Pragmatic versus Hedonic: Determining the Dominant Quality in User

Experience for Professional and Leisure Collaboration Tools

Lisa Eidloth

1 a

, Anna-Lena Meiners

2 b

, Jörg Thomaschewski

1 c

and Andreas Hinderks

3 d

Faculty of Technology, University of Applied Science Emden/Leer, Emden, Germany

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

Computer Languages and Systems, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

Keywords:

UX, User Experience Factors, Collaboration Tools, Professional and Leisure Contexts.

Abstract:

As collaborative technologies become integral in both professional and leisurely settings, especially during

the rise of remote work and digital communities due to COVID-19, understanding the user experience (UX)

factors is critical. This study aims to explore the differential importance of these UX factors across profes-

sional and leisure contexts, leveraging the widespread use of collaboration tools for an in-depth analysis. The

objective of the study is to identify and assess key UX factors in collaboration tools, and to quantify their

differential impact in professional and leisure settings. Our research underscores the nuanced role of context

in evaluating User Experience (UX) factors’ importance in collaboration tools, with signiﬁcant variances ob-

served across professional and leisure settings. While some UX factors, including accessibility, clarity, and

intuitive use, maintained universal importance across contexts and tools, others—speciﬁcally dependability

and efﬁciency—contradicted assumptions of being universal "hygiene factors", demonstrating the complexity

of UX evaluations. This complexity necessitates a differentiated approach for each context and collaboration

tool type, challenging the possibility of a singular evaluation or statement.

1 INTRODUCTION

Collaborative technologies, encompassing online

platforms and specialized software, have emerged as

integral components of the contemporary digital land-

scape. These tools facilitate seamless communication

and synergistic collaboration among team members,

regardless of geographical barriers. The labor market

is in a state of evolution towards spatially dispersed

teams and adaptable work environments, underpin-

ning an augmented relevance of distributed collabo-

ration tools.

In the wake of the recent COVID-19 pandemic,

the necessity and potential of remote collaboration

has been heightened, with implications stretching be-

yond the conﬁnes of professional domains to perme-

ate private spheres. Digital communities within the

hobby and leisure sector have witnessed considerable

growth, and personal interactions have increasingly

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5356-3307

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9803-1555

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6364-5808

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3456-9273

transitioned to virtual spaces.

User experience is widely recognized as a mul-

tifaceted concept (Boy, 2017). A quality user expe-

rience typically demands that a product be easy to

learn, efﬁcient in its use, and provide a sense of con-

trol, supplemented by attributes such as aesthetics,

enjoyment in usage, novelty, and appeal. The ﬁrst

set of criteria is commonly classiﬁed as aspects of

pragmatic quality, while the latter set represents he-

donic quality aspects (Hassenzahl, 2001). Alterna-

tive terminology often employed to distinguish these

two classes of quality criteria includes usability goals

as opposed to user experience goals (Rogers et al.,

2023).

ISO 9241-210 provides a notable deﬁnition of

user experience (ISO9241-210, 2020). In this con-

text, user experience is characterized as “a person’s

perceptions and responses that result from the use

or anticipated use of a product, system or service”.

Consequently, user experience is viewed as a com-

prehensive concept, inclusive of all emotional, cog-

nitive, or physical responses related to the actual or

even merely the presumed use of a product, shaped

before, during, and after the utilization. An alter-

Eidloth, L., Meiners, A., Thomaschewski, J. and Hinderks, A.

Pragmatic versus Hedonic: Determining the Dominant Quality in User Experience for Professional and Leisure Collaboration Tools.

DOI: 10.5220/0012205700003584

In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2023), pages 391-398

ISBN: 978-989-758-672-9; ISSN: 2184-3252

391

nate approach involves deﬁning user experience as

a collection of distinct quality criteria (Rogers et al.,

2023). These encompass traditional usability aspects

such as efﬁciency, controllability, and learnability, as

well as non-goal-oriented or hedonic quality aspects

(Hassenzahl, 2001) such as stimulation, enjoyment in

use, novelty, emotions (Norman, 2007), and aesthet-

ics (Tractinsky, 1997).

The signiﬁcance of UX factors can notably dif-

fer contingent upon the particular use case (Meiners

et al., 2021) (Hinderks et al., 2020) (Schrepp et al.,

2023). In professional contexts, it is often perceived

that pragmatic quality holds greater importance than

hedonic quality. To scrutinize the validity of this no-

tion, we selected collaboration tools as our object of

evaluation due to their pivotal role across both pro-

fessional and leisure contexts. These tools present

a unique opportunity to discern the comparative in-

ﬂuence of pragmatic and hedonic qualities in diverse

use-case scenarios.

In this paper, we conducted a study with ﬁve dis-

tinct software systems used in both professional and

leisure settings. The objective of this study revolves

around the research question:

RQ: How does the importance of pragmatic and

hedonic factors of User Experience vary between pro-

fessional and leisurely contexts in software systems?

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2

brieﬂy summarizes the related work. Section 3

presents the research methodology of our study. Sec-

tion 4 outlines the results and key ﬁndings of our

study, as well as the answers to our research ques-

tion. Section 5 discusses the meaning of the ﬁndings

and the limitations of our study. The paper ends with

Section 6, with conclusions and ideas for future work.

2 RELATED WORK

Hassenzahl et al. (Hassenzahl et al., 2010) expanded

the understanding of User Experience (UX) by in-

vestigating pleasurable experiences with technology

from the perspective of universal psychological needs

such as competence, relatedness, popularity, stimula-

tion, meaning, security, and autonomy. In their study,

they collected over 500 positive experiences with in-

teractive products like mobile phones and computers.

As expected, a signiﬁcant relationship was found be-

tween the fulﬁllment of these psychological needs and

positive affect. Stimulation, relatedness, competence,

and popularity emerged as particularly salient needs.

The experiences collected were categorizable

based on the primary need they fulﬁlled, and qualita-

tive differences were observed among the categories

in terms of the emotions involved. Interestingly, need

fulﬁllment was strongly linked to perceptions of he-

donic quality (the pleasure derived from product use),

but not as strongly to pragmatic quality (perceived us-

ability). This supported their notion of hedonic qual-

ity as a ’motivator’ and pragmatic quality as a ’hy-

giene factor.’

An important aspect of their study was the consid-

eration of attribution, i.e., the belief that the product

was responsible for the experience. They found that

the perception of hedonic quality as a reﬂection of

need fulﬁllment depended on this attribution. These

ﬁndings suggest that user experiences are not solely

about functionality or usability, but also hinge signif-

icantly on the extent to which products fulﬁll users’

psychological needs.

Tuch et al. (Tuch et al., 2016) conducted a thor-

ough investigation into the impact of need fulﬁllment

on the perception of technology in both leisure and

professional contexts, utilizing Hassenzahl model’s as

a foundation (Hassenzahl et al., 2010). They found

that the hedonic quality (pleasure derived from tech-

nology use) of both work and leisure experiences is

inﬂuenced by need fulﬁllment. However, pragmatic

quality (usability) was notably inﬂuenced by need ful-

ﬁllment, primarily in leisure experiences. This ob-

servation deviates from Hassenzahl’s claim that prag-

matic quality simply acts as a barrier remover for need

fulﬁllment, suggesting that usability can indeed con-

tribute to need fulﬁllment, especially in leisure con-

texts (Hassenzahl et al., 2010).

Regarding context, leisure experiences frequently

took place with a partner or friend and at home, while

work experiences were more common with acquain-

tances or colleagues and at work. The narrative con-

tent corroborated these observations. The study re-

inforces Tinsley and Tinsley’s (Tinsley and Tinsley,

1986) suggestion that leisure experiences lead to aes-

thetic rewards and stimulation, with higher hedonic

quality and beauty being associated with leisure ex-

periences.

In our review of existing literature, we noted some

degree of discrepancy between the assertions made by

Hassenzahl et al. (Hassenzahl et al., 2010) and Tuch

(Tuch et al., 2016). It is important to note, however,

that in their respective studies, there was no evalua-

tion of test objects that spanned both leisure and pro-

fessional contexts. Our investigation seeks to provide

an initial insight into the inﬂuence of both pragmatic

and hedonic qualities on software systems in the con-

text of leisure and professional use.

WEBIST 2023 - 19th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

392

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this study, our focus was the evaluation of collabo-

ration tools, investigated through the lens of hedonic

and pragmatic factors. We wanted to understand the

relative importance of these factors, as rated by the

participants, using the list of factors from the User

Experience Questionnaire Plus (UEQ+) (Schrepp and

Thomaschewski, 2019). Additionally, we explored

the possibility of further hedonic and pragmatic as-

pects not captured in the questionnaire. Our guiding

hypothesis was that perceptions of the importance of

hedonic and pragmatic factors would differ between

professional and leisure contexts.

In this study, products with a high level of aware-

ness were evaluated to ensure the subjects could as-

sess the products. Our selection criterion for these

products allowed for freedom of choice, but they had

to be classiﬁed as collaboration tools.

The study was conducted with master’s degree

students at the University of Applied Sciences Em-

den/Leer (Germany) as part of the university course

"User Experience". We had a total of 44 respondents

participating in the study. Our approach is divided

into three main steps:

• Step 1: Identiﬁcation of the most important UX

factors for different collaboration tools.

• Step 2: Evaluation of the importance of each UX

factor in speciﬁc use cases.

• Step 3: Quantitative determination of the differ-

ences in the evaluation of products utilized in pro-

fessional and leisure contexts.

The different steps are explained in greater detail

in the next three subsections.

3.1 Step 1: Identiﬁcation of the Most

Important UX Factors

In the ﬁrst phase, participants were asked to select the

UX factors from the UEQ+ they considered intrin-

sically important when evaluating the UX factors of

collaboration tools. They also had the option to sug-

gest other UX factors not included in the UEQ+ list.

These chosen factors were then compiled and ranked

based on importance through a web conference dis-

cussion among the participants. This way, a validated

list of UX factors could be included but new, possibly

overlooked UX factors could be introduced as well.

3.2 Step 2: Evaluation of the

Importance of Each UX Factor

Informed by the list of UX factors deduced from Step

1, the participants were then asked to rate the im-

portance of selected products on a seven-point Lik-

ert scale, ranging from -3 (extremely unimportant) to

+3 (extremely important). They were instructed to se-

lect a product of their choice from the following cat-

egories: Collaboration Platform, Document Manage-

ment System, Instant Messaging Service, Task Man-

agement System, and Web Conferencing.

3.3 Step 3: Determination of the

Distinction

In the ﬁnal phase of our study, we used a two-tailed t-

test to determine differences in the importance of UX

factors between product groups and contexts of use.

The objective of this analysis was to identify UX fac-

tors that demonstrated signiﬁcant differences in the

ratings when used in either a professional or leisure

setting.

4 RESULTS

In this section, we will present the results from the

three steps as described in Section 3.

4.1 Results from Step 1

A web conference was organized with the partici-

pants, during which the most pertinent UX factors

were discussed. As a result of this interactive pro-

cess, the list of UX factors was reduced to 18 factors.

Each of these UX factors is detailed below, complete

with succinct descriptions for clarity. Notably, those

factors that were initially part of the User Experience

Questionnaire Plus (UEQ+) have been appropriately

marked.

• Accessibility: Does the product allow the largest

possible number of users to be used without re-

strictions?

• Adaptability (UEQ+): Can the product be adapted

to personal preferences or personal working

styles?

• Aesthetics (UEQ+): Does the product look beau-

tiful and appealing?

• Attachment: Is it possible to establish a connec-

tion with other individuals through the use of the

product?

Pragmatic versus Hedonic: Determining the Dominant Quality in User Experience for Professional and Leisure Collaboration Tools

393

• Attractiveness (UEQ+): Overall impression of the

product. Do users like or dislike it?

• Clarity (UEQ+): Impression towards order, struc-

ture and visual complexity of a graphical user in-

terface.

• Dependability (UEQ+): Does the user feel in

control of the interaction? Is it secure and pre-

dictable?

• Efﬁciency (UEQ+): Can users solve their tasks

without unnecessary effort? Does it react fast?

• Functionality: Does the product provide an ade-

quate array of functionalities to facilitate the suc-

cessful completion of the tasks in question?

• Interaction: Does the product support interaction

between users?

• Intuitive Use (UEQ+): Can the product be used

immediately without any training or help?

• Novelty (UEQ+): Is the design of the product cre-

ative? Does it catch the interest of users?

• Perspicuity (UEQ+): Is it easy to get familiar with

the product and to learn how to use it?

• Self-Presentation: Is it easy to present yourself

with the product?

• Stimulation (UEQ+): Is it exciting and motivating

to use the product? Is it fun to use?

• Trust (UEQ+): Are the users’ data in safe hands

and not misused to harm him or her?

• Usefulness (UEQ+): Does using the product bring

advantages?

• Value (UEQ+): Does the product design look pro-

fessional and of high quality?

Utilizing the identiﬁed list of UX factors, we pro-

ceeded to implement Step 2 of the study.

4.2 Results from Step 2

In the subsequent step of the study, participants were

directed to select one software product from each cat-

egory (see 3.2). They were then required to assign

an importance value to each UX factor for the chosen

product, employing a numerical scale ranging from -3

(extremely unimportant) to +3 (extremely important).

The derived values are visually represented in a bar

chart, as illustrated in Figure 1.

We’ve used these values for our next set of calcu-

lations. The results are presented in the next section.

4.3 Results from Step 3

In the ﬁnal step, we examined how closely related the

professional and leisure contexts are for each UX fac-

tor in regard to their perceived importance and group

by doing a t-test (Williams, 1959). The results are

shown in Table 1.

In the group of Collaboration Platform products,

signiﬁcant differences were observed in the UX fac-

tors of Aesthetics, Dependability, Efﬁciency, Novelty,

Stimulation, and Usefulness. Within the Document

Management group, Functionality emerged as the dis-

tinguished UX factor exhibiting a signiﬁcant differ-

ence. For products within the Instant Messaging Ser-

vice category, the UX factors of Aesthetics, Attrac-

tiveness, Dependability, Efﬁciency, Novelty, Stimula-

tion, and Usefulness were recognized as signiﬁcantly

different. With regard to the Task Management Sys-

tem group, Efﬁciency, Functionality, Usefulness, and

Value were identiﬁed as factors of considerable vari-

ance. Lastly, in the category of Web Conferencing

Systems, Aesthetics, Attachment, Attractiveness, De-

pendability, Efﬁciency, Functionality, Novelty, Stim-

ulation, Trust, Usefulness, and Value were the UX

factors showcasing signiﬁcant differences.

5 DISCUSSION

Our research reveals the complexity and nuances in

evaluating the importance of UX factors for collab-

oration tools. It has been shown that the context

in which these tools are used, whether professional

or leisure, signiﬁcantly impacts the perceived impor-

tance of individual UX factors.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the

t-test:

1. A higher level of signiﬁcance suggests an equiva-

lence in importance ascribed to both professional

and leisure contexts, indicating no apparent differ-

ences.

2. Conversely, a lower level of signiﬁcance implies

a disparity in the importance attributed to pro-

fessional and leisure contexts, highlighting dis-

cernible differences.

Interestingly, our study shows that not all col-

laboration tools are evaluated similarly. In particu-

lar, for tools such as document management and task

management systems, no signiﬁcant differences were

found in evaluating the importance of UX factors be-

tween professional and recreational contexts. This

suggests that these tools are used similarly in both

WEBIST 2023 - 19th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

394

Figure 1: Importance ratings per group and UX factor. Left: Leisure context; Right: Professional. Error Bars: 5% Conﬁdence

Interval.

Pragmatic versus Hedonic: Determining the Dominant Quality in User Experience for Professional and Leisure Collaboration Tools

395

Table 1: T-test between professional and leisure context for each UX factor and Group. Signiﬁcance is coded as follows: p <

.05*, p < .01**, p < .001***.

UX Factor Collaboration

Plattform

Document

Management

Instant

Messaging

Service

Task

Management

System

Web

Conferencing

System

Accessibility 0,903 0,559 0,180 0,110 0,239

Adaptability 0,412 0,121 0,886 0,402 0,081

Aesthetics *0,030 0,411 ***0,000 0,094 **0,001

Attachment 0,529 0,863 0,083 0,738 *0,026

Attractiveness 0,322 0,209 ***0,000 0,359 **0,001

Clarity 0,137 0,749 0,156 0,445 0,117

Dependability *0,030 0,192 *0,041 0,086 **0,005

Efﬁciency ***0,000 0,067 *0,014 *0,043 *0,011

Functionality 0,086 *0,019 0,246 ***0,000 **0,007

Interaction 0,390 0,177 0,613 0,099 0,597

Intuitive Use 0,240 0,210 0,534 0,896 0,680

Novelty *0,039 0,157 ***0,000 0,086 ***0,001

Perspicuity 0,068 0,619 0,912 0,362 0,377

Self-Presentation 0,306 0,877 0,156 0,510 0,377

Stimulation **0,009 0,421 ***0,000 0,127 **0,002

Trust 0,403 0,890 0,365 0,081 *0,012

Usefulness *0,012 0,437 ***0,000 *0,035 ***0,000

Value 0,426 0,321 0,775 *0,039 **0,009

contexts. On the other hand, collaboration tools, in-

stant messaging and web conferencing systems show

signiﬁcant differences in importance ratings, suggest-

ing that their use and perception are highly context-

dependent.

Despite these differences, there is a group of UX

factors whose importance remains the same in all con-

texts and for all tool types. These include:

• Accessibility

• Adaptability

• Clarity

• Interaction

• Intuitive Use

• Perspicuity

• Self-Presentation

These factors seem to be universal and independent of

the speciﬁc application of the tool.

It is also worth noting that our study does not con-

ﬁrm the assumption that pragmatic qualities such as

Dependability and Efﬁciency are universally applica-

ble "hygiene factors" (Hassenzahl et al., 2010). In-

stead, we found signiﬁcant differences in the evalua-

tion of these aspects. Moreover, our results support

the idea that more hedonic factors, such as novelty

and stimulation, serve as motivators.

In contrast to Tuch’s (Tuch et al., 2016) ﬁndings,

our study did not demonstrate that pragmatic qualities

are particularly important in the leisure context. This

raises questions about the role and importance of UX

factors in different contexts that require further inves-

tigation.

Our study emphasizes the need for a differentiated

approach when evaluating the importance of UX fac-

tors, depending on context and speciﬁc type of collab-

oration tool. A general statement or evaluation does

not seem possible due to the heterogeneous results.

This underlines the complexity of UX factors and the

need to consider speciﬁc contexts of use and require-

ments in the evaluation and design of collaboration

tools.

5.1 Limitations

Despite the ﬁndings garnered from this research, it’s

essential to acknowledge certain limitations that may

WEBIST 2023 - 19th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

396

inﬂuence the interpretability and generalizability of

our results. Firstly, the scope of our research was con-

ﬁned to collaboration tools exclusively, therefore lim-

iting the broad applicability of our ﬁndings across all

software systems or technological domains.

Secondly, our study population comprised only

students, potentially introducing a bias in our results.

Given the distinct demographics, usage patterns, and

expectations of this speciﬁc group, caution must be

exercised when extending the results to a broader,

more heterogeneous user base.

Thirdly, a bias towards the importance of factors

may be given, as steps one and two of the study were

performed by the same group of individuals: UX

factors identiﬁed as being of relevance in step one

may be more likely rated as relevant in step two of

the study. This may be prevented by conducting the

named steps in a single-blind manner, where partici-

pants of step two did not preselect potentially relevant

factors.

Lastly, the set of User Experience (UX) factors

we considered may not be exhaustive. Though we

endeavored to encompass a comprehensive array of

factors, there may still be critical, yet overlooked as-

pects that could inﬂuence users’ perceptions and ex-

periences with collaboration tools.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

In our study of collaboration tools from a User Expe-

rience (UX) perspective, we sought to discern the rel-

ative signiﬁcance of UX factors in various usage con-

texts. The study used a three-step approach to iden-

tify, evaluate, and ascertain distinctive UX factors and

their perceived importance across collaboration tools.

Signiﬁcant variations were observed in the per-

ceived importance of several UX factors across dif-

ferent collaboration tool types, underscoring the intri-

cate role of professional and leisure context in such

evaluations. For instance, certain UX factors like De-

pendability and Efﬁciency, contrary to being univer-

sally applicable "hygiene factors," exhibited signif-

icant variations, illuminating the nuanced nature of

these evaluations. Similarly, more hedonic elements

like novelty and stimulation emerged as motivators,

thereby refuting the established notion that pragmatic

qualities primarily dominate the leisure context.

However, our study also identiﬁes certain UX fac-

tors that remain universally important, regardless of

the tool type or context, such as accessibility, adapt-

ability, clarity, interaction, intuitive use, perspicuity,

and self-presentation. This discovery suggests an en-

during baseline of factors pertinent to any successful

UX design across contexts.

The ﬁndings highlight the need for a differenti-

ated, context-speciﬁc approach in assessing the im-

portance of UX factors. A homogeneous evalua-

tion or universal statement about the importance of

UX factors appears untenable given the diverse out-

comes. Consequently, our study emphasizes the in-

tricate complexity of UX evaluations and the impor-

tant necessity of considering speciﬁc contexts and re-

quirements when designing and evaluating collabora-

tion tools.

These ﬁndings do not only underscore the impact

of context on the signiﬁcance of UX factors but also

generate new research avenues exploring the role and

importance of such factors in different settings. Fu-

ture work could strive to expand these initial ﬁndings

and continue to unravel the complexities of UX in

a world increasingly dependent on digital collabora-

tion.

REFERENCES

Boy, G. A. (2017). The Handbook of Human-Machine

Interaction: A Human-Centered Design Approach.

CRC Press, Milton, 1st ed. edition.

Hassenzahl, M. (2001). The effect of perceived he-

donic quality on product appealingness. Inter-

national Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,

2001(13(4)):481–499.

Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., and Göritz, A. (2010).

Needs, affect, and interactive products – facets of user

experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5):353–

362. Modelling user experience - An agenda for re-

search and practice.

Hinderks, A., Winter, D., Schrepp, M., and

Thomaschewski, J. (2020). Applicability of user

experience and usability questionnaires. Journal of

Universal Computer Science, (25):1717–1735.

ISO9241-210 (2020). Ergonomics of human-system inter-

action - part 210: Human-centred design for interac-

tive systems.

Meiners, A.-L., Kollmorgen, J., Schrepp, M., and

Thomaschewski, J. (2021). Which UX Aspects Are

Important for a Software Product?: Importance Rat-

ings of UX Aspects for Software Products for Mea-

surement with the UEQ+. In Mensch und Computer

2021, pages 136–139, Ingolstadt Germany. ACM.

Norman, D. A. (2007). Emotional Design: Why We Love

(or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.

Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., and Preece, J. (2023). Interaction

design: Beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley,

Chichester, 6. ed. edition.

Schrepp, M., Kollmorgen, J., Meiners, A.-L., Hinderks, A.,

Winter, D., and Thomaschewski, J. (2023). On the Im-

portance of UX Quality Aspects for Different Product

Pragmatic versus Hedonic: Determining the Dominant Quality in User Experience for Professional and Leisure Collaboration Tools

397

Categories. International Journal of Interactive Mul-

timedia and Artiﬁcial Intelligence, page 15. Citation-

Key: Schrepp2023.

Schrepp, M. and Thomaschewski, J. (2019). Design and

Validation of a Framework for the Creation of User

Experience Questionnaires. International Journal

of Interactive Multimedia and Artiﬁcial Intelligence,

5(7):88.

Tinsley, H. E. A. and Tinsley, D. J. (1986). A theory of the

attributes, beneﬁts, and causes of leisure experience.

Leisure Sciences, 8(1):1–45.

Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability. In

Pemberton, S., editor, the SIGCHI conference, pages

115–122.

Tuch, A. N., Schaik, P. V., and Hornbæk, K. (2016). Leisure

and work, good and bad: The role of activity domain

and valence in modeling user experience. ACM Trans.

Comput.-Hum. Interact., 23(6).

Williams, E. J. (1959). The Comparison of Regression Vari-

ables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series

B (Methodological), 21(2):396–399.

WEBIST 2023 - 19th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

398