P RODUCT DIMENSIONS

This section is based on the article by Rasila & al. (2010). The usability dimensions that were suggested in the theoretical part were tested in case study settings. The findings suggested that the dimensions of interaction and feedback, efficiency, flexibility, amount of errors and functionality might be utilised as suggested by the theory. In the material, it seemed to be natural to combine the categories learnability/memorability, atmosphere/visual design and accessibility/navigation, as there were some difficulties in drawing the lines between these categories. Further, our material suggested four additional categories that did not come up in the literature review. These categories were named servicescape, feeling secure, space and (social) networks (see below). This is summarised in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Product related dimensions of end-user experience in workplace context.

In the case study context, the functionality related issues were commented on most often (89 comments), but still amounted to only about 17% of all comments. Almost as many comments were categorized under the heading atmosphere (85 comments). These included mostly comments about air conditioning, lightening, indoor climate, acoustics and the sound environment. (see above). The flexibility related issues were also commented on a lot. These comments accounted for some 14% of all comments (74 comments).

There are many forms of flexibility, some subcategories being spatial flexibility, contractual flexibility, technical flexibility and functional flexibility. (Rasila & al. 2010.)

While functionality, flexibility and atmosphere together accounted for some 46% of all comments, there were only a few comments in the categories of interaction and feedback (11 comments), learnability (5 comments), memorability (1 comment) and errors (12 comments). Interaction and feedback popped up only a few times in this set of data. One explanation may be that at many workplaces there are only a few contact persons that take care of interaction and feedback, and the rest of the end-users are unaware of this (see above). This same applies to errors. This would suggest that these categories are not meaningless, but the participants in the cases were not the right ones to evaluate these categories. (Rasila & al. 2010.)

The same applies to memorability and learnability – these are supposedly important categories for some end-users, but not to those who participated in this research. The

participants of this research were all well familiar with the premises under study. If the same interviews and audits were carried out with people less familiar with the premises, the categories of memorability and learnability would probably have aroused more discussion. On the other hand, in the case study context it was not always easy to decide whether a comment should be classified to memorability or learnability. One possibility could be to combine these two into one category in further studies. (Rasila & al. 2010.) Other categories with this same difficulty – problems with drawing the line between categories also came up in two other closely related couples. First, it was not always easy to know whether a comment should be classified into atmosphere or visual design (129 comments). Second, accessibility (30 comments) and navigation (39 comments) were discussed together and were closely connected. This suggests that these two pairs could be dealt with as two categories instead of four. This would decrease the problems in drawing lines between the categories. In the cases of this research, the category atmosphere/visual design would have had 129 comments and accessibility/navigation 69 comments. (Rasila & al. 2010.)

In all the material there were just 24 comments about efficiency. There were two different types of these comments. The comments were either about spatial efficiency, whether the space was utilised effectively or not, or about money and costs. This again is information which at the detailed level is limited to few people in user organizations and thus the rest of the end-users are not informed enough to make comments about it. This may be one reason why the amount of comments about monetary efficiency was low. On the other hand, the matter popped up in the interviews with the decision making unit. This suggests that these issues could be discussed in the relationship context. (Rasila & al. 2010.)

In addition to the categories suggested by the theory, there were four new additional categories that popped up in most or all interviews. These were named servicescape, feeling secure, networks and spatial issues. Some 9% of the comments were related to the servicescape in (and near) the premises. This included comments about all kind of services – such as restaurants, coffee machines, parking, lobby services and other business services. Comments related to the servicescape were easily detected and they were present in all interviews, workshops and audits. (Rasila & al. 2010.)

Another category that was mentioned in all audits and group interviews was feeling secure. An average of 8% of the comments were related to this dimension of usability.

These comments included comments about factors that threatened the feeling of both personal and organizational safety and health. Examples of this category could include

fear of robbery in dark parts of the parking lot or problems in information security. A health-related example could be the fear that the bad indoor climate may cause lung diseases.

These comments typically aroused vivid and long discussions by the interviewees and seemed to be – quite naturally – very important issues for the end-users. (Rasila & al.

2010.)

The third new category was named networks, and it was also mentioned in all but one group based interview/audit. Network related comments could be divided in two – comments on social networks and on organizational networks (IOR’s – see, for example, Minguzzi & Passaro 2001). Social networks were important for individuals. The individuals had friends and acquaintances that were part of the environment and the environment either hindered or supported social interaction between these individuals. IOR’s, on the other hand, were important for business purposes. The premises affect where and how the IOR may be utilised most effectively. This affected the usability perception for many interviewees and an average of 4 % of the comments were related to these networks.

(Rasila & al. 2010.)

Last, but not least, the spatial issues were hard to classify under any other category.

Spatial issues dealt with, in a positive or negative manner, the needs for different kinds of spaces. A typical comment in this category would be that there is a need for more / bigger / smaller conference rooms or that concentrated work would need individual and peaceful space instead of rooms for six people. These types of issues popped up in an average of 6% of the comments. (Rasila & al. 2010.)