become one of the most effective input devices when
interacting with computers, and there have been a lot of relevant studies concerning
the use of computer mouse, particularly in the ergonomic (e.g., Card et al., 1978;
Delisle et al., 2004; Lin & Tsai, 2015; Müller et al., 2010; Onyebeke et al., 2014) and
educational (e.g., Donker & Reitsma, 2007; Lane & Ziviani, 2010) fields. With the
popularity of smartphones, tablets, and many types of information appliances,
touchscreens have been being commonly used for users to interact with GUIs on the
screen. Microsoft Windows 8 released in 2012 has also provided a new GUI that
supports both desktop and touch devices. The touch screen has often been declared
as more intuitive and convenient than traditional input devices. As its control
interface overlays the monitor, there is no need for such extra devices as the mouse,
which needs a space-occupying carrier and operating environment. Moreover, the
touch screen is much more robust and durable as compared with other mobile input

Correspondence: Jyh-Rong Chou,

Professor & Chairman of Department of Creative Product Design I-Shou University
No.1, Sec. 1, Syuecheng Rd., Dashu District, Kaohsiung City 84001,TAIWAN, R.O.C.
E-mail: jrchou@isu.edu.tw

Copyright © 2016 by the authors; licensee iSER, Ankara, TURKEY. This is an open access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited.

ISSN: 1305-8223 http://iserjournals.com/journals/eurasia

J.-R. Chou

devices (Albinsson & Zhai, 2003). Despite the

State of the literature:
aforementioned advantages, it is not completely
superior to the mouse in terms of operational  The computer mouse has become one of the
performance (Forlines et al., 2007; Kin et al., 2009; most effective input devices when
Sears & Shneiderman, 1991; Wu et al., 2011). In interacting with computers and there have
keeping with the touchscreen trend, the touch been a lot of relevant studies concerning the
mouse, a new type of computer mouse, offers a use of computer mouse in the ergonomic
blending for input and manipulation that is halfway and educational fields.
between a traditional mouse and touch screen. This  The touch mouse is a new type of computer
new type of computer mouse enables users to use
mouse that provides users with a new way of
touch gestures such as press, pinch, slide, tap, and
touch-based environment to interact with
swipe to enhance their interaction with the
computer. Touch-based interaction with computing computers.
devices nowadays is becoming more and more  The user experience questionnaire (UEQ)
common. However, there is relatively little empirical has been recognized as a validated
research in the area, particularly on the use of touch instrument which covers comprehensive UX
mouse. The use of computer mouse refers to dimensions measuring both classical
interacting with computers through a mouse device, usability aspects (efficiency, perspicuity, and
which can be regarded as a human-computer dependability) and UX aspects (novelty and
interaction (HCI) system. The recent shift of stimulation).
emphasis in the field of HCI from usability testing to
Contribution of this paper to the literature:
experience eliciting has instigated a series of
research activities in understanding and defining  This paper presents an empirical study of
user experience (UX) (Lallemand et al., 2015; Law et user experience (UX) on touch mice to
al., 2008, 2009). UX is a multidimensional concept uncover how target users perceive the
and various definitions have been proposed in the selected touch mice after interacting with
literature. According to ISO 9241-110:2010, UX is them on the Windows 8 operating
defined as ‘‘a person’s perceptions and responses environment.
that result from the use and/or anticipated use of a  This study applies the User Experience
product, system, or service’’. Hassenzahl and
Questionnaire (UEQ) to collect users’
Tractinsky (2006) argued that the concept of UX
respondent data and analyze their actual
attempts to go beyond the task-oriented approach of
traditional HCI by bringing out aspects such as experience and perception of using the
beauty, fun, pleasure, and personal growth that touch mice.
satisfy general human needs but have little  The results can help researchers understand
instrumental value. UX is a term used to describe a how target users perceive and value such
user’s perceptions and responses that result from new touch-based interaction devices, thus
the use of a product, system, or service in a ensuring positive UX and leading to more
particular context of use. The perceptions and desirable products of touch mouse.
responses can be physical, psychological, or both,
while the context can be a momentary, episodic, or
cumulative. Although a diversity of UX models have been developed during the past
decade (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007; Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006; Law & van Schaik,
2010; Park et al., 2013; Zhou & Jiao, 2013), there is still a lack of systematic research
on how to measure UX (Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila et al., 2008; Vermeeren et al.,
2010). Most existing guidelines on UX measures are based on traditional usability
metrics (Tullis & Albert, 2008). However, usability tests tend to focus on objective
task performance whereas UX focuses on subjective lived experiences (Kaye, 2007).
UX is considered a key quality of interactive products on today’s competitive
mass markets and is of growing popularity in both academia and industry. It
generally involves experiential, affective, meaningful, and valuable aspects of
product use, and can be regarded as a sum of momentary constructions that grow
from the interaction of users with their environments. These constructions may be
affected by several strands that include, but are not limited to, compositional,
sensory, emotional, spatiotemporal, and interaction-based factors (Battarbee &
Koskinen, 2005).The touch mouse provides users with a new way of touch-based

2876 © 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885
 An empirical study of user experience

environment to interact with computers while UX is concerned with the encounters

a user has while interacting with products, systems, and services. Within this
context, this paper presents an empirical study of user experience on touch mice
using a self-report questionnaire instrument. The results can help researchers
understand how users perceive and value such new interactive products, thus
ensuring positive UX and leading to more desirable products of touch mouse.

METHOD

Subjects
A total of 20 university students were recruited as target users to participate in
the empirical study. These subjects consisted of 10 females and 10 males, ranging in
age from 20 to 24 years (Mean=20.85, S.D.=0.988). Each subject received
remuneration (NT$ 300 per student) as compensation for the time and effort he/she
spent participating in the empirical study. All participants are right handed users
and were required to have familiarity with the Windows 8 operating system in order
to ensure experimental variables being equitable and objective.

Experimental Design and Materials

Six touch mice were selected as product samples for measuring the UX of these
alternative products. The UX experiment conducted in a laboratory at I-Shou
University aimed at uncovering how target users perceive the selected touch mice
after interacting with them. A SONY VAIO laptop with a 15.5” Full HD display and the
Windows 8.1 operating system was used as the test platform for the UX experiment.
The drivers and gesture software for each ，tested mouse were pre-loaded into the
system. The product samples and experimental environment for the UX test are
shown in Figure 1.
The Windows 8 touch language includes: press and hold to learn, tap for primary
action, slide to pan, swipe to select, pinch and stretch to zoom, turn to rotate, swipe
from edge for app commands, and swipe from edge for system commands. Referring
to the Windows 8 user experience guidelines created by Microsoft, the UX test
comprises 8 tasks as given in Table 1.

Figure 1.Product samples and experimental environment for the UX test

Questionnaire Survey
Generic subjective UX measure methods include interviews, questionnaires,
surveys, storytelling, etc. In this study, the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ)

© 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885 2877
J.-R. Chou

was employed as UX instruments for the UX measure. The UEQ was developed by
Laugwitz et al. (2008) through a data analytical approach. It is a validated tool and
has been widely used for measuring the UX of interactive products (Cota et al., 2014;
Rauschenberger et al., 2013; Schrepp et al., 2014). The UEQ is based on a
hierarchical structure of UX constructs. It consists of 6 dimensions, each dimension
of which comprises 4 or 6 sets of bipolar items as shown in Table 2.
The UEQ is based on the semantic differential format designed to cover a
comprehensive impression of user experience, measuring both classical usability
aspects (efficiency, perspicuity, and dependability) as well as UX aspects (novelty
and stimulation). As shown in Appendix A, the UEQ consists of 26 items and the
order of positive and negative worded terms for each given item was randomized in
the questionnaire. It employs a 7-point scale to gather respondents’ ratings for each
perceptual item and support immediate responses to express feelings, impressions
and attitudes toward the use of a product

Table 1. Designated tasks for the UX test

Task Description
1 Scrutinizing the mouse Read the experimental procedure outline and the evaluated mouse’s touch gesture reference
(about 2 minutes) guide and then scrutinize the mouse before use, including its appearance, size, weight,
materials, etc.
2 Installing the mouse Install the mouse and connect it to the laptop through the USB receiver or wireless Bluetooth.
(about 1 minute)
3 Browsing maps Open the built-in Maps App from the Start screen and search for the location of the 8
(about 4 minutes) designated cities (Kaohsiung/I-Shou University, Bangkok, Paris, London, New York, Tokyo,
Beijing, and Taipei/Taipei 101 in order) by using the mouse (employing the zooming and
panning functions).
4 Creating a folder Create a new folder on the Windows desktop and move it to the upper-right corner of the
(about 1 minute) screen (employing the right-click and drag-and-drop functions).
5 Copy and paste Copy a paragraph of text from the designated Adobe PDF file and paste it into a Word
operations document (employing the left/right button clicking, holding, and dragging functions).
(about 2 minutes)
6 Image inserting and file Insert a designated image (the evaluated product sample) into the Word document and save
saving operations the document (using the serial number of the tester plus the sample number as the file name)
(about 2 minutes) to the created folder (employing the left/right button clicking and touch gesture scrolling
functions).
7 Sending emails Send the document file (using the tester’s own webmail account) to the assigned email
(about 2 minutes) address.
8 Finishing the tasks Delete the folder and then disconnect the wireless mouse from the laptop.
(about 1 minute)

Procedure
The UX test required subjects to perform defined tasks and each product was
tested for about 20 minutes (including 5 minutes for the questionnaire responses)
for a total testing time of approximately 2 hours per subject. Before the UX test
began, the experimenter provided a summary of the procedure. Each subject was
asked to perform the 8 designated tasks with each of the selected touch mice. After
finishing the testing tasks, the UEQ was immediately given to the participants. The
participants were instructed to respond to the questions according to their actual
experience and perception of using the product samples.

Data Analysis
The UEQ employs a 7-point scale ranging in score from -3 to 3 to gather
respondents’ ratings for each perceptual item. The negative worded terms (Items 3,
4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 25) were transformed so that the higher the
numerical value the more positive a subject’s impression was in the perceived
situation. After collecting the rating data of the questionnaire responses, the

2878 © 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885
 An empirical study of user experience

reliability analysis was employed to assess the internal consistency of the UEQ
scales. The statistics including the means, standard deviations, and confidence
intervals were then used to interpret the UX test results.
Table 2.Structure of the UEQ
Construct Dimension Description of question Bipolar item
General impression toward the Attractiveness Do users like or dislike the enjoyable-annoying
product product? good-bad
pleasing-unlikable
pleasant-unpleasant
attractive-unattractive
friendly-unfriendly
Pragmatic quality Perspicuity Is it easy to understand how to comprehensible-
use the product? incomprehensible
Is it easy to get familiar with easy to learn-difficult to learn
the product? simple-complicated
clear-confusing
Efficiency Is it possible to use the product fast-slow
quickly and efficiently? efficient-inefficient
Does the user interface look
practical-impractical
organized?
organized-cluttered
Dependability Does the user feel in control of predictable-unpredictable
the interaction? supportive-obstructive
Is the interaction with the
secure-insecure
product secure and predicable?
meets expectations-does not
meet expectations
Hedonic quality Stimulation Is it interesting and exciting to valuable-inferior
use the product? exiting-boring
Does the user feel motivated to
interesting-not interesting
use the product again?
motivating-non-motivating
Novelty Is the design of the product creative-dull
innovative and creative? inventive-conventional
Does the product grab the
leading edge-common
user’s attention?
innovative-conservative

RESULTS
Reliability was evaluated by assessing the internal consistency of the UEQ scales.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the instrument were classified as shown in
Table 3. Most single scales showed high consistency values except the Dependability
dimension for Sample 3. As a whole, the reliability of the questionnaires was
acceptable.

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6
Attractiveness 0.79 0.90 0.93 0.88 0.82 0.92
Perspicuity 0.82 0.83 0.87 0.68 0.95 0.92
Efficiency 0.72 0.90 0.80 0.83 0.72 0.88
Dependability 0.83 0.79 0.41 0.85 0.92 0.83
Stimulation 0.89 0.92 0.84 0.94 0.74 0.98
Novelty 0.89 0.82 0.88 0.89 0.81 0.94

According to the UX testing results, the statistics (means, standard deviations,

and confidence intervals) of the respondents’ judgments with respect to each of the

© 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885 2879
J.-R. Chou

product samples were categorized, as shown in Appendix B. The bar charts with
confidence intervals are shown in Figure 2, where the error bars represent the 5%
confidence intervals for the scale means (i.e. the probability that the true value of
the scale mean lies outside this interval is less than 5%). The benchmark
comparison for the 6 product samples was further charted as shown in Figure 3.

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6

Figure 2. Bar charts with confidence intervals for the scale means

Sample 1: Logitech Zone Touch Mouse T400 Sample 2: Microsoft Sculpt TouchMouse

Sample 3: Rapoo T6 Touch Mouse Sample 4: ATakeTouch Mouse

Sample 5: Microsoft ArcTouchMouse Sample 6: Logitech Ultrathin Touch Mouse T630

Figure 3. Benchmark comparison for the 6 product samples

2880 © 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885
 An empirical study of user experience

DISCUSSION

UX constructs involve the general impression toward a product and extend the
usability approach to cover issues beyond pragmatic quality for fulfilling “do-goals”
with hedonic quality for satisfying “be-goals”. Touch mice provide users with a new
way of interacting with computers. Uncovering how users perceive such new way of
touch-based interaction is an important issue for both academic research and
industrial application. This study applied the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ)
to collect users’ respondent data and analyze their actual experience and perception
of using the touch mice under the Windows 8 operating environment.
In the reliability test results, the Alpha value for the Dependability scale of
Sample 3 was relatively low. Further analysis of the result revealed that the item-
pairs 8-11, 8-17, 8-19, 11-17, 11-19, and 17-19have lower correlation (0.19, 0.13,
0.14, 0.17, 0.22, 0.05, and 0.15, respectively) that yields the low Alpha coefficient.
This is because the subjects have inconsistencies to interpret the 4 worded terms
(unpredictable/predictable, obstructive/supportive, secure/not secure, and meets
expectations/does not meet expectations) of the scale in terms of the UX responses
to Sample 3.
From the analysis of the bar charts we found that subjects had highly positive UX
perceptions on Sample 5 (Microsoft Arc Touch Mouse) and Sample 6 (Logitech
Ultrathin Touch Mouse T630), and negative general impression (Attractiveness
dimension) toward Sample 3 (Rapoo T6 Touch Mouse) and Sample 4 (A Take Touch
Mouse). Sample 1 (Logitech Zone Touch Mouse T400) and Sample 2 (Microsoft
Sculpt Touch Mouse) had high performance for the pragmatic quality (perspicuity,
efficiency and dependability) but relatively low performance for the hedonic quality
(stimulation and novelty).
Further analysis of the benchmark comparison results indicates that in terms of
the subjects’ UX perceptions of the touch mice, the best example was Sample 5 and
the worst was Sample 4 as a whole. This result is rational and credible as Sample 5 is
a unique touch mouse developed by Microsoft for supporting Windows 8 desktop
touch applications.

CONCLUSION
This paper presents an empirical study of user experience on touch mice. In this
paper, the UEQ is employed as a psychometric instrument to collect users’ rating
data. The experimental results can help us to uncover how users perceive the
selected touch mice after interacting with them on the Windows 8 operating
environment. Although the UEQ has been recognized as a validated instrument
which covers comprehensive UX dimensions measuring both classical usability
aspects (efficiency, perspicuity, and dependability) and UX aspects (novelty and
stimulation), it still has limitations on assessing UX for all kinds of interactive
products because different products aim at different dimensions of perceived
experiences. Further research could focus on developing a weighting method to
identify an appropriate set of dimension weights for a specific product and
proposing an effective UX metric to assess the UX quality of the product.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and
Technology of Taiwan under grant number MOST 104-2221-E-214-041.

REFERENCES

Albinsson, P. & Zhai, S. (2003). High precision touch screen interaction. Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 105-112.

© 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885 2881
J.-R. Chou

Battarbee, K. & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: user experience as interaction. CoDesign,

1, 5-18.
Card, S., English, W., & Burr, B. (1978). Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric
joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics, 21, 601-613.
Cota, M.P., Thomaschewski, J., Schrepp, M., & Gonçalves, R. (2014). Efficient measurement of
the user experience. A Portuguese Version. Procedia Computer Science, 27, 491-498.
Delisle, A., Imbeau, D., Santos, B., Plamondon, A., & Montpetit, Y. (2004). Left-handed versus
right-handed computer mouse use: effect on upper-extremity posture. Applied
Ergonomics, 35, 21-28.
Desmet, P. & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of
Design, 1, 57-66.
Donker, A. & Reitsma, P. (2007).Young children’s ability to use a computer mouse. Computers
& Education, 48, 602-617.
Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., & Balakrishnan, R. (2007). Direct-touch vs. mouse input for
tabletop displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, pp. 647-656.
Hassenzahl, M. & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience‒a research agenda. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 25, 91-97.
Kaye, J. (2007). Evaluating experience-focused HCI. Proceedings of Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1661-1664.
Kin, K., Agrawala, M., & DeRose, T. (2009). Determining the benefits of direct-touch,
bimanual, and multifinger input on a multitouch workstation. Proceedings of Graphics
Interface 2009, pp. 119-124.
Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., & Koenig, V. (2015). User experience: A concept without
consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey.
Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 35-48.
Lane, A.E. & Ziviani, J.M. (2010). Factors influencing skilled use of the computer mouse by
school-aged children. Computers & Education, 55, 1112-1122.
Laugwitz, B., Held, T., & Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and evaluation of a user experience
questionnaire. In A. Holzinger (Ed.), USAB 2008, LNCS 5298, pp. 63-76.
Law, E., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A., Kort, J., & Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a shared definition
of user experience. Proceeding of Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, pp. 2395-2398.
Law, E., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A., & Kort, J. (2009). Understanding, Scoping and
Defining User Experience: A Survey Approach. Proceedings of Human Factors in
Computing Systems conference, pp. 719-728.
Law, E. & van Schaik, P. (2010). Modelling user experience-An agenda for research and
practice. Interacting with Computers, 22, 313-322.
Lin, R.F. & Tsai, Y.C. (2015). The use of ballistic movement as an additional method to assess
performance of computer mice. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 45, 71-
81.
Müller, C., Tomatis, L., & Thomas Läubli, T. (2010). Muscular load and performance
compared between a pen and a computer mouse as input devices. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 40, 607-617.
Onyebeke, L.C., Young, J.G., Trudeau, M.B., & Dennerlein, J.T. (2014). Effects of forearm and
palm supports on the upper extremity during computer mouse use. Applied Ergonomics,
45, 564-570.
Park, J., Han, S.H., Kim, H.K., Oh, S., & Moon, H. (2013). Modeling user experience: A case study
on a mobile device. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43, 187-196.
Rauschenberger, M., Schrepp, M., Cota, M.P., Olschner, S., & Thomaschewski, J. (2013).
Efficient Measurement of the User Experience of Interactive Products. How to use the
User Experience Questionnaire UEQ? Example: Spanish Language Version. International
Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 2, 39-45.
Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., & Thomaschewski, J. (2014). Applying the User Experience
Questionnaire (UEQ) in Different Evaluation Scenarios. Design, User Experience, and
Usability. Theories, Methods, and Tools for Designing the User Experience, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science Volume 8517, pp. 383-392.
Sears, A. & Shneiderman, B. (1991). High precision touchscreens: design strategies and
comparisons with a mouse. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 593-613.

2882 © 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885
 An empirical study of user experience

Tullis, T. & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and
Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann.
Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., & Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards practical user
experience evaluation methods. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (VUUM), pp. 19-22.
Vermeeren, A. P.O.S., Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J., & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila,
K. (2010). User Experience Evaluation Methods: Current State and Development Needs.
Proceedings: NordiCHI 2010, pp. 521-530.
Wu, F.G., Lin, H., & You, M., (2011). Direct-touch vs. mouse input for navigation modes of the
web map. Displays, 32, 261-267.
Zhou, F. & Jiao, R.J. (2013). An improved user experience model with cumulative prospect
theory. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 870-877.



© 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885 2883
J.-R. Chou

Appendix A. User experience questionnaire (UEQ) format

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
annoying        enjoyable 1
not understandable        understandable 2
creative        dull 3
easy to learn        difficult to learn 4
valuable        inferior 5
boring        exciting 6
not interesting        interesting 7
unpredictable        predictable 8
fast        slow 9
inventive        conventional 10
obstructive        supportive 11
good        bad 12
complicated        easy 13
unlikable        pleasing 14
usual        leading-edge 15
unpleasant        pleasant 16
secure        not secure 17
motivating        demotivating 18
meets expectations        does not meet expectations 19
inefficient        efficient 20
clear        confusing 21
impractical        practical 22
organized        cluttered 23
attractive        unattractive 24
friendly        unfriendly 25
conservative        innovative 26

2884 © 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885
 An empirical study of user experience

Appendix B. List of the statistics derived from the respondents’ assessment results
Item Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6
Mean Conf. C.I. Mean Conf. C.I. Mean Conf. C.I. Mean Conf. C.I. Mean Conf. C.I. Mean Conf. C.I.
S.D. S.D. S.D. S.D. S.D. S.D.
1 0.900 0.491 0.409 0.600 0.758 -0.158 -0.950 0.893 -1.843 -0.700 0.933 -1.633 1.900 0.665 1.235 1.150 0.686 0.464
1.119 1.391 1.729 1.358 2.038 -0.057 2.130 0.233 1.518 2.565 1.565 1.836
2 1.950 0.541 1.409 0.600 0.846 -0.246 -0.650 0.891 -1.541 0.400 0.958 -0.558 1.700 0.780 0.920 1.450 0.627 0.823
1.234 2.491 1.930 1.446 2.033 0.241 2.186 1.358 1.780 2.480 1.432 2.077
3 -0.700 0.683 -1.383 0.750 0.510 0.240 0.600 0.822 -0.222 -0.200 0.787 -0.987 2.450 0.389 2.061 1.500 0.659 0.841
1.559 -0.017 1.164 1.260 1.875 1.422 1.795 0.587 0.887 2.839 1.504 2.159
4 1.850 0.715 1.135 1.000 0.739 0.261 -0.550 0.859 -1.409 0.300 0.605 -0.305 2.000 0.682 1.318 1.400 0.576 0.824
1.631 2.565 1.686 1.739 1.959 0.309 1.380 0.905 1.556 2.682 1.314 1.976
5 0.000 0.586 -0.586 0.350 0.769 -0.419 -0.600 0.784 -1.384 -0.550 0.927 -1.477 2.150 0.409 1.741 1.450 0.577 0.873
1.338 0.586 1.755 1.119 1.789 0.184 2.114 0.377 0.933 2.559 1.317 2.027
6 -0.450 0.772 -1.222 -0.200 0.630 -0.830 -0.250 0.723 -0.973 -0.250 0.680 -0.930 2.150 0.384 1.766 1.200 0.645 0.555
1.761 0.322 1.436 0.430 1.650 0.473 1.552 0.430 0.875 2.534 1.473 1.845
7 -0.650 0.769 -1.419 -0.150 0.729 -0.879 -0.150 0.795 -0.945 -0.500 0.905 -1.405 2.150 0.518 1.632 1.100 0.710 0.390
1.755 0.119 1.663 0.579 1.814 0.645 2.065 0.405 1.182 2.668 1.619 1.810
8 1.750 0.510 1.240 0.850 0.832 0.018 1.550 0.594 0.956 0.400 0.881 -0.481 1.100 0.724 0.376 1.200 0.719 0.481
1.164 2.260 1.899 1.682 1.356 2.144 2.010 1.281 1.651 1.824 1.642 1.919
9 2.300 0.452 1.848 1.150 0.820 0.330 -0.500 0.798 -1.298 1.300 0.637 0.663 2.100 0.602 1.498 1.400 0.626 0.774
1.031 2.752 1.872 1.970 1.821 0.298 1.455 1.937 1.373 2.702 1.429 2.026
10 -1.000 0.817 -1.817 0.500 0.560 -0.060 1.350 0.701 0.649 1.100 0.764 0.336 2.650 0.257 2.393 1.850 0.537 1.313
1.864 -0.183 1.277 1.060 1.599 2.051 1.744 1.864 0.587 2.907 1.226 2.387
11 0.300 0.588 -0.288 -0.350 0.769 -1.119 1.600 0.576 1.024 -0.300 0.900 -1.200 1.650 0.715 0.935 0.900 0.710 0.190
1.342 0.888 1.755 0.419 1.314 2.176 2.055 0.600 1.631 2.365 1.619 1.610
12 -0.450 0.732 -1.182 0.550 0.611 -0.061 1.500 0.628 0.872 0.600 0.688 -0.088 2.750 0.241 2.509 1.500 0.522 0.978
1.669 0.282 1.395 1.161 1.433 2.128 1.569 1.288 0.550 2.991 1.192 2.022
13 2.400 0.459 1.941 1.250 0.723 0.527 -0.500 0.732 -1.232 0.400 0.593 -0.193 1.550 0.772 0.778 1.100 0.751 0.349
1.046 2.859 1.650 1.973 1.670 0.232 1.353 0.993 1.761 2.322 1.714 1.851
14 0.150 0.743 -0.593 0.100 0.549 -0.449 -0.300 0.806 -1.106 -0.500 0.916 -1.416 1.900 0.511 1.389 0.950 0.611 0.339
1.694 0.893 1.252 0.649 1.838 0.506 2.090 0.416 1.165 2.411 1.395 1.561
15 -0.650 0.891 -1.541 -0.550 0.835 -1.385 0.500 0.704 -0.204 0.000 0.752 -0.752 2.350 0.456 1.894 1.150 0.686 0.464
2.033 0.241 1.905 0.285 1.606 1.204 1.717 0.752 1.040 2.806 1.565 1.836
16 0.350 0.591 -0.241 0.000 0.697 -0.697 -0.800 0.824 -1.624 -0.700 0.818 -1.518 1.850 0.591 1.259 1.100 0.634 0.466
1.348 0.941 1.589 0.697 1.881 0.024 1.867 0.118 1.348 2.441 1.447 1.734
17 2.150 0.456 1.694 0.850 0.880 -0.030 0.800 0.562 0.238 0.800 0.836 -0.036 1.750 0.634 1.116 1.500 0.595 0.905
1.040 2.606 2.007 1.730 1.281 1.362 1.908 1.636 1.446 2.384 1.357 2.095
18 -0.350 0.769 -1.119 -0.250 0.751 -1.001 -0.600 0.809 -1.409 -0.250 0.764 -1.014 1.900 0.602 1.298 1.100 0.665 0.435
1.755 0.419 1.713 0.501 1.847 0.209 1.743 0.514 1.373 2.502 1.518 1.765
19 1.500 0.560 0.940 0.550 0.893 -0.343 1.650 0.574 1.076 -0.250 0.875 -1.125 1.850 0.715 1.135 1.450 0.643 0.807
1.277 2.060 2.038 1.443 1.309 2.224 1.997 0.625 1.631 2.565 1.468 2.093
20 1.800 0.661 1.139 1.150 0.782 0.368 -0.600 0.822 -1.422 -0.100 0.920 -1.020 1.750 0.601 1.149 1.300 0.740 0.560
1.508 2.461 1.785 1.932 1.875 0.222 2.100 0.820 1.372 2.351 1.689 2.040
21 2.100 0.511 1.589 1.150 0.729 0.421 0.000 0.910 -0.910 0.050 0.643 -0.593 1.850 0.640 1.210 1.550 0.643 0.907
1.165 2.611 1.663 1.879 2.077 0.910 1.468 0.693 1.461 2.490 1.468 2.193
22 1.450 0.674 0.776 0.950 0.703 0.247 -0.400 0.834 -1.234 0.400 0.915 -0.515 2.200 0.417 1.783 1.050 0.689 0.361
1.538 2.124 1.605 1.653 1.903 0.434 2.088 1.315 0.951 2.617 1.572 1.739
23 1.600 0.521 1.079 1.350 0.608 0.742 0.100 0.840 -0.740 0.950 0.659 0.291 2.100 0.469 1.631 1.250 0.665 0.585
1.188 2.121 1.387 1.958 1.917 0.940 1.504 1.609 1.071 2.569 1.517 1.915
24 -0.750 0.764 -1.514 0.200 0.733 -0.533 -0.400 0.784 -1.184 -0.200 0.799 -0.999 2.300 0.379 1.921 1.050 0.759 0.291
1.743 0.014 1.673 0.933 1.789 0.384 1.824 0.599 0.865 2.679 1.731 1.809
25 1.700 0.495 1.205 1.250 0.751 0.499 -0.650 0.808 -1.458 0.450 0.835 -0.385 2.400 0.436 1.964 1.350 0.701 0.649
1.129 2.195 1.713 2.001 1.843 0.158 1.905 1.285 0.995 2.836 2.051
26 -1.100 0.840 -1.940 -0.150 0.743 -0.893 1.300 0.534 0.766 0.400 0.758 -0.358 2.600 0.298 2.302 1.600 0.642 0.958
1.917 -0.260 1.694 0.593 1.218 1.834 1.729 1.158 0.681 2.898 1.465 2.242
Note:
N=20
S.D.: Standard Deviations; Conf.: Confidence; C.I.: Confidence Interval(p=0.05) per item

© 2016 by authors, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(11), 2875-2885 2885