Advertisement

Abstract

With the development of society, the smart phone for the elderly has been developed rapidly. To improve the design of the smart phone icons for the elderly, a set of experiments were made to study the usability differences between multi-colored icons and monochromatic icons. 8 pairs of icons where a pair of icons was composed of a multi-colored icon and a monochromatic icon with the same function were prepared. These 16 icons whose height are 9.81 mm were placed in random order in the Xiaomi MI 4 smart phone installed with the android system. 24 retired teachers aged from 60–70 of the university were called as participants. They were asked to find the right icon as required and click on it with one of their fingers. For every subjects, there were 6 finding tasks followed by satisfaction questionnaire surveys. Eye movement data and satisfaction questionnaire surveys data were acquired and analyzed to get the results: monochromatic flat icons were easier to recognize and operate than the ones that designed with multi-colors for old people, even though they may have monotonous forms; age 60–65 or 66–70 was not the reason one made an operation mistake; some older people liked multi-colored flat icons more than monochromatic flat icons for their colorful vision experience.

Keywords

Multi-colored flat icons Monochromatic flat icons Elderly Usability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the support from the Graduate Student Innovation Project for Common College in Jiangsu Province, China (No. CXLX11-0566).

References

  1. 1.
    China Statistical Yearbook. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/
  2. 2.
    Petersen, J., Thielke, S., Austin, D.: Phone behavior and its relationship to loneliness in older adults. Aging Ment. Health 20(10), 1084–1091 (2015). doi: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1060947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nadia, M.H.N.A., Nuraihan, M.I.E., Hanis, A.R.F.: Exploring metaphor design for mobile icons: the elderly perspectives. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 8(4), 98–106 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurniawan, S.: Older people and mobile phones: a multi-method investigation. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66(12), 889–901 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boschman, M.C., Roufs, J.A.J.: Text quality metrics for visual display units: II. An experimental survey. Displays 18(1), 45–64 (1997). doi: 10.1016/S0141-9382(97)00004-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kingkarn, P., Nopadon, S.: Aging and perception of graphic representation: a case of icon design in mobile phone functionality. Int. J. Comput. Technol. Appl. 5(2), 293–298 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhattacharyya, D., Chowdhury, B., Chatterjee, T.: Selection of character/background color combinations for onscreen searching tasks: an eye movement, subjective and performance approach. Displays 35(3), 101–109 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2014.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, J.H.: A study on mobile icon design of iPhone7. Cartoon Anim. Stud. 34, 367–386 (2014). doi: 10.7230/KOSCAS.2014.34.367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kai, C.: The Usability Research of Flat Icons in the Interface of Smart Phone. Jiangsu university, Zhenjiang (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Im, Y., Kim, T., Jung, E.S.: Investigation of icon design and touchable area for effective smart phone controls. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 25(2), 251–267 (2015). doi: 10.1002/hfm.20593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jamieson, S.: Likert scale: how to (ab) use them. Med. Educ. 38(12), 1217–1218 (2005). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.xSusan CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jiangsu UniversityZhenjiangChina

Personalised recommendations