Chapter 4 Data Analysis
4.3 Research Framework Analysis
4.3.2 One-way Anova of User experience
4.3 Research Framework Analysis
4.3.1 Degree to Aesthetic and Storytelling of Visual Interface
In this section, I firstly compare visual interfaces of three groups (VI_CONVENTION, VI_GRAPIC and VI_ANIMATION) with their aesthetic and storytelling. According the respondents of each questionnaire, I calculated by averaging the values of items on different groups questionnaires individually. Then, three groups are compared their averages of aesthetic and storytelling. The highest one is the high level of aesthetic or storytelling; the lowest one is the low level of aesthetic or storytelling; the last one is the middle level. Though the calculation, VI_CONVENTION is the lowest aesthetic and storytelling interfaces. VI_GRAPIC is the middle aesthetic and storytelling interfaces. VI_ANIMATION is the highest aesthetic and storytelling interface in all of three. (Table 4-3)
Table 4-3 Aesthetic and Storytelling Level in VI_CONVENTION, VI_GRAPIC, and VI_ANIMATION
VisAWI Storytelling Level of Aesthetic
Level of Storytelling
VI_CONVENTION 4.623972847 4.561629153 Low Low
VI_GRAPIC 4.639692747 4.576634512 Middle Middle
VI_ANIMATION 4.834444444 4.678095238 High High
4.3.2 One-way Anova of User experience
One-way ANOVA was used to compare three interfaces of iPalace Channel (VI_CONVENTION, VI_GRAPIC, and VI_ANIMATION) with their esthetic experience, education experience, and entertainment experience. According the research framework of this study (Figure 3-3) and the hypothesis, different VisAWI
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
42
(aesthetic) will significantly different esthetic experiences. Different Storytelling will significantly different entertainment experiences and education experiences.
4.3.2.1 Aesthetic visual interface (with VisAWI) and esthetic experience
In order to know the relationship between aesthetic level though VisAWI, and esthetic experience; I compare VI_CONVENTION, VI_GRAPIC and VI_ANIMATION (aesthetic level from low to high) with their esthetic experience.
Before starting ANOVA, Homogeneity test for variance need to be done to check if the assumption of ANOVA violate. The test of homogeneity of variances (Table 4-4), tests if the variances are equal for Levene’s test produced an F of .868 and a p-value of 0.420. Since p-value is greater than 0.05, Levene’s test of homogeneity was insignificant. For these data the variance are relatively similar. Therefore, based on the results of Levene’s test, it means the data did not violate the assumption of ANOVA and the analysis could continue.
Table 4-4 Test of Homogeneity of Variances in VisAWI-ETH
Levene Statics df1 df2 Sig.
ETH .868 2 964 .420
To determine the relationship between aesthetic level with VisAWI and esthetic experience, I conducted an ANOVA. The results are shown in Table 4-5.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
43
Table 4-5 Result of ANOVA-Esthetic Experience
Sum of Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
ETH
Between groups 26.814 2 3.117 3.117 .045
Within groups 986.622 964 1.076
Total 1013.436 966
These results of the F test reveal that the model is significant at p<0.05, indicating that the esthetic experience varies according to aesthetic level (with VisAWI). To confirm the further relationship between aesthetic level and esthetic experience, I proceeded with post-hoc analysis. I used LSD to explain this. The results of post-hoc analysis are shown in Table 4-6.
As it can be seen from the table 4-6, VI_ANIMATION is significantly different from the VI_GRAPIC and VI_CONVENTION. It means that higher aesthetic level of interface has higher esthetic experience.
‧
Table 4-6 Results of The Post-hoc Analysis Using LSD in VisAWI-ETH
Multiple Comparisons
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
4.3.2.2 Storytelling level visual interface and entertainment experience
For knowing the relationship between storytelling level and entertainment experience, I compare VI_CONVENTION, VI_GRAPIC and VI_ANIMATION (storytelling level from low to high) with their entertainment experience.
Before starting ANOVA, Homogeneity test for variance need to be done to check if the assumption of ANOVA violate. The test of homogeneity of variances (Table 4-7), tests if the variances are equal for Levene’s test produced an F of 1.611 and a p-value of 0.200. Since p-value is greater than 0.05, Levene’s test of homogeneity was
‧
insignificant. For these data the variance are relatively similar. Therefore, based on the results of Levene’s test, it means the data did not violate the assumption of ANOVA and the analysis could continue.
Table 4-7 Test of Homogeneity of Variances in STR-ETA
Levene Statics df1 df2 Sig.
ETA 1.611 2 964 .200
To determine the relationship between storytelling level and entertainment experience, I conducted an ANOVA. The results are shown in Table 4-8
Table 4-8 Result of ANOVA-Entertainment Experience
Sum of
These results of the F test reveal that the model is significant at p<0.05, indicating that the entertainment experience varies according to storytelling level. To confirm the further relationship between storytelling level and entertainment experience, I proceeded with post-hoc analysis. I used LSD to explain this. The results of post-hoc analysis are shown in Table 4-9.
As it can be seen from the table 4-9, VI_ANIMATION is significantly different from the VI_GRAPIC and VI_CONVENTION. It means that higher storytelling level of interface has higher Entertainment experience.
‧
Table 4-9 Results of the Post-hoc Analysis Using LSD in STR-ETA
Multiple Comparisons
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
4.3.2.3 Storytelling level visual interface and education experience
For knowing the relationship between storytelling level and entertainment experience, I compare VI_CONVENTION, VI_GRAPIC and VI_ANIMATION (storytelling level from low to high) with their education experience.
Like the previous section, Homogeneity test for variance need to be done to check if the assumption of ANOVA violate. The test of homogeneity of variances (Table 4-10), tests if the variances are equal for Levene’s test produced an F of .21 and a
‧
p-value of 0.200. Since p-value is greater than 0.05, Levene’s test of homogeneity was insignificant. For these data the variance are relatively similar. Therefore, based on the results of Levene’s test, it means the data did not violate the assumption of ANOVA and the analysis could continue.
Table 4-10 Test of Homogeneity of Variances in STR-EDU
Levene Statics df1 df2 Sig.
EDU .021 2 964 .980
To determine the relationship between storytelling level and education experience, I conducted an ANOVA. The results are shown in Table 4-11
Table 4-11 Result of ANOVA-Education Experience
Sum of
These results of the F test reveal that the model is significant at p<0.05, indicating that the education experience varies according to storytelling level. To confirm the further relationship between storytelling level and education experience, I proceeded with post-hoc analysis. I used LSD to explain this. The results of post-hoc analysis are shown in Table 4-12.
As it can be seen from the table 4-12, VI_ANIMATION is significantly different from
‧
interface has higher education experience.Table 4-12 Results of the Post-hoc Analysis Using LSD in STR-EDU
Multiple Comparisons
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
4.3.2.4 Brief summary
In the 4.3.2 section, I use one-way ANOVA to compare three aesthetic and storytelling levels (high, middle, and low) of visual interfaces with their user experience including esthetic, entertainment and education experience. From the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
49
result, we can find that high aesthetic and storytelling level of visual interface has significantly difference on the esthetic, education, and entertainment experience. In detail, high level aesthetic and storytelling of visual interface and low level aesthetic and storytelling of visual interface has significantly difference on the esthetic, education and entertainment experience. So do the high and low level aesthetic and storytelling of visual interface. In other hand, regarding the aesthetic and the storytelling, the middle level and the low level don’t have significant differences on those (esthetic, education and entertainment) user experiences