An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude

Analyzing the Role of Interactivity in User Experience

“…Many definitions of interactivity have been produced, varying from Hoffman and Novak's (1996) categories of machine (UI controls) and person interaction (i.e. Computer Mediated Communication, or CMC), to Kristof and Satran's (2002) sevenlevel 'control over' grading of features used by Teo et al (2003); and Lee's (2005) framework of control, connectedness, and responsiveness, used in Cyr et al's studies (Cyr, Head & Ivanov 2009;Cyr, Head, Larios & Pan, 2009). Researchers in multi-media learning have proposed multi-faceted models of interactivity (Domagk, Schwartz & Plass 2010;Moreno & Mayer (1999) involving features for personalisation and user adaptation, interactive simulations or microworlds, as well as CMC between learners and tutors.…”

“…Teo et al (2003) manipulated interactivity in terms of communication A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 4 facilities such as feedback forms, chat and online forums, to find that more social feedback improved satisfaction and effectiveness of websites. However, neither of these studies recorded users' perceptions of aesthetics, usability or interactivity itself (e.g.…”

“…Lee (2005) To summarise, interactivity has been investigated in several studies (Cyr, Head & Ivanov 2009;Cyr, Head, Larios & Pan, 2009;O'Brien 2010;O'Brien & Toms 2010;Teo et al 2003) which extended TAM measures (Venkatesh et al 2003), so whereas the positive influence of interactive features on efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction has been demonstrated, the connection between interactivity and affect and the non-instrumental aspects of UX (e.g. aesthetics) has received less attention.…”

“…With the increasing interest in serious games and gamification of many applications (Clark 2009), understanding how interaction design promotes positive UX is an important concern. The few experimental studies of interactivity have shown that it does have a significant influence (Cyr, Head & Ivanov 2009;Teo et al 2003), but these studies manipulated feedback and computer-mediated communication rather than features such as avatars or interaction in 3D virtual worlds. Our investigation of interactivity is motivated by design features which may enhance presence, immersion and flow in user experience, such as 3D interactive worlds and avatars; this is in contrast to previous frameworks of interactivity (Kristof & Satran 2002;Hoffman & Novak 1996) which have described gradations of user control.…”

Communicating marine reserve science to diverse audiences

“…Web content, which is dynamic in nature, allows for continual updating of scientific information, linking of interrelated concepts, and an interactive learning experience. The most effective Web pages are developed to provide a variety of quality content, maximize ease of navigation and interactivity, and minimize download delay (30,31). Websites allow users to follow many different paths through the same content, supporting their own preferences and pace for acquiring new information.…”