19
which theoretical framework is applied. For example, while interactivity framework categorizes
Internet attributes into dimensions of user choice, responsiveness and connectedness, uses and
gratification perspective divides the attributes into information search, transaction and enjoyment
seeking dimensions. Future studies might compare the diverse Internet attributes dimensions
originating in different theoretical perspectives to determine which provides the better
framework in explaining the effect of Internet attributes on user traffic and consumers’ online
browsing behaviors. In addition, research using the individual consumer as the unit of analysis,
rather than aggregate data, might better trace the relationship between the utilization of
interactive features and website browsing patterns.
Future study could also explore the relationships between interactivity and consumers’
purchase behaviors. The fact that consumers stay long and consume many pages might not
necessarily mean that they purchase more products.
Finally, we must question whether interactivity is a useful construct. The concept has
been so variously and broadly defined that it is by turns difficult to discern the difference
between interactive attributes and noninteractive ones. For example, according to Rafaeli’s
(1988) definition of interactivity, online interactions that are mediated by another person (e.g.
email or chat rooms with sales consultants) might be deemed truly interactive. Meanwhile, from
the perspective of Ha and James (1999), basic design features including the size of the product
picture might be considered interactive by increasing feelings of “connectedness” on the part of
the user. Control is inherent in any website with a hyperlink, but it is also to be found in old
media examples such as the TV remote control.
Convention