Better in 3D? an empirical investigation of user satisfaction and preferences concerning two-dimensional and three-dimensional product representations in business-to-consumer e-commerce

A. Ant Ozok, Anita Komlodi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This study aimed at determining the user preferences and satisfaction concerning three-dimensional product representations in business-to-consumer electronic commerce. An experiment was designed and conducted on 20 college-age electronic shoppers to determine the user preference and satisfaction issues concerning two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional low-interaction (3DL), and three-dimensional high-interaction (3DH) product representations. A valid and reliable survey with 0.89 Cronbach's alpha internal reliability coefficient was presented to participants after they completed tasks on each product representation type. Results indicated that participants found the 3D representations (both low and high interaction) more detailed, easier and more fun to use, more accurate, and carrying more information than 2D representations. It was concluded that 3D representations in general resulted in higher satisfaction for the shoppers. Future studies can be conducted to determine the business aspects of different product representations as well as human information visualization and processing issues relating to product representations in electronic commerce.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)243-281
Number of pages39
JournalInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2009
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Computer Science Applications

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Better in 3D? an empirical investigation of user satisfaction and preferences concerning two-dimensional and three-dimensional product representations in business-to-consumer e-commerce'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this