CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 399Usability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology InteractionTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Determining Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration

Open access
Ceaparu, Irina, Lazar, Jonathan, Bessiere, Katie, Robinson, John, Shneiderman, Ben·2004·International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although computers are beneficial to individuals and society, frequently users encounter frustrating experiences when using computers. This study represents an attempt to measure, in 111 participants, the frequency, the cause, and the level of severity of frustrating experiences. The data show that frustrating experiences happen on a frequent basis. The applications in which the frustrating experiences happened most frequently were Web browsing, e-mail, and word processing. The most-cited causes of frustrating experiences were error messages, dropped network connections, long download times, and hard-to-find features. The time lost due to frustrating experiences ranged from 47% to 53% of time spent on a computer, depending on the location and study method. After extreme cases were discarded, the time lost was still above 38%. These disturbing results should be a basis for future study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_3

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Collins, C., Caputi, P., Rawstorne, P. & Jayasuriya, R. (1999). Correlates of end-user performance and satisfaction with the implementation of a statistical software package. In Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 223-234).
  2. Compaq, Inc. (2001). Rage against the machine A Compaq survey. United Kingdom: Compaq Press Centre.
  3. Freud, S. (1958). Types of onset of neurosis. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12). London: Hogarth.
  4. Johnson, C. (1995). Time and the Web: Representing and reasoning about temporal properties of interaction with distributed systems time and space. Proceedings of the HCI '95 Conference on People and Computers (pp. 39-50). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Lazar, J. & Huang, Y. (2003). Improved error message design in Web browsers. In J. Ratner (Ed.), Human factors and Web development (2nd ed., pp. 167-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  6. Lazar, J. & Preece, J. (2001). Using electronic surveys to evaluate networked resources: From idea to implementation. In C. McClure & J. Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 137-154). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
  7. Shneiderman, B. (1982). System message design: Guidelines and experimental results. In A. Badre & B. Shneiderman (Eds.), Directions in human/computer interaction (pp. 55-78). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–399 of 399

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ceaparu, I., Lazar, J., Bessiere, K., Robinson, J., & Shneiderman, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Towson University (US)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-09
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
333-356
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
DOI
10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_3
OpenAlex
W2092207592
Semantic Scholar
7eff871ce258420be2cdcaadf2f2aecf5df4330a
Cited by
399
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 10
FWCI
19.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • University Libraries (University of Maryland) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0086143)
  • Florida Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
lost time, error messages, download time, web browsing, email, word processing, usability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review