Linköping University | Department of Computer Science Bachelor Thesis, 18 hp | Cognitive Science Spring term 2020 | LIU-IDA/KOGVET-G--20/031—SE
Linköping Universitet SE-581 83 Linköping 013-28 10 00, www.liu.se
Sharing is caring
Designing and evaluating an application for
collaborative consumption
Amelie Christiansen
Supervisor: Mathias Broth Examiner: Leelo Keevallik
Copyright
The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible replacement – for a period of 25 years starting from the date of publication barring exceptional circumstances.
The online availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, to download, or to print out single copies for his/hers own use and to use it unchanged for non-commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional upon the consent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility.
According to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement.
For additional information about the Linköping University Electronic Press and its procedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to explore the design of an application in the collaborative consumption area. To explore this, different factors that motivate users to participate in collaborative consumption were investigated. From these factors, User Experience (UX)-attributes were generated as a starting point for the researcher to create concepts and design a digital prototype. The usability of the prototype and whether the UX-attributes had been achieved were later evaluated. On the basis of the usability and interview results, the intent to use the application was explored. Five participants took part in the usability test. This test included measuring task success, user expectation measure and a SUS-questionnaire, after which an interview was conducted to explore the achievement of these attributes. The
interviews were analyzed using the thematic analysis method, and the results showed that the UX-attributes that were chosen were sufficient in generating a concept for collaborative consumption that could communicate these important factors. The results from the usability tests show that the design has well above acceptable usability, and although the interview results show that the UX-attributes were fulfilled in varying degrees, they were all fulfilled. Furthermore, by examining the usability and interview results an intent to use the application was discovered.
Keywords: Interaction design, usability testing, thematic analysis, collaborative consumption.
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ... 1 1.1 Purpose ... 2 1.2 Research Questions ... 3 1.3 Project Background ... 3 2 Theoretical Background ... 3 2.1 Accepting Technology ... 32.2 Acceptance of Collaborative Consumption ... 5
2.3 Design Background ... 8 2.4 Method Background ... 10 2.4.1 UX-attributes... 10 2.4.2 Design Procedure ... 11 2.4.3 Usability Evaluation ... 12 2.4.4 Interview Procedure ... 14 3 Methods used ... 15 3.1 UX-attributes ... 15 3.2 Design Procedure ... 16 3.2.1 Prototype ... 16 3.3 Test Procedure ... 17 3.3.1 Pilot test ... 18 3.3.2 Data Collection ... 18 3.3.3 Data Analysis ... 19 4 Results ... 20 4.1 UX-attributes ... 20 4.2 Design results ... 20 4.2.1 Prototype ... 21 4.3 Usability test ... 25
III
4.3.1 Task Success ... 25
4.3.2 Usability Expectation Measure ... 25
4.3.3 SUS-Questionnaire ... 26
4.3.4 Observations ... 27
4.4 Interviews ... 27
4.4.1 Economic & Sustainability Benefits ... 27
4.4.2 Convenience ... 28 4.4.3 Trust... 29 4.4.4 Sense of Belonging... 30 4.4.5 Additional Themes ... 31 5 Discussion ... 32 5.1 Discussion of Methods ... 32 5.2 Discussion of Results ... 33
5.2.1 What UX-attributes should an application for collaborative consumption have? 33 5.2.2 How could the interface of an application in the collaborative consumption area be designed? ... 34
5.2.3 Do the target users feel that the application fulfils these UX-attributes? ... 34
5.2.4 Do the target users experience intent to use the application? ... 36
Future research ... 37 6 Conclusion... 37 Appendices ... 38 Appendix A ... 38 Appendix B ... 40 Appendix C ... 41 References ... 42
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The fashion industry is one of the industries with the largest impact on the environment, and the total greenhouse gas emissions that is released only from the production of textiles are more than the emissions from maritime shipping and all international flights combined (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). In this production hazardous material is released into the environment and contributes to various forms of environmental pollution, especially ocean pollution. There is a long process to produce a new garment going from a design phase through raw material harvesting to spinning the material, dyeing, weaving, cutting, sewing and global transportation (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). All of these steps use new resources and take its toll on nature.
Many of today’s big fashion companies use planned and aesthetic obsolescence to create fast-changing fashion cycles (Burns & Cooper, 2010). By shortening a products life cycle both in use and style, encourages consumers to purchase new items every season. As more products are produced and purchased, numerous products are thrown away and create tons of landfill waste every year (Fletcher & Grose, 2012).
There is an increasing number of consumers that are working toward diminishing these effects and are therefore buying more and more from second-hand stores or supporting companies that have made the choice to be better for the environment (Niinimäki, 2011). These changes have less of an impact on the environment than if we all stop consuming clothing in the same way we have done until now. The recycling of textile waste and eco-efficient production does not solve the fashion industries environmental impact issues, instead the focus must be aimed at the issue of overconsumption and address it at its core (Fletcher & Grose, 2012). This can be done by changing our economic model from a linear economy to a circular economy. Change the focus from extracting material from the earth, producing products, using these products and then throwing them away (Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1998), and instead focusing on designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible, and regenerating natural systems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). This change has been presented as the best chance we have for changing our behaviour and saving the earth’s resources. Some strategies for achieving this has been introduced as reusing, repair, remanufacture, and as last resort recycle. Studies have shown that by achieving a circular
2 economy strategies within cement, aluminium, steel, plastic and food industry almost half of the current emissions from production within those areas can be removed (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019).
One aspect of this economy is collective consumerism, where there is less focus on ownership of products (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Collaborative consumerism is an economic model that is based on sharing, swapping, trading or renting products and services from other consumers as well as companies. It focuses on enabling access to a product or service instead of focusing on ownership. In this type of economy all products are used for a longer time before being discarded, thus reducing the need for producing and consuming more products than are actually needed (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). This has a positive impact on the environment as sharing reduces the demand for new goods, which reduces production, and consequently shrinks carbon footprints (Schor, 2016).
It is difficult for consumers in the fashion industry, especially the younger generations, to make sustainable choices without feeling like they are missing out (Carrigan & Attala, 2001). We live in a society where people feel social pressures to look a certain way and keep up with the newest fashion styles. These social pressures from media and the fashion industry push consumers to overconsume. To not be seen wearing the same time often, the consumers feel forced to keep updating their closet (Carrigan & Attala, 2001). Studies have shown that this overconsumption results in consumers only wearing 20-30 percent of the clothing that they have in their closet (Ha-Brookshire & Hodges, 2009). This is a huge amount of underused assets.
By designing an application for the purpose of lending and borrowing clothing, it becomes easier for consumers to make more sustainable choices when it comes to clothing, without sacrificing style and yet utilises these underused assets. This is something that has been lacking in the market.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to discover what factors are important for a product in the collaborative consumption field, to create a design proposal for such an application, explore whether the design accomplish to communicate these factors.
3
1.2 Research Questions
• What UX-attributes should an application for collaborative consumption have? • How could the interface of an application in the collaborative consumption
area be designed?
• Do the target users feel that the application fulfils these UX-attributes? • Do the target users experience intent to use the application?
1.3 Project Background
Having identified a gap in the market to help consumers embrace collective consumerism, the author of this report, decided to explore that opportunity in this project. While there are multiple technology services that allow people to rent, swap and sell clothing, options for borrowing are lacking. The majority of the borrowing that occurs today is between friends and can be difficult and disorganised. With this project, the researcher hopes to improve the ease of sharing clothing. This will hopefully result in people participating in sharing activities more often, thus consuming less clothing which in turn will save some of the earth’s resources.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section contains theoretical findings that relate to the project, such as the acceptance of technology and collaborative consumption as well as background on design and methods used in the project.
2.1 Accepting Technology
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is a unifying theory that is based on eight different models for use of technology; theory of reasoned action, technology
acceptance model, the theory of planned behaviour, the motivational model, the model of PC utilization, the innovation diffusion theory and the social cognitive theory (Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis, 2003). In this theory there are four main factors that have been determined to impact a user’s acceptance of technology and use of a technical system. These factors are
4 impact these factors have for each user can be different depending on their age, gender,
experience of the system and whether the use of the system is voluntary. For a simplified version, without the impact of age and gender see figure 1.
Figure 1. A Simplified version of UTAUT, without age and gender. (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
The factor with the greatest impact is performance expectancy. This refers to whether the user believes that the system will be useful for them and improve their performance (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Out of the four factors in the theory, this is the only one that is not affected by the user’s previous experience of the system. In other words, this means that even if a user is an expert user of a system, they still have to feel that it is useful for their life to actually use it. Effort expectancy refers to how inefficient the user expects and experiences the system to be. This factor has an initial impact of the acceptance, however, it will lessen when the user has become more comfortable using the system. The social influence factor refers to the belief that a user has of other people’s expectation on them to use the system, and whether their social status will increase by using the system. This factor has less impact on the acceptance and use in the case of voluntary use. This also lessens when the user has more experience using the system. Facilitating conditions refers to the user’s expectation that it is possible to get help when using the system, and that this help will be similar to their earlier experiences. This factor has the least impact on the will to use, and is irrelevant when the user expects the
5 use to improve something in their life with little effort on their part. The effect is stronger on the actual use, where even expert users expect to be able to find help when required.
Studies have also shown that the ease of use of a dual system that is both useful and fun influences enjoyment and perceived usefulness. If the ease of use of a system is low it will affect the experience of enjoyment, usefulness and consequently intention to use (see figure 2). Amongst these, the strongest impact on intention to use is usefulness (Chesney, 2006).
Figure 2. A revised technology acceptance model for dual systems as stated by Chesney (2006).
2.2 Acceptance of Collaborative Consumption
Motivations have a large impact on the choices we make as humans, and these motivations can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Extrinsic motivation are the motivations that cause people to do certain things for a specific result in mind. Intrinsic motivations refer to the motivations that make people do something for their own satisfaction. Both these types of motivations have an impact on whether consumers participate in collaborative
consumption.
The extrinsic factors that affect collaborative consumption are convenience and economic
benefits (Barnes & Mattson, 2017; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen 2016). Economic benefit is
the extent a user perceives that participating in collaborative consumption will be advantageous, either by reducing cost or yielding money. The intrinsic factors are
6 user perceives that the product or service will save time and effort on a performing a task (Moeller & Wittkowski, 2010). Trust refers to the extent the user can be confident that the system offers a quality solution and that if something goes wrong the system will solve the problem. It also refers to trust in other customers, as some of the collaborative consumption systems require interaction between customers.
The main factors that significantly affect the intention to participate in collaborative
consumption is enjoyment and perceived usefulness (Barnes & Mattson, 2017; Hamari et al., 2016). Enjoyment refers to the inner pleasure that a user perceives when they participate in a specific consumption activity. The effect that enjoyment has on intention to use can be accounted for by explaining that when a person participate and feels that collaborative
consumption can save resources and reduce consumption, their inherent need to be altruistic is satisfied (Moeller & Wittkowski, 2010). This satisfaction tends to allow them to perceive that they have contributed to others, society and nature. As a result the individual perceives that their level of enjoyment is higher, which in turn makes them want to participate. Studies have also found that users might participate in collaborative consumption for no reason other than because it fund and allows them to have meaningful interactions with other members of the community (Hamari et al., 2016). A user’s motivation may change from altruistic to selfish but as long as the benefits they experience outweighs the possible cost they will embrace the system.
Perceived usefulness is the extent to which users believe that using collaborative consumption products or services can increase the efficiency in their work or life (Davis, 1989). Generally, humans use products and services that somehow improve their life, such as helping them work and live better. Thus, the more useful a user perceives the collaborative consumption product or service to be, the stronger their intent to participate is (Davis, 1989).
These intrinsic and extrinsic factors have different effect on a user’s intention to use a system. Extrinsic motivations have been proven to have more effect, but for an ideal experience it is important to keep both kinds of motivation in mind (Barnes & Mattson, 2017; Hamari et al., 2016). For these extrinsic motivations convenience is more important than economic benefit, because it has been found that for most users money is no longer the primary factor they consider (Li & Wen, 2019). Instead consumers are more focused on the extent in which their living efficiency can improve. Therefore the primary extrinsic factor is considered to be convenience (Li & Wen, 2019).
7 Trust was deemed the primary factor for intrinsic motivations (Barnes & Mattson, 2017; Hamari et al., 2016; Li & Wen, 2019). This is due to the fact that the information users have are generally unbalanced among each other, and because there are often imperfections in the system that cause users to experience insecurity and uncertainty. If users do not experience trust then they will not embrace the system (Li & Wen, 2019). In the context of collaborative consumption it is important to build interpersonal trust for users to participate in sharing activities (Keymolen, 2013; Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Producers of a product has an inherent concern that the consumers will not take care of the property when it is borrowed
(McLachlan, Opila, Shah, Sun, & Naaman, 2016). As a result, an unevenness might arise between what the producers want to offer and what the consumers want to borrow. If this happens, the will to use is impacted. The use of reputation systems, such as user ratings and reviews, are often used to generate trust (Belk, 2014).
Interpersonal trust can also be generated by utilising relational communities, because these communities have an innate high sense of community and instil trust among its members (MacMillan, 1996). Many relational communities are geographically close and when they participate in collaborative consumption they do nt have the trust barrier between each other. Convenience is an important aspect of collaborative consumption. The geographical
community and the proximity between members is especially significant in the case of sharing activities for a user to experience convenience. Real-life social connections have an affective dimension, which virtual relationships often do not. These virtual relationships are often experienced as more fun and consequently less deep, they can also be perceived as enjoyable because they engage with strangers. The use of both relational and geographical communities for building trust can allow users to embrace the geographically close community in addition to their relational community. It is important to generate trust and allow users to experience a good feeling (Barnes & Mattson, 2017). When a user trusts the system they experience less worry and anxiety in the process, allowing for a more enjoyable experience.
Findings show that community is both a driver and an outcome of participating in collaborative consumption activities (Albinsson & Perera, 2015). Participation in
collaborative consumption generates an inherent sense of belonging, therefore when users participate they feel part of a community, which adds a feeling of enjoyment and intention to participate. It is believed that when users are involved in collaborative consumption and participating in shared activities, communities can be established (Albinsson & Perera, 2012).
8 Having a sense of community makes people feel psychologically fulfilled, happy and
satisfied, which consequently increases their intention to participate (Li & Wen, 2019). When designing for sense of belonging, companies should ensure that they are building communities that can satisfy users’ social relationship requirements.
In the context of sustainability users realise that participating in collaborative consumption protects the environment and saves resources, and for most people this increases their inner satisfaction and intention to participate in collaborative consumption activities (Li & Wen, 2019).
The extrinsic motivations of economic benefit and convenience affect perceived usefulness which in turn influences the intention to participate in collaborative consumption activities (Li & Wen, 2019). The intrinsic motivations of sustainability, sense of belonging and trust
influence enjoyment which affect participation intention. For an illustration of how the motivations affect each other see figure 3.
Figure 3. A flowchart illustrating how the different motivations relate to each other.
2.3 Design Background
People have an expectation of what they will see and this results in them only perceiving those things (Johnson, 2010). This perception is affected by three things; previous
experiences, present context and future goals. In the context of design, this means that a user’s previous experiences can cause them to take certain actions and click on something, not because they’ve understood that it can be done but because they have expectations of how it should be. For this reason it is important to be consistent with your choices when designing a
9 system. People trust their previous experiences more than what is actually there and if buttons are placed somewhere new or look differently, then the users are more likely to have
difficulty finding what they are looking for and make errors (Johnson, 2010). This is a phenomenon called expectation-induced blindness.
Expectation-induced blindness also means that it is important to use words that are familiar to the user. In addition to people only seeing what they expect, when they actually do look they do not read and instead only scan pages (Johnson, 2010). It is therefore advantageous to divide information hierarchically, to allow the users to quickly scan the information and determine what is relevant for their current task. When a user scans a page it is common for them to unconsciously ignore words that they themselves do not associate with what they are doing. This means that using expressions that are not in the user’s vocabulary can cause irritation and lessen their experience. This can consequently increase the time it takes for a user to learn how to use a system’s relevant dimensions.
Gestalt laws are used to visually group information that belong together (Johnson, 2010). This grouping can be done by arranging components by proximity, contrast, continuity or closure (see figure 4). The proximity of objects affect whether we experience them as grouped or not, and when objects are placed closer together relative to the other objects they are experienced as grouped. Grouping by contrast can be done by designing objects to have a different shape, size, strength or colour. Contrast can also be used to clearly show what is most important, as well as allowing the users to experience a richer design. Grouping by continuity can be accomplished by repeating colours and logotypes, and when colours are used consistently in the design users can understand connections between different components.
10 Colours are used to strengthen the messages and themes we want to communicate in the design (Nielsen, 2001). How users experience colours is different depending on where in the world they are from, as their culture and earlier experiences affect their associations. Colours can be used communicate emotions as well as physical features. In western cultures a colour like green can signify good luck, growth and nature, while yellow signifies peace, fun and happiness, and gold signifies money (McCandless, Doughty-White, & Wdowski, 2009). Even colours for the background need to be considered (Nielsen, 2001). It is important that they are not distracting, or have competing colours. Because all colours affect each other it is
important to consider how the chosen colours affect one another and the user’s experience of them.
When a user interacts with a system they quickly decide whether it is trustworthy (Weinschenk, 2011). A system can quickly be rejected before the user have actually
considered it, and it’s only after that that they consciously decide whether or not to actually trust it. A system’s rejection is based on design factors such as colour, font, layout and
navigation and these factors are critical to make through the rejection. The conscious decision of whether to trust the system or not, considers content and credibility.
One way of motivating the use of a product is to design it in a way that allows people to connect with other people (Weinschenk, 2011). This can be done in many different ways, however if the aim is to create strong ties between people it is important to consider the physical proximity of users, as well as designing ways for people that uses the product to interact and get to know each other.
2.4 Method Background
This section contains background on the methods used in this project.
2.4.1 UX-attributes
UX-attributes can be explained as the qualities a user should experience when interacting with a product or service (Arvola, 2014). They are used to give an idea of what the design aspires to accomplish and can be determined by looking at how the experience of the design should be.
11
2.4.2 Design Procedure
Personas are archetypes that describe the goals and observed behavioural patterns for potential users and are normally created from data from the target users (Arvola, 2014). A persona is a fictive person that is created to give a designer a specific character to design for. Furthermore, a persona gives the designer something to evaluate the concepts toward and should include specific motivations, expectations and goals.
A design concept is used to clarify the design by presenting the basic idea, and explaining how and why it is needed. Once a design concept has been chosen, the requirement specification and prototypes can be generated (Arvola, 2014). The first phase in a design procedure is to identify the design concept. This can be done by specifying the type of product it should be and give it a name, and can be determined by asking yourself what the product is. The second phase to identify the purpose and contents of the product can be discussed by asking what it will be used for, what contents and functions it will have, and when and in what environments it will be used. The third phase is to specify how to achieve this and what qualities the product need. To determine this it is good to think about what qualities the product should possess, what problems the product counteracts, why it should be used, and how people will be affected by the product. It is common to create multiple design concepts to compare.
To compare the design concepts a pugh-matrix can be used. A pugh-matrix is a matrix where you compare how well the different concepts fulfil a set of characteristics. The various
characteristics is written down on the vertical row and the different concepts are places on the horizontal row (Pugh, 1990). For the evaluation the concept you have most faith in is chosen and used as a reference for the others. Each concept is compared to the chosen concept, this is done by evaluating whether it fulfils the characteristics better, worse or just as well. The concept used as a reference is given a zero (0) for all characteristics. If the other concept idea is deemed worse than the reference it is given a minus (-) for that characteristics, if it is just as good: a zero (0) and better: a plus (+). At the end all the points are calculated for each concept to see which was given the most points. It is common to ascertain which characteristics of the different concepts were best and create a new concept that is a mix of the different ideas (Arvola, 2014).
When a concept has been chosen it is recommended to create a storyboard and use this as help when determining the specification requirements (Arvola, 2014). A storyboard is an
12 illustration that shows a scenario of how the concept idea can be used in reality. Having a storyboard allows the designer to easier see what is required of the design. A specification of requirements should contain functional- and data needs. The functional needs are the needs the users have to be able to use the product as it is meant. The data needs specify what type of information the user must be able to process.
Design progress through sketches and prototypes (Arvola, 2014). A prototype represents the idea and is used to understand, evaluate and develop a design. Furthermore, prototypes are used to further specify the requirements and determine the extent of the requirements before the product is created as it is difficult to anticipate how each design choice will affect the user experience, which is good to discover before starting production. Creating and interacting with prototypes also allows the designer to see what works and what is missing. A hi-fi prototype is a computer based prototype that is detailed and very similar to how the product should be and what functions it has.
2.4.3 Usability Evaluation
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) define usability as how well a specific user can use a product to effectively, efficiently and satisfactory achieve specified goals in a specified context of use (ISO, 1998). In other words how well the target user can use the product in a real user-scenario. Lindgaard & Chattratichart (2007) says that there is not a magic number of participants for finding every problem, and that usability tests are costly and takes time and so the focus should be on creating a test that is representative of the real user- scenario and with real users, rather than testing a large number. Findings also show that five participants is generally enough, and that increasing the number of participant rarely increases the problems found.
It is common to use what is called the think-aloud-protocol during a usability test. The protocol consists of participants expressing their impressions, thoughts and reflections on the product aloud during the performance of the tasks (Holzinger, 2005). This is used to
understand how the participant reasons regarding their experience of the design and the interaction. By using this protocol together with annotated observations the researcher can achieve a better understanding of the participants experience. The observations allow the researcher to discern whether some element of the design is misunderstood, and with the
13 comments made during the test the researcher also have a better chance of understanding why (Holzinger, 2005).
The most common method to measure usability is task success as it can be used for most types of tests (Tullis & Albert, 2008). Task success is measured by observing whether the participant can complete the tasks. When evaluating task success it is important that the tasks are clearly defined and have a clear end-state. This can be finding the answer to a question or finishing a purchase. It is also important to make sure the participants understand when the task has been completed, and that this is clear before the start of each task. This can be done by asking the participants to verbalise the answer when they feel that they are finished. Task success result is best represented binary (1 or 0), where 1 means success and 0 failure, and allows for an easy collection and analysis of data.
A user’s expectation of an experience can be measured by using Usability Expectation Measure (Rich & McGee, 2004). This is measured by asking the participant before each task to determine how difficult they expect the task to be, and guess the difficulty on a scale from 1-5 only based on the task description. After the completion of the task they then answer how difficult it actually was. The results from this measure is determined by calculating two averages from all participants for each task, one for the expected difficulty and one for the actual difficulty. It is recommended to perform different actions depending on the results (Rich and McGee, 2004). If the task is expected to be simple and is also perceived to be simple then “don’t touch it”, if it is expected to be difficult but is simple then “promote it”, if it is expected to be simple but is difficult it should be “fixed fast” and if it is expected to be difficult and is difficult it is a “big opportunity for improvement”.
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is one of the most used standardised usability
questionnaires. It measures usability holistically and was based on ISO-definition of usability (ISO, 1998). A SUS-questionnaire has been determined to be a quick and reliable way of measuring usability (Brooke, 1996). The questionnaire should be completed right after the participant has finished interacting with the system. It consists of ten questions posed as statements, where the participants answer to what degree they agree with the statement. For this, a five-point Likert Scale is used. To minimize the risk of the participant being influenced by the previous question and choosing the same value out of habit, the odd-numbered
statements are positive and the even-numbered statements are negative. An example of a positive statement in the questionnaire is “I think that I would use this system frequently”, and
14 a negative statement is “I found the system unnecessarily complex”. For a full list of
statement see Appendix B.
The SUS-value is calculated by subtracting 1 from each value on the odd-numbered
statements and subtracting the value from 5 on the even-numbered statements (Brooke, 1996). All ten sums are then added together and multiplied by 2,5. This calculation results in a value between 0 and 100, which is used to indicate the system’s usability. Generally it is the overall result from the questionnaire that matters, and not the result on the individual statements. It is generally accepted that a value over 70 is recommended and a value under 50 is unacceptable (Bangor, Kortum, & Miller, 2009).
2.4.4 Interview Procedure
A qualitative interview is a well-used research method and very suitable for discovering and exploring personal experiences (Howitt, 2013). These interviews are often organised in a semi-structured way where the important questions have been written down to make sure they are asked. When these questions are used as an interview guide, and not a definite set of questions the researcher has the opportunity to add questions if they feel the need. This allows them to explore additional topics if they feel that it would benefit the project. Using an
interview guide also gives the researcher the freedom to change the order of the questions. This is good as sometimes during semi-structured interviews the interviewee starts talking about a topic that will be discussed later on, and so if this happens the order of the interview guide can be upheld or rearranged depending on what the researcher feels is best (Sofaer, 1999). All the questions posed in the interview, apart from some introductory questions should be phrased as open-ended questions. This invite the interviewee to answer the questions to a greater extent, and also gives the researcher more data to analyse later on. To facilitate the analysis of the interviews the researcher should use some type of digital recording, either audio or video, so that they can focus on what the participant is saying or doing instead of taking notes (Howitt, 2013).
After the interviews have been completed and transcribed the results need to be analysed. To do this thematic analysis (TA) can be used. It is a flexible method that can be used for many different type of topics and is a great way to analyse qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Braun and Clarke (2006) recommend that the researcher should first familiarize themselves with the data by re-reading it and simultaneously annotating various ideas that might occur.
15 After this the researcher should systematically create initial codes and gathering data that fits them. These initial codes are generally abbreviations of the patterns found. When this has been completed the researcher should discern potential themes from the codes and gather the relevant data for each theme. At this point the themes should be clearly defined and given a name. These themes become increasingly refined over the analysis process as the themes are clarified.
3 METHODS USED
The following section explains the methods used for designing an application to facilitate sharing clothing between consumers, as well as the evaluation of the application and
experience. All parts of the study were done in English because one of the participants did not speak Swedish fluently and because the application is in English similarly to many other applications.
3.1 UX-attributes
When determining the aspects to include in the design a literature review was carried out and many factors were found. These aspects can be found in section 2.2. From these aspects, possible UX-attributes were evaluated and chosen. UX-attribute (1) The system allows for
community building was chosen to allow users to experience a sense of belonging, (2) The system communicate economic benefits to given them an impression of saving money, (3) The system communicate ecological benefits was chosen to give users the impression that they
have done something good for the world and thus feel better, (4) The system allows for easy
and convenient process of sharing clothing was chosen to make sure little effort is needed
when using the system and (5) The system should build interpersonal trust was chosen to keep the trust aspect in mind. Attributes (6) With the help of attribute 2 and 4, the system
should communicate usefulness and (7) With the help of attribute 1, 3 and 5, the system should be enjoyable were both chosen as it is important to remember that perceived
usefulness and enjoyment are mediators for intention to use and also what impacts these factors.
16
3.2 Design Procedure
When creating the persona motivations, expectations and goals were devised from the UX-attributes. The concepts were inspired by the persona, as well as current clothing applications. To flesh out the different ideas questions mentioned previously for the three different phases for generating concepts were answered. All concept ideas were based on the goal of being able to use the application to share clothing.
The concept ideas were evaluated using a Pugh-matrix. The characteristics to be evaluated were based on the UX-attributes. The idea that was most hopeful in the beginning was a normal shopping application. That concept was used as the main concept meaning the other concepts were evaluated in relation to that one. Each characteristic were compared. The chosen concept was a mix of the initial concept and sharing a closet with friends and other people. By creating this new concept the mental models that users might have for “shopping” experience can be met together with their experience of social media.
A storyboard was created to show how the concept idea could be used. The story was first written down, then split into different scenes/squares. After that the image for each square was chosen by seeing what fit and what the characters would say or think in the storyboard. The storyboard was created by taking photos and making them more like illustration using Adobe Illustrator.
A first version of the requirement specifications was created by examining the storyboard. First the functional requirements were chosen by determining which functions each page of the prototype would need to accomplish the scenario in the storyboard, as well as additional functions needed to achieve the UX-attributes. When this had been completed the data requirements which were the corresponding data required for each function were written down. When these had been determined the prototype was designed. In tandem with the progress of the prototype additional requirements were chosen.
3.2.1 Prototype
The prototype was created using Adobe XD. In total twenty-five pages were designed for the prototype, as they were determined to be the most important to the experience of using the application, as well as being able to fulfil the task of the prototype testing. After the UX-goals had been chosen, it was determined that it would be unnecessary to explicitly design functions
17 to communicate economic and sustainable benefits. Using colours to subtly create
associations were the only design choice that was made for those attributes. Green was chosen to allow users to associate the application with nature, while yellow/gold was chosen for the associations to fun, happiness and money (McCandless et al., 2009). The associations to money and nature was chosen to communicate the economic and sustainability aspect, fun and happiness was chosen for enjoyment. The images used in the prototype were from an already existing sharing application. These images were chosen because they were high quality photos of clothing from people in their home, which was something that application had requested from the users. The descriptions were also from that application to create as real of an experience as possible. Many different filters were chosen to make finding a specific garment easier and quicker. The distance label was added to communicate how far the user would have to travel and allow them to quickly decide if that is convenient for them. The community aspect was chosen to communicate sense of belonging, and to allow for both relational and geographical communities different sections were created. The message
function was chosen to facilitate getting to know members. Ratings and a bio with a specified set of questions that shows a bit of how the users are, were chosen to generate trust.
3.3 Test Procedure
In total five participants were used for the evaluation of the application and experience. Task success and usability expectation measure was chosen to identify if there were any functions of the design that were confusing to the participant and whether any changes were needed. The SUS-questionnaire was chosen to see how the participants experienced the application’s usability. The themes from the interviews were used to evaluate whether the UX-goals had been accomplished. The themes and the SUS-score was later used to determine whether the participants had experienced intent to use. The participants were three women and two men, two of the women were between 22-27, the men 24-29 and one woman was 60. All
participants were found through convenience sampling and were tested separately. Each participant was tested once and the different parts of the test were conducted consecutively. The participants that were chosen were chosen as it was assumed that most users would likely be around 20-35. However, to ensure that the design does not only work for younger people, an older participant was included. The majority of the participants were female as they are generally more interested in clothing. The men were included in the test because the goal of the application was to facilitate sharing between everyone, not just women. The participants
18 were tested in their own homes with the researcher next to them, to test them more in their normal habitat. At the start of each test the participants read through and signed a consent form (see Appendix A), where it was clear what was expected of them, as well as the opportunity for them to withdraw at any time.
3.3.1 Pilot test
Before the usability test and the interviews were conducted with the five participants, a pilot test was performed on a different user. This user was also found through convenience sampling. This resulted in a change being made to a statement in a member’s bio, as well as task 5 being rephrased. Originally, the statement in the bio was “my favourite piece of clothing” and the task was to find out what the user had put down as their favourite piece of clothing. However, when the pilot user performed this task they answered with the garments found in the favourites tab instead of what was written in the bio. To minimize
misunderstanding, favourite was changed to most treasured. Apart from this change, the pilot test procedure and the main test procedure were the same.
3.3.2 Data Collection
After the participants signed the consent form they were asked if they were uncertain of anything or had any questions. After that they were asked to fill in their age and gender. When this was done they were told that they would be given five tasks, one at a time, and that before starting each task they would choose how difficult on a scale of one to five how difficult they expected the task to be, as well as how difficult it was after completing the task. They were then given the first task and reminded to think-aloud and explain their thoughts and choices, and began the process. This was repeated four times with different tasks. When all tasks had been completed, they were asked to answer a SUS-questionnaire (see Appendix B). When a task had been completed a 1 was written down. The test was done on an iPhone 6 using the Adobe XD application. The five tasks chosen, were chosen to test the design as well as allow the participants to experience the different functions of the application to showcase the possibilities of it. The tasks stated were “find out what date is your next booking”, “find out what has your sister anna saved as her favourite”, “find out what time did you decide with Sophie that she is coming over”, “book the polka dotted blouse for the 10-15 of April” and “find out what you wrote down as your most treasured piece of clothing”. During the tasks,
19 observations were written down regarding how the users interacted with the prototype, any issues they had, as well as their commentary.
After the SUS-questionnaire was completed, the participants were informed that the interview part of the test would begin and that the researcher would start the audio recording. The interviews were semi-structured. The structure of each interview was based on an interview guide (see Appendix C). Additional questions that arose organically during the interview were also included. The first two questions were to determine their previous experience with
shopping and sharing clothing. Question 3-4 was to determine how easy they experienced the design, and their impression of the process of using this application. Question 5-9 were used to highlight their impression of the community aspect. Question 10-11 related to trust aspects of the design as well as the process of using the application. The concluding questions
regarded the participants possible future use of the application. These type of questions were chosen as they were the aspects that was deemed important for collaborative consumption, and would be able to be evaluated in the context of this study. The interviews lasted between 23-37 minutes. The difference in duration was due to the different ways each participant answered the questions, some answered directly while others were more expressive.
Furthermore, some questions were shown to not result in anything relevant and were therefore not asked in some of the later interviews.
3.3.3 Data Analysis
The results from the usability expectation measure and task success were analysed as mentioned in an earlier section. The answers to the SUS-questionnaires were analysed by calculating each participant’s value as explained previously in the report. A final SUS-value was determined as the average of all participants’ SUS-value. The audio recordings from the interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically as described previously. This analysis was done on each transcription separately. Themes were identified and the data was placed in a table, where the different comments from each participants were seperately. If additional themes were identified in later transcriptions, these were added. The observations and comments were analysed in the same way.
20
4 RESULTS
This section presents all results from the study that relate to the questions posed in the study. This includes the chosen UX-attributes, prototype design and evaluation of the prototype and the experience.
4.1 UX-attributes
The UX-attributes that were chosen as vital for the design were “The system allows for community building” for the community aspect, “The system communicates economic benefits” for the economic aspect, “The system communicates ecological benefits” for the sustainability aspect, “The system allows for easy and convenient process of sharing” for convenience, and for the aspect of trust “The system should build interpersonal trust” was chosen. The two additional UX-attributes were “With the help of attribute 2 and 4, the system should communicate usefulness” and “With help of attribute 1, 3 and 5 the system should be enjoyable”, were chosen for perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment respectively. See table 1.
UX-attributes
1 The system allows for community building
2 The system communicates economic benefits
3 The system communicates ecological benefits
4 The system allows for easy and convenient process of sharing
5 The system should build interpersonal trust
6 With the help of attribute 2 and 4, the system should communicate usefulness
7 With the help of attribute 1, 3 and 5, the system should be enjoyable Table 1. UX-attributes
4.2 Design results
Four concept ideas were conceived. These were evaluated and a final concept was created. This concept was an amalgamation of the earlier ideas, as it was determined to have the best opportunity to accomplish the UX-attributes. For this concept a storyboard was created and from this storyboard the requirement specification and the hi-fi prototype was created.
21
4.2.1 Prototype
There were five main pages. These were the community page (figure 11), messaging page (figure 14), browsing page (figure 5), profile page (figure 18) and booking page (figure 16). These could be chosen in the bottom navigation bar. On each page there were different tabs that could be chosen depending on the user’s need. For this report, the actual images used in the prototype have been modified for copyright purposes.
The homepage was chosen as the browsing page. The users can browse the different garments on the application and choose one. A page was created for a specific garment were the user could look at different images of the garment, see a description of the garment, an option to mark the garment as a favourite and check availability. Below the navigation bar there is more information about the garment such as size, fabric, quality, care instruction.
Figure 5. Application home page Figure 6. Product page
22 Figure 7. Product booking pages
On the homepage the users could also choose options for filtering the results, look at friend- and booking requests as well as adding a new piece of clothing. These pages were however not used in any of the tasks as the prototype did not have the right functionality.
Figure 8. Filter page Figure 9. Adding garment page Figure 10. Friend Request page On the Community page the users could see all members of the application or only those they’re friends with. This was chosen to make it possible to only interact with people you’re comfortable with, as well as finding new people to talk to and share clothes with.
23 Figure 11.. All members Community page Figure 12. Friends Community page Figure 13. Member page
On the Messages page the users could see the different messages as well as read the them.
Figure 14. Friend Messages page Figure 15. Message page
On the bookings page the users could choose between tabs showing active bookings (when the user is currently sharing a garment), upcoming booking (a garment that has been booked but has not yet been handed over) and history (archive of finished booking). Whether
24 Arrows pointing in signified that the user was borrowing that piece of clothing, and an arrow pointing out meant the user was lending it out.
Figure 16. Bookings History page Figure 17. Booking Upcoming page
On the profile page there was the main information about the user, with an image and the user’s rating, as well as a bio with answers to questions that all members are asked to answer. The users could also choose between tabs for displaying the clothes they have up for lending and the option to add more, and what garments from other members has been saved as favourites.
25 Figure 18. User Profile Closet page Figure 19. User Profile Favourites page
4.3 Usability test
This section contains the results from the usability test. These include task success, usability expectation measure, the SUS-questionnaire, as well as observations.
4.3.1 Task Success
All participants completed the tasks, showing that the difficulty level was acceptable. Task (1) was “find out what date your next booking is”, (2) “find out what your sister Anna has saved as her favourite”, (3) “find out what time you decided with Sophie that she is coming over”, (4) “book the polka dotted blouse for the 10-15 of April” and (5) “find out what you wrote down as your most treasured piece of clothing”.
4.3.2 Usability Expectation Measure
For all participants the tasks had little difference between expected difficulty and actual difficulty. The expected difficulty for all the tasks were on the easy side of the scale, such as “easy” and “very easy”. Over all, the tasks were deemed easier than the participants had expected.
26 Table 2. Usability Expectation Measure Results
4.3.3 SUS-Questionnaire
The analysis of the SUS-questionnaire showed that the average value was 91,50 with the standards deviation of 6,60.
Table 3. SUS-questionnaire Results, by participant. Avg stands for average score.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5
Usability Expectation Measure
Expected value Actual value
100 95 92.5 80 90 91.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1 2 3 4 5 Avg
SUS-Score by participant
Participants27
4.3.4 Observations
The majority of participants completed the tasks on their first try, without clicking wrong or being uncertain. For the older participant there was some confusion over the word booking because they had not heard it in the context of the task before. There was also some
misunderstanding whether clothing could be booked using the bookings page. One participant thought that they could go from the bookings page to messages between that user and
themselves, and were disappointed when that was not possible. The participant felt it was inconvenient having to go between tabs.
4.4 Interviews
The following section contains the themes that were identified in the thematic analysis of transcript data. How the different themes relate to the UX-attributes is discussed in section 5.2.
4.4.1 Economic & Sustainability Benefits
Regarding the initial use of the system the majority of participants communicated that they would try it for special occasions in the beginning to test the application and the sharing process. They saw the most benefit borrowing for special occasions as these garments are often more expensive and are only used a few times, something they experience as wasteful both for their wallet and nature. They expected it to gradually change and that when they felt the usefulness of the application to sometimes also use it for everyday things.
”I think I would start off with doing special occasions so it would be more the things I’m not willing to buy outright just for one or two instances but then I would then see the benefits and then probably use the app more frequently.” Some expressed that they try to buy everything second-hand to save money and natural resources. The issue they had was that there often was not the type of garment they needed or of the right quality, and that it often took them more time than they wanted to spend going through what the second-hand stores had, one garment at a time. This would in turn sometimes result in them buying something from a regular store or ordering online, as one participant said: “I would prefer to buy something sustainable like from a second-hand store
28 but I know myself, and right know I would chose the simplest way and just order something online”
4.4.2 Convenience
As mentioned before there were those that wished to save resources but that the process of having to go through each garment in the second-hand stores often make them give up or sometimes not even try. The ease of which they’d be able to search or filter for what they were looking for really made them want to use the system. As one participant said:
“The best thing was the filter and where you can choose different preferences whatever occasion you want to lend something. Because then you see exactly what you want and you see exactly these options you have for what exactly you want to look for.”
They also expressed that seeing the proximity of the different members could make it easy to decide whether the distance would be inconvenient or not to meet up. Some also expressed that they wanted to share more clothing but that there was not a convenient way of doing this without a system similar to this.
There was an issue that for some it was generally important to try things on and be sure that they fit when buying it. However the majority felt it would not be too inconvenient if they borrowed something, it did not fit just right and they’d have to return it.
”I guess it would be easier if I could try it on depending on the piece of clothing I guess and just see this didn't fit me and then just give it back but I don't see it that big of a problem to just take it home try it out there and then see yeah this is good enough or no it doesn't fit right and then maybe contact the owner and see if I can I can organize a meeting to return the piece of clothing. It wouldn’t be that big of a deal.”
They also compared it to buying things online and often having to return it, and that this has not made them stop buying more things. They also felt that it would be fine to communicate with the other member if they really wanted to try it on and discuss whether they could meet somewhere that would allow the borrower to try the garment on.
29 One participant expressed a worry about the risk of a bottleneck occurring if one member would only be able to meet at a certain time and the other would not be able to make it for that time. The participant wondered if using some sort of drop-off point would fix this problem. They were worried that if it became too much of a hassle organizing a meeting time, that they would feel it was easier to just go to a store or order something similar online.
4.4.3 Trust
While all participants experienced the design as trustworthy, there was one aspect that could not be fully tested only using the prototype, which was the trust between users. As one participant said: “the design is mostly just a means of communication and connecting people so most of the trust is between the people and not the app”. One of the participants was very clear in that she’d only want to use the application with friends and not people they did not know. The participant liked the function of being able to choose that only friends could see their garments and to only see theirs’s. Another participant expressed that they would like to try out the application just with friends to become comfortable with the process and after that open up to all users. However, most participants communicated that they would be very open to sharing with all possible members and that there would be little difference in sharing with friends versus unknown members.
Additionally it was expressed that there would be a level of uneasiness and uncertainty when starting to share with someone and that it would be a gradual thing and the more you share and use the app the more comfortable they’d become by trusting the people and the
community as a whole. It was also expressed that there would be different levels of trust needed between members depending on the quality or emotional connection to the specific garment, as well as depending on whether they were the one borrowing or lending the garment.
All participants expressed that having real life events would help building trust. As one said “You have more trust for people you’ve met”. They expressed that by meeting people face-to-face it would be easier to get a feeling for them and see how they are as people. “if you know the type of person you're dealing I think you're definitely gonna be more inclined to
participate”. They felt that they would not need to necessarily become friends with the
members to participate but that they’d definitely be more inclined to participate in the sharing with an acquaintance than a stranger and that it would be enough to have some sort of positive
30 interaction. They saw these events as possibly being swap-events and that by also being able to try out the clothes, the members could get a better feeling of the quality of products offered in the application. They also expressed that if they had not been able to meet the other
member that the ability to being able to communicate with them beforehand was vital, and that it would be important in those conversations to communicate about uncertainties and make sure you’re comfortable with each other.
In addition the use of ratings was important as it added a sense of accountability. By using ratings, the members are aware that their behaviour in a sharing situation can affect their ratings and in turn other members’ future willingness to share with that member. However, they felt there was not enough accountability and that there should be some insurance that when you borrow something there is a clear price that the other member has to pay if it is not returned in the same state. Some kind of accountability that is clear and that when they sign up for the application they have to sign a contract explaining what happens if something goes wrong and what is expected of each member. One participant gave the idea that users should take a photo when they receive the garment and one upon returning it, so that there is
evidence if something was different before.
”There should possibly be like rules to follow. I think another thing of
accountability would be you take a picture of the item when you get it and you take a picture of the item when you return it so that you say that hole was there before. So stopping it from becoming a ‘he said she said’ thing.”
They also expressed a need for clear user guidelines. While most of them expressed that they take better care of other people’s possession than their own, there is always a risk of an accident and that for those situations they would be more comfortable if the line of action was clear. The members would then be confident in the process, if something would happen.
4.4.4 Sense of Belonging
There was a clear impression that by meeting the community members face-to-face the they would feel more part of the community. They all expressed the likelihood of becoming friends or at least friendly with the other members. One participant felt that as you’d like the style of some specific members and therefore share with them multiple times, likely resulting in them becoming friends. That it is a good way of easing into a new friendship, and that style and perhaps similar interest is a good jumping off point. As one participant said: “You start
31 lending a lot of clothing from someone you’re going to start talking a lot about it and that's a very good way to like ease into a new friendship”. One even expressed that they’d rather share with people they did not know as they saw it as an opportunity to find friends.
Even those that were more sceptical to meeting new people using the application, felt that it would be a good way to interact with their already existing friends and perhaps give them a reason to see them more than they did currently. They saw that by using those groups as a jumping of point one type of community would then change into a larger community.
There was also a sense that while the messaging part of the application was good, they wished the application had some kind of a mass communication function, such as a message board. One user felt that such a message board could also be used to ask if a member had a specific garment that they required by that no one had put in their application closet.
4.4.5 Additional Themes
Even though participants expressed some inconvenience with the process of sharing, they all could see the usefulness and benefits of using it. Four out of five expressed that they wanted to use it and that they were sad that such an app was not available to them at the moment. When asked about the experience of interacting with the application the users expressed that they liked the design, some said it was fun and other said they enjoyed the experience. When asked about using such a system on a website or mobile they expressed that having it as an app would allow them to browse even when they were not looking for anything, just to
browse for fun. As one participant said: “it seems quite like something I would peruse through quite often just to see even when I'm not looking for something specific”. They expressed that this in turn might result in them search in the application before looking anywhere else for no reason other than out of habit.
Improvements
The improvements the participants expressed were being able to search for members by name, having the option of buying and selling the garments, and making it clearer in the booking section what garments the member had borrowed from other members and vice versa. While the function to distinguishing which garments have been borrowed or lent already existed, the participants wished it to be more obvious. There was also a desire to be able to filter members within a certain area, either proximity or city.
32
5 DISCUSSION
This study explores what factors affect the intention to use a technological system and more specifically a system in the collaborative consumption area; how such an application could be designed, whether these factors were deemed achieved and whether it would result in
intention to use. To conclude this report the results and methods used to achieve them are discussed.
5.1 Discussion of Methods
While a persona was used for the design, it was not created by observing and analysing the target user group. Instead it was based on the discoveries made regarding acceptance of collaborative consumption systems. By mostly using the discoveries about collaborative consumption, there is a risk that important aspects of the target persona is left out. There was a basis for the persona with the discoveries about collaborative consumption, however discussing these discoveries with other members of the target group might have resulted in a different set of requirements. Collecting data about the target users would also give the researcher more research to justify their choices with. However, an argument that has been made, that could be used in this situation, is that human-centred design should not be used when designing innovative solutions (Vezzoli et al., 2018). Because if the system is new then the target users would not have an experience or expectation of how such a thing would be. This in turn means that they would have to imagine how it would be, and imagining scenarios does not always work as they have not been tried and tested.
The phone that was used for the test was not one that all participants were used to. However, as the phone that was tested is one of the smaller phone sizes and the usability results were positive it should not have affected the results. The prototype was local on the phone and therefore somewhat misgiving as real use of an application would require internet, where things load and actions take different amount of time to complete depending on the internet connection. Performing a usability test in real life scenario might therefore affect the result. This means that there is no ecological validity and that the results cannot yet be generalised to real-life settings.
The participants of the test could be argued as not fully representative of the target users. While the aim was to design an application that the majority of users could use, this includes
33 men/women, young/old, the actual users would most likely be young women, as they are generally more interested in clothing. The usability results would likely be the same, however their motivations might be different which in turn could have affected their experience of the design.
Another limitation regarding the participants is that the participants were found through a convenience sample. Because of this there is a risk that there were little variation in their basic values. While there was an attempt to have a heterogenous group by including men as well as women, and the addition of the older participant, the homogeneousness in values means that while the results from the study is positive it cannot be generalized to the entire population. The tests were performed in Linköping with mostly Swedish speaking participants, one spoke English. For this reason the entire test was conducted in English. There is a risk when doing a test in a language that is not someone’s native tongue that it will affect the results and because English was not the first language for all participants it might have made them insecure or uncertain. However, due to the structure of the test with no time measurement, the fact that they were all very confident in their ability to speak and understand English, and told that if they were uncertain of something to just ask it was assumed that it did not matter. If the results for the usability test and SUS-questionnaire were more varied this might have been the reason. However, the results were homogenous and therefore would not have affected the results.
5.2 Discussion of Results
5.2.1 What UX-attributes should an application for collaborative consumption have?
This section aims to discuss the first research question relating to what aspects designers should keep in mind when designing for collaborative consumption, and what UX-attributes these translate to. The UX-attributes (1) system allows for community building, (2) system
communicate economic benefits, (3) System communicate ecological benefits, (4) system allows for easy and convenient process of sharing clothing, (5) the system should build interpersonal trust, (6) with help of attribute 2 and 4, system should communicate usefulness
