# Service-Aware Interactive Presentation of Items for Decision-Making
## Materials and Methods
### Review Analysis
#### 3.2.3 Binding Review Sentences to Evaluation Dimensions
While all such results are positive, those concerning Efficiency (+145%) show that participants perceived the user interface of Apartment Monitoring as much more supportive to information search than the Baseline one. Moreover, we are interested in the results concerning Dependability (+42.19%) and Awareness and control (+46.89%), which tell us that, with respect to a direct analysis of reviews, the mediation offered by the interactive charts and the evaluation dimensions employed in the INTEREST model highly improve user experience. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & **Baseline** & ** INTEREST** \\ \hline Attractiveness & \(\rightarrow\)\(-0.570\) & \(\uparrow\) 1.882 * \\ Perspicuity & \(\rightarrow\)\(0.533\) & \(\uparrow\) 1.967 * \\ Efficiency & \(\downarrow\)\(-0.895\) & \(\uparrow\) 2.158 * \\ Dependability & \(\rightarrow\)\(0.368\) & \(\uparrow\) 1.789 * \\ Stimulation & \(\downarrow\)\(-1.151\) & \(\uparrow\) 1.664 * \\
**Novelty** & \(\downarrow\)\(-1.724\) & \(\uparrow\) 1.776 * \\
**Awareness and control** & \(\rightarrow\)\(0.404\) & \(\uparrow\) 2.000 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Post-task questionnaire results: comparison of Baseline and INTEREST on UX factors. The second and third columns show the mean aggregate rating of each factor. Values are obtained by averaging the ratings given by participants to individual UX aspects: \(\rightarrow\) denotes a neutral value, \(\downarrow\) a negative one and \(\uparrow\) a positive one. Significance is encoded as (*) \(p<0.01\). ### User Experience: Post-Test Questionnaire Results

The results of the post-test questionnaire (whose questions are reported in Table 4) are consistent with those of the post-task ones. Participants agreed that Apartment Monitoring made them save effort when they were solving the tasks of the experiment; moreover, they were more satisfied with this application than with the Baseline one. A large proportion (81.58%) of people said that Apartment Monitoring was easy to use, but some users agreed that a certain initial effort is needed to learn its functionalities. Almost all (97.37%) of the study participants stated that they would recommend our application to a friend and 100% said that they would use it again in the future to explore and analyze homes for renting. In the open comments participants declared that keywords highlighting in reviews supports readability and that it helps in quickly finding the information related to evaluation dimensions in the visualized list of reviews. However, some people said that the initial impact with several colors creates a bit of confusion. ### Observed Participants' Behavior and Collected Feedback

During the experiment, participants were asked to use the think aloud protocol [94]; thus, we were able to collect their comments, feedback, and suggestions about the systems they used. Concerning the Baseline application, people observed that the list of reviews often includes too much text and this makes users skip some comments or only read the shortest ones. Moreover, it is difficult to overview the reviews and to find the needed information. In general, the Baseline application made users feel overloaded and confused, which is in line with the results obtained in the post-task and post-test questionnaires. Regarding the Apartment Monitoring implementation of our INTEREST model, participants perceived some initial learning effort to get acquainted with the tools offered by its user interface. However they said that, after having been familiarized with it, the system is more useful and efficient in finding information than the Baseline one. We noticed that some users looked at the reviews corresponding to the bars of the histogram with the lowest satisfaction levels in order to go in-depth with the analysis of the poorest aspects of evaluation of the apartments.