again a few months later to validate the interface and its potential use by the general public (Appendix F). The aim was to answer of RQ3 and RQ4. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were provided with a link to the WISDOM online interface in which data representing a typical household had been entered. A username and password were also given to allow them to sign in into the interface. Examples of tips and facts provided to users on a daily basis were also described at the beginning of the survey.
First, some demographic data regarding their domain of expertise, their field of work and their place of residence was collected. Participants then had to assess the use of the interface. Open questions gave them the possibility to describe the positive and negative aspects of the interface. They could suggest improvements regarding its design and its content. Experts were then asked to evaluate the impact of the interface on users’ water consumption and on their awareness of their water usage and knowledge of environmental issues. In addition, the optimal frequency of used was assessed by experts. Finally, as the use of new technologies can influence the interaction with the display, it seemed important to evaluate participants’ use of technologies. This was done using the ‘Technophilia scale’ developed by [483] to measure affinity for technology. This scale includes various statements to assess on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
154
As mentioned in Chapter 4, to analyse the qualitative results obtained, a thematic analysis method was used, with the help of a researcher in psychology.
7.1.1. Demographics
Seven water experts took part in this second survey. These participants are all working in academia with one of them working in both academia and industry in the water domain. Three of them live in the UK while the others live in southern Europe.
The experts consider themselves as not being technophobic (57.1%), slightly technophobic (28.6%) or quite technophobic (14.3%). Overall, according to the Technophilia scale, the average Technophilia score among experts (39.1) suggest that they are rather familiar with the use of technology (see Table 7-1) [483].
Table 7-1. Percentage and grade point average of Technophilia items (post-trial questionnaire with experts).
Items – Do you agree or disagree that SA A NAD D SD GPA
1. Technology is my friend 42.8 42.8 14.3 0 0 4.28 2. I enjoy learning new computer programs/apps and
hearing about new technologies 28.6 42.8 28.6 0 0 4 3. People expect me to know about technology and I don't
want to let them down 14.3 28.6 42.8 0 14.3 3.28
4. If I am given an assignment that requires that I learn to use a new program or how to use a machine, I usually succeed
28.6 57.1 14.3 0 0 4.14
5. I relate well to technology and machines 57.1 28.6 0 14.3 0 4.28 6. I am comfortable learning new technology 57.1 28.6 14.3 0 0 4.43 7. I know how to deal with technological malfunctions or
problems 14.3 42.8 42.8 0 0 3.71
8. Solving a technological problem seems like a fun
challenge 28.6 0 28.6 28.6 14.3 3
9. I find most technology easy to learn 14.3 71.4 14.3 0 0 4 10. I feel as up-to-date on technology as my peers 14.3 71.4 14.3 0 0 4
Cronbach’s Alpha: .877 3.91
SA: Strongly agree, A: Agree, NAD: Neither agree nor disagree, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly disagree
Responses to scale items were coded 1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neither agree nor disagree, 4= Agree and 5= Strongly agree [501], [502]. To assess the internal consistency of the
155
Technophilia scale, a test of reliability was conducted and a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.877 was obtained. This value shows a high level of internal consistency [503], [504].
7.1.2. Design and Content of the Interface
When asked about the positive aspects of the interface, experts report appreciating the layout and design of the interface, its ease of use and the type of information it provides; ‘a lot of
information nicely displayed, all in one page, easy graphics’ (see Table 7-2). For 85.7% of them, the
interface is relatively easy to use. A large majority of experts (85.7%) consider that it provides the right amount of information about users’ consumption. Moreover, all experts think the design is visually engaging.
Table 7-2. Report of the qualitative data (post-trial questionnaire with experts).
Items Main findings Illustrative Quotes
Positive aspects of the interface
• Design (Graphics,
colours, images) ‘colour, simple language, easy to use, various information’, ‘the design of the interface, which is very friendly and easy to understand. The overview of water consumption as well as the financial savings can play a vital role in reducing consumption.’ • Ease of use • Information provided Negative aspects of the interface • Lay out
‘a bit text heavy and more advice on ways to reduce consumption would be good’, ‘consumption figure is not clear’ ‘many different windows/tables’. • Insufficient advice
Suggestions for
improvements
• Prioritise information ‘need to prioritise which information is most important’,’ more advice on 'how' to reduce shower time’, ‘more ‘did you know’ would be good’, ‘much more focus on virtual water’.
• Make the interface more visual
Regarding the negative aspects of the interface, experts affirm that the lay out is not always clear; ‘the menu for showing and hiding boxes is not very clear’. Some of them also state that the tips provided are insufficient to directly encourage water savings ‘One might wonder how do I reduce
my water consumption?? The tips may be irrelevant to some users and they are not descriptive enough’.
Improvements suggested by experts include making the interface more visual and prioritising the information depending the type of user i.e. new user or experienced user. More specifically, some experts suggest including more information about virtual water, more advice, videos and explanations. Most of them (57.1%) however agree to say that the ‘financial savings’ information
156
is more likely to capture users’ interest, followed by ‘facts, tips and advice’ (28.6%) and comparisons and social ranking (14.3%). When asked to assess the impact of each feature on users’ consumption, experts report that the ‘comparisons and social ranking’ and the ‘facts, tips and advice’ will have a low or moderate impact. Conversely, some of them affirm that the ‘financial savings’ and the ‘overview of water consumption’ features can have a high impact on users’ consumption (see Table 7-3).
A binomial logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of participants’ use of new technologies (Technophilia score) on the likelihood of finding the interface easy to use [488], [489]. Linearity of the continuous variables with respect to the logit of the dependent variable was assessed via the Box-Tidwell (1962) procedure. However, based on this assessment, the continuous independent variables (Technophilia score) was not linearly related to the logit of the dependent variable. A point-biserial correlation was then run as an alternative to determine the strength of the linear relationship between the participant’s Technophilia scores and the likelihood of finding the interface easy to use [493]–[495]. However, the assumption of normal distribution was not respected and further analysis could not be performed.
Table 7-3. Experts’ assessment of the impact of each feature on users’ consumption.
Feature No impact
(1) impact (2) Low Moderate impact (3)
High
impact (4) M
Overview of water
consumption -- 28.6 42.9 28.6 3
Comparisons and social
ranking -- 57.1 42.9 -- 2.43
Facts, tips and advice -- 57.1 42.9 -- 2.43
Financial savings -- 42.9 -- 57.1 3.14
2.75
7.1.3. Impact of the Interface
All the experts participating in the survey consider that the interface have the potential to increase users’ awareness of their consumption, either slightly (28.6%), moderately (42.9%) or a lot (28.6%). Regarding the impact of the interface, most experts report that the interface can slightly or moderately increase users’ awareness of water issues (71.5%) and of environmental issues (85.8%). Overall, the interface provides users enough guidance to reduce their
157
consumption and can encourage them to save water in both the long and short term (28.6%), in the long term (28.6%) or in the short term (42.9%).
Experts’ opinions varied when it comes to the frequency at which users should use the interface. Some of them (42.9%) consider that, to have an impact on users’ consumption, the device should be used daily while others (42.9%) consider that checking the device once weekly should be sufficient.
Results from this experts’ consultation helped answering RQ3 and RQ4. First, experts believe that the interface is visually attractive and easy to use. They consider that using the interface can increase individuals’ awareness of their own consumption and of water issues, especially if used on a weekly or monthly basis. Additionally, the financial savings feature is also the most likely to capture user’s interest and to have an impact on their consumption. Suggestions for improvement include prioritising the information provided and including more tips and advice. The following section details the findings resulting from the trial of the interface in households.