Web designers and web users: Influence of the ergonomic quality of the web site on the information...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1071-5819/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ijh

�CorrespondE-mail addr

Maud.Kicka@c

Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 64 (2006) 1031–1048

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhcs

Web designers and web users: Influence of the ergonomic qualityof the web site on the information search

Aline Chevalier�, Maud Kicka

Cognitive Processes and Interactive Conducts Laboratory (EA 1588), Department of Cognitive Psychology, University of Paris X,

200 avenue de la Republique, 92001 Nanterre cedex, France

Received 11 February 2005; received in revised form 29 April 2006; accepted 1 June 2006

Communicated by S. Wiedenbeck

Available online 28 July 2006

Abstract

Despite rapid growth in the number of web sites, there is still a significant number of ergonomic problems which hinder web users.

Many studies focus on analysing cognitive processes and difficulties experienced by web users, but very few are interested in web

designers’ difficulties or in comparing their respective activities. Towards this end, the two experimental studies presented in this article

compare the strategies developed both by professional web designers and (novice vs. experienced) web users while searching for

information on web sites of varying ergonomic quality. More precisely, we investigated whether web designers can effectively use their

own strategies as web users when designing web sites. We presented a comparison of novice web users, experienced web users and

professional web designers searching behavior and cognitive load when using ergonomic and non-ergonomic web sites. In addition, we

asked web designers to predict the strategy used by novice web users. Based on the results obtained in the two experiments, we conclude

that web designers are not able to predict strategies of novice users and do not behave like novice users. Consequently, ways for

supporting web designers in developing a user-centered activity are necessary, and certain ways are suggested at the end of this article.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Web designers; Web users; Information search; Cognitive load; Ergonomics; Experience

1. Introduction

Koenemann and Belkin (1996) have signaled a dramaticincrease in the number of information sources that havebecome available to an exponentially growing number ofusers with very little training in searching for informationin such systems. Pirolli and Card (1999) have underlinedthe fact that the quantity of web pages doubles every year.In more recent years, this trend has continued to increase,and e-commerce sites are contributing to in this rapidgrowth (Forrester, 2002; Richard and Chandra, 2005;Wang and Emurian, 2005). The facility with which a largepublic can be reached in a short time partially explains thisinterest in web sites. Nevertheless, they are still consideredas difficult to use and to access (Lee, 1999; Mc Crickard,

e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

cs.2006.06.002

ing author. Tel.: +331 40 97 75 28; fax: +33140977158.

esses: [email protected] (A. Chevalier),

lub-internet.fr (M. Kicka).

2001; Teo et al., 2003; Bhatt, 2004; Ling and van Schaik,2006; Stronge et al., in press). Given this rapid growth innumber, web sites are constantly in competition. Conse-quently, they have to be precise, concise and rapid, sinceweb users, having more choice than ever, will not wastetime on web sites which are confusing, too slow and notwell adapted to users’ needs (Helander and Khalid, 2000;Wang and Emurian, 2005). Therefore, the implementationof an organized and intuitive navigational system is criticalto user success, especially in web navigation, because userssee individual sites as subsets within their overall Internetexperience, and users frequently are unaware they haveleft a specific site (Spool et al., 1999; Nielsen, 2000;McEneaney, 2001).In order to determine precisely the problems and

cognitive difficulties that web users experience, more andmore researchers study the cognitive processes involvedand difficulties experienced by users when navigating theWeb (see, e.g. Rouet and Tricot, 1998; Navarro-Prieto

www.elsevier.com/locater/ijhcs

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.002

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Chevalier, M. Kicka / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 64 (2006) 1031–10481032

et al., 1999; Pearson and van Schaik, 2003; Rouet, 2003;Pratt et al., 2004). Findings about users’ cognitivefunctioning have ergonomic implications for designers(see, e.g., Hong et al., 2004; Oulasvirta, 2004) and for thecreation of guidelines and checklists (see, e.g., Bastienet al., 1999; Spool et al., 1999; van Duyne et al., 2002; Ozokand Salvendy, 2004). Nevertheless, we also assert thatunderstanding designers’ activities and identifying thedifficulties that designers experience are essential toimproving the ergonomic quality of web sites. Moreprecisely, research on users’ and designers’ cognitiveactivities must be conducted jointly to help designersconcretely and efficiently consider future users’ needs whendesigning web sites. In this paper, we assert that determin-ing differences between designers and users while navigat-ing will clarify the reasons why designers cannotsufficiently take into account users’ needs when creatingweb sites. The question of designers’ and users’ differenceshave been largely ignored, except one recent article by Parket al. (2004) has examined users’ esthetical preferences. Inorder to address the research needs in this area, we presentin this article two experiments conducted with novice webusers, experienced web users and professional webdesigners involved in information search tasks. Theseexperiments aim to compare the search strategies andcognitive resources that (novice vs. experienced) users andprofessional designers employ while searching for informa-tion according to the ergonomic quality of the site (a sitewith ergonomic problems vs. a site incorporating ergo-nomic recommendations).

The following section provides an overview of informa-tion search activity and cognitive load. Sections 3 and 4present the two experimental studies. The results obtainedare discussed in Section 5. Suggestions to help webdesigners’ activities are presented in Section 6.

2. Searching for information in e-documents: processes and

cognitive load

The first models of information searching described thisactivity as cyclical, i.e. the individual defines a (cognitive)goal, selects an information category, extracts informationand integrates it into previous extracted information; theindividual begins this cycle over and over again until s/hereaches her/his search goal (Guthrie and Mosenthal, 1987;Guthrie, 1988; Dreher, 1992; Armbruster and Armstrong,1993). These models do not explain why users fail whensearching for information. Rouet and Tricot (1996, 1998)defined a more complete cognitive model that includesdifferent factors involved in this cognitive activity, such asthe degree of precision of the user’s objective (vague vs.precise), the extraction of unique or various sources ofinformation and the experience of users. This model is closeto those used for searching in electronic informationsystems proposed by Marchionini et al. (1993) andShneiderman et al. (1998). There is one major differencehowever: The latter models did not consider, for instance,

the specific differences between the World Wide Web andbibliographical database systems.The model developed by Rouet and Tricot proposes an

information search activity which is both cyclical (likeGuthrie’s model, 1988), and similar to text comprehension,problem-solving and decision-making activities. Moreprecisely, their model involved three phases:

(1)
The evaluation phase consists in determining whether,at an instance in time, available information is relevantregarding the goal to be reached. Three situations arepossible: information perfectly fits the individual’s goalrepresentation, so the search activity is over. Theinformation is partially relevant to the search task; theindividual has to evaluate the gap between her/his goaland selected information, and, if required, has to begina new cycle by defining new criteria. Third, theinformation is not quite relevant to the goal representa-tion; the individual has to revise or reevaluate thesearch information task and to begin a new cycle.Consequently, if necessary, the individual changes her/his goal representation in order to make it moreaccurate with precise information to be found.
(2)
In the selection phase, the individual has both tomaintain the goal representation, previously selectedinformation, as well as information currently in work-ing memory. This phase allows the individual toevaluate an information set which is considered to bethe most accurate of all of the available information.
(3)
During the processing phase, the individual tries tounderstand the information set by taking into accountits particularities (such as verbal and visual informa-tion, animations or sounds).
Furthermore, according to Rouet and Tricot (1996,1998), three processes supervise and manage informationsearch activity: planning, control and regulation. Duringthe planning process, the individual determines a strategy toreach relevant information. The elaborated plan may becoherent and stable or ineffective, according to whether theindividual has relevant knowledge for finding informationor not. The control process allows the individual to evaluatethe relevance of the information found during the selectionphase. Finally, the regulation process allows the individualto make decisions during the information search, and if theresult is not satisfactory, to modify her/his goal representa-tion or different strategies in order to improve her/hisinformation search activity.Consequently, we can assert that searching for informa-

tion is a particularly complex cognitive activity thatinvolves many cognitive resources. The cognitive load ofindividuals may vary according to the experience and thepresentation of information, as described below.Cognitive load is usually evaluated according to the

quantity of information to be memorized and the amountof processes involved to perform the task (Hoc, 1988;Paas and van Merrienboer, 1994). Two aspects are

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Chevalier, M. Kicka / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 64 (2006) 1031–1048 1033

preponderant: the first aspect refers to information fromthe task to be performed, and the second is related toindividual characteristics (e.g., experience, motivation,etc.). These two aspects are also important for the cognitiveload theory defined by Sweller (1988). This theory initiallyis concerned with the development of instructionalmethods for learning systems. Cognitive load theory isalso used as a theoretical framework to explain difficultiesthat people may experience while searching for informationin e-documents (Rouet and Tricot, 1996, 1998; Tricot,2003).

This theory underscores the importance of the limitedcognitive capacities of the working memory (according toBaddeley’s memory model, 1986; see Sweller, 1988, 1999;Kalyuga et al., 2003; van Merrienboer and Sweller, 2005).When the individual has to understand information (text,image, animation, sound), this information is first pro-cessed in working memory before being stored in long-termmemory. More precisely, Sweller (1988, 1999) distin-guished:

1.
Intrinsic cognitive load which refers to the task at hand,i.e. it depends on the difficulty of the content to belearned and on the amount of information that theindividual has to simultaneously process in workingmemory. Intrinsic cognitive load decreases as knowledgein long-term memory increases. Consequently, a highintrinsic cognitive load corresponds either to a highlycomplex material or to an individual’s low expertise.
2.
Extraneous cognitive load which concerns instructionalmaterials used to present information. For instance,teaching materials addressing a concept (e.g. continentaldrift) will be more effective if they present appropriategraphics instead of more text presentation. Moreprecisely, extraneous cognitive load is divided into twocomponents:� Irrelevant extraneous cognitive load corresponds to
the cognitive resources involved in processing in-formation but not essential to learning or under-standing. It is often linked to a poorly adaptedinformation presentation.� Relevant extraneous cognitive load corresponds to

the fact that an available processing space in workingmemory is used for the enrichment of mentalschemata or for their automation. Relevant extrinsiccognitive load is dependent on information presenta-tion, which encourages the individual to focus her/hisattention on the relevant information regarding thetask to be performed.

Intrinsic and extraneous cognitive loads are additive tocreate a total cognitive load (van Merrienboer and Sweller,2005).

Consequently, cognitive overload is influenced by users’experience in navigation (see, e.g., Yantis, 1993; Navarro-Prieto et al., 1999; Ihadjadene et al., 2003; Pratt et al., 2004;Tabatabai and Shore, 2005) and, according to Sweller’s

theory, we hypothesize that the ergonomic quality ofpresentation of information in web sites will also influencethe search for information and increase the cognitive loadof individuals. In order to test this hypothesis weconducted two experimental studies.

3. Experiment 1

3.1. Research problem and objectives

Studies show that designers have tried to understand andconsider users’ needs, but that they have experiencedimportant difficulties (Card et al., 1983; Olson and Olson,2003). In web site design, these results may seem surprising,as one particularity of web site design is that designers arealso web users, which is not the case in most designsituations (e.g., design of aerospace products). Never-theless, previous studies have shown that web sites do notfit the users’ needs (Chevalier and Ivory, 2003; Chevalier,2004). So, how can we explain why designers, who are alsoweb users, develop sites which are difficult to use? Amongthe hypotheses suggested, we argue that even if designersare also web users, they are not novices; on the contrary,with practice, they have become expert users. Thus,designers have acquired procedures related to navigationon the Web that they automatically apply withoutrequiring many cognitive resources; this is not the casefor users, particularly for novice users who occasionallynavigate the Web. Consequently, do professional designersexperience the same difficulties as users (in particularnovice users) when searching for information? Dodesigners develop an information search activity in thesame way as novice or experienced users? We hypothesizethat professional designers will experience few difficultiesand will have a lower cognitive load than users (particu-larly novice users), especially with the non-ergonomic website. To provide answers to these questions and to test thesehypotheses, two experimental studies are presented in thispaper. The first experiment aims at determining whetherergonomic problems identified by designers and users in anexploration task actually hinder their information searchactivities and thus lead them to develop different searchstrategies. Towards this end, two versions of the same website were created: one site had ergonomic problems whereasthe other site was in line with ergonomic recommendations.More precisely, the first experiment aims at examining

the following aspects according to the web site version andthe participant’s experience (novice and experienced usersvs. professional designers):

�
The time necessary to find information. � The number of steps (i.e. the number of hyperlinks
visited by the participants) required to find information.
� The amount of cognitive resources involved in finding
information.
� The participants’ usability satisfaction with regard to
the visited site.


3.2. Hypotheses

Hypotheses were grouped according to the two experi-mental factors: experience of the participants and theergonomic quality of the web site.

Hypothesis 1. Effect of the experience.Experts are different from novices because they auto-

matically activate accurate knowledge stored in their long-term memory (or mental schemata, see Barlett, 1932;Rumelhart, 1978; Sweller, 1988) to perform the task athand. Consequently, the time necessary to find informa-tion, the number of visited hyperlinks and the amount ofcognitive load should decrease as participants’ experienceincreases. In addition, because novice users do not navigatethe web as regularly as experienced users and professionaldesigners, novice users should be less critical than others.Thus, usability level of satisfaction should decrease asexperience increases.

Hypothesis 2. Effect of the ergonomic quality of the site.According to Rouet and Tricot (1996, 1998), the

individual has to maintain an initial goal in workingmemory, along with search criteria and informationacquired during the search activity. When informationpresentation increasingly adapted to the users’ cognitivecapacities, the extraneous cognitive load is reduced (vanMerrienboer and Sweller, 2005). Therefore, the timerequired and the number of visited hyperlinks to findinformation as well as the amount of cognitive load shouldbe lower when participants perform the information searchtask on the ergonomic site than on the non-ergonomic site.Recall that the ergonomic site was created to fit users’cognitive needs. Thus, participants navigating the ergo-nomic site should be more satisfied than participantsnavigating the non-ergonomic site.

3.3. Study participants

Forty web users (students at the University of Paris X)and sixteen web designers participated in this study:

�

Table 1

Participant assignment to the two site versions

Participants Site version Total

Ergonomic

web site

Non-ergonomic

web site

Twenty experienced web users: Following Holscher andStrube (2000), a user was considered as experiencedwhen s/he used the Web at least for 1 h/day (thiscriterion could be compensated if s/he indicated usingthe Web several times a day for at least a quarter of anhour per connection). All of the experienced users hadfrom 3 to 4 years of intensive experience with theInternet and used all of the functionalities (mailbox,various search tools, forums, etc.). Experienced usersnavigated the Internet with a high-speed link. Averageage: 24-year old.
�
Novice users 10 10 20

Experienced users 10 10 20

Professional designers 8 8 16

Total 28 28 56

Twenty novice web users, who used the Web occasion-ally to search for information (about once a month) andchecked their e-mails. Most of them only had anInternet connection at their university. Average age:23-year old.

�
Sixteen professional web designers, who had createdweb sites within companies for about 6 years. Thesedesigners were specialized in designing e-commerce sites.They used the Internet every day for work and forpleasure. Average age: 32-year old.
The participants used either the ergonomic web site orthe non-ergonomic site (see Table 1).

3.4. Experimental design

3.4.1. Cognitive load measurements

In the domain of e-documents, various methods are usedto measure cognitive load (for a review, see Paas et al.,2003): such methods include physiological techniques (e.g.measuring of electro-cortical activity), rating scale techni-ques (e.g. questionnaires), performance and the dual tasktechnique (used since 1967 by Kalsbeek and Sykes).For the two experiments presented here, we chose the

last method, i.e. the dual task technique. This technique isan on-line method used to measure cognitive resourceswhich are still available in the individual’s workingmemory to perform a task at an instant in time. The ideaunderlying the dual task paradigm is that residual capacity(i.e. capacity not used to perform the main task) can beused to perform a secondary task. While the individual isperforming a task, s/he has to react as fast as possible tovisual or auditory signals (mostly auditory signals), oftenby clicking with a mouse. The time necessary to answerauditory signals reflects the amount of cognitive resourcesallocated to the main task. This technique has been used bymany authors in various domains such as text writing ordesign, and it is used more and more today (see, e.g.,Kellogg, 1987, 1994; Levy and Ransdell, 1995; Marcus etal., 1996; Sweller, 1999; van Gerven et al., 2002; Bonnardeland Piolat, 2003; Brunken et al., 2003) because it is areliable technique, and because it takes into accountcognitive load fluctuations.Nevertheless, methodological concerns have been ex-

pressed about the dual task technique (see Fisk et al.,1986–1987); the main reservations center on the fact thatauditory signals may hinder the individual’s activity. Intext writing, writers admit that they are hindered byauditory interruptions (especially if the probes are fre-quent); however, the quality of their writing is not affected.


This is true only if the writer must consider auditory signalsas a secondary task (see Levy and Ransdell, 1995; Piolatet al., 2001). Writers succeed in performing a cognitivetradeoff in cognitive resources management and produce atext whose quality is preserved. On the other hand,if the dual task is considered as the main task, theindividual’s activity is hindered (Kalsbeek and Sykes, 1967;Leplat, 1997; Richard, 1997; Sperandio, 1988). Accord-ingly, the use of the dual task technique brings to light twoimportant methodological points (applied in our twoexperiments):

(1)
The choice of the accurate probe. For the twoexperiments, a pilot study allowed us to identify theoptimal probe interval to measure the majority of theparticipants’ actions (for our two studies, probes variedfrom 3 to 15 s).
(2)
It is important to inform participants of these signalsand insist on the fact that the main task remainsinformation search despite auditory signals.
3.4.2. Experimental task and data analysis

The experiment was divided into the three followingstages:

Stage 1: Before starting the information search task, theparticipants were trained to respond to thirty auditorysignals from Tholos software to determine their baselinereaction times (the description of Tholos is presented inAppendix A).

Stage 2: The participants had to search individually forinformation in order to answer three questions, presentedsuccessively, by counterbalancing the order of the questionpresentation (see Appendix C for instructions andquestions). These questions had only one correct answer.For each question, the participants had to start fromthe homepage. All of the participants used the samepersonal computer. The navigation activities of theparticipants (visited pages, changing pages, etc.) wererecorded using Find-outs (Applied Logic Corporation).The time required to find the targeted information wascalculated from the moment the participant saw thehomepage to the moment s/he said s/he had found theinformation.

While searching for the information, the participant hadto react to auditory signals (from Tholos) by pressing apedal with her/his foot (her/his hands remained free to usethe computer). This made it possible to determine anaverage reaction time (in ms). The participant’s baselinereaction times measured during the training phase (firststage) was subtracted from the reaction times measuredduring the experimental task (information search task),thus providing ‘‘reaction time interference scores’’. Asalready noted, such scores allowed us to measure theparticipants’ cognitive resources: the greater the reactiontime, the more cognitive resources were involved. Theinstructions and the experimental procedure are detailed inAppendix C.

As indicated, two versions of the same web site werecreated:

(1)
The ergonomic site was composed of eighteen pages,which were hyperlinked in such a manner thatparticipants could navigate the site. Eight graduatestudents in cognitive psychology and ergonomics at theUniversity of Paris X evaluated it. These students usedtwo methods: the cognitive walkthrough method(Blackmon et al., 2002) and an evaluation of con-formity to the ergonomic recommendations as definedby Bastien et al. (1999) and Nielsen (2000).
(2)
The non-ergonomic site included the main ergonomicproblems identified by designers and users in a previousstudy (see Chevalier, 2005). This site was alsocomposed of 18 pages. The web pages were hyperlinkedin such way that participants could navigate the site.Each page included the same number of ergonomicproblems, i.e. 14 problems per page (see Figs. 1–3 forexamples of the web pages, and Appendix B for thedistribution of the ergonomic problems in the non-ergonomic site).
These two web sites presented the same e-shop sellingmusic products (CDs, show tickets, etc.). We chose ane-commerce site selling music since those products arebought by many people on-line and do not require specificknowledge linked to the site content.To respect the ergonomic recommendations and to

compare the search time between the two sites, two steps(or two hyperlinks) were necessary to find the three correctanswers. These three questions allowed the participantsusing the non-ergonomic site to be confronted with all ofthe ergonomic errors at least once if they used the optimalpath for finding answers.

Stage 3: After searching for information, the participantshad to freely navigate the site and then answer a usabilitysatisfaction questionnaire without time limits (this ques-tionnaire was inspired by the Web Site Analysis andMeasureMent Inventory developed by Kirakowski et al.,1998). Our questionnaire included seventeen affirmations(see Appendix D) about which the participants had toindicate the degree to which they agreed on a 5-point-scale;the more the participant evaluated the site as satisfactory,the closer to 5 the grade was.

3.5. Results

Results are presented in the following order: search timeand number of steps (Section 3.5.1.), cognitive load(Section 3.5.2) and usability satisfaction (Section 3.5.2).

3.5.1. Time required and number of steps for answering

questions

3.5.1.1. Time for answering questions. All of the partici-pants succeeded in finding the three correct answers.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1–3. 1. The ergonomic site homepage. 2. The non-ergonomic site homepage. 3. Page dedicated to the catalog of Cds (the non-ergonomic site).

A. Chevalier, M. Kicka / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 64 (2006) 1031–10481036

There was a significant effect of participants’ experienceon the time needed to find answers (F(2,50) ¼ 13.756;po.0001; see Table 2): experienced users required lesstime than novice users (po.0001) and professionaldesigners (po.0001). But, surprisingly, there was nosignificant difference between novice users and professionaldesigners. These results are not exactly in accordance withHypothesis 1.

In accordance with Hypothesis 2, all of the participantswho used the non-ergonomic site spent more time searchingfor information than the participants who used the ergonomicsite (F(1,53) ¼ 37.684; po.0001; see Table 2).

3.5.1.2. Steps for answering questions. Recall that theoptimal number of steps was the same for the two sites.

In accordance with Hypothesis 1, the number of visitedhyperlinks decreased as expertise increased (F(2,50) ¼24.385; po.0001): novice users made significantly more

steps than experienced users (po.005) and than designers(po.001). There was no significant difference betweenexperienced users and professional designers (p4.1).The non-ergonomic site required a higher number of

steps compared to the ergonomic site (F(1,50) ¼ 33.562;po.001; see Table 2), in accordance with Hypothesis 2.More precisely, there was a significant difference betweennovice users and experienced users depending on the siteversion (po.001 and po.01), but no significant differenceappeared for professional designers.

3.5.2. Cognitive load

Cognitive resources were measured using Tholos soft-ware (detailed in Appendix A).Hypothesis 1 was not verified since we noticed no

significant difference in the cognitive resources used by theparticipants (F(2,50) ¼ .295; p4.1; see Table 3). No

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Mean time (and standard deviation), in seconds, necessary and mean number (and standard deviation) of steps to answer each of the three questions

according to the web site version and to participants’ experience

Ergonomic site Non-ergonomic site

Novice users Experienced users Professional

designers

Novice users Experienced users Professional

designers

Time to find

information (s)

9.15 (3.76) 4.09 (2.09) 12.5 (6.65) 22.86 (6.43) 14.8 (4.66) 21.15 (9.2)

Number of steps 3.9 (.46) 3.4 (1.1) 2.5 (.37) 6.6 (2.03) 5.2 (1.34) 3 (.86)

Table 3

Mean reaction time (and standard deviation), in milliseconds, necessary to

answer each of the three questions according to the web site version and to

participants’ experience

Participants Site version Mean

Ergonomic

web site

Non-ergonomic

web site

Novice users 78.53 (45.39) 45.77 (21.8) 62.15 (38.5)

Experienced users 87.33 (59.2) 52.07 (24.67) 69.7 (47.7)

Professional

designers

54.48 (22.87) 66.92 (23.89) 60.67 (23.5)

Mean 74.78 (46.66) 54.06 (24.19)

Table 4

Mean notes (and standard deviation) on 5 points to the satisfaction

questionnaire according to the site version and the participants’ experience

Participants Site version Mean

Ergonomic

web site

Non-

ergonomic

web site

Novice users 3.27 (.11) 3.1 (.3) 3.18 (.23)

Experienced users 3.26 (.18) 3.08 (.26) 3.17 (.24)

Professional

designers

3.1 (.32) 2.79 (.43) 2.94 (.39)

Mean 3.22 (.22) 3 (.34)

A. Chevalier, M. Kicka / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 64 (2006) 1031–1048 1037

significant difference between participants due to theirlevels of experience appeared.

Contrary to Hypothesis 2, the ergonomic site requiredmore cognitive resources than the non-ergonomic site, butonly for the users (F(1,36) ¼ 6.09; po.05; see Table 3); nosignificant difference appeared for professional designers.

3.5.3. Usability satisfaction for the two web sites

The questionnaire presented seventeen affirmations.Participants had to indicate for these affirmations theextent to which they agreed on a 5-point scale, rangingfrom (1) ‘‘I completely disagree’’ to (5) ‘‘I completelyagree’’. The more satisfied a participant was, the closer to 5the evaluation was (for the questions, see Appendix D).

In accordance with Hypothesis 1, usability satisfactiondecreased as expertise increased (F(2,50) ¼ 4.097; po.05;see Table 4): designers were less satisfied than experiencedusers (po.02) and than novice users (po.02), but there wasno significant difference between novice and experiencedusers (p4.1).

In accordance with Hypothesis 2, the ergonomic siteobtained a significantly higher score than the non-ergonomic site for all of the participants (F(1,50) ¼ 8.832;po.005; see Table 4).

3.6. Discussion

Here, we discuss the findings that led us to carry outexperiment 2. All of the main results will be discussed in thegeneral discussion (Section 5).

First, a surprising and interesting result appeared forprofessional designers; they did not find the answerssignificantly faster than novice users, although designersvisited fewer hyperlinks than novice users. To explain thisresult, we hypothesize that the professional designers willnot use the web interface in the same way as novice users.In their professional activities, before developing a site,designers analyse existing web sites from the same fieldwith a critical eye. In this experiment, professionaldesigners may have thoroughly explored the opened webpages in addition to their information search activities. Onthe other hand, because of their lack of understanding, thenovice users may have rapidly compromised themselves byusing hyperlinks and opening new pages without examin-ing opened web pages. This hypothesis is tested inexperiment 2.Second, even though all of the users using the ergonomic

site found information faster than users using the non-ergonomic site (by clicking on fewer hyperlinks and byevaluating it as globally more satisfying), they used morecognitive resources while navigating the ergonomic sitethan the non-ergonomic site. This result is particularlysurprising, since on the non-ergonomic site irrelevantelements were introduced which may have distracted users,and, for the less experienced among them, may haveoverloaded working memories (Sweller, 1988, 1999). Inthis study, users may not have been able to ignore andinhibit irrelevant elements present on the web pagesof the non-ergonomic site. So, web users who used thenon-ergonomic site, especially the novices, may have


experienced difficulties in successfully and quickly selectingrelevant elements to answer questions. This may havegenerated difficulties both for planning their future actions,evaluating what hyperlink to open and more generallyanticipating their activities (according to the Rouet andTricot model). Thus, they may have clicked on morehyperlinks, spent more time searching and tried to findinformation through trial and error (strategy traditionallyobserved with novices in problem-solving, see Matlin,1998; Chen et al., 2006). In the same way, distractingelements in web pages may have slowed down theinformation search (see Anderson et al., 1998); so usersconfronted with the non-ergonomic site may have experi-enced more difficulties focusing their attention on the taskto be performed, and they may have used fewer cognitiveresources than users experimenting the ergonomic site. Thishypothesis is related to the Sweller model (1988, 1999),since the adapted presentation would allow and/orencourage the participant to focus attention on relevantinformation. This point is clarified in experiment 2 bydetermining more precisely whether irrelevant elements areactually difficult to inhibit for users, particularly for noviceusers. In experiment 2, we used part of Oulasvirta’sexperimental procedure (2004) to evaluate the implicitmemory of users and professional designers in order todetermine if they try to understand all elements present onthe site even if they are not relevant to their tasks.

Third, professional designers did not grade the non-ergonomic site as satisfactorily as users did; thus, it wouldseem that they were aware of the web site’s usabilitydifficulties. Although they identified that the non-ergo-nomic web site was not easy to use, could they anticipatenovice users’ activities and difficulties that novices mightexperience? Experiment 2 also aims at answering thisquestion.

4. Experiment 2

4.1. Objectives and hypotheses

Based on the results obtained in experiment 1, threemain questions were asked: how can it be explained thatthe non-ergonomic site required fewer cognitive resourcesthan the ergonomic site? Why did professional designerssignificantly not take less time than novice users to find thecorrect answers, whereas professional designers opened upfewer hyperlinks than novice users? How can we explainthat professional designers were less satisfied with the websites (especially the non-ergonomic site) than users,whereas designers made ergonomic errors in their ownweb sites? To answer these questions, a second experimentwas carried out wherein we tested the mental model of thevisited web site built by professional designers and users.Towards this end, we instructed participants to rememberpage titles, content and hyperlinks seen in the visited website. This procedure makes it possible to determine if usersexperience difficulties ignoring and inhibiting the irrelevant

elements introduced into the non-ergonomic site, and moregenerally if participants build a coherent mental model ofthe site, even if they use the non-ergonomic site (for moredetails on this experimental procedure see Grey, 1990;Otter and Johnson, 2000; Oulasvirta, 2004). Moreover, weasked designers to anticipate the path that they thoughtnovice users would follow to answer the same questions towhich they found answers. This would enable us todetermine the representation they have of novice users’activities and to explain the difficulties they experience increating web sites that fit users’ needs.Furthermore, we hypothesized that professional de-

signers and novice users would not use the site in the sameway: designers would develop two activities, analysing andsearching for information, whereas novice users wouldexperience difficulties making decisions to go on with theiractivities. In order to test this hypothesis, we analysed inthis second experiment the parts of the web interface usedby participants, though the movements of the mouse.More precisely, this second experiment aimed at

determining the effects of the experience level of theparticipants and the ergonomic quality of the web site on:

�
The time, the number of steps required to findinformation and the cognitive resources involved to findinformation (as in experiment 1). � The number, the nature and the relevance of the recalled
elements seen on web site to find information.
� The movements of the participants’ mouse on the screen
to find information.
� The anticipation by professional designers of the novice
users’ activities in the search for information.

Based on these objectives, we formulated the threefollowing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Recalled elements.In experiment 1, designers were aware of difficulties

related to poor ergonomic navigation (results of theusability satisfaction questionnaire). Nevertheless, whenthey have to create web sites they introduce ergonomicerrors (see Chevalier and Ivory, 2003; Chevalier, 2004). Inorder to explain these results, after searching for informa-tion, all of the participants had to remember elements seenon visited web pages. Given their experience of webnavigation, professional designers and experienced usersshould chunk elements together (elements sharing similarproperties or linked semantically, see Miller, 1956; Chaseand Simon, 1973); so they should recall more elementsfrom the web pages than novice users. Moreover, ifirrelevant elements are actually difficult to inhibit andkeep users from focusing attention on relevant elements fortheir search activities, the participants visiting the non-ergonomic site should remember more irrelevant elementsthan relevant ones compared to participants visiting theergonomic site. In particular, novice users should experi-ence more difficulties distinguishing relevant elements from


irrelevant elements than professional designers and experi-enced users.

Hypothesis 2. Movements of the mouse.Professional designers would not use the web interface as

novice users use it. Indeed, in their professional activities,before developing a site, designers analyse existing websites from the same field. So, designers would develop twoactivities, i.e. analysing and searching, whereas novice userswould rapidly compromise themselves by using hyperlinksand opening new pages. Thereby, designers should scan thewhole web page for potential targets in order to build acoherent mental model of the site before clicking on ahyperlink; on the other hand, novice users should click onmore hyperlinks without scanning the whole web page, andstop their activities to linearly read specific points(particularly texts) more often than professional designersand experienced users.

Hypothesis 3. Anticipation of novice users’ paths byprofessional designers.

With training, professional designers are become expertweb users, so ergonomic problems introduced into the sitewould not be problematic for them, and they would notidentify them on web sites. Consequently, they shouldexperience difficulties anticipating and then describing thepaths of novice users searching for information on the site.Moreover, designers should not be able to detachthemselves from their own points of view, so they shoulddescribe the paths of novice users as being similar to theirown (what van Duyne et al. called the ‘ego bias’—2002).

4.2. Study participants and procedure

Twenty web users (students at the University of Paris X)and eight web designers participated in this study. Thesame criteria as in experiment 1 (see Section 3.2) were usedto chose participants:

�
Ten experienced web users: Average age: 25-year old. � Ten novice web users: Average age: 22-year old. � Eight professional web designers: Average age: 29-year
old.

Half of the participants were either confronted with thesame ergonomic web site or with the same non-ergonomicsite, as in experiment 1, and they used the same personalcomputer. The procedure was the same as in experiment 1without free navigation. The second experiment utilized theincidental learning paradigm (see Oulasvirta, 2004):participants carried out navigational and content-relatedtasks not knowing that their memories were later tested.

In this experiment, after answering the same threequestions, participants had to answer a questionnaireabout their level of experience in using the Internet (thesame as in experiment 1) in order to distract them before

recalling elements seen in the visited web pages. Then, theexperimenter instructed participants to recall elements seenon previous web pages by writing them on paper. At theend, the professional designers orally had to indicate thepath they thought that novice web users would follow toanswer questions (procedure inspired by Park et al.’s workregarding users’ esthetic preferences—2004). The ques-tions, the instructions and the experimental procedure aredetailed in Appendix E. All of the mouse movements of theparticipants were recorded with a software of video captureand a camera in order to analyse them. In addition to theanalyses carried out in experiment 1, we analysed move-ments of the mouse in web pages for all of the participants.This technique is often used to understand human move-ment, which is central to improving input devices andinteraction techniques (Hwang et al., 2005). This techniqueprovides accurate data about which region is being focused(see also Jansen et al., 2003). Moreover, Chen et al. (2003)showed a strong correlation between the movements of themouse and the eye movements of participants navigatingweb sites.

4.3. Results

Search time, number of steps and cognitive load arepresented in Section 4.3.1. In Section 4.3.2., we present theelements recalled by participants (nature and number).Then, the movements of the mouse of the participants andthe anticipation of the user’s path by designers arepresented (Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4.).

4.3.1. Time, number of steps to find information and

cognitive load

All of the participants succeeded in finding the correctanswers (as in experiment 1). The statistical analysesshowed results which were very similar to those obtainedin experiment 1.

4.3.1.1. Time for answering questions. As in experiment 1and surprisingly, the time was different according to thelevel of experience (F(2,22) ¼ 5.431; po.02; see Table 5):novice users needed more time than experienced users(po.04) and professional designers (po.001). There was nosignificant difference between novice users and professionaldesigners (p4.1). The ergonomic site required less time tofind information than the non-ergonomic site for allparticipants (F(1,22) ¼ 37.5; po.0001; see Table 5).

4.3.1.2. Steps for answering questions. The novice usersrequired more steps than experienced users (po.3) anddesigners (po.01), but no significant difference appearedbetween designers and experienced users (p4.1). The non-ergonomic site required, on average, a higher number ofsteps than the ergonomic site (F(1,22) ¼ 18.555; po.0003;see Table 5). More precisely, the experienced users openedmore hyperlinks while navigating the non-ergonomic sitethan the ergonomic site (po.04), but there was no

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Mean (and standard deviation) of times, of steps and cognitive load (reaction times) necessary to answer each of the three questions according to the site

version and the participants’ experience


Novice users Experienced

users

Professional

designers


users

Professional

designers

Time to find information

(s)

9.02 (3.25) 6.31 (1.22) 9.45 (2.28) 17.1 (5.35) 12.16 (3.51) 18.25 (1.39)

Number of steps 3.49 (.66) 2.8 (.84) 2.25 (.17) 5.24 (.69) 3.58 (.99) 3.08 (1.19)

Cognitive load (ms) 98.45 (41.85) 86.67 (11.66) 77.05 (8.11) 76.18 (22.58) 55.87 (14.49) 64.29 (10.74)

Table 6

Means (and standard deviations) of recalled elements according to the site version and the participants’ experience



users

Professional

designers


users

Professional

designers

Recalled page titles 3.2 (1.3) 3.2 (.84) 3.75 (.96) 1 (0) 1.4 (.89) 3.75 (1.5)

Recalled web page

content

4.6 (2.88) 2.8 (2.28) 6.5 (7.89) 4 (2.74) 9.4 (.89) 8.75 (3.3)

Recalled hyperlinks — .6 (.89) 2.5 (2.89) — 3.4 (.89) 3 (3)

Total of recalled elements 7.8 (2.68) 6 (3.65) 12.75 (8.77) 5 (2.74) 14.2 (2.28) 15.5 (5)


significant difference for novice users, or for professionaldesigners.

4.3.1.3. Cognitive load. Recall that cognitive resourceswere measured using the dual task technique: as inexperiment 1, when the participant is searching forinformation, s/he has to react as fast as possible toauditory signals (distributed by Tholos software, presentedin Appendix A). The time (in ms) required to answersignals reflects the amount of cognitive resources allocatedto the information search.

Results did not show any significant difference linked toexperience level (F(2,22) ¼ 1.716; p4.1). In contrast, wenoted that the ergonomic site required, again for the users,a higher cognitive load than the non-ergonomic site(F(1,22) ¼ 6.683; po.02).

4.3.2. Elements recalled by participants

The recalled elements were grouped into three categories(following Oulasvirta, 2004): recall of web page titles, recallof web page content (elements such as images, color, etc.)and recall of hyperlinks.

4.3.2.1. Total of recalled elements. In accordance withHypothesis 1, the level of experience had a significant effecton the mean number of recalled elements (F(2,22) ¼ 6.704;po.006; see Table 6): novice users recalled fewer elementsthan designers (po.002) and experienced users (po.05),but no significant difference appeared between designersand experienced users (po.1). No significant differenceappeared for the site (F(1,22) ¼ 2.2; p4.1), contrary to

Hypothesis 1. An interaction effect appeared between thelevel of experience and the site version (F(2,22) ¼ 3.396;p ¼ .051): experienced users recalled more elements whilenavigating the non-ergonomic site than the ergonomic site(po.005). No significant difference appeared for designersor for novice users.Moreover, a significant difference appeared between

participants navigating the non-ergonomic site (F(2,11) ¼13.599; po.002): designers and experienced users recalledmore elements than novices (po.0007 and po.002).These recalled elements were divided into the three

categories, as just described.

4.3.2.2. Recalled page titles. There was a significant effectof experience level (F(2,22) ¼ 6.871; po.005; see Table 6):designers recalled more titles than experienced users(po.007) and than novices (po.003). There was nosignificant difference between novice users and experiencedusers (p4.1).The participants who used the ergonomic site recalled

more titles than the others (F(1,22) ¼ 12.142; po.003; seeTable 6). In particular, experienced users and novice usersrecalled more titles while navigating the ergonomic sitethan the non-ergonomic site (po.02 and po.006). Therewas no significant difference for professional designers.

4.3.2.3. Recall of web page content. No significant differ-ence appeared for the level of experience (F(2,22) ¼ 1.785;p4.1) or for the site (F(1,22) ¼ 1.752; p4.1). Especially,experienced users recalled more elements while navigatingthe non-ergonomic site than the ergonomic site (po.0004),

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 7

Percentage of relevant vs. irrelevant recalled elements according to the site version and the participants’ experience



users

Professional

designers


users

Professional

designers

Relevant elements 63.67 88.73 74.08 38.58 58.5 77.99

Irrelevant elements 36.33 11.27 25.92 61.42 41.5 22.01

A. Chevalier, M. Kicka / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 64 (2006) 1031–1048 1041

but no significant difference appeared for the novice users(p4.1) or for the professional designers (p4.1).

4.3.2.4. Recalled hyperlinks (images and/or texts). Thelevel of experience had a significant effect on the totalnumber of recalled hyperlinks (F(2,22) ¼ 9.505; po.002;see Table 6): designers and experienced users recalled morelinks than novices (po.0004 and po.005), but there was nosignificant difference between experienced users anddesigners (p4.1). The participants who used the non-ergonomic site recalled more hyperlinks than the others(F(1,22) ¼ 4.246; p ¼ .051; see Table 6). There was asignificant difference for experienced users only (po.002);novice users did not recall any hyperlink.

4.3.3. Relevance of recalled elements

We grouped recalled elements according to theirrelevance. Relevant elements concerned the elements thatparticipants needed in order to answer three questions,such as hyperlinks, title pages. Irrelevant elements wereelements that were considered as additional to necessaryones, such as advertisements, information not linked to thequestions, animations, etc.

We noted significant differences in the proportion ofrelevant elements recalled by participants accordingto their level of experience (F(2,22) ¼ 5.426; po.02; seeTable 7): designers and experienced users recalled morerelevant elements than novices (po.01 and .02), but therewas no significant difference between professional de-signers and experienced users (p4.1).

In accordance with Hypothesis 1, participants using theergonomic site recalled more relevant information thanparticipants using the non-ergonomic site (F(1,22) ¼ 2.198;po.03). More precisely, experienced users as well asprofessional designers recalled more relevant elements thanirrelevant elements regardless of the site version (po.0004and po.004). On the other hand, novice users recalledmore relevant elements while navigating the ergonomic siteand more irrelevant elements while navigating the non-ergonomic site (po.05).

4.3.4. Movements of the mouse

These analyses allowed us to identify the actions of theusers and designers on the web site required to answer the

three questions. We grouped movements of the mouseaccording to the four following activities:

�
Looking at or looking for the navigational framework(i.e. the menu) at the top of the page: the ergonomic sitehad a navigational framework on every page whereasthe non-ergonomic site did not. Consequently, theparticipant may have looked for this navigationalframework on the non-ergonomic site. � Linear reading: the participant linearly read part of a
web page (without analysing the page entirely) as well ass/he would read a paper document. While reading, s/hedisplaced the mouse onto texts.
� Scanning of the whole page: the participant scanned the
page when s/he went rapidly through the entire pagebefore stopping to focus her/his attention on a specificpoint to read it. Here, the participant explored the webpage before making her/his choice by clicking on ahyperlink.

We counted the total number of occurrences for thesethree activities for each participant. For instance, if aparticipant did some linear reading, then went to thenavigational framework and went back to linear reading,three actions were taken into account.

4.3.4.1. Looking at/for the navigational framework. Wenoticed a significant effect of participants’ experience (F(2,22) ¼ 4.582; po.03; see Table 8): designers used or lookedfor a navigational framework more often than novice users(po.007), but no significant difference appeared betweendesigners and experienced users, or between novice andexperienced users (p4.1). There was no significantdifference linked to the web site (F(1,22) ¼ 2.907; p4.1).A significant interaction appeared between experience andsite version (F(2,22) ¼ 8.007; po.0002): experienced usersas well as designers used or looked for a navigationalframework more often while navigating the non-ergonomicsite than the ergonomic site (po.006 and po.05), whereasnovice users used or looked for it more often whilenavigating the ergonomic site than the non-ergonomic site(po.008).

4.3.4.2. Linear reading. The experience of the partici-pants had a significant effect (F(2,22) ¼ 3.554; po.05): in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 8

Means (and standard deviations) of the movements of the mouse into web pages according to the site version and the participants’ experience


Novice users Experienced users Professional designers Novice users Experienced users Professional designers

Menu/navigational bar 2.2 (.84) 1.2 (.45) 1.75 (.5) .6 (.55) 2.8 (.84) 3.25 (1.26)

Linear reading 1.6 (.54) .4 (.54) .5 (.57) 1.6 (.54) 2 (.71) 1.25 (.5)

Scanning of the whole page — 2 (.71) 1.75 (.5) .4 (.89) 1.4 (.55) 1.5 (.58)


accordance with Hypothesis 2, novice users read morelinearly than designers (po.05), but no significant differ-ence appeared between designers and experienced users orbetween novice and experienced users (p4.1). Participantsnavigating the non-ergonomic site read more often linearlythan participants navigating the ergonomic site(F(1,22) ¼ 12.715; po.002). An interaction effect appearedbetween the experience of the participants and the siteversion (F(2,22) ¼ 4.794; po.02): experienced users readmore linearly in the non-ergonomic site than in theergonomic site (po.004), whereas no significant differenceappeared for novice users or for designers (p4.1).

4.3.4.3. Scanning of the whole web page. The experienceof the participants had a significant effect (F(2,22) ¼18.698; po.0001): designers and experienced users scannedthe web pages more often than novice users (po.0001 and.0001), but no significant difference appeared betweendesigners and experienced users (p4.1). No significantdifference appeared for the site version (F(1,22) ¼ .42;p4.1).

4.3.5. Anticipation of novice user’s activity

After answering the three questions, the professionaldesigners had to describe from the visited web site andexplain the path they thought that users would follow toanswer the same three questions to which they foundanswers.

Analyses showed two main important results:

�
Seven designers out of the eight (87.5%) indicated thatnovice users, before making the decision to click on ahyperlink, would click on all of the provided hyperlinkson the interface one after the other. Once all of thehyperlinks were visited, they would click on the one theythought was the most appropriate with regard to theirsearch task. Consequently, they would choose thecorrect hyperlink by trial and error in the orderpresented on the web interface. In this experiment, onlytwo out of ten novice users (20%) actually adopted thisstrategy while navigating the non-ergonomic site. � Once the accurate hyperlink was selected by novice users
on the web page, designers indicated that novice userswould follow the same path as designers. However, thiswas not the case, since novice users recorded more stepsthan designers, and so novice users did not use the website as professional designers.

Consequently, and in accordance with Hypothesis 3,professional designers found it difficult to detach them-
selves from the their own viewpoints and to consider theuser’s viewpoint.
5. General discussion

We discuss the results of the two experiments on both therole of the level of experience (Section 5.1) and theergonomic quality of the site (Section 5.2).

5.1. The role of the level of experience

Results of these two experiments showed that theexperienced users and professional designers developedclosely related search activities (except for some results suchas the time required to find information or the answers to thegrades obtained in the questionnaire on usability satisfaction),whereas professional designers and novice users developedtwo different and unrelated search activities.In the two experiments, search times for novice users

were longer than for experienced users, regardless of theergonomic quality of the site. These results were corrobo-rated by the fact that novice users visited more hyperlinks,opened up more web pages and more often read web pageslinearly than experienced users and professional designers.Moreover, novice users recalled fewer elements seen onvisited web pages and more irrelevant ones than experi-enced users and professional designers. These results reflectunderstanding difficulties for novice users of the searchtask to be performed: they spent more time developing andusing cognitive processes adapted to their informationsearch activities, as shown by Holscher and Strube (2000)and Sweller (1998, 1999). In addition, novice users, whilenavigating the non-ergonomic site, recalled more irrelevantelements than relevant elements. Novice users’ activitieswere guided by the structure and elements on the webpages, and so they were more affected by the ill-structuredweb site than experienced users (and designers), as shownby Hofman and van Oostendord (1999), and Potelle andRouet (2003). Consequently, novice users experienceddifficulties building up a global organization of the website (i.e. a coherent mental model) and chunking elements,unlike experienced users and professional designers.Furthermore, and contrary to our hypothesis, profes-

sional designers did not spend significantly less timethan novice users finding correct answers (in the two


experiments). However, designers visited fewer hyperlinksthan the other participants. On the non-ergonomic site,designers looked for a possible navigational framework atthe top of the page, whereas novice users spent little timelooking for it. Therefore, professional designers automati-cally applied procedures acquired with experience (lookingfor a menu that usually supports their navigation activities inweb sites), while novice users had not yet acquired thisknowledge. In addition, professional designers scanned theweb pages more often than novice users, while novice usersread the web pages linearly more often than professionaldesigners. Thus, designers and novice users did not use theweb site in the same way, although their search times were notsignificantly different (in the two experiments). Indeed, noviceusers, because of their lack of understanding, rapidlycompromised themselves by opening hyperlinks and visitingnew web pages, whereas all of the professional designersopened web pages before clicking on a new hyperlink.

Results from the usability satisfaction questionnaire(experiment 1) show that the professional designers wereaware of the difficulties generated by the non-ergonomicsite, but that they experienced difficulties anticipating theusers’ navigation activities: the designers thought that thenovice users would choose the correct hyperlink by trialand error. In reality, only two out of the ten novice usersadopted this strategy while navigating the non-ergonomicsite. Once the accurate hyperlink was selected by noviceusers on the web page, designers indicated that the noviceusers would follow the same path as the designers. In theseexperiments, we noticed that this was not the case, since thenovice users recorded more steps than the designers andread linearly more often than the designers. These resultsreflect the fact that designers actually experienced difficul-ties detaching themselves from their own viewpoints toconsider the user’s viewpoint, in part because they havedeveloped automatic procedures in searching for informa-tion. They thought that the novice users would adopt thesame behavior or strategy as them. This corresponds towhat van Duyne et al. (2002) call the ‘ego bias’, i.e.designers believe that all individuals use web sites likethem.

5.2. The effect of the ergonomic quality of the web site

On the non-ergonomic site, many irrelevant elementswere introduced (advertising banners, flashing items, etc.).According to Sweller (1988, 1999), irrelevant elementsdistract users and, for the less experienced, may overloadworking memories. In our two studies, the novice usersexperienced difficulties ignoring and inhibiting irrelevantelements presented in the non-ergonomic site, since theyrecalled more irrelevant elements that relevant ones, andnovices recalled fewer relevant elements than experiencedusers and professional designers. This generated difficultiesin planning their future actions, anticipating their activitiesand so selecting relevant elements to answer questions.Thus, novice web users experienced difficulties in develop-

ing evaluation activity, which consists in determiningwhether available information is relevant to the objective(goal representation maintained in working memory—seeRouet and Tricot, 1996, 1998). These results also corrobo-rate previous findings which showed that distractingelements slowed down the information search, and thatcertain visual characteristics, such as colors, shapes, size,structure of web pages, guided users’ attention (Andersonet al., 1998; Wickens and Hollands, 2000; Hong et al.,2004). This can explain the increase in the search time, thenumber of visited hyperlinks for novice users and the fewrecalled elements (with a significant proportion of irrele-vant ones).Another very interesting result appeared. Contrary to

our hypothesis, the ergonomic site required significantlymore cognitive resources for the users than the non-ergonomic site. These results, not in accordance withSweller’s (1988, 1999) in which a non-adapted presentationof information leads to a higher extraneous cognitive load,can be explained by different ways of managing ofcognitive resources: resource commitment leads to theprotection of cognitive resources, i.e. through reducingcognitive load, whereas task commitment leads to themonopolization of resources involved in the task (seeCegarra and Hoc, 2006). Indeed, users visiting theergonomic site could dedicate more cognitive resources totheir information search activities than users visiting thenon-ergonomic site, since the users of the ergonomic sitewere not distracted by irrelevant elements which coulddisturb their attention. They could focus their attention onthe task to be performed. We can also explain these resultsby the fact that users navigating the non-ergonomic site didnot try to assimilate all of the elements presented on theweb pages (they recalled fewer elements on the non-ergonomic site than on the ergonomic site), contrary tolearning systems used by Sweller, so their working memorywere not overloaded. Therefore, the cognitive theory ofSweller should be adapted to information search bydecreasing the importance allocated to the process andthe understanding of all of elements present in the site, atleast when experience in navigation increases.Professional designers navigating the non-ergonomic site

did not use significantly more cognitive resources thandesigners navigating the ergonomic site. Using the non-ergonomic site, professional designers looked for thenavigational framework (missing on the web pages), whilevery few novice users looked for it. Professional designersscanned pages more often than novices, whereas noviceslinearly read the web pages more often than designers, andprofessional designers recalled more page titles than noviceusers. Consequently, designers’ schemata got activatedalmost automatically while navigating the web sites, andadded extraneous load did not disturb their activities. Theirlevel of experience allowed them to overcome ergonomicproblems, to deal with them without requiring manycognitive resources, and thus the construction of a coherentmental model of the visited web site.


6. Implications for helping web designers

These two studies sought to determine the differentstrategies involved in information searching, depending onthe ergonomic quality of the web sites (a site withergonomic problems vs. a site incorporating ergonomiccriteria and recommendations) and the level of experienceof the participants (professional designers, novice users andexperienced users). These two studies were the first toattempt at a better understanding of what distinguishesprofessional designers from novice and experienced webusers while searching for information on web sites. Furtherstudies are required to better understand the strategies ofinformation searching developed by designers and users,especially when they have to find information not only on aprecise site (as in this article), but on the whole of theInternet (by using search engines, for instance).

Our first two studies show that professional designershave automated procedures in navigation, which allowthem to overcome difficulties generated by usabilityproblems present on certain web sites. These proceduresare effective for search activities, but they prevent designersfrom efficiently anticipating and considering users’ needswhen they design web sites.

Based on these results and previous ones (see Chevalierand Ivory, 2003; Chevalier, 2004), two aspects of profes-sional designers’ activities should be supported to helpthem develop a user-centered activity:

�
Evaluation process: it seems important to encourageprofessional designers to consider users’ needs whileevaluating web sites, before creating their own site(s).For instance, ergonomic guides could be developed toaid designers (during the evaluation process) to developan activity similar to the cognitive walkthrough method,in order to help designers identify the usability problemsin the evaluated web sites which could slow down anddisturb users’ activities. This would help them to identifythe ergonomic problems present in existing web sites inorder to avoid them in their own productions. � Design process: it is also very important to train
professional designers to efficiently take into accountthe novice users’ needs while creating web sites. Towardsthis end, we conducted research about the usefulness ofMetroWeb, a computer support tool developed to helpdesigners create web sites easier to use. MetroWebstructures usability knowledge according to a concep-tual framework which is composed of the usabilityknowledge itself and everything that is considered usefulfor developing a user-centered design based on usabilityguidelines (Mariage and Vanderdonckt, 2004). Our firstresults showed that professional designers who usedMetroWeb took more users’ needs into account thandesigners without MetroWeb, and their web sites wereeasier to use (Mariage et al., 2005). In addition to the useof MetroWeb, designers could use an ergonomic guide(as suggested in the previous paragraph to support the

evaluation process) to evaluate the ergonomic quality oftheir work during different design stages. If designersidentify ergonomic problems in their web sites, Metro-Web could help them to concretely apply ergonomicrecommendations and to rectify the ergonomic pro-blems that might still be present in their productions.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Andre Tricot for his preciousadvice, to James Mc Cabe for proofreading this article, tothe anonymous reviewers and to Jean Scholtz, associateeditor, for their relevant comments and interest in thispaper. We also thank C. Cabello, A. Delavenne, N.Fouquereau, C. Valerian and the participants for theircontributions.

Appendix A. Tholos experimental software for calculating

cognitive resources

First, we indicate the participant’s name and the scenario(see Part 1). Then, the participant listens to an auditorysignal by clicking on a button ‘‘Test the beep’’ (see Part 3);if necessary, the sound can be adjusted.In part 2, a space is allocated for parameters capture

during the training task. During this phase, the meanbaseline reaction time is determined. The researcher notes,in corresponding cells, the number of signals to bepresented during the training task (here: 30 beeps), theinterval schedule of signals—randomly determined byTholos—and the number of signals not to be consideredwhile calculating the mean baseline reaction time (here: thefirst five signals). The researcher presses the ‘‘Run thetraining task’’ button to launch the training.The part 3 is allocated to capturing the parameters which

are specific to the main task (in our study, informationsearch). Then, the researcher presses the ‘‘Run the dualtask’’ button to launch the dual task.


Once the task is over, all of the data about participantsare recorded in a Microsoft Excels document.

Tholos has been developed for an MS Windowss

environment (see Chevalier et al., 2004; Cegarra andChevalier, 2006). Tholos allows the use of three techniquesto measure cognitive resources (pupil dilation, question-naire and dual task). For our experiments, we only used thedual task technique. For the dual task, Tholos presents

functionalities close to Scripkell, software for Macintosh(for more details on Scripkell, see Piolat et al., 1999). Thedual task technique has been used to determinethe cognitive load of writers, but also of graphicdesigners (Bonnardel and Piolat, 2003), web designers(Chevalier and Bonnardel, 2000), and individualssearching for information in an e-encyclopedia (Piolatet al., 2002).

Appendix B. Distribution and description of the ergonomic errors introduced in the non-ergonomic web site (see illustrations

with Figs. 1–3)

Ergonomic criteria
Description of the introduced usability problems
Guidance. Prompting.
1. The menu is not on each page. For instance, the participantmust return to the homepage to find the menu (i.e. thenavigational framework).
Guidance. Grouping and distinguishing items bylocation.

2. No distinguishing items by location on the web page.

Guidance. Grouping and distinguishing items byformat.

3. In the menu, no markers appear regarding the itemcorresponding to the page read by participant.
4. The hyperlink in the page that the participant is reading is stillactive in the menu. 5. Some texts are underlined but they are not hyperlinks.
Guidance. Legibility.
6. The font is not usual (e.g., Comic or Mistral). 7. The contrast text/background is not strong enough. (e.g., yellowand green). 8. The texts are too long (over 50 lines).
Workload. Brevity. Minimal Actions.
9. Some pages are very long (with texts and pictures). 10. From each page, we cannot systematically return to thehomepage (via a hyperlink).
Workload. Information Density.
11. Irrelevant elements may distract the participant (e.g.,advertising banners).
Consistency.
12. The pages do not have the same structure (e.g., thebackgrounds have different colors). 13. The hyperlink title of the homepage is not always the same.
Significance of Codes.
14. The hyperlinks do not systematically and clearly reflect thesemantic content of their destination pages.
Appendix C. Experiment 1 session

Once participant filled in the questionnaire to evaluateher/his level of experience regarding Internet use, s/hestarted the information search with the same instructions:

The site which you are going to navigate contains an e-shop, named Espace Culture, which sells music products,CDs, tickets for shows. This shop is located in Aix-en-Provence (France). If you do not know this town, it doesnot matter.

Espace Culture invites clients to become members, whichallows them to get discounts on the products theypurchase.

You have to answer three questions, and the answers arecontained on the site. Your task is to try to find theanswers as fast as possible. While you are searching forinformation, you will hear auditory signals like this one(the experimenter makes the participants listen to anauditory signal). You will have to respond to the signalby pressing a pedal located on the ground in front ofyou, with the same foot during the experiment and asquickly as possible. This task is not as the important asthe information search, so I will ask you to reallyconcentrate your attention on the questions and not onthe auditory signals.You will also try to always place your foot at about thesame distance from the pedal.


Now, to get used to responding to these auditorysignals, we are going to proceed to a training phase inwhich you will hear 30 signals to which you will have torespond. You have to focus your attention on theseauditory signals. Before starting, you have to choose thefoot you are going to use, in order to position itproperly.

After these instructions, the participant went though atraining phase, which also served to measure her/hisbaseline reaction times to auditory signals.

After the training phase, the experimenter provided theseinstructions:

Now, we are going to start the main task. You will haveto answer three questions by finding the informationwithin the site. To get started, let’s begin with thehomepage of the site.

When you find an answer, and before writing it on youranswer sheet, you must press this red button.

The participants answered these three questions, oneafter the other (the presentation order was counter-balanced):

Question A: What is the main difference between ananalogical recording and a numeric recording?

Question B: You wish to go to the Espace Culture shop.You are a student at the University of Aix-en-Provenceand you have no car. Which buses do you have to take?

Question C: Next week is your grandmother’s birthday.She particularly likes classical music. You decide to buyher a Hector Berlioz CD (featuring Charles Munch andSuzanne Danco Boston). How much do the shopmembers and non-members have to pay for it on theEspace Culture site?

Once the participant has answered the three questions,s/he is are asked to freely navigate the site:

Now, you are going to freely navigate the site. As soon asyou think you have visualized all of the web pages, closethe site by pressing on the red cross above on the right.

Once the free navigation task is over, the participant hadto answer a satisfaction questionnaire (the usabilitysatisfaction questionnaire, see Appendix D).

Appendix D. Usability satisfaction questionnaire

Participant has to indicate for these 17 affirmations her/her degree of agreement on a 5-point scale, ranging from(1) ‘‘I completely disagree’’ to (5) ‘‘I completely agree’’, as

follows:

|______|______|______|______|______|

1 2 3 4 5

I completely disagree ...................... I completely agree

(1)
I can control how fast I move through this web site atall times.
(2)
In this web site, I can rapidly find what I am lookingfor.
(3)
This web site’s organization seems logical. (4) It might be useful to give more details on the
homepage.
(5) Web pages are fun and interesting to explore. (6) Navigating this web site is easy. (7) I find the amount of information I need on this web
site.
(8) The directions for using this web site are simple and
clear.
(9) I like to use this web site.
(10)
This web site provides opportunities for me tocommunicate with its authors.
(11)
I feel efficient when I use this web site. (12) At all times, I can control the information I wish to
see on this web site.
(13) The initial use of this web site is easy. (14) Some elements contained in this web site are annoy-
ing.
(15) While navigating this web site, I can easily figure out
where I am.
(16) All buttons and other navigation mechanisms on this
Web site function as they should.
(17) On this web site, I can easily understand everything.
Appendix E. Experiment 2 session

From the experiment presentation to the end of the maintask (i.e. after answering the three questions), instructionswere the same as in experiment 1, except that theparticipant had to answer the questionnaire to evaluateher/his expertise and in order to distract them.Once the main task was over, the participant had to

recall on paper the elements seen in previous visited webpages:

Now, you have to try to recall as many elements aspossible that you have seen on the site. These elementsmay be titles, pictures, links, etc. You can note them onthis paper.

Then, for professional designers only, we added:

To finish, you have to imagine the path that a noviceuser would follow to answer the three questions towhich you have just answered.

References

Anderson, J.R., Matessa, M., Lebiere, C., 1998. The visual interface. In:

Anderson, J.R., Lebiere, C. (Eds.), The Atomic Components of

Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 143–168.

Armbruster, B.B., Armstrong, J.O., 1993. Locating information in text: a

focus on children in the elementary grades. Contemporary Educational

Psychology 18, 139–161.

Baddeley, A., 1986. Working Memory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Barlett, F.C., 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social

Psychology. Cambridge University Press, London.

Bastien, C., Scapin, D., Leulier, C., 1999. The ergonomic criteria and the

ISO/DIS 9241-10 dialogue principles: a pilot comparison in an

evaluation task. Interacting with Computers 11, 299–322.


Bhatt, G., 2004. Bringing virtual reality for commercial Web sites.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60 (1), 1–15.

Blackmon, M.H., Polson, P.G., Kitajima, M., Lewis, C., 2002. Cognitive

walkthrough for the Web. CHI Letters 4, 463–470.

Bonnardel, N., Piolat, A., 2003. Design activities: how to analyze cognitive

effort associated to cognitive treatments? The International Journal of

Cognitive Technology 8 (1), 6–15.

Brunken, R., Plass, J.L., Leutner, D., 2003. Direct measurement of

cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38,

53–61.

Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A., 1983. The Psychology of

Human–Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Cegarra, J., Chevalier, A., 2006. Tholos software: a tool for combining

measures of cognitive load. Unpublished manuscript.

Cegarra, J., Hoc, J.-M., 2006. Cognitive styles as an explanation of

experts’ individual differences: a case study in computer-assisted

troubleshooting diagnosis. International Journal of Human–Computer

Studies 64, 123–136.

Chase, W.G., Simon, H.A., 1973. The mind’s eye in chess. In: Chase,

W.G. (Ed.), Visual Information Processing. Academic Press,

New York, pp. 215–281.

Chen, M.S., Anderson, J.R., Sohn, M.H., 2003. Eye-hand coordination

during Web browsing. In: Ratner, J. (Ed.), Human Factors and Web

Development, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,

Mahwah, NJ, pp. 207–224.

Chen, S.Y., Fan, J.P., Macredie, R.D., 2006. Navigation in hypermedia

learning systems: experts vs. novices. Computers in Human Behavior

22 (2), 251–266.

Chevalier, A., 2004. L’orientation du cahier des charges constitue-t-elle

une aide a la conception de sites web ergonomiques? Revue

d’Intelligence Artificielle 3, 337–366.

Chevalier, A., 2005. Evaluer un site Web: les concepteurs et utilisateurs

parviennent-ils a identifier les problemes d’utilisabilite? Revue d’In-

telligence Artificielle 19, 319–338.

Chevalier, A., Bonnardel, N., 2000. The role of constraints in creativity: a

study on the design of Web sites. Communication presented at the

XXVII International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden,

July.

Chevalier, A., Ivory, M.Y., 2003. Web site designs: influence of designer’s

experience and design constraints. International Journal of Human

Computer Studies 58 (1), 57–87.

Chevalier, A., Kicka, M., Cegarra, J., 2004. Quels sont les effets de la

qualite ergonomique d’un site web et de l’experience des utilisateurs sur

la charge cognitive et le temps de navigation? Communication

presentee a la 10eme JETCSIC, Geneva, Switzerland, June.

Dreher, M.J., 1992. Searching for information in textbooks. Journal of

Reading 35, 364–371.

van Duyne, D.K., Landay, J.A., Hong, J., 2002. The Design of Web Sites.

Principles, Processes, and Patterns for Crafting a Customer-Centered

Web Experience. Addision-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Fisk, A.D., Derrick, W.L., Schneider, W., 1986–1987. A methodological

assessment and evaluation of dual-task paradigms. Current Psycholo-

gical Research and Reviews 5, 315–327.

Forrester, 2002. Q2 2002 online sales: Stable and on track. Available at

http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/Excerpt/0,1317,15462,00.

html at July, 2001.

Guthrie, J.T., 1988. Locating information in documents: examination of a

cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly 23, 178–199.

Guthrie, J.T., Mosenthal, P., 1987. Literacy as multidimensional: locating

information and reading comprehension. Educational Psychologist 22,

279–297.

Grey, S.H., 1990. Using protocol analyses and drawings to study mental

model construction during hypertext navigation. International Journal

of Human–Computer Interaction 2, 359–377.

Helander, M.G., Khalid, H.M., 2000. Modeling the customer in electronic

commerce. Applied Ergonomics 31, 609–619.

Hoc, J.M., 1988. Cognitive Psychology of Planning (C. Greenbaum,

Trans.). Academic Press, London.

Hofman, R., van Oostendord, H., 1999. Cognitive effects of a structural

overview in a hypertext. British Journal of Educational Technology 30

(2), 129–140.

Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L., Tam, K.Y., 2004. Designing product listing

pages on e-commerce websites: an examination of presentation mode

and information format. International Journal of Human–Computer

Studies 61 (4), 481–503.

Holscher, C., Strube, G., 2000. Web search behavior of Internet experts

and newbies. Computer Networks 33, 337–346.

Hwang, F., Keates, S., Langdon, P., 2005. A sub movement analysis of

cursor trajectories. Behaviour & Information Technology 24 (3),

205–217.

Ihadjadene, M., Chaudiron, S., Martins, D., 2003. The effect of individual

differences on searching the web. In: Proceedings of the Annual

Meeting Humanizing Information Technology: From Ideas to Bits and

Back, Westin Long Beach, CA, October.

Jansen, A.R., Blackwell, A.F., Marriott, A.F., 2003. A tool for tracking

visual attention: the restricted focus viewer. Behavior, Research

Methods, Instruments & Computers 35 (1), 57–69.

Kalsbeek, J.W., Sykes, R.N., 1967. Objective measurement of mental load.

Acta Psychologica 27, 253–261.

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., Sweller, J., 2003. The expertise

reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38 (1), 23–31.

Kellogg, R.T., 1987. Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of

processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory &

Cognition 15, 256–266.

Kellogg, R.T., 1994. The Psychology of Writing. Oxford University Press,

New York.

Kirakowski, J, Claridge, N., Whitehand, R., 1998. Human Centered

Measures of Success in Web Site Design. In: Proceedings of the

Human Factors and the Web Workshop, Basking Ridge, NJ.

Koenemann, J., Belkin, N.J., 1996. A case for interaction: a study of

interactive information retrieval behavior and effectiveness. In:

Proceedings of CHI 1996, Vancouver, Canada, April.

Lee, A., 1999. Web usability. A review of the research. SIGCHI Bulletin

31, 38–40.

Leplat, J., 1997. Regards sur l’activite en Situation de Travail: Contribu-

tion a la Psychologie Ergonomique. PUF, Paris.

Levy, C.M., Ransdell, S.E., 1995. Is writing as difficult as it seems?

Memory & Cognition 23 (6), 767–779.

Ling, J., van Schaik, P., 2006. The influence of font type and line length on

visual search and information retrieval in web pages. International

Journal of Human–Computer Studies 64 (5), 395–404.

Marchionini, G., Dwiggins, S., Katz, A., Lin, X., 1993. Information

seeking in full-text end-user-oriented search systems: the roles of

domain and search expertise. Library & Information Science Research

15, 35–69.

Marcus, N., Cooper, M., Sweller, J., 1996. Understanding instructions.

Journal of Educational Psychology 88, 49–63.

Mariage, C., Vanderdonckt, J., 2004. Creating Contextualised Usability

Guides for Web Sites Design and Evaluation. In: Proceedings of the

Fifth International Conference on Computer-Aided Design of User

Interfaces CADUI’2004, Funchal, Portugal, January.

Mariage, C., Vanderdonckt, J., Chevalier, A., 2005. Using the MetroWeb

tool to improve usability quality of Web sites. In: Baeza-Yates, R.,

Olsina, L. (Eds.), La-Web. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamos, CA,

pp. 213–222.

Matlin, M.W., 1998. Cognition, fourth ed. Harcourt Brace, New York.

Mc Crickard, D.S., 2001. The effect of changes in information access times

on hypertext choices. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G., Harris, D.,

Koubek, R.J. (Eds.), Usability Evaluation and Interface Design.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1086–1090.

McEneaney, J.E., 2001. Graphic and numerical methods to assess

navigation in hypertext. International Journal of Human–Computer

Studies 55 (5), 761–786.

Miller, G.A., 1956. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some

limits in our capacity for processing information. Psychological

Review 63, 81–97.

http://www.forrester.com/ER/

http://www.forrester.com/ER/


van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Sweller, J., 2005. Cognitive load theory and

complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educa-

tional Psychology Review 17 (2), 147–177.

Navarro-Prieto, R., Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., 1999. Cognitive strategies in

web searching. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and the Web,

Gaithersburg, Maryland, June.

Nielsen, J., 2000. Designing Web Usability. New Riders Publishing,

Indianapolis.

Olson, G.M., Olson, J.S., 2003. Human–computer interaction: psycholo-

gical aspects of the human use of computing. Annual Review of

Psychology 54, 491–516.

Oulasvirta, A., 2004. Task demands and memory in web interaction: a

levels of processing approach. Interacting with Computers 16 (2),

217–241.

Otter, M., Johnson, H., 2000. Lost in hyperspace: metrics and mental

models. Interacting with Computers 13 (1), 1–40.

Ozok, A.A., Salvendy, G., 2004. Twenty guidelines for the design of Web-

based interfaces with consistent language. Computers in Human

Behavior 20 (2), 149–161.

Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., 1994. Instructional control of cognitive

load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational

Psychology Review 6, 51–71.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H.K., Van Gerven, P.W.M., 2003.

Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load

theory. Educational Psychologist 38, 63–71.

Park, S., Choi, D., Kim, J., 2004. Critical factors for the aesthetic fidelity

of web pages: empirical studies with professional web designers and

users. Interacting with Computers 16 (2), 351–376.

Pearson, R., van Schaik, P., 2003. The effect of spatial layout of and link

colour in web pages on performance in a visual search task and an

interactive search task. International Journal of Human–Computer

Studies 59 (3), 327–353.

Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J.-Y., Thunin, O., Ziegler, J.C., 1999.

Scriptkell: a computer assisted tool for measuring the relative

distribution of time and cognitive effort in writing and other tasks.

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 31 (1),

113–121.

Piolat, A., Kellogg, R.T., Farioli, F., 2001. The triple task technique for

studying writing processes: on which task is attention focused? Current

psychology letters. Brain, Behavior and Cognition 4, 67–83.

Piolat, A., Roussey, J.Y., Gerouit, C., 2002. Prise de notes par des eleves

de 10–12 ans plus ou moins bons lecteurs et redacteurs. Reperes 26,

277–291.

Pirolli, P., Card, S., 1999. Information foraging. Psychological Review 106

(4), 643–675.

Potelle, H., Rouet, J.-F., 2003. Effects of content representation and

readers’ prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext.

International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 58 (3),

327–345.

Pratt, J.A., Mills, R., Kim, Y., 2004. The effects of navigational

orientation and user experience on user task efficiency and frustration

levels. Journal of Computer Information Systems 44 (4), 93–100.

Richard, M.-O., Chandra, R., 2005. A model of consumer web

navigational behavior: conceptual development and application.

Journal of Business Research 58 (8), 1019–1029.

Richard, J.F., 1997. Attention, controle et gestion des ressources. In:

Mellier, D., Vom Hofe, A. (Eds.), Attention et controle cognitif:

mecanismes, developpement des habilites, pathologies. PUR, Rouen,

pp. 7–16.

Rouet, J.F., 2003. What was I looking for? The influence of task specificity

and prior knowledge on students’ search strategies in hypertext.

Interacting with Computers 15 (3), 409–428.

Rouet, J.F., Tricot, A., 1996. Task and activity models in hypertext usage.

In: van Oostendorp, H., de Mul, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of

Electronic Text Processing. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 239–264.

Rouet, J.F., Tricot, A., 1998. Chercher de l’information dans un

hypertexte: vers un modele des processus cognitifs. Hypertextes

et Hypermedias, hors serie, pp. 57–74.

Rumelhart, D.E., 1978. Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition

(Report #79). University of California, San Diego.

Shneiderman, B., Byrd, D., Croft, B., 1998. Sorting out searching: a user-

interface framework for text searches. Communications of the ACM

41 (4), 95–98.

Sperandio, J.C., 1988. L’ergonomie Cognitive du Travail Mental. Masson,

Paris.

Spool, J.M., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C., DeAngelo, T., 1999.

Web Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide. Morgan Kaufmann, San

Francisco, CA.

Stronge, A.J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D., in press. Web-based information

search and retrieval: effects of strategy use and age on search success.

Human Factors.

Sweller, J., 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on

learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–285.

Sweller, J., 1999. Instructional Design in Technical Areas. ACER Press,

Melbourne.

Tabatabai, D., Shore, B.M., 2005. How experts and novices search the

Web. Library & Information Science Research 27, 222–248.

Teo, H.H., Oa, L.B., Liu, C., Wei, K.K., 2003. An empirical study of the

effects of interactivity on Web user attitude. International Journal of

Human–Computer Studies 58 (3), 281–305.

Tricot, A., 2003. Apprentissage et recherche d’information avec des

documents electroniques. Memoire pour l’habilitation a diriger des

recherche, Universite de Toulouse le Mirail, France.

Van Gerven, P.W.M., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Schmidt, H.G.,

2002. Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on

training efficiency. Learning & Instruction 12, 87–105.

Wang, Y.D., Emurian, H.H., 2005. An overview of online trust: concepts,

elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior 21 (1),

105–125.

Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., 2000. Engineering Psychology and Human

Performance, third ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Yantis, S., 1993. Stimulus-driven attention capture and attentional control

settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &

Performance 19 (3), 676–681.

Web designers and web users: Influence of the ergonomic quality of the web site on the information...

Documents

Transcript of Web designers and web users: Influence of the ergonomic quality of the web site on the information...