skip to main content
10.1145/3243082.3243084acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebmediaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluation of User Experience and Sociability on Platforms of Ephemeral Narratives: an Instagram Stories Case Study

Published:16 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This work aimed to characterize how Instagram Stories supports the sociability among its members and to discuss the impact of this proposed sociability in the social interaction of users. We conducted this research in three steps. First, we executed an evaluation in a perspective of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) experts, which aimed to analyze whether the features offered by Instagram Stories are adequate to user experience (UX) and sociability guidelines. Next, we performed an evaluation from the users' perspective, in order to investigate users' experience while they are interacting through Instagram Stories. Finally, we made a triangulation of the results and we discussed the impact of Instagram Stories in the social interaction of users. The results showed that the interface and interaction model of Instagram Stories reflects directly on the experience of use and sociability of its members. As contributions, we present recommendations and insights to HCI community about the design and evaluation of ephemeral communication services.

References

  1. Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Falk, E. B. Sharing the small moments: ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 956--977. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2: 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Cavalcanti, L. H. C., Pinto, A., Brubaker, J. R., & Dombrowski, L. S. 2017. Media, Meaning, and Context Loss in Ephemeral Communication Platforms: A Qualitative Investigation on Snapchat. In CSCW (pp. 1934--1945). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. comScore. 2015. Brazil Digital Future in Focus. Available in: https://goo.gl/H51ep1. Last access: April - 11, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. de Souza, C.S. and Preece, J. 2004. A Framework for Analyzing and Understanding Online Communities. In: Interacting with Computers, Amsterdam, v. 16, (2004), 579-610.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hassenzahl, M. (2013). User experience and experience design. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Instagram. 2016. Introducing Instagram Stories. Available at: https://goo.gl/nmpvYf. Last access: 11/15/2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Marshall, M. N. 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice 13, 6: 522-526. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9023528Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Neiva, H., Barbosa, G. A. R., Silva, I. S., Coutinho, F. R. S. 2016. Diretrizes de UX para Avaliação do Modelo de Interface e Interação de Aplicativos Móveis. In: SMSI, 2016Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nielsen, J. 1994. Usability inspection methods. In Proc. of CHI '94, NY, USA, 413-414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Nielsen, J. and Budiu, R. 2015. User Experience for Mobile Applications and Websites. In Design Guidelines. 3a Ed., 506 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Preece, J. Online communities: designing usability, supporting sociability. John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Statista. 2018. Most famous social network sites worldwide as of January 2018, ranked by number of active users. Available at: https://goo.gl/HtwdDX. Last Access: 03/15/2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Wilson, C., Boe, B., Sala, A., Puttaswamy, K. P. N., Zhao, B. Y. 2009. User interactions in social networks and their implications. In Proc. of 4th EuroSys' 09, (2009), 205--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Xu, B., Chang, P., Welker, C. L., Bazarova, N. N., & Cosley, D. (2016). Automatic archiving versus default deletion: What Snapchat tells us about ephemerality in design. In Proc. of 19th CSCW'16 (pp. 1662--1675). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluation of User Experience and Sociability on Platforms of Ephemeral Narratives: an Instagram Stories Case Study

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        WebMedia '18: Proceedings of the 24th Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web
        October 2018
        437 pages
        ISBN:9781450358675
        DOI:10.1145/3243082

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 16 October 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        WebMedia '18 Paper Acceptance Rate37of111submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate270of873submissions,31%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)34
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader