Comment by chewxy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chewxy | Hacker News Reader

I have written about this before[0][1]. It has to do with the perceived browsing habits of one's users.

Let's posit that there are two ways of information search/seeking: the directed searcher, and the explorer. The direct searcher knows what he/she wants, either a narrow search or in broad swatches. Then there is another behaviour which is the explorer. When users are in this mode, their minds explore what is possible and their eyes roam to what attracts them.

Understanding these two behaviours, interaction design becomes quite a simple problem to solve. In the former, the interaction design is to get the user/reader to the target object as fast as possible. In the latter behaviour, the interaction design is to get users to stick around your system for as long as possible.

The best interaction design I have seen and experienced for the former behaviour is Google. The whole design of Google is to get people off their page as soon as possible.

Ironically, the best interaction design I have seen for the latter behaviour has the most minimal of UI design. I'm talking of course, about StumbleUpon.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to monetize SU's interaction design (SU ultimately found a method to monetize its assets which I found rather interesting). The Pinterest UI is merely a logical conclusion of designing interaction for lingering souls and wandering minds.

Imagine how easy it would be to have a 300x250 image ad in one of the boxes. Of course, the surprising thing is that Pinterest does not actively use display advertising to monetize.

[0] http://theforkingchef.com/post/41947940039/search-behaviour-...

[1] http://theforkingchef.com/post/42355830855/the-subscriber-an...

I am currently doing my bachelor thesis, and a part of my theoretical framework addresses these two kinds of shoppers. There is actually quite some academic research on the subject.

According to Swanson (1992) gratification can be categorized in two dimensions: process and content. Process gratification refers to the enjoyment and satisfaction from engaging in communication, content gratification refers to learning information from media content. In other words, motivations such as entertainment, relaxation, escape or just passing time are related to process gratifications (Parker and Plank, 2000). On the other hand information, cognitive and search motives are linked to content gratifications (Stafford and Stafford, 2001; Charney and Greenberg, 2002).

Other studies related to consumer behavior have identified two types of behavior as well. Much like content gratification, utilitarian motives are related to problem solving, goal oriented, task related and rational (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001). Contrasting hedonic motives can be compared to process gratification. Hedonic motives are often driven by such things as fun, amusement, enjoyment, arousal, novelty and surprise (Hirschman, 1980; Babin et al. 1994; Hausman, 2000).

Simply put, utilitarian shoppers are those with a purchasing goal, while hedonic shoppers fulfill their needs not simply through the purchase, but in the shopping experience itself (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Hedonic shoppers are shopping for shopping sake.

Digging into research on the effect of web aesthetics on buying decisions of consumers, a case can be made for two aspects of aesthetics: aesthetic appeal and aesthetic formality. Aesthetic appeal refers to the attractiveness and creativity of design, while aesthetic formality covers the way information is presented, the clearness and legibility of a website (Schenkman and Jonsson, 2000; Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004).

Now combining these two types of consumers and two aspects of aesthetics, we can argue that the utilitarian shopper is highly motivated by aesthetic formality. He will be more likely to make a purchase when he is not distracted by novel design, and is able to find all the information he needs easily. Hedonic shoppers o the other hand are motivated by aesthetic appeal, and are more likely to make impulse purchases on a website with a high appeal (Constantinides, 2004; Kim and Eastin, 2011; Wang et al 2011).

Now Pinterest is a website typically for hedonic shoppers, and the aesthetic balance is heavily biased towards aesthetic appeal. While a website like apple.com where we can expect shoppers of both types is far more balanced in its aesthetic. On the other end of the scale we can put sites like Craigslist or maybe Ryanair, which you will only visit if you have a certain goal. These sites have an extensive amount of aesthetic formality, and little to no aesthetic appeal.

I will not list the entire list of literature in this post, you should be able to find it on scholar with the authors and year. Just send me a message if you would like to receive the list of articles.

Hey, can't find your email in your profile. Mine's in my profile. I'd love a list of articles.

Cheers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com