skip to main content
research-article

User's Web Page Aesthetics Opinion: A Matter of Low-Level Image Descriptors Based on MPEG-7

Published:10 March 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Analyzing a user's first impression of a Web site is essential for interface designers, as it is tightly related to their overall opinion of a site. In fact, this early evaluation affects user navigation behavior. Perceived usability and user interest (e.g., revisiting and recommending the site) are parameters influenced by first opinions. Thus, predicting the latter when creating a Web site is vital to ensure users’ acceptance. In this regard, Web aesthetics is one of the most influential factors in this early perception. We propose the use of low-level image parameters for modeling Web aesthetics in an objective manner, which is an innovative research field. Our model, obtained by applying a stepwise multiple regression algorithm, infers a user's first impression by analyzing three different visual characteristics of Web site screenshots—texture, luminance, and color—which are directly derived from MPEG-7 descriptors. The results obtained over three wide Web site datasets (composed by 415, 42, and 6 Web sites, respectively) reveal a high correlation between low-level parameters and the users’ evaluation, thus allowing a more precise and objective prediction of users’ opinion than previous models that are based on other image characteristics with fewer predictors. Therefore, our model is meant to support a rapid assessment of Web sites in early stages of the design process to maximize the likelihood of the users’ final approval.

References

  1. C. H. Achen. 1982. Interpreting and Using Regression. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 61--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Altaboli and Y. Lin. 2011. Objective and subjective measures of visual aesthetics of website interface design: The two sides of the coin. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Development Approaches, Volume Part I (HCII’11). 35--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. A. De Angeli, A. Sutcliffe, and J. Hartmann. 2006. Interaction, usability and aesthetics: What influences users’ preferences? In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’06). ACM, New York, NY, 271--280. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1142405.1142446Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Barrilero, S. Uribe, M. Alduán, F. Sánchez, and F. Álvarez. 2011. In-network content based image recommendation system for content-aware networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS’11). 115--120, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2011.5928791 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. M. Bastan, H. Cam, U. Güdükbay, and O. Ulusoy. 2009. An MPEG-7 compatible video retrieval system with integrated support for complex multimodal queries. IEEE Multimedia PP, 99, 1. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2009.74 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. E. Berlyne. 1970. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Buguin, L. Corb, J. Manyika, O. Nottebohm, M. Chui, B. Muller Barbat, and R. Said. 2011. The Impact of Internet Technologies: Search. Technical Report. McKinsey 8 Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. R. T. Cober, D. J. Brown, P. E. Levy, A. B. Cober, and L. M. Keeping. 2003. Organizational Web sites: Web site content and style as determinants of organizational attraction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11, 158--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. T. Comber and J. R. Maltby. 1997. Layout complexity: Does it measure usability? In Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’97). IFIP—The International Federation for Information Processing. Springer, 623--626. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35175-9_109 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. R. D. Cook. 1977. Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics, American Statistical Association and American Society for Quality 19, 1, 15--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. D. Cook and S. Weisberg. 1982. Residuals and Influence in Regression. New York. Chapman 8 Hall, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Cyr, C. Bonanni, J. Bowes, and J. Ilsever. 2005. Beyond trust: Website design preferences across cultures. Journal of Global Information Management 13, 4, 25--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. D. Cyr, M. Head, and A. Ivanov. 2006. Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce. Information 8 Management 43, 8, 950--963. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.08.009 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Cyr, M. Head, and H. Larios. 2010. Colour appeal in website design within and across cultures: A multi-method evaluation. International Journal on Human-Computer Studies 68, 1--2, 1--21. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.08.005 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Donyaee, A. Seffah, and J. Rilling. 2006. Exploring the correlations between predictive usability measures and user test. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and Product Measurement (MENSURA’06).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Fernandes, G. Lindgaard, R. Dillon, and J. Wood. 2003. Judging the appeal of Web sites. In Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on the Management of Electronic Commerce. 15--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. F. Fu, S. Y. Chiu, and C. H. Su. 2007. Measuring the screen complexity of Web pages. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Human Interface: Part II. 720--729. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. W. O. Galitz. 2007. The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques (3rd ed.). Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. Hartmann, A. Sutcliffe, and A. De Angeli. 2008. Towards a theory of user judgment of aesthetics and user interface quality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 15, 4, Article No. 15. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1460355.1460357Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. D. Hasler and S. E. Suesstrunk. 2003. Measuring colorfulness in natural images. In Proceedings of SPIE/IS8T Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, Vol. 5007. 87--95. DOI:10.1117/12.477378 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. M. Hassenzahl. 2008. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 4, 319--349. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Hassenzahl and A. Monk. 2010. The inference of perceived usability from beauty. Human-Computer Interaction 25, 3, 235--260. DOI:10.1080/07370024.2012.500139Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky. 2006. User experience—a research agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology 25, 2, 91--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. J. L. Hintze. 2007. Stepwise regression. In NCSS Statistical System User's Guide III: Regression and Curve Fitting. NCSS, Kaysville, UT, 197--207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel. 1979. Brain mechanism of vision. Scientific American 241, 3, 150--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. T. Jacobsen and L. Höfel. 2002. Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills 95, 755--766. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. M. Kurosu and K. Kashimura. 1995. Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’95). ACM, New York, NY, 292--293. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/223355.223680Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. T. Lavie and N. Tractinsky. 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of Web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60, 3, 269--298. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. H. Leder, B. Belke, A. Oeberst, and D. Augustin. 2004. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 95, 489--508. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. H. Leder and M. Nadal. 2014. Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode—developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology 105, 4, 443--464. DOI:10.1111/bjop.1208Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, D. Sen, I. Sumegi, and P. Noonan. 2011. An exploitation of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction 18, 1, 1--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. G. Lindgaard, G. Fernandes, C. Dudek, and J. M. Brown. 2006. Attention Web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behaviour and Information Technology 25, 2, 115--126. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Y. Liu. 2003. Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics 46, 13--14, 1273--1292. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130310001610829 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. S. Lok, S. Feiner, and G. Ngai. 2004. Evaluation of visual balance for automated layout. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interaction. 101--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S. Mahlke. 2002. Factors influencing the experience of Website usage. In Proceedings of the CHI’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’02). ACM, New York, NY, 846--847. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/506443.506628Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. S. Mahlke. 2008a. Visual aesthetics and the user experience. In The Study of Visual Aesthetics in Human-Computer Interaction, M. Hassenzahl, G. Lindgaard, A. Platz, and N. Tractinsky (Eds.). Schloss, Dagstuhl, Germany, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. S. Mahlke. 2008b. User Experience of Interaction with Technical Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Berlin University of Technology, Berlin, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. M. V. Mankeliunas. 1980. Los modelos en psicofísica. En Psicología de la percepción, A. Ardila (dir.). Mexico.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. MinGW. 2015. Minimalist GNU for Windows: A Native Windows Port of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). Retrieved January 14, 2016, from http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. F. Moksony. 1990. Small is beautiful. The use and interpretation of R2 in social research. Szociologiai Szemle (Special Issue) 130--138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. M. Moshagen, J. Musch, and A. S. Göritz. 2009. A blessing, not a curse: Experimental evidence for beneficial effects on visual aesthetics on performance. Ergonomics 52, 10, 1311--1320. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130903061717 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. M. Moshagen and M. T. Thielsch. 2010. Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68, 10, 689--709. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.05.006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. M. Moshagen and M. T. Thielsch. 2013. A short version of the visual aesthetics of Websites inventory. Behaviour and Information Technology 32, 12, 1305--1311. DOI:10.1080/0144929X.2012.694910 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. MPEG ISO/IEC. 2000. ISO/IEC CD 15938 (1-6) Information Technology. Multimedia Content Description Interface: Part 1-6 ISO/IEC JTC/SC29/WG11/N3701-N3706. MPEG, La Baule, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. K. Mullet and D. Sano. 1996. Designing visual interfaces. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 28, 2, 82--83. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/226650.570118 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. M. Nebeling, F. Matulic, and M. C. Norrie. 2011. Metrics for the evaluation of news site content layout in large-screen contexts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 1511--1520. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979164Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. NetMarketshare. n.d. Home Page. Retrieved November 12, 2015, from https://netmarketshare.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. D. C. L. Ngo, A. Samsudin, and R. Abdullah. 2000. Aesthetics measures for assessing graphic screens. Journal of Information Science and Engineering 16, 1, 97--116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. D. C. L. Ngo, L. S. Teo, and J. G. Byrne. 2003. Modeling interface aesthetics. Information Sciences 152, 1, 25--46. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(02)00404-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. J. Nielsen. 1993. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. D. A. Norman. 2004. Introduction to this special section on beauty, goodness, and usability. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 4, 311--318. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1904_1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. A. Oliva and A. Torralba. 2006. Building the gist of a scene: The role of global image features in recognition. Progress in Brain Research 155, 23--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. M. Pajusalu. 2012. The Evaluation of User Interface Aesthetics. Master's Thesis. Institute of Informatics, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. J. W. Palmer. 2002. Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information Systems Research 13, 2, 151--167. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.2.151.88 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. E. Papachristos and N. Avouris. 2011. Are first impressions about Websites only related to visual appeal? In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume Part I (INTERACT’11). 489--496. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. H. C. Purchase, J. Hamer, A. Jamieson, and O. Ryan. 2011. Investigating objective measures of Web page aesthetics and usability. In Proceedings of the 12th Australasian User Interface Conference, Volume 17 (AUIC’11). 19--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. J. Redish, R. G. Bias, R. Bailey, R. Molich, J. Dumas, and J. M. Spool. 2002. Usability in practice: Formative usability evaluations—evolution and revolution. In Proceedings of the CHI’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’02). ACM, New York, NY, 885--890. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/506443.506647Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. K. Reinecke and K. Z. Gajos. 2014. Quantifying visual preferences around the world. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 11--20. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557052 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. K. Reinecke, T. Yeh, L. Miratrix, R. Mardiko, Y. Zhao, J. Liu, and K. Z. 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 (CHI’13). ACM, New York, NY, 2049--2058. DOI:http://dx.doi.org 10.1145/2470654.2481281Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. D. Robins and J. Holmes. 2008. Aesthetics and credibility in Web site design. Information Processing and Management 44, 1, 386--399. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.02.003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. V. Roto, E. Law, A. Vermeeren, and J. Hoonhout. 2011. User experience white paper. In Proceedings of the Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. R. Rosenholtz, Y. Li, J. Mansfield, and Z. Jin. 2005. Feature congestion: A measure of display clutter. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05). ACM, New York, NY, 761--770. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1054972.1055078Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. P. Salembier and T. Sikora. 2002. Introduction to MPEG-7: Multimedia Content Description Interface. B. S. Manjunath (Ed.). John Wiley 8 Sons, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. F. Sánchez, M. Barrilero, S. Uribe, F. Álvarez, A. Tena, and J. M. Menéndez. 2012. Social and content hybrid image recommender system for mobile social networks. Mobile Networks and Applications 17, 6, 782--795. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11036-012-0399-6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. A. Sears. 1993. Layout appropriateness: A metric for evaluating user interface widget layouts. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19, 7, 707--719. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. B. Shackel. 2009. Usability—context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interacting with Computers 21, 5--6, 339--346. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.04.007 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Z. Shan and W. Hai-Tao. 2008. Image retrieval based on bit-plane distribution entropy. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Science and Software Engineering. 532--535. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSSE.2008.270 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. P. J. Silvia. 2006. Exploring the Psychology of Interest. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. A. Sonderegger and J. Sauer. 2010. The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied Ergonomics 41, 3, 403--410. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.09.002 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. M. Speicher, A. Both, and M. Gaedke. 2015. S.O.S.: Does your search engine results page (SERP) need help? In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15). 1005--1014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. J. Stevens. 1996. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. R. Strebe. 2011. Visual aesthetics of Websites: The visceral level of perception and its influence on user behaviour. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries: Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (TPDL’11). 523--526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Pearson, Boston, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. M. T. Thielsch, I. Blotenberg, and R. Jaron. 2014. User evaluation of Websites: From first impression to recommendation. Interacting with Computers 26, 1, 89--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. M. T. Thielsch, R. Engel, and G. Hirschfeld. 2015. Expected usability is not a valid indicator of experience usability. PeerJ Computer Science 1, e19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. M. Thüring and S. Mahlke. 2007. Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology 42, 4, 253--264. DOI:10.1080/00207590701396674Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. TNS. 2008. Digital World, Digital Life: Snapshots of Our Online Behavior and Perspectives Around the World. Retrieved January 14, 2017, from http://www.tnsglobal.com/_assets/files/TNS_Market_Research_Digital_World_Digital_Life.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. N. Tractinsky. 1997. Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’97). ACM, New York, NY, 115--122. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/258549.258626 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. N. Tractinsky, A. Cokhavi, M. Kirschenbaum, and T. Sharfi. 2006. Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of Web pages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 11, 1071--1083. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. N. Tractinsky, A. S. Katz, and D. Ikar. 2000. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers 13, 2, 127--145. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00031-X Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. A. N. Tuch, E. E. Presslaber, M. Stöcklin, K. Opwis, and J. A. Bargas-Avila. 2012a. The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of Websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 70, 11, 794--811. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.06.003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. An N. Tuch, S. P. Roth, K. Hornbæk, K. Opwis, and J. A. Bargas-Avila. 2012b. Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 5, 1596--1607. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.024 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. J. Vanderdonckt and X. Gillo. 1994. Visual techniques for traditional and multimedia layouts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI’94). ACM, New York, NY, 95--104. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/192309.192334 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. M. Xie. 2003. The basics of visual perception. In Fundamentals of Robotics: Linking Perception to Action. World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 446--450. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Webby Awards. 2015. Home Page. Retrieved January 14, 2017, from http://www.webbyawards.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. H. Weinreich, H. Obendorf, E. Herder, and M. Mayer. 2008. Not quite the average: An empirical study of Web use. ACM Transactions on the Web 2, 1, Article No. 5. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1326561.1326566 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. G. N. Wilkinson and C. E. Rogers. 1973. Symbolic description of factorial models for analysis of variance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics) 22, 3, 392--399. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/2346786 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. J. M. Zain, M. Tey, and G. Ying Soon. 2008. Using aesthetic measurement application (AMA) to measure aesthetics of Web page interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2008 4th International Conference on Natural Computation, Volume 6 (ICNC’08). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 96--100. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNC.2008.764 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. M. Zen and J. Vanderdonckt. 2014. Towards an evaluation of graphical user interfaces aesthetics based on metrics. In Proceedings of the IEEE 8th Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS’14). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Q. Zhang, W. Kang, C. Zhao, and X. Ming. 2009. Aesthetic coloring for complex layout using genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2009 WRI Global Congress on Intelligent Systems (GCIS’09). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 406--410. DOI:10.1109/GCIS.2009.15 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. X. S. Zheng, I. Chakraborty, J. Jeng-Weei Lin, and R. Rauschenberger. 2009. Correlating low-level image statistics with users—rapid aesthetic and affective judgments of Web pages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09). ACM, New York, NY, 1--10. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518703Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. User's Web Page Aesthetics Opinion: A Matter of Low-Level Image Descriptors Based on MPEG-7

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!