System Usability Scale

The System Usability Scale (SUS)(J. Brooke, 1986) is a reliable and common tool for measuring usability of a gadget or application. For this experiment, the users are given a SUS question specifically for apps. Some questions are more important than others in regards to the experiment but all of them were still asked during the interview. This is because some important data or correlation of data may appear from asking all the questions. The SUS questionnaire can be seen in the appendix. For convenience, these are the SUS questions that were asked (Blue questions are questions that are deemed more important for this experiment).

1. I think that I would check the app frequently.

2. I found the application unnecessarily complicated. 3. I thought the application was easy to navigate.

4. I think that I would require technical assistance when I am using the application.

5. I found the various features available in the application well integrated. 6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this application.

7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use the application very quickly.

8. I found the application quite intrusive at times.

9. I felt very confident using the application.

Results

Image 43: Results of SUS questionnaire

When it comes to bonding, time plays an important role and this is measured by the frequency of the application being opened (question 1) and the duration in which the user spend or use the application (question 10). Both the results from question 1 and 10 seemed to

highlight a more neutral response from the users. This essentially means that the users opens the application often enough to use it properly as well as spending a moderate amount of time with the application. However, whether or not the user has bonded with the application is a different subject as it is possible that they are opening the application due to the fact that they are in an experiment.

Question 5 and 6 focuses more on the quality of the application in terms of its features and design. Question 5 is about how well the features were implemented while question 6 is more on the consistency in the general theming and functionality of the application. Both

questions seems to yield a positive response towards the app given that question 6 asks for the inconsistency (which is why a lot of people disagree). Unfortunately the same could not be said to question 8 as a lot of users generally agrees on its statement regarding the app’s

intrusiveness. Question 8 focuses more on the notifications, one of the three main features of the application. The results indicate that users found the app to be really intrusive. Some users don’t have a problem with the intrusion but the majority does seem to have an issue.

Some questions are considered less important than others (Q2, 3, 4, 7 & 9) because they do not add much for the research question. Most of these questions were based on the complexity and/or interactive elements of the application. Because the application has a limited number of features and buttons, these questions tend to be fairly positive in the application’s favor.

In addition to the SUS questionnaire, a more direct set of questions are used to measure the level of investment and immersion the user has with the application. These two questions focuses more on the level of investment and immersion of the user. The main purpose of these questions is to measure the user’s overall interaction with the application as well as to provide a clearer picture of how the user feels towards the application. The level of investment focuses more on how much the user is willing to cooperate with the application, more specifically how much they have improved. Measuring the level of immersion on the other hand focuses more on how much the user is willing to take care of the application.

Question 11. Level of investment

Stage Description

Stage 1 (Not invested) Doesn’t walk more than they use to

Stage 2 (Mildly invested) The participant occasionally walks more than usual Stage 3 (Invested) The participant significantly walks more

Stage 4 (Very invested) The participants took initiative to walk before a notification pops up

Image 44: Results of question 11 12. Level of immersion

Stage Description

Stage1 (Not immersed) The participant completely ignore their virtual pet Stage 2 (Mildly immersed) The participant occasionally checks their virtual pet

Stage 3 (Immersed) The participant looks at the notification as much as possible Stage 4 (Very immersed) The participants actively try to keep the virtual pet happy

Image 45: Results of question 12 Analysis

Both questions indicate that the users were able to immerse themselves into caring for the application but they were not able or willing to invest time or energy into it. In simpler terms: some users were able to empathize with the application, at least to the extent of caring for it by checking the notification regularly as proven by Q12. However, despite their willingness to bond with the virtual pet, they did not care for it enough to change their habits as seen from the results of Q11. The application did make an impact to most of the testers but the improvements was fairly minor especially when it comes to the overall goal of the application. To further understand why the results are as it is, an interview is held right after the questionnaire. This would highlight the users reasoning behind their answers for question 11 and 12.