Advertisement

Design Variations for Improved Usability of Mobile Data Capture in Rural Uganda

  • Ole Andreas KrumsvikEmail author
  • Ankica Babic
  • Alice Mugisha
Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 68/1)

Abstract

Several form design alternatives were created as a starting point for a usability evaluation in a project dedicated to maternal and child care in the rural Northern Ugandan area. The project is concerned with ensuring that pregnant mothers deliver from the hospitals and that their babies receive the necessary care after delivery, despite the limited resources. Health care workers are collecting data to document current resources using their hand-held devices, mainly phones. The basic requirements are that the application design should be simple, easily understandable by a broad user group, and supported by Android mobile platforms. We have created four design alternatives, all simple, straightforward, and suitable for low cost Android mobile devices. The major differences are concerned with the overall layout and color usage. There are variations in the radio buttons, check boxes, date formatting, progress visualization, font, labeling, data input validation, tables, and navigation buttons. The software, Axure RP 8, was used for designing alternatives based on the currently used mobile electronic data capture form “SurvPlus_FirstVisit_4” which is made in ODK Collect and has many usability issues. By coming up with these four mid-fidelity prototypes we expect to address variations in design that the current software allows. Suggested designs are common for many other applications, the majority of which mobile device users are familiar with. User preference testing was carried out to explore user preferences regarding the holistic design and particular design features.

Keywords

Usability Mobile EDC Rural Uganda Maternal care Child care Redesign 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) for supporting the research through the HI-TRAIN project.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC (1998). 9241-14 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s - Part 14 Menu dialogues, ISO/IEC 9241-14: 1998 (E).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harrison R, Flood D, Duce D (2013) Usability of Mobile Applications: Literature Review and Rationale for a New Usability Model. J Interact Sci 1:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1.
  3. 3.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability engineering. Elsevier (1994).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evanhaim D (2017) 9 Usability Issues that Plague Today’s Mobile Apps. https://blog.appsee.com/9-usability-issues-that-plague-mobile-apps, last accessed 2017/11/16.
  5. 5.
    Gerber S (2016) The 8 most overlooked mobile app usability issues. http://mashable.com/2016/05/26/mobile-app-usability-issues, last accessed 2017/11/30.
  6. 6.
    Engelberg D, Seffah A (2002) A framework for rapid mid-fidelity prototyping of web sites. Usability Gaining a Compet Edge 99:203–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35610-5_14.
  7. 7.
    Hartung C, Anokwa Y, Brunette W, et al (2010) Open Data Kit: Tools to Build Information Services for Developing Regions. Proc Int Conf Inf Commun Technol Dev 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2369220.2369236.
  8. 8.
    Mugisha A, Babic A, Wakholi P, et al (2017) Usability in Mobile Electronic Data Collection Tools: Form Developers’ Views. Stud Health Technol Inform 238:72–75.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blomkvist S (2002) Persona – an overview. 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2010) User-Centered Design. Work 37:445–456.  https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-2010-1109.
  11. 11.
    Wilson, C.: User Interface Inspection Methods, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann (2013).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Axure (2017) Prototypes, Specifications, and Diagrams in One Tool. https://www.axure.com, last accessed 2017/11/30.
  13. 13.
    Google (2017) Introduction - Material Design. https://material.io/guidelines, last accessed 2017/11/13.
  14. 14.
    Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books (2013).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen J, Levy J (1994) Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Commun. ACM 37:66–75.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W3C (2017) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview. https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag, last accessed 2017/11/12.
  17. 17.
    Shneiderman B, Plaisant C (2010) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson 5th:639.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fricker SA, Thummler C, Gavras A (2015) Requirements Engineering for Digital Health. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCurdie T, Taneva S, Casselman M, et al (2012) mHealth Consumer Apps: The Case for User-Centered Design. Biomed Instrum Technol Mob Heal 46:49–56.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson CM, Johnson TR, Zhang J (2005) A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. J Biomed Inform 38:75–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.005.
  21. 21.
    Nielsen J (2008) Usability ROI Declining, But Still Strong. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-roi-declining-but-still-strong, last accessed 2017/11/12.
  22. 22.
    Twidale MB, Nichols DM (2005) Exploring usability discussions in open source development. In: System Sciences, 2005. HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Linköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations