Usability Measurement of Mobile Applications with System Usability Scale (SUS)
The mobile application market is expanding with the diversity in mobile devices, and competition among the mobile application developers becomes fierce. Usability of the mobile applications is crucial to gain a competitive advantage under these circumstances. This study aims to reveal the difference in terms of usability of four of the commonly used mobile applications (WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, and Mail). Furthermore, this study investigates the difference in terms of usability between iOS and Android operating systems. To measure the usability of the mobile applications, a System Usability Scale (SUS) with an adjective rating scale is applied to the young 222 participants, using the applications on their mobile phones. The result of the study shows that usability of all applications is satisfactory and above the standards. The comparison of mobile applications with each other shows that, WhatsApp has the highest usability score, whereas Facebook has the lowest one. In addition, according to the results, there is no significant difference between operating systems in terms of the usability of mobile applications.
KeywordsUsability Mobile application System usability scale (SUS) Operating system
- Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. A. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4, 114–123.Google Scholar
- Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Hart, J., Ridley, C., Taher, F., Sas, C., & Dix, A. (2008, October). Exploring the Facebook experience: A new approach to usability. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges (pp. 471–474). ACM.Google Scholar
- Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. CRC Press.Google Scholar
- ISO, S. (1998). 9241-11. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—Part II guidance on usability.Google Scholar
- Jacko, J. A. (Ed.). (2011, July 9–14). Human-computer interaction: Towards mobile and intelligent interaction environments. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference, HCI International 2011, Orlando, FL, USA. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- Kaikkonen, A., Kekäläinen, A., Cankar, M., Kallio, T., & Kankainen, A. (2005). Usability testing of mobile applications: A comparison between laboratory and field testing. Journal of Usability Studies, 1(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
- Nayebi, F., Desharnais, J. M., & Abran, A. (2012). The state of the art of mobile application usability evaluation. In 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering (CCECE) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Url 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide. Date of Access: 01.01.2017.
- Url 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/377977/tablet-users-worldwide-forecast/. Date of Access: 01.01.2017.
- Url 3. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/. Date of Access: 01.01.2017.
- Url 4. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/08/03/ios-users-seven-times-more-active-than-android-users-suggests-net-applications/#fdefb401f85d. Date of Access: 01.01.2017.
- Url 5. http://www.apple.com/tr/itunes/charts/free-apps/. Date of Access: 05.12.2016.
- Url 6. https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/topselling_free?hl=tr. Date of Access: 05.12.2016.
- Url 7. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2015/The-2015-US-Mobile-App-Report. Date of Access: 30.03.2018.