Advertisement

Mobile Quality of Social Web Applications Designed for Collaborative Writing

  • Tihomir OrehovačkiEmail author
  • Snježana Babić
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9753)

Abstract

Social web applications are nowadays commonly employed in all fields of human endeavor. It is therefore of a high importance that they meet requirements of as many quality dimensions as possible. This paper reports findings of an empirical study which was carried out with an aim to examine quality of social web applications when they are used in a mobile environment. Participants in the study were students from two Croatian higher education institutions who carried out predefined scenario of interaction with two social web applications for collaborative writing on their smartphones and afterwards evaluated their perceived quality by completing the post-use questionnaire. The analysis of collected data uncovered the relevance of pragmatic and hedonic facets of mobile quality in the context of evaluating social web applications for collaborative writing.

Keywords

Mobile quality Social web application Collaborative writing Questionnaire Empirical findings 

References

  1. 1.
    Alshehri, F., Freeman, M.: User experience of mobile devices: a three layer method of evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–10. ACIS, Auckland (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baharuddin, R., Singh, D., Razali, R.: Usability dimensions for mobile applications - a review. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5, 2225–2231 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charland, A., Leroux, B.: Mobile application development: web vs. native. Commun. ACM 54(5), 49–53 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cochrane, T., Bateman, R.: Smartphones give you wings: pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 26(1), 1–14 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112(1), 155–159 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 60–95 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flora, H.K., Wang, X., Chande, S.V.: An investigation on the characteristics of mobile applications: a survey study. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci. 6(11), 21–27 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gikas, J., Grant, M.M.: Mobile computing devices in higher education: student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet Higher Educ. 19, 18–26 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ha, Y.W., Kim, J., Libaque-Saenz, C.F., Chang, Y., Park, M.C.: Use and gratifications of mobile SNSs: Facebook and KakaoTalk in Korea. Telematics Inform. 32(3), 425–438 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrison, R., Flood, D., Duce, D.: Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model. J. Interact. Sci. 1(1), 1–16 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoehle, H., Venkatesh, V.: Mobile application usability: conceptualization and instrument development. MIS Q. 39(2), 435–472 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsiao, C.H., Chang, J.J., Tang, K.Y.: Exploring the influential factors in continuance usage of mobile social Apps: satisfaction, habit, and customer value perspectives. Telematics Inform. 33(2), 342–355 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, K. Y.: Challenges in human-computer interaction design for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, pp. 20–22. IAENG, San Francisco (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hussain, A., Kutar, M.: Apps vs devices: can the usability of mobile apps be decoupled from the device. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 9(3), 11–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ickin, S., Wac, K., Fiedler, M., Janowski, L., Hong, J.-H., Dey, A.K.: Factors influencing quality of experience of commonly used mobile applications. IEEE Commun. Mag. 50(4), 48–56 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung, W., Yim, H.R.: The mediating effects of learnability and interaction on the perceived usability of smartphone applications. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 9(9), 1–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kang, B., Lee, J., Kissinger, J., Lee, R.Y.: A procedure for the development of mobile applications software. In: Kang, B., et al. (eds.) Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications. SCI, vol. 570, pp. 141–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, M., Choi, Y.M.: An exploration of mobile collaborative writing interface design. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9192, pp. 97–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ohk, K., Park, S.B., Hong, J.W.: The influence of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, interactivity, and ease of navigation on satisfaction in mobile application. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. 84, 88–92 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oliver, R.L.: A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction. J. Mark. Res. 17(4), 460–469 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Orehovački, T.: Development of a methodology for evaluating the quality in use of web 2.0 applications. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6949, pp. 382–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orehovački, T.: Methodology for Evaluating the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications, Ph.D. thesis. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organization and Informatics, Varaždin (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orehovački, T.: Perceived quality of cloud based applications for collaborative writing. In: Pokorny, J., et al. (eds.) Information Systems Development – Business Systems and Services: Modeling and Development, pp. 575–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orehovački, T.: Proposal for a set of quality attributes relevant for web 2.0 application success. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 319–326. IEEE Press, Cavtat (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S.: Inspecting quality of games designed for learning programming. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9192, pp. 620–631. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S., Jadrić, M.: Exploring the validity of an instrument to measure the perceived quality in use of web 2.0 applications with educational potential. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8523, pp. 192–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Orehovački, T., Bubaš, G., Kovačić, A.: Taxonomy of web 2.0 applications with educational potential. In: Cheal, C. et al. (eds.) Transformation in Teaching: Social Media Strategies in Higher Education, pp. 43–72. Informing Science Press, Santa Rosa (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Exploring the quality in use of web 2.0 applications: the case of mind mapping services. In: Harth, A., Koch, N. (eds.) ICWE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7059, pp. 266–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Evaluating the perceived and estimated quality in use of web 2.0 applications. J. Syst. Softw. 86(12), 3039–3059 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Orehovački, T., Granollers, T.: Subjective and objective assessment of mashup tools. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8517, pp. 340–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Özata, F.Z.: Determinants of user satisfaction with mobile applications: case of facebook as a mobile app in Turkey. In: Proceedings of Business and Management Conferences, pp. 262–282. IISES, Vienna (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rabi’u, S., Ayobami, A.S., Hector, O.P.: Usability characteristics of mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Behavioural and Social Science Research, pp. 1–5 (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schweighofer, T., Heričko, M.: Mobile device and technology characteristics’ impact on mobile application testing. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of Software Quality Analysis, Monitoring, Improvement, and Applications, pp. 103–108. CEUR, Novi Sad (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vaananen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Vaataja, H., Vainio, T.: Opportunities and challenges of designing the Service User eXperience (SUX) in web 2.0. In: Saariluoma, P., Isomäki, H. (eds.) Future Interaction Design II, pp. 117–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zahra, S., Khalid, A., Javed, A.: An efficient and effective new generation objective quality model for mobile applications. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci. 5(4), 36–42 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zamfiroiu, A.: Factors influencing the quality of mobile applications. Informatica Economică 18(1), 131–138 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Communication TechnologiesJuraj Dobrila University of PulaPulaCroatia
  2. 2.Polytechnic of RijekaRijekaCroatia

Personalised recommendations