A Study of the Factors Affecting the Usability of Smart Phone Screen Protectors for the Elderly

  • Shuo-Fang Liu
  • Ching-Fen ChangEmail author
  • Ming-Hong Wang
  • Hsin-Hsi Lai
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9754)


The issues arising from ageing societies have received worldwide attention. Many studies have pointed out that mobile technology can positively assist the elderly with smartphones being the most prevalent. The low sensitivity of finger touch and the slow response of a smartphone’s interface may affect the finger coordination and stability of the elderly on the touch screen interface. A large number of studies suggest that the sense of touch can provide smartphone users to experience richer interaction than audio visual communications alone. Therefore, the reason for using the four different smartphone screen protector materials (Anti-Smudge (AS), Anti-Smudge and Glare (ASG), Blue Light Cut (BLC), and Tempered Glass (TG)) for this experiment on smartphone users aged 50 and above. Each material is scored with a usability evaluation method in order to obtain the superior screen protector in regards to usability for the elderly. The results from the experiments found that TG was the most suitable for elderly, followed by ASG, and then AS. It also showed that the thickness of the smartphone screen protectors do not affect elderly users when manipulating the screen surface. However, smooth surfaced, matte touch material with a translucent visual exterior seems to be the most suitable for elderly smartphone users.


Elderly Smart phone Screen protectors Usability 


  1. 1.
    Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Ageing 2015 Highlights. United Nations (2015). Accessed 04 Feb 2015
  2. 2.
    Hardill, I., Olphert, C.W.: Staying connected: exploring mobile phone use amongst older adults in the UK. Geoforum 43(6), 1306–1312 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Plaza, I., Martin, L., Martin, S., Medrano, C.: Mobile applications in an aging society: status and trends. J. Syst. Softw. 84(11), 1977–1988 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, C.-F., Kuo, C.-C.: Difficulties on small-touch-screens for various ages. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 968–974. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seidler, R., Stelmach, G.: Motor Control, Encyclopedia of Gerontology: Age, Aging and the Aged. Academic Press, San Diego (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schneck, M.E., Haegerstrom-Portnoy, G., Lott, L.A., Brabyn, J.A.: Comparison of panel D-15 tests in a large older population. Optom. Vis. Sci.: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry 91(3), 284–290 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czaja, S.J.: Microcomputers and elderly. In: Helander, M. (ed.) Human-computer Interaction, pp. 584–598. Elsevier, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zajicek, M.: Interface design for older adults. In: Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing: Providing for the Elderly, 21–25 May, Alcácer do Sal (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Welford, A.T.: Changes of performance with age. In: Charness, N. (ed.) Aging and Human Performance, pp. 333–369. Wiley, Chichester (1985, 1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sallnäs, E.L., Rassmus-Gröhn, K., Sjöström, C.: Supporting presence in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 7(4), 461–476 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    沙, 依仁.: 高齡學. Wu-Nan Book Inc., Taipei (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peng, C.H.: Gerontology. Yang-Chih Book Co., Ltd., Taipei (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chellali, A., Dumas, C., Milleville-Pennel, I.: Influences of haptic communication on a shared manual task. Interact. Comput. 23(4), 317–328 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bevan, N., Kirakowski, J., Maissel, J.: What is usability? In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on HCI, Stuttgart, 1–6 September 1991Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. AP Professional, Cambridge (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Banter, B.: Touch screens and touch surfaces are enriched by haptic force-feedback. Inf. Display 26(3), 26–30 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A., Charness, N., Czaja, S.J., Sharit, J.: Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches. CRC Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saxon, S.V., Etten, M.J., Perkins, E.A.: A Guide for the Helping Professions: Physical Change and Aging, 5th edn. Springer Publishing Company, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, M.-H., Chang, Y.-C., Liu, S.-F., Lai, H.-H.: Developing new gesture design mode in smartphone use for elders. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9193, pp. 519–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuo-Fang Liu
    • 1
  • Ching-Fen Chang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ming-Hong Wang
    • 1
  • Hsin-Hsi Lai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignNational Cheng-Kung UniversityTainan City 701Taiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations