|
|
|
|
|
Insights from Human Factors International 
|
 |
|
In This Issue:
|
|
Can one build a Web site or application that engenders trust?
|
HFI's Hal Miller-Jacobs, Ph.D., CPE, CUA, Project Director,
points out that research-based design principles and a user-centered process are the basis of generating trust. |
|
The Pragmatic Ergonomist
|
Dr. Eric Schaffer, Ph.D., CPE, CUA, founder and CEO of HFI, offers practical
advice.
|
| |
| |
|
Trust – that elusive quality
|
Trust is one of those topics that we all recognize is important, yet it is quite difficult to define. And even harder to design a Web experience that engenders trust. Many papers and literature reviews have addressed the topic, trying to define trust, determine the elements that comprise trust and most importantly, find a way to convey the elements of trust in a human-computer interaction.
In HFI's November, 2003 UI Design Newsletter, Kath Straub addressed this issue and focused on the use of photographs of people on the site. As with many questions in the field, the use of photographs depended on several issues such as credibility of your brand, perception of trustworthiness of the Web in general, and the experience level of users. Eric Schaffer, HFI's Pragmatic Ergonomist, said the way to enhance trust in e-commerce sites was to apply the user-centered process and research-based principles. Well let's see what has happened since then.
|
|
|
What do we mean by trust?
|
Trust in human-automation partnerships can be defined as "the attitude that an agent will help achieve an individual's goals in a situation characterized by uncertainty..." (Lee & See, 2004). In addition to this goal-oriented perspective, there is an expectancy associated with trust – that is to say, what is promised "can be relied upon" (Rotter, 1967).
Another perspective is that trust is "an attitude ... that one's vulnerabilities will not be exploited" (Corritore et al, 2003). Whatever the specific definition, the implications are clear – trusted sites will be much more successful than non-trusted sites, whether they be informational or transactional.
|
|
The many faces and factors of trust |
In a study of on-line shopping in 26 countries, trust and economic conditions (but not educational level and technological savvy) make a significant positive contribution to on-line shopping behavior (Mahmood et al 2004). There was a strong correlation between on-line shopping in countries around the world and trust – defined in this study as thinking most people can be trusted. In general Scandinavian countries had the highest levels of trust and on-line shopping behavior.
As might be expected there are also individual differences in the perception of trust, with some people being more trusting in general. Culture also plays a role in trust. Lee & See (2004) cite studies reporting that the Japanese have a generally lower level of trust. Consumers from Finland, Sweden & Iceland all trusted a simple design, whereas in a complex design, Icelandic customers were the most trusting, and Finnish customers the most wary.
|
|
So how do you convey trust? |
Practically speaking then, how do you design a site so as to convey a message of trust?
At first blush, it appears not so easy to do!
Corritore et al (2003), summarize some of the cues that have been found to impact trustworthiness:
- Professional looking – specifically:
- professional look of the Web site
- professional images of products
- good use of visual design elements
- Ease of use – specifically:
- Ease of navigation
- Ease of searching
- Ease of carrying out transactions
- Ease of access to live customer representatives
Lee & See (2004) report that Web credibility is dependent on such factors as:
- Speed of response
- Listing a physical address
- Photos of the organization
- Visual design factors, such as;
- cool colors
- balanced layout
- empty space (as a structural element)
In a study of trust and mistrust of on-line health sites (Sillence et al 2004), design and content features were prominent in establishing trust or mistrust. Specifically, trusted sites incorporated features as follows:
- Design factors
- clear layout
- good navigational aids
- interactive features – e.g., assessment tools
- Content factors
- informative content
- relevant illustrations
- wide variety of topics covered
- unbiased information
- age-specific information
- clear, simple language
- discussion groups
- frequently asked questions
By contrast, mistrusted Web sites had the following factors:
- Design factors
- inappropriate name for site
- complex, busy layout
- lack of navigational aids
- "boring" Web design; especially colors
- pop-up adverts
- small print and too much text
- corporate look and feel
- poor search facilities/indexes
- Content factors
- irrelevant or inappropriate information
|
|
Surprise! |
Any surprises here? Not really.
The items look like a listing of dos and don'ts in Web design!
The elements of content, navigation, interaction and presentation all seem to play a role in determining if a site is to be trusted or not, as well as the level of that trust.
And lo and behold, the research supports what Eric Schaffer said: if we use research-based principles and apply the user-centered process, it looks like we will come a long way towards developing trusted Web sites and applications.
So maybe designing sites or applications that convey trust is easy to do – just design using all the principles we have learned over the years that make for effective human-computer interaction!
|
| |
|
| |
People have a well established set of indicators to identify trustworthy
shops (e.g., long established, nice fittings, sales people who are well
groomed and not pushy). They have indicators for trustworthy people (e.g.,
well dressed, nice accents, educational credentials). People are slowly
learning the reliable indicators of a trustworthy site. It is not that
"good design" is nicer to use. It is that good design takes a big investment
and so is an indicator of an established site!
We are seeing other
indicators emerge. Almost every one is an indicator of more investment in
the site and a better organization behind the site. And, with the wisdom
of the masses, users are choosing things that are a bit difficult to fake.
Even with informed usability staff on the job, the less trustworthy company
will show its colors with biased text and screens that get cluttered with
the marketing organization's push to persuade. In the end people will
probably pick a set of indicators, that combined, are quite difficult to fake. |
|
|
References
|
Corritore, C.L., Kracher, B., and Weidenbeck, S. (2003). On-Line Trust: Concepts, Evolving Themes, a Model, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 737-758.
Lee, J.D., and See, K.A., (2004) Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance, Human Factors, Vol. 46, No.1.
Mahmood, M.A., Bagchi, K., and Ford, T.C. (2004). On-line Shopping Behavior: Cross-Country Empirical Research, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No., 1, 9-30.
Rotter, J.B. (1967) A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust,Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.
Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Fishwick, L. and Harris, P. (2004). Trust and Mistrust of Online Health Sites, Proceedings of CHI'2004, April 24-29 2004, Vienna, Austria, ACM Press, 663-670.
Straub, K. and Schaffer, E. (2003). From Bricks to Clicks: Building Customer Trust in the Online Environment, Human Factors International UI Design Newsletter, November 2003. |
|
|
|
