1. Mehrdad J, Zahedi Z. Examining and Comparing the User Interface of Two Internal Hosts of the Regional Library of Science and Technology and the Research Institute of Scientific Information and Documents of Iran with Four External Hosts. Library and Information Sciences.2007;10(3):39.
2. Mousavi M, Sheykhi M, Ataeinejad N. Facebook Using and Social Capital Comparing Users and Non-users Students in Tehran University. [In Persian]. Iranian Journal of Sociology. 2013;14(4):153-79.
3. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons. 2010;53(1):59-68. [
DOI:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003]
4. Bevana N, Kirakowskib J, Maissela J, editors. What is usability. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on HCI. Citeseer.1991.
5. Hulu FRP, Raharjo T, Simanungkalit T. The impact of usability in information technology projects. Comput Sci Inf Technol. 2024;5(1):7-18. [
DOI:10.11591/csit.v5i1.pp7-18]
6. Beard KS. Theoretically speaking: An interview with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on flow theory development and its usefulness in addressing contemporary challenges in education. Discov Educ . 2015;27(2):353-64. [
DOI:10.1007/s10648-014-9291-1]
7. O'Brien H, Cairns P. Why engagement matters. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2016;10:978-3. [
DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-27446-1]
8. O'Brien HL, Cairns P, Hall M. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2018;112:28-39. [
DOI:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004]
9. O'Brien H. Theoretical perspectives on user engagement. Why engagement matters: Cross-disciplinary perspectives of user engagement in digital media. 2016:1-26. [
DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-27446-1_1]
10. Sigerson L, Cheng C. Scales for measuring user engagement with social network sites: A systematic review of psychometric properties. Comput Human Behav. 2018;83:87-105. [
DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.023]
11. Sutcliffe A. Designing for user engagment: Aesthetic and attractive user interfaces: Springer Nature.2022.
12. Laurel B. Computers as theatre. Reading/Addison-Wesley. 1993.
13. Quesenbery W. The five dimensions of usability. InContent and complexity 2014. Routledge.2014:93-114. [
DOI:10.4324/9781410607409-11]
14. Kumar V, Pansari A. Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of marketing research. 2016;53(4):497-514. [
DOI:10.1509/jmr.15.0044]
15. O'Brien HL, Toms EG. The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2010;61(1):50-69. [
DOI:10.1002/asi.21229]
16. Atapour H, Hamdipour A, Shiri E. Assessing the Iran Scientific Information Database (Ganj) based on User Engagement Scale. Journal of Academic Librarianship and Information Research. 2020;54(2):1-29.
17. Holdener M, Gut A, Angerer A. Applicability of the user engagement scale to mobile health: a survey-based quantitative study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020;8(1):e13244. [
DOI:10.2196/13244] [
PMID] [
]
18. Miranda D, Li C, Darin T. Ues-br: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the user engagement scale for brazilian portuguese. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2021;5(CHI PLAY):1-22. [
DOI:10.1145/3474705]
19. Wilks CR, Chu C, Sim D, Lovell J, Gutierrez P, Joiner T, Kessler RC, Nock MK. User engagement and usability of suicide prevention apps: systematic search in app stores and content analysis. JMIR formative research. 2021;5(7):e27018. [
DOI:10.2196/27018] [
PMID] [
]
20. Todorovic D. Gestalt principles. Scholarpedia. 2008;3(12):5345. [
DOI:10.4249/scholarpedia.5345]
21. Beardsley MC, Lamarque P, Olsen SH. Intentions and interpretations: a fallacy revived. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art The Analytic Tradition: An Anthology. 2019:187-96.
22. Ramezani Nia M, Shokouhyar S. Analyzing the effects of visual aesthetic of Web pages on users' responses in online retailing using the VisAWI method. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing. 2020;14(4):357-89. [
DOI:10.1108/JRIM-11-2018-0147]
23. Seng TL, Mahmoud MAS. Perceived e-service quality and e-store loyalty: The moderated mediating effect of webpage aesthetics and e-customer satisfaction. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences. 2020;7(5):111-7. [
DOI:10.21833/ijaas.2020.05.014]
24. Wang YJ, Minor MS, Wei J. Aesthetics and the online shopping environment: Understanding consumer responses. Journal of retailing. 2011;87(1):46-58. [
DOI:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.09.002]
25. Lavie T, Tractinsky N. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International journal of human-computer studies. 2004;60(3):269-98. [
DOI:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002]
26. Thüring M, Mahlke S. Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human-technology interaction. International journal of psychology. 2007;42(4):253-64. [
DOI:10.1080/00207590701396674]
27. Sauer J, Sonderegger A, Schmutz S. Usability, user experience and accessibility: towards an integrative model. Ergonomics. 2020;63(10):1207-20. [
DOI:10.1080/00140139.2020.1774080] [
PMID]
28. McDougall SJ, Curry MB, De Bruijn O. Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for239 symbols. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999;31(3):487-519. [
DOI:10.3758/BF03200730] [
PMID]
29. Naseri, S, Saremi, M, Namdari, M, Pouyakian, M. Usability of the Integrated Health System (SIB) among Public Health and Midwifery Users. Journal of Health Administration. 2022;25(3):87-107.
30. Hirschfeld G, Thielsch MT. Establishing meaningful cut points for online user ratings. Ergonomics. 2015;58(2):310-20. [
DOI:10.1080/00140139.2014.965228] [
PMID]
31. Saremi M, Sadeghi V, Khodakarim S, Maleki-Ghahfarokhi A. Farsi version of visual aesthetics of website inventory (FV-VisAWI): Translation and psychometric evaluation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2023;39(4):834-41. [
DOI:10.1080/10447318.2022.2049138]
32. Abbas A, Hirschfeld G, Thielsch MT. An arabic version of the visual aesthetics of websites inventory (ar-visawi): Translation and psychometric properties. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2023;39(14):2785-95. [
DOI:10.1080/10447318.2022.2085409]
33. Perrig SA, von Felten N, Honda M, Opwis K, Brühlmann F. Development and validation of a positive-item version of the visual aesthetics of websites inventory: The visawi-pos. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.2023:1-25. [
DOI:10.1080/10447318.2023.2258634]
34. Deng X, Wang Y, Su J, Li Z. A Chinese Version of the Aesthetics Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Psychological Measurement. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2024:1-5. [
DOI:10.1080/10447318.2024.2352214]
35. Taghi Panahi F, Nowkarizi M, Dayyani, MH. The Analysis of the Success in User Engagement to Content on Instagram from the Perspective of Image Characteristics. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management. 2019;34(3):1299-1320.
36. Chang SH, Chih WH, Liou DK, Hwang LR. The influence of web aesthetics on customers' PAD. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014;36:168-78. [
DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.050]
37. Yang H, Du HS, Wang L, Wu T. The influence of social support networks on health conditions via user engagement: Gender as a moderator. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 2019;20(1):35-54.
38. Rouzbahani R, Afhami R, Abdolvand N. The Relation between the Objective Aspects and the Aesthetic Perception of Web Pages Case Study: The Website of Iranian Newspapers in the Year 2019. [In Persian].The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar. 2021;18(95):101-14.