Advertisement

Design and Development of a Stencil for Mobile User Interface (UI) Design

  • Anirban ChowdhuryEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 135)

Abstract

The paper prototyping is a quick method of UI design and concept presentation. However, hand-drawn UI prototypes (paper prototypes) are not always visually good. Sometimes rough hand sketched prototypes create confusions during UI concept validation with the target users or clients. Therefore, aim of this paper is to design and develop the UI stencil to help mobile UI designers to crate quick, easy and visually pleasing paper prototypes. A total of three UI stencil prototypes were designed and developed for usability testing to ensure the user acceptance of UI stencil. It was observed that UI designers were willing to use the ‘Stencil-3’ for mobile UI design as the level of perceived usability and perceived ease of use were higher in case of ‘Stencil-3’ than the other stencils. Moreover, it was observed that users were taken comparatively less time for UI screens using ‘Stencil-3’ than the time taken for hand drawings of the same UI screens. Hence, this UI stencil might be beneficial for UI designers for quick, consistent and pleasant paper prototype design.

Keywords

Human computer interaction (HCI) Paper prototypes Stencil User interface (UI) User experience (UX) 

References

  1. 1.
    Statista: The statistics portal. number of mobile phone users worldwide from 2013 to 2019 (in billions). Accessed from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274774/forecast-of-mobile-phone-users-worldwide/ Accessed on: 31 May 2018
  2. 2.
    Snyder, C.: Paper prototyping: the fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rettig, M.: Prototyping for tiny fingers. Commun. ACM 37(4), 21–27 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vijayan, J., Raju, G.: A new approach to requirements elicitation using paper prototype. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 28, 9–16 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chowdhury, A., Karmakar, S., Reddy, S.M., Ghosh, S., Chakrabarti, D.: Product personality rating style for satisfaction of tactile need of online buyers—A human factors issue in the context of e-retailers’ web-design. In: 2013 International Conference on Human Computer Interactions (ICHCI), pp. 1–8. IEEE, 23 Aug 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wells, J.D., Valacich, J.S., Hess, T.J.: What signal are you sending? How website quality influences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions. MIS Q. 1, 373–396 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A.: Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Q. 1, 227–247 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Segars, A.H., Grover, V.: Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Q. 1, 517–525 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chowdhury, A., Karmakar, S., Reddy, S.M., Ghosh, S., Chakrabarti, D.: Usability is more valuable predictor than product personality for product choice in human-product physical interaction. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44(5), 697–705 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Field, A.: Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications, California (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dion, K., Berscheid, E., Walster, E.: What is beautiful is good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 24(3), 285 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S., Ikar, D.: What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput. 13(2), 127–145 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norman, D.A.: Introduction to this special section on beauty, goodness, and usability. Hum-Comput. Interact. 19(4), 311–318 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chowdhury, A., Chakrabarti, D., Karmakar, S.: Anthropomorphic televisions are more attractive: the effect of novelty. In: Ergonomics in Caring for People, pp. 243–249. Springer, Singapore (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chowdhury, A., Karmakar, S., Ghosh, S., Chakrabarti, D.: Purchase intention of anthropomorphic chair is influenced by visual attractiveness and pleasure. Int. Rev. Appl. Eng. Res. 4(2), 133–140 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chowdhury, A., Reddy, S.M., Chakrabarti, D., Karmakar, S.: Cognitive theories of product emotion and their applications in emotional product design. In: ICoRD’15–Research into Design Across Boundaries, vol. 1, pp. 329–340. Springer, New Delhi (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chowdhury, A., Reddy, S.M., Karmakar, S., Ghosh, S., Chakrabarti, D.: Is perception of product personality related with product usability? a cognitive ergonomics perspective. Ergon. Enchanced Prod, 177–82 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Design (SoD)University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES)DehradunIndia

Personalised recommendations