Advertisement

Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 83–102 | Cite as

Effects of the aesthetic design of icons on app downloads: evidence from an android market

  • Mengyue Wang
  • Xin Li
Article

Abstract

With the rapid development of the mobile app market, understanding the determinants of mobile app success has become vital to researchers and mobile app developers. Extant research on mobile applications primarily focused on the numerical and textual attributes of apps. Minimal attention has been provided to how the visual attributes of apps affect the download behavior of users. Among the features of app “appearance”, this study focuses on the effects of app icon on demand. With aesthetic product and interface design theories, we analyze icons from three aspects, namely, color, complexity, and symmetry, through image processing. Using a dataset collected from one of the largest Chinese Android websites, we find that icon appearance influences the download behavior of users. Particularly, apps with icons featuring higher colorfulness, proper complexity, and slight asymmetry lead to more downloads. These findings can help developers design their apps.

Keywords

Mobile apps Demand Icon Aesthetics Image processing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Grant CityU 11503115) and City University of Hong Kong (Grant SRG 7004287).

References

  1. 1.
    Altaboli, A., & Lin, Y. (2011). Objective and subjective measures of visual aesthetics of website interface design: The two sides of the coin, Human-computer interaction. Design and development approaches. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Areni, C. S., & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in-store lighting on consumers’ examination of merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11(2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauerly, M., & Liu, Y. (2008). Effects of symmetry and number of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International journal of human-computer interaction, 24(3), 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Böhmer, M., & Krüger, A., (2013). A study on icon arrangement by smartphone users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. April 27–May 2, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brunel, F. F., & Kumar, R. (2007). Design and the big five: Linking visual product aesthetics to product personality. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 238–239.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byrne, M.D., (1993). Using icons to find documents: Simplicity is critical. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on Human factors in computing systems. April 24–29, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carare, O. (2012). The impact of bestseller rank on demand: Evidence from the app market. International Economic Review, 53(3), 717–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, C.-C. (2015). User recognition and preference of app icon stylization design on the smartphone, Hci international 2015-posters’ extended abstracts. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi, J. H., & Lee, H. J. (2012). Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: A structural model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 70(2), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Creusen, M. E., Veryzer, R. W., & Schoormans, J. P. (2010). Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1437–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Degeratu, A. M., Rangaswamy, A., & Wu, J. (2000). Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: The effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deng, L., & Poole, M. S. (2010). Affect in web interfaces: A study of the impacts of web page visual complexity and order. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 711–730.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    eMarketer. (2015). 2 billion consumers worldwide to get smart(phones) by 2016. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/2-Billion-Consumers-Worldwide-Smartphones-by-2016/1011694
  14. 14.
    Fedorovskaya, E. A., de Ridder, H., & Blommaert, F. J. (1997). Chroma variations and perceived quality of color images of natural scenes. Color Research & Application, 22(2), 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fenk, A. (1998). Symbols and icons in diagrammatic representation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 6(1–2), 301–334.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(2), 334–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fortmann-Roe, S. (2013). Effects of hue, saturation, and brightness on color preference in social networks: Gender-based color preference on the social networking site twitter. Color research & application, 38(3), 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gatsou, C., Politis, A., & Zevgolis, D. (2012). The importance of mobile interface icons on user interaction. International Journal of Computer Science and Applications, 9(3), 92–107.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghose, A., & Han, S. P. (2014). Estimating demand for mobile applications in the new economy. Management Science, 60(6), 1470–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gittins, D. (1986). Icon-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 24(6), 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gorn, G. J., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D. W. (1997). Effects of color as an executional cue in advertising: They’re in the shade. Management Science, 43(10), 1387–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Granger, G. (1955). An experimental study of colour preferences. The Journal of General Psychology, 52(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guzmán, F., Iglesias, O., César Machado, J., Vacas-de-Carvalho, L., Costa, P., & Lencastre, P. (2012). Brand mergers: Examining consumers’ responses to name and logo design. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(6), 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J. E. (2013). Statistical methods for social scientists. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hartmann, J., Sutcliffe, A., & De Angeli, A., (2007). Investigating attractiveness in web user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. April 30–May 3, San Jose, USA.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hasler, D., & Suesstrunk, S.E., (2003). Measuring colorfulness in natural images. In Proceedings of SPIE. January 21–24, Santa Clara, California, USA.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henderson, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of marketing, 62(2), 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hou, K.-C., & Ho, C.-H., (2013). A preliminary study on aesthetic of apps icon design. In Proceedings of 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research. August 26–30, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hynes, N. (2009). Colour and meaning in corporate logos: An empirical study. Journal of Brand Management, 16(8), 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Labrecque, L. I., & Milne, G. R. (2011). Exciting red and competent blue: The importance of color in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(5), 711–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lai, C.-Y., Chen, P.-H., Shih, S.-W., Liu, Y., & Hong, J.-S. (2010). Computational models and experimental investigations of effects of balance and symmetry on the aesthetics of text-overlaid images. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 68(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics, 38(4), 963–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, G., & Raghu, T. (2014). Determinants of mobile apps’ success: Evidence from the app store market. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(2), 133–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liang, T.-P., Li, X., Yang, C.-T., & Wang, M. (2015). What in consumer reviews affects the sales of mobile apps: A multifacet sentiment analysis approach. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20(2), 236–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., & Noonan, P. (2011). An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 18(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu, Y. (2006). Word-of-mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of marketing, 70(3), 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Locher, P. J., & Nodine, C. F. (1987). Symmetry catches the eye, Eye movements: From physiology to cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lowe, D. G. (2004). Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60(2), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Loy, G., & Eklundh, J.-O. (2006). Detecting symmetry and symmetric constellations of features, Computer vision–eccv 2006. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mcdougall, S. J., Curry, M. B., & de Bruijn, O. (1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 487–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McManus, I. C. (2005). Symmetry and asymmetry in aesthetics and the arts. European Review, 13(S2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moshagen, M., & Thielsch, M. T. (2010). Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 68(10), 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nadkarni, S., & Gupta, R. (2007). A task-based model of perceived website complexity. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 501–524.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of marketing, 72(3), 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Papachristos, E., Tselios, N., & Avouris, N. (2006). Modeling perceived value of color in web sites, Advances in artificial intelligence. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pham, L., Pallares-Venegas, E., & Teich, J. E. (2012). Relationships between logo stories, storytelling complexity, and customer loyalty. Academy of Banking Studies Journal, 11(1), 73–92.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Reinecke, K., Yeh, T., Miratrix, L., Mardiko, R., Zhao, Y., Liu, J., & Gajos, K.Z., (2013). Predicting users’ first impressions of website aesthetics with a quantification of perceived visual complexity and colorfulness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. April 27–May 2, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rosen, D. E., & Purinton, E. (2004). Website design: Viewing the web as a cognitive landscape. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 787–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shu, W., & Lin, C.-S., (2014). Icon design and game app adoption. In Proceedings of 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems. August 7-9, Savannah, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Small, J., Melewar, T., Pittard, N., Ewing, M., & Jevons, C. (2007). Aesthetic theory and logo design: Examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing Review, 24(4), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Smith, A. R. (1978). Color gamut transform pairs. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics, 12(3), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Statista. (2015). Number of available applications in the google play store from december 2009 to november 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/19/technology/social/facebook-whatsapp/
  56. 56.
    Taba, S., Keivanloo, I., Zou, Y., Ng, J., & Ng, T. (2014). An exploratory study on the relation between user interface complexity and the perceived quality In: Casteleyn, S., Rossi, G., & Winckler, M. (Eds.), Web engineering: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thorlacius, L. (2007). The role of aesthetics in web design. Nordicom Review, 28(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tuch, A. N., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2010). Symmetry and aesthetics in website design: It’s a man’s business. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1831–1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tuch, A. N., Bargas-Avila, J. A., Opwis, K., & Wilhelm, F. H. (2009). Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users’ experience, physiology, performance, and memory. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 67(9), 703–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wilson, P. R. (1985). Euler formulas and geometric modeling. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 5(8), 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wu, O., Chen, Y., Li, B., & Hu, W., (2011). Evaluating the visual quality of web pages using a computational aesthetic approach. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. February 9–12, Kowloon, Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Systems, College of BusinessCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations