Advertisement

Evaluation of the Usability of a Mobile Application for Public Air Quality Information

  • Jorge-Luis Pérez-MedinaEmail author
  • Rasa Zalakeviciute
  • Yves Rybarczyk
  • Mario González
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 959)

Abstract

This contribution summarizes the results achieved from a summative usability study considering the efficiency, effectiveness, and subjective satisfaction of final users when using Air Quality, a new mobile software for Public Air Quality information. Fifty-one participants tested the user interfaces of a prototype of the application. We use the IBM Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ) in order to assess the user experience (UX). The Microsoft Desirability Toolkit is also applied as complementary tool. We present experimental results based on subjective appreciations and self-reported feed-back. It suggests a favorable trend towards the usability of the application. Nevertheless, we have found that the quality of the information is a deficiency in the mobile application. We analyze some recommendations to improve the mobile application.

Keywords

User interfaces User experience User study Air pollution mobile application 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work is supported by Universidad de Las Américas (UDLA) under Grant No.: ERI.WH.18.01 and the Consorcio Ecuatoriano para el Desarrollo de Internet Avanzado CEDIA-CEPRA under Grant No.: CEPRA XII-2018-13.

References

  1. 1.
    Osseiran, N., Chriscaden, K.: Air pollution levels rising in many of the world’s poorest cities (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization: 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution. World Health Organization, Geneva (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zalakeviciute, R., Rybarczyk, Y., López-Villada, J., Suarez, M.V.D.: Quantifying decade-long effects of fuel and traffic regulations on urban ambient PM2.5 pollution in a mid-size south american city. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 9(1), 66–75 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lelieveld, J., Evans, J.S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., Pozzer, A.: The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature 525(7569), 367 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoek, G., Krishnan, R.M., Beelen, R., Peters, A., Ostro, B., Brunekreef, B., Kaufman, J.D.: Long-term air pollution exposure and cardio-respiratory mortality: a review. Environ. Health 12(1), 43 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pérez-Medina, J.L., Zalakeviciute, R., Rybarczyk, Y.: Assessing the usability of air quality mobile application. In: 2019 International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG). IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    United Nations: World population prospects: the 2015 revision. United Nations Economic and Social Affairs, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 1–66 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Limb, M.: Half of wealthy and 98% of poorer cities breach air quality guidelines. BMJ 353 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2730
  10. 10.
    Theofanos, M., Quesenbery, W.: Towards the design of effective formative test reports. J. Usability Stud. 1(1), 27–45 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kieffer, S., Ghouti, A., Macq, B.: The agile UX development lifecycle: combining formative usability and agile methods (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pérez-Medina, J.L., Vanderdonckt, J.: Sketching by cross-surface collaboration. In: Rocha, Á. et al. (eds.) 2019 International Conference on Information Technology Systems, ICITS 2019. AISC, vol. 918, pp. 1–12. Springer (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11890-7_38Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart, T.: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs): part 11: guidance on usability. International Organization for Standardization ISO 9241 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tullis, T.S., Stetson, J.N.: A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability. In: Usability Professional Association Conference, vol. 1 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooke, J., et al.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(1), 57–78 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319509526110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., ten Berge, J.M.: Psychometric Theory, vol. 226. McGraw-hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benedek, J., Miner, T.: Measuring desirability: new methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Proc. Usability Prof. Assoc. 2003(8–12), 57 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Mesnard, L.: Pollution models and inverse distance weighting: some critical remarks. Comput. Geosci. 52, 459–469 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge-Luis Pérez-Medina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rasa Zalakeviciute
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yves Rybarczyk
    • 1
  • Mario González
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent and Interactive Systems Lab (SI2 Lab)Universidad de Las Américas (UDLA)QuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Grupo de Investigacion en Biodiversidad Medio Ambiente y Salud (BIOMAS)Universidad de Las Américas (UDLA)QuitoEcuador

Personalised recommendations