2. ANÁLISIS DE POLÍTICAS
2.4. Política de Transportes
Theories of mutual awareness and mutual understanding related to social presence are discussed in chapter 2, section 2.3. A set of measurement items was developed from the content of mutual awareness and mutual understanding theories to assess perceived social presence (SP).
The definition of co-presence is expanded into a broader version, which simply suggests “mutual awareness with the phrase being together” (de Greef & IJsselsteijn, 2000; Ho, Basdogan, Slater, Durlach, & Srinivasan, 1998). This happened when sensory properties of others were taken into account, especially awareness of user/observer and the mediated other (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003). In Heeter’s (1992) definition, “awareness of the existence of the other is accompanied by the other’s reaction to the self or user” (as quoted in Shen & Khalifa, 2008, p. 726). In this definition, the “reaction of the other to the user validates that they are there and aware,…” (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003, p. 463). The simplest types of questions that can be used to measure subjective mutual awareness are of the form:
measurement items (CP1): [During the experiment….]
• CP1: To what extent did you have a sense of awareness of presence of your
friends/relatives in the online shop? mutual understanding
This aspect of social presence has been further emphasized by Nowak (2000) who “used the measure of ‘homophilly’, or perceived similarity in emotions and attitudes, to measure social presence” (as quoted in Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003, p. 464). Despite the problem associated with this approach that social presence can be felt even in the absence of any similarity in views, it is relevant to note that it is possible to reach at least some degree of mutual understanding irrespective of the limitations posed by the medium (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003). For Savicki & Kelley (2000), the definition of social presence emphasizes “the ability to make one’s self known under conditions of low media richness” (p. 817).
measurement items (MU1, MU2, MU3, MU4, MU5): [During the experiment….] • MU1: How well did you feel you were able to understand what your
friends/relatives was saying?
• MU2: How well did you feel you were able to express yourself with your
friends/relatives?
• MU3: How well did you feel your friends/relatives understood what you meant
to communicate?
• MU4: How well did you feel you were able to understand your friends/relatives’
feelings/emotions toward the online shop?
• MU5: How well did you feel you and your friends/relatives share similar
feelings/emotions toward the online shop? 4.7.2 Usability (U)
Similar to social presence, both subjective and objective methods can be employed to measure usability. A common method to measure this factor is to carry out a scenario base usability assessment, where participants, using the system of interest, provide their response to a set of usability assessment scenarios, which are tasks that present real problems to be solved, such as how to write and send an email (Whiteside, Bennett, & Holzblatt, 1988).
For a scenario-based methodology, either subjective or objective measures are used to assess usability. Objective measures in this case include the time it takes to complete a scenario, rate of completion, and the amount of time used for recovering from errors (Whiteside, Bennett, & Holzblatt, 1988). The subjective measure is a Likert scale questionnaire where participants comment on a system’s ease of use, interface appeal, and so on (Alty, 1992).
According to Lewis (1995), most assessments with regard to usability gather subjective as well as objective data. However, choosing the appropriate measurements depends on what is being evaluated. If the main aim is an increase in productivity, objective measures are valid, but if it is to improve the appeal for the user, then subjective
measures are the focus. Of importance is an understanding of the psychometric properties of the assessment (Lewis, 1995, p. 58).
The IBM research materials are designed explicitly for usability assessment based on scenarios (Lewis, 1995). IBM created a subjective after-scenario questionnaire (ASQ) which consists of three questions about participants’ satisfaction with system usability once they have completed each scenario, measuring the three most important characteristics with regard to system usability: how easy a task is to accomplish, time spent on the task, and usefulness of supporting information (messages, online help, and documentation) (Lewis, 1995).
The Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) is a subjective assessment of system usability. It is a short questionnaire of a 19-item instrument, its duration is approximately ten minutes, subsequent to a usability study. The PSSUQ assesses the satisfaction of participants as regards the usability of a system (Lewis, 1995). The PSSUQ is relevant to this study and it is adopted as part of a post-test questionnaire to assess users’ perception of usability of the simulated online shop in four treatment conditions.
Psychometric evaluation of ASQ and PSSUQ presented adequate approximation of sensitivity, reliability and validity (Lewis, 1995), despite the fact the ASQ is an after- scenario questionnaire, intended for use in a scenario- based usability testing situation, and PSSUQ is intended to evaluate the general level of users’ satisfaction with a system. The consistency of the two questionnaires makes their application wider and the generalisation of results possible. Due to their satisfactory psychometric attributes, they give usability researchers the self-assurance to do measurements in a standardised way using the questionnaires, whether it is a field research involving CSUQ (Computer System Usability Questionnaire) or a usability test/study involving PSSUQ or ASQ. Of late, different quantitative scales have been created for usability including; SUS (System Usability Scale), a work of the Digital Equipment Co. Ltd. In 1986 for introducing usability engineering; a scale by Lin, Choong, and Salvendy (1997). The SUS was selected as a secondary assessment and it is added to the post-test questionnaire. The reliability and validity of the two questionnaires PSSUQ and SUS,
was then tested, and users’ responses to SUS were removed from the data analysis due to the low validity score.
Consolidated usability measurement items Construct Items
• During the experiment… IBM(Lewis,
1995) (Lewis, 2002)
• PSSUQ1: To what extent did you feel satisfied with how easy it was to use this
system?
• PSSUQ2: To what extent did you feel it was simple to use this system? • PSSUQ3: To what extent did you feel you could effectively complete the
shopping task using this system?
• PSSUQ4: To what extent did you feel you were able to complete the shopping
task quickly using this system?
• PSSUQ5: To what extent did you feel you were able to efficiently complete the
shopping tasks using this system?
• PSSUQ6: To what extent did you feel comfortable using this system? • PSSUQ7: To what extent did you feel it was easy to learn to use this system?
• PSSUQ8: To what extent did you believe you could become productive quickly
using this system?
• PSSUQ9: To what extent did you feel whenever you made a mistake using the
system, you could recover easily and quickly?
• PSSUQ10: To what extent did you feel the system interface was pleasant?
• PSSUQ11: To what extent did you like using the system interface?
• PSSUQ12: To what extent did you feel this system has all the functions and
capabilities you expect it to have?
• PSSUQ13: To what extent did you feel you were satisfied with this system TABLE 4-5 USABILITY MEASUREMENT ITEMS
4.7.3 User control (UC)
The components which build interactivity have been discussed in chapter 3. The primary element of interactivity is user control over the timing, content, and order of communications. User control means the degree of control the user has over the interaction experience (Gao, Rau, & Gavriel, 2009). It is associated with minimising the effort required for a task, the amount of effort a user needs to expend, as put forward by Heeter (1989), and includes control by the receiver in addition to control by the sender of messages (Fortin, 1997).
According to a study by Rozendaal, Braat, and Wensveen (2010) of user control, the level of interactivity and social presence experienced by users in the interaction environment is closely related to immediacy of control and mode of control (or anticipation of events). The immediacy of control implies that “a high delay between a
user’s actions and the associated consequences decreases the sense of presence” (Casanueva, 2001, p. 30). The more control a participant has in interacting with the virtual environment, the higher the sense of presence. The anticipation of events or mode of control indicates that participants will probably “experience a greater sense of presence in an environment if they are able to anticipate or predict what will happen next” (Witmer & Singer, 1998). It suggests presence can increase if the interaction techniques are natural or well known to the participants (Rozendaal, Braat, & Wensveen, 2010).
According to Hoffman & Novak (1996), an interactive online environment should allow the consumer some control. The perception of behavioural control is seen to be of higher importance than actual control as regards its effect on intentions and actions (Ajzen, 1988). Consumers’ perception of behavioural control is related to a feeling of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and is defined by Ajzen (1988) as “the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour and
. . .
is assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated obstacles” (p. 132). A person’s perceived control over the interaction in VE is related to his/her ability and confidence in carrying out mental or physical tasks while online, such as site navigation, access to content and the sequence of interaction (Wu & Wu, 2006). The simplest types of questions that can be used to measure user control are of the form:Consolidated user control measurement items Construct Items
• During the experiment…
**New Items • UC1: To what extent did you feel you were able to follow the conversation
between you and your friends/relatives? Vilhjálmsson
(2003) • UC2: To what extent did you feel you had control over the conversation? **New Items • UC3: To what extent did you feel you could predict your friends/relatives’
reaction to what you said/or shared?
• UC4: To what extent did you feel confident performing the shopping task? • UC5: Please rate how easy you were able to navigate and find information
through this system?
• UC6: To what extent did you feel you had control over navigating an
online shop?