## 5 The Survey Results
Table 7 shows that, on average, the **experienced** participants rated the intelligent assistants as **significantly more helpful and rated them as good**, whereas the **less experienced** participants rated them as **poor**. Additionally, **experienced** users reported an **above-average positive** user experience, whereas the **less experienced** users, on average, rated the user experience as entirely **average**. At the same time, the **experienced** respondents reported being **more likely to recommend** the intelligent assistant than inexperienced participants. For the comparison of **usability evaluation** and the **pragmatic aspect** of the user experience, the **effect size** was slightly **more than medium**, as indicated by the results of the \(t\)-test, which showed that the differences between the groups were **statistically significant**. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **MIN** & **MAX** & **Shapiro-Wilk** \\ \hline SUS & 65.9 & 16.01 & 30 & 95 & 0.292 \\ UEQ-s & 0.97 & 1.13 & \(-\)1.5 & 3 & 0.425 \\ UEQ-p & 0.84 & 1.14 & \(-\)1.5 & 3 & 0.336 \\ UEQ-h & 1.1 & 1.37 & \(-\)3 & 3 & 0.032 \\ NPS & 6.81 & 2.57 & 0 & 10 & 0.001 \\ Knowledge of intelligent assistants & 3 & 1.3 & 1 & 4 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Descriptive statistics and the Shapiro–Wilk test for measuring variables. The **effect size** was **small** for the **hedonic aspect of user experience**, **overall user experience**, and the **likelihood of a recommendation**. The differences in the latter variables did not turn out to be statistically significant. Table 8 shows the results of the comparison of the participants in the survey according to their **years of experience in the development of IS**. Again, those with a **maximum of 5 years** of experience developing IS are considered **less experienced**. In the group of **more experienced** people, we have included those with **6 years or more** of experience in developing IS [47]. Table 8 shows that, on average, the **experienced** participants rated the intelligent assistants as **more useful**. The relationship between the groups is similar to the comparison in Table 7, where we compared participants based on programming experience. Overall, the **usability averages** in Table 8 are **higher** in comparison with Table 7. When comparing the average **user experience** rating, it turned out that the **experienced** respondents rated it significantly **above average**, almost good. In contrast, the **less experienced** users rated the **user experience** as almost **below average**. The **experienced** group gave a **higher average recommendation score** than the average recommendation score of all respondents; those with **less experience** were assigned a **lower average score** than the total. The difference is also indicated by the results of the \(t\)-test, which showed that the difference was statistically significant, and this was confirmed by the higher effect size. The remaining variable differences appear not to be statistically significant, although the effect sizes are all medium. Table 9 shows the results of the participants' **comparisons according to their knowledge of the intelligent assistants**. The **less experienced** group includes those who answered \"I have already heard\" or \"I have tried it\" to the question about their familiarity with intelligent assistants. In the group of **experienced** participants, we included those who answered the question with \"I sometimes use it\", and \"I use it regularly\".