Navigation in Long Forms on Smartphones: Scrolling Worse than Tabs, Menus, and Collapsible Fieldsets

  • Johannes Harms
  • Martina Kratky
  • Christoph Wimmer
  • Karin Kappel
  • Thomas Grechenig
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9298)


Mobile applications provide increasingly complex functionality through form-based user interfaces, which requires effective solutions for navigation on small-screen devices. This paper contributes a comparative usability evaluation of four navigation design patterns: Scrolling, Tabs, Menus, and Collapsible Fieldsets. These patterns were evaluated in a case study on social network profile pages. Results show that memorability, usability, overview, and subjective preference were worse in Scrolling than in the other patterns. This indicates that designers of form-based user interfaces on small-screen devices should not rely on Scrolling to support navigation, but use other design patterns instead.


Navigation Mobile Smartphone Form design Evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Atterer, R., Lorenzi, P.: A heatmap-based visualization for navigation within large web pages. In: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges, NordiCHI 2008, pp. 407–410. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bargas-Avila, J., Brenzikofer, O., Roth, S., Tuch, A., Orsini, S., Opwis, K.: Simple but crucial user interfaces in the world wide web: introducing 20 guidelines for usable web form design. In: Matrai, R. (ed.) User Interfaces, ch. 1. InTech (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjork, S., Redstrom, J.: Redefining the focus and context of focus + context visualizations. In: IEEE Symposium Information Visualization, InfoVis 2000, pp. 85–89. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189, 194 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burigat, S., Chittaro, L.: On the effectiveness of overview + detail visualization on mobile devices. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(2), 371–385 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Büring, T., Gerken, J., Reiterer, H.: Usability of overview-supported zooming on small screens with regard to individual differences in spatial ability. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference Advanced Visual Interfaces, AVI 2006, pp. 233–240. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, C., Rada, R.: Interacting with hypertext: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 11(2), 125–156 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chittaro, L.: visualizing information on mobile devices. Computer 39(3), 40–45 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cockburn, A., Karlson, A., Bederson, B.B.: A Review of Overview + Detail, Zooming, and Focus + Context Interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(1), 2:1–2:31 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Couper, M.P., Baker, R., Mechling, J.: Placement and design of navigation buttons in web surveys. Surv. Pract. 4(1), 1–21 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furnas, G.: A fisheye follow-up: further reflections on focus + context. In: Grinter, R., Rodden, T., Aoki, P., Cutrell, E., Jeffries, R., Olson, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2006, pp. 999–1008. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guiard, Y., Du, Y., Chapuis, O.: Quantifying degree of goal directedness in document navigation: application to the evaluation of the perspective-drag technique. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2007, pp. 327–336. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutwin, C., Fedak, C.: Interacting with big interfaces on small screens: a comparison of fisheye, zoom, and panning techniques. In: Proceedings of the Graphics Interface, GI 2004, pp. 145–152. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, Waterloo (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harms, J.: Research goals for evolving the ‘form’ user interface metaphor towards more interactivity. In: Holzinger, A., Ziefle, M., Hitz, M., Debevc, M. (eds.) SouthCHI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7946, pp. 819–822. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harms, J., Wimmer, C., Kappel, K., Grechenig, T.: Design space for focus + con- text navigation in web forms. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI Symposium Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, EICS 2014, pp. 39–44. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jarrett, C., Gaffney, G.: Forms that Work: Designing Web Forms for Usability. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lobo, D., Kaskaloglu, K., Kim, C.Y., Herbert, S.: Web usability guidelines for smartphones: a synergic approach. Int. J. Inf. Electron. Eng. 1(1), 33–37 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tidwell, J.: Designing Interfaces. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Canada (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vainio, T.: A review of the navigation HCI research during the 2000’s. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 4(3), 36–42 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weinreich, H., Obendorf, H., Herder, E., Mayer, M.: Off the beaten tracks: exploring three aspects of web navigation. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of World Wide Web, WWW 2006, pp. 133–142. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wroblewski, L.: Web Form Design: Filling the Blanks. Louis Rosenfeld, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Harms
    • 1
  • Martina Kratky
    • 1
  • Christoph Wimmer
    • 1
  • Karin Kappel
    • 1
  • Thomas Grechenig
    • 1
  1. 1.INSO Research GroupVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations