Comparing Effectiveness, Efficiency, Ease of Use, Usability and User Experience When Using Tablets and Laptops

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8517)


Initially perceived as a consumer device, in recent years tablets have become more frequently used in business contexts where they often replace laptops as mobile computing devices. Since they follow different user interaction paradigms we conducted a study comparing effectiveness, efficiency, ease of use, usability and user experience when using tablets and laptops in typical private and business tasks. To measure these characteristics we used the task completion rate, the task completion time, the Single Ease Question (SEQ), the Software Usability Scale (SUS) and AttrakDiff. Results indicate that there is a difference between effectiveness, efficiency and the users’ assessment of the devices. Users can carry out tasks more effectively and efficiently on laptops, but rate tablets higher in perceived usability and user experience, indicating that a pleasant and meaningful experience depends on more characteristics than work-related qualities such as effectiveness and efficiency.


usability user experience satisfaction ease of use AttrakDiff 


  1. 1.
    Huberty, K., Holt, A., Moore, J., Devgan, S., Meunier, F., Gelblum, E., Devitt, S., Lu, J., Chen, G., Shih, S., Kim, S., Yoshikawa, K.: Tablet Landscape Evolution: Window(s) of Opportunity. Morgan Stanley Research (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Mueller, H., Gove, J.L., Webb, J.S.: Understanding Tablet Use: A Multi-Method Exploration. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Mobile HCI 2012), pp. 1–10. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Data Group: iPad for Business. Survey (2012),
  5. 5.
    Ozok, A.A., Benson, D., Chakraborty, J., Norcio, A.F.: A Comparative Study Between Tablet and Laptop PCs: User Satisfaction and Preferences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24, 329–352 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals - Part 11: Guidance on usability (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behaviour& Information Technology 25, 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sauro, J., Dumas, J.S.: Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In: Olsen Jr., D.R., Arthur, R.B., Hinckley, K., Morris, M.R., Hudson, S.E., Greenberg, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1599–1608. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brooke, J.: SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24, 574–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale. In: Kurosu, M., et al. (eds.) Human Centered Design, HCII 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 94–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F.: AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In: Szwillus, G., Ziegler, J. (eds.) Mensch & Computer 2003, vol. 57, pp. 187–196. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) USAB 2008. LNCS, vol. 5298, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Good Technology: Good Technology Device Activations Report Q4 (2012),
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Sauro, J., Lewis, J.: Correlations among Prototypical Usability Metrics: Evidence for the Construct of Usability. In: Olsen Jr., D.R., Arthur, R.B., Hinckley, K., Morris, M.R., Hudson, S.E., Greenberg, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1609–1618. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, J.H., Aulck, L., Bartha, M.C., Harper, C.A., Johnson, P.W.: Are there differences in muscle activity, subjective discomfort, and typing performance between virtual and conventional keyboards? In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting, pp. 1104–1108. SAGE, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, S., Zhai, S.: The performance of touch screen soft buttons. In: Olsen, D.R. (ed.) Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI, pp. 309–318. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences Upper AustriaAustria

Personalised recommendations