Advertisement

Comparative Analysis of Usability of Data Entry Design Patterns for Mobile Applications

  • Jakub Myka
  • Agnieszka Indyka-Piasecka
  • Zbigniew Telec
  • Bogdan TrawińskiEmail author
  • Hien Cao Dac
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11431)

Abstract

A comparative analysis of usability of data entry design patterns for mobile applications was presented in the paper. For this purpose three versions of a mobile application for a computer store were developed. Each version included the same functions which were designed and programmed using different data entry patterns. The applications were then utilized to conduct usability tests with three groups of users. The research was conducted based on the ISO model of usability. The usability metrics such as task completion time, number of actions, binary task completion rate and percentage of tasks accomplished without any of errors were considered. User satisfaction was measured using the Single Ease Question (SEQ) questionnaire. The results obtained were thoroughly analysed and recommendations for each data entry design patterns for mobile applications were formulated.

Keywords

Usability testing Data entry Design patterns Mobile applications 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was partially supported by the statutory funds of the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Poland.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Saadi, T.A., Aljarrah, T.M., Alhashemi, A.M., Hussain, A.: A systematic review of usability challenges and testing in mobile health. Int. J. Account. Financ. Report. 5(2) (2015).  https://doi.org/10.5296/ijafr.v5i2.8004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alshehri, F., Freeman, M.: Methods for usability evaluations of mobile devices. In: Lamp, J.W. (ed.) 23rd Australian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–10. Deakin University, Geelong (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arain, A.A., Hussain, Z., Rizvi, W.H., Vighio, M.S.: Evaluating usability of M-learning application in the context of higher education institute. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9753, pp. 259–268. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39483-1_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck, E., Christiansen, M., Kjeldskov, J., Kolbe, N., Stage, J.: Experimental evaluation of techniques for usability testing of mobile systems in a laboratory setting. In: Proceedings of OzCHI 2003, Brisbane, Australia CHISIG (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernacki, J., Błażejczyk, I., Indyka-Piasecka, A., Kopel, M., Kukla, E., Trawiński, B.: Responsive web design: testing usability of mobile web applications. In: Nguyen, N.T., Trawiński, B., Fujita, H., Hong, T.-P. (eds.) ACIIDS 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9621, pp. 257–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertini, E., et al.: Appropriating heuristic evaluation for mobile computing. Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. 1(1), 20–41 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.4018/jmhci.2009010102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Błażejczyk, I., Trawiński, B., Indyka-Piasecka, A., Kopel, M., Kukla, E., Bernacki, J.: Usability testing of a mobile friendly web conference service. In: Nguyen, N.-T., Manolopoulos, Y., Iliadis, L., Trawiński, B. (eds.) ICCCI 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9875, pp. 565–579. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45243-2_52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coursaris, C.K., Kim, D.J.: A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability studies. J. Usability Stud. 6(3), 117–171 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gatsou, C., Politis, A., Zevgolis, D: Exploring inexperienced user performance of a mobile tablet application through usability testing. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Federated Conference on Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems FedCSIS 2013, pp. 557–564. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gómez, R.Y., Caballero, D.C., Sevillano, J.: Heuristic evaluation on mobile interfaces: a new checklist. Sci. World J. Article ID 434326 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/434326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrison, R., Flood, D., Duce, D.: Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model. J. Interact. Sci. 1, 1 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hussain, A., Hashim, N.L., Nordin, N.: mGQM: evaluation metric for mobile and human interaction. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2014. CCIS, vol. 434, pp. 42–47. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07857-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hussain, A., Mkpojiogu, E.O.C.: Usability evaluation techniques in mobile commerce applications: a systematic review. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1761, p. 020049 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960889
  14. 14.
    Joyce, G., Lilley, M., Barker, T., Jefferies, A.: Mobile application usability: heuristic evaluation and evaluation of heuristics. In: Amaba, B. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors, Software, and Systems Engineering. AISC, vol. 492, pp. 77–86. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41935-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joyce, G., Lilley, M., Barker, T., Jefferies, A.: Heuristic evaluation for mobile applications: extending a map of the literature. In: Ahram, T., Falcão, C. (eds.) AHFE 2018. AISC, vol. 794, pp. 15–26. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94947-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaikkonen, A., Kekäläinen, A., Cankar, M., Kallio, T., Kankainen, A.: Usability testing of mobile applications: a comparison between laboratory and field testing. J. Usability Stud. 1(1), 4–16 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kortum, P., Sorber, M.: Measuring the usability of mobile applications for phones and tablets. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 31(8), 518–529 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1064658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krzewińska, J., Indyka-Piasecka, A., Kopel, M., Kukla, E., Telec, Z., Trawiński, B.: Usability testing of a responsive web system for a school for disabled children. In: Nguyen, N.T., Hoang, D.H., Hong, T.-P., Pham, H., Trawiński, B. (eds.) ACIIDS 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10751, pp. 705–716. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75417-8_66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mansar, S.L., Jariwala, S., Shahzad, M., Anggraini, A., Behih, N., AlZeyara, A.: A usability testing experiment for a localized weight loss mobile application. Procedia Technology 5, 839–848 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.09.093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moumane, K., Idri, A., Abran, A.: Usability evaluation of mobile applications using ISO 9241 and ISO 25062 standards. SpringerPlus 5, 548 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2171-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nayebi, F., Desharnais, J.M., Abran, A.: The state of the art of mobile application usability evaluation. In: 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), pp. 1–6 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ccece.2012.6334930
  22. 22.
    Othman, M.K., Sulaiman, M.N.S., Aman, S.: Heuristic evaluation: comparing generic and specific usability heuristics for identification of usability problems in a living museum mobile guide app. Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2018, 13, Article ID 1518682 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1518682Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quinones, D., Rusu, C.: How to develop usability heuristics: a systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 53, 89–122 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saleh, A., Isamil, R.B., Fabil, N.B.: Extension of PACMAD model for usability evaluation metrics using Goal Question Metrics (GQM) Approach. J. Theoret. Appl. Inf. Technol. 79(1), 90–100 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sauro, J., Zarolia, P.: SUPR-Qm: a questionnaire to measure the mobile app user experience. J. Usability Stud. 13(1), 17–37 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R.B., Padda, H.K.: Usability measurement and metrics: a consolidated model. Softw. Qual. J. 14, 159–178 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-006-7600-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shirogane, J., Matsuzawa, M., Iwata, H., Fukazawa, Y.: Usability evaluation method of applications for mobile computers using operation histories. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E101-D101-D(7), 1790–1800 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1587/transinf.2017kbp0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shitkova, M., Holler, J., Heide, T., Clever, N., Becker, J.: Towards usability guidelines for mobile websites and applications. In: Wirtschafsinformatik Proceedings 2015, Paper 107, Association for Information Systems, AIS Electronic Library (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Silvennoinen, J., Vogel, M., Kujala, S.: Experiencing visual usability and aesthetics in two mobile application contexts. J. Usability Stud. 10(1), 46–62 (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zahra, F., Hussain, A., Mohd, H.: Usability evaluation of mobile applications; where do we stand? In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1891, p. 020056 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005389
  31. 31.
    Zhang, D., Adipat, B.: Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 18(3), 293–308 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 249–256 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and ManagementWrocław University of Science and TechnologyWrocławPoland
  2. 2.Nguyen Tat Thanh UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations