# Service-Aware Interactive Presentation of Items for Decision-Making
## Materials and Methods
### Review Analysis
#### 3.2.3 Binding Review Sentences to Evaluation Dimensions
Moreover, in order to check user attention, half of the items start with the positive term (e.g., \"good\" versus \"bad\") while the other ones start with the negative term (e.g., \"annoying\" versus \"enjoyable\") in randomized order. In order to support a uniform measurement of scales in the analysis of results, the ratings provided by users are mapped from \(-3\) (fully agree with the negative term) to \(+3\) (fully agree with the positive one). Questions correspond to individual UX aspects and belong to six _UEQ factors_ that describe broader user experience aspects (\"Attractiveness\", \"Perspicuity\", \"Novelty\", \"Stimulation\", \"Dependability\", and \"Efficiency\"), plus the \"user awareness and control\" that we added. Table 3 shows the set of bipolar items of our questionnaire, grouped by factor, and displays the items we added in italics; for the specific ordering of questions see Figure 5.
2. After the completion of the tasks the participant filled in a post-test questionnaire aimed at capturing her/his overall experience and at comparing Apartment Monitoring to Baseline. In this case, (s)he had to select the model that best matched the questions reported in Table 4. These questions include an open one (Notes) to provide feedback for improving Apartment Monitoring. _Appl. Sci._**2020**, _10_, 5599 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \# & **Question** \\ \hline
1 & The application made me save effort when solving the task (efficiency) \\
2 & The application was easy to use \\
3 & I would recommend the application to a friend \\
4 & I would like to use the application in the future \\
5 & I am satisfied about the application \\
6 & Notes \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Post-test questionnaire translated from the Italian language. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **Values** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Attractiveness} & annoying/enjoyable \\  & good/bad \\  & unlikable/pleasing \\  & unpleasant/pleasant \\  & attractive/unattractive \\  & friendly/unfriendly \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Perspicuity} & not understandable/understandable \\  & easy to learn/difficult to learn \\  & complicated/easy \\  & clear/confusing \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Efficiency} & fast/slow \\  & inefficient/efficient \\  & impractical/practical \\  & organized/cluttered \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Dependability} & unpredictable/predictable \\  & obstructive/supportive \\  & secure/not secure \\  & meets expectations/does not meet expectations \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Stimulation} & valuable/inferior \\  & boring/exciting \\  & not interesting/interesting \\  & motivating/demotivating \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Novelty} & creative/dull \\  & inventive/conventional \\  & usual/leading edge \\  & conservative/innovative \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{_Awareness and control_} & _the system is able to describe renting experience/the system is unable to describe renting experience_ \\  & _I am aware of the properties of the home/I am not aware of the properties of the home_ \\  & the system supports the selection of the home/the system does not support the selection of the home_ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Post-test questionnaire: UX aspects grouped by factor. We consider the 6 UEQ factors plus an extra one (in italics) that describes user awareness and control. The last three items are translated from the Italian language. ## 5 Results

### Demographic Data and Background of Participants

For the user study we recruited 38 participants (44.74% women; 55.26% men). Their age is between 18 to 54 years, with a mean value of 30.29. They are part of the university staff (researchers and professors) and students, as well as people working in the industry. In the pre-test questionnaire, we analyzed their background and familiarity with technology: 55.26% of participants have a scientific background, 13.16% a technical one, 26.32% humanities and linguistics, and 5.26% economics and law.