Advertisement

Evaluation of Online Consulting Using Co-browsing: What Factors Are Related to Good User Experience?

  • Kamalatharsi MutuuraEmail author
  • Andreas Papageorgiou
  • Oliver Christ
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)

Abstract

Technological advancements have changed many, if not all industries. This paper focuses on changes for service providers. Many services have been implemented without the knowledge about their effectiveness and user acceptance. This paper evaluates a web browser-based support framework for banks that provides customers with assistance through text chat and co-browsing. The focus lies on elements of design and the implementation of co-browsing. The mixed-method approach was implemented in the study. 29 participants were given online-banking related tasks, where after their experience was assessed through a questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The results indicate, that common visualizations and designs are better understood and that the time to solve tasks is significantly reduced when participants were supported through co-browsing.

Keywords

Usability Co-browsing User experience Technology acceptance 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Aneiros, M., Estivill-Castro, V.: Usability of real-time unconstrained WWW-co-browsing for educational settings, pp. 105–111 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/wi.2005.154
  3. 3.
    Kumar, A.M.V., Naik, B., Guddemane, D.K., Bhat, P., Wilson, N., Sreenivas, A.N., Lauritsen, J.M., Rieder, H.L.: Efficient, quality-assured data capture in operational research through innovative use of open-access technology. Public Health Action 3(1), 60–62 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuchs, C., Diamantopoulos, A.: Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research: conceptual issues and application guidelines. Die Betriebswirtschaft 69(2), 195 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Bala, H.: Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q. 37(1), 21–54 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ullrich, D., Diefenbach, S.: Measuring intuitive interaction. The INTUI Questionnaire. http://intuitiveinteraction.net/method/. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  8. 8.
    Karrer, K., Glaser, C., Clemens, C., Bruder, C.: Technikaffinität erfassen–der Fragebogen TA-EG. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme 8, 196–201 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sallnäs, E.: Effects of communication mode on social presence, virtual presence, and performance in collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 14(4), 434–449 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1162/105474605774785253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dale, R.: The return of the chatbots. Nat. Lang. Eng. 22(05), 811–817 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1017/s1351324916000243CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kamalatharsi Mutuura
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Papageorgiou
    • 1
  • Oliver Christ
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Applied Psychology, Institute Humans in Complex SystemsUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandOltenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations