Unity of form represents the extent to which visual objects on the screen are related in size. High levels of unity of form can be achieved by using objects with similar sizes on the screen and/or by reducing number of objects on the screen. Findings of earlier observational studies suggested that effect of unity of form on perceived visual aesthetics of website design was more evident in case of highly symmetrical webpages. The purpose of this study is to verify these findings. An experiment was conducted to systematically study effects of number of objects and number of different sizes of objects on perceived visual aesthetics of website design at high and low levels of symmetry. Perceived aesthetics was assessed using the classical/expressive dimensions. Results showed that both factors have significant effects on perceived visual aesthetics, only at high levels of symmetry and only on the classical dimension.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltaboliA.LinY. (2011a). Investigating Effects of Screen Layout Elements on Interface and Screen Design Aesthetics. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 2011, Article ID 659758, 10 pages, 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/659758.
2.
AltaboliA.LinY. (2011b). Objective and subjective measures of visual aesthetics of website interface design: the two sides of the coin. In. JackoA., (Ed), Proceedings of the 14th international Conference on Human-Computer interaction: Design and Development Approaches - Volume Part I (Orlando, FL, July 09 - 14, 2011). J. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 35-44.
3.
BauerlyM.LiuY. (2006). Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 64: 670–682.
4.
BauerlyM.LiuY. (2008). Effects of Symmetry and Number of Compositional Elements on Interface and Design Aesthetics. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 24: 3, 275 - 287.
5.
BiL.FanX.LiuY. (2011). Effects of Symmetry and Number of Compositional Elements on Chinese Users’ Aesthetic Ratings of Interfaces: Experimental and Modeling Investigations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27:3, 245-259
6.
BirkhoffG. (1933). Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
7.
ChandD.DooleyL.TuovinenE. (2002). Gestalt Theory in Visual Screen Design – A New Look at an Old Subject. Australian Computer Society, Inc. presented at the Seventh World Conference on Computer in Education, Copenhagen, Denmark.
8.
KurosuM.KashimuraK. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. CHI ’95: Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, Denver, Colorado, United States, 292-293.
9.
LaiC.ChenP.ShihS.LiuY.HongJ. (2010). Computational models and experimental investigations of effects of balance and symmetry on the aesthetics of text-overlaid images, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies68, 41–56.
10.
LavieaT.TractinskyN. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies60269–298.
11.
LindgaardG.FernandezG.DudekC.BrownJ. (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good impression. Behavior & Information Technology25, 2 (2006), 115-126.
12.
LiuY. (2003). The aesthetic and the ethic dimensions of human factors and design. Ergonomics, 46, 1293–1305.
13.
MoshagenM.ThielschM. T. (2010). Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10).
14.
MoshagenM.MuschJ.GöritzA.S. (2009). A blessing, not a curse: Experimental evidence for beneficial effects of visual aesthetics on performance. Ergonomics52, 1311-1320.
15.
NgoD.ByrneJ. (2001). Application of an aesthetic evaluation model to data entry screens. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 149-185.
16.
NgoD. C. L.TeoL. S.ByrneJ. G. (2002). Evaluating Interface Esthetics. Knowledge and Information Systems (4), 46-79.
17.
NgoD. C. L.TeoL. S.ByrneJ. G. (2003). Modelling interface aesthetics. Information Sciences, 152(1), 25-46.
18.
NormanD. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books. New York, NY, USA.
19.
PhillipsC.ChapparroC. (2009). Visual Appeal vs. Usability: Which One Influences User Perceptions of a Website More?. Usability News, Vol 11(2).
20.
SalimunC.PurchaseH. C.SimmonsD. R.BrewsterS. (2010). Preference ranking of screen layout principles. The 24th BCSHCI’10, September 6-10, Abertay Dundee.
21.
SondereggerA.SauerJ. (2010). The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied Ergonomics41, 403-410.
22.
TractinskyN.Shoval-KatzA.IkarD. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127–145.
23.
TractinskyN. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In PembertonS., Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’97). New York: ACM Press.
24.
TuchA.Bargas-AvilaJ.OpwisK. (2010). Symmetry and Aesthetics in Website Design: It’s a man’s Business. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2010), 1831-1837
25.
ZainJ.TeyM.GohY. (2008). Probing a Self-Developed Aesthetics Measurement Application (SDA) in Measuring Aesthetics of Mandarin Learning Web Page Interfaces. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, Vol. 8 No. 1.
