Entry and Selection Methods for Specifying Dates in Mobile Context

  • A. Kürşad Türkcan
  • Pınar Onay DurduEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10903)


With the increasing use of mobile phones and tablets and the widespread use of internet networks, the use of applications designed for these platforms is increasing. Users generally have to input various types of data while using these applications and specifying date is one of the input types. In the scope of this study, a user study with 10 participants was conducted to compare four different input methods, which were used for specifying dates in mobile forms. Four different input methods were textbox, divided textbox, datepicker and calendar view. Time required to complete date entry tasks and errors occurred during these tasks were recorded and participants’ preferences were gathered. Textbox was found to be the fastest and most accurate input method while calendar view was the slowest and most error prone. In addition, participants preferred divided textbox the most.


Mobile input methods Methods for specifying dates Mobile forms Performance of mobile input methods 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Miller, S., Jarret, C.: Should I use a drop-down? Four steps for choosing form elements on the web (2001).
  3. 3.
    Healey, B.: Drop downs and scroll mice: the effect of response option format and input mechanism employed on data quality in web surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 25, 111–128 (2007). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bargas-Avila, J.A., Brenzikofer, O., Tuch, A.N., Roth, S.P., Opwis, K.: Working towards usable forms on the world wide web: optimizing date entry input fields. Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2011, 1–6 (2011). Scholar
  5. 5.
    IBM Corporation: Systems application architecture: common user access advanced interface design reference. (Document SC34-4289-00 1991) (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Apple Computer: Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Microsoft Corporation: The windows interface: an application design guide. Microsoft Pr. (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apple Inc.: iOS Human Interface Guidelines. Accessed 02 Feb 2017
  9. 9.
    Google User Interface Guidelines. Accessed 02 Feb 2017
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Meluson, A., Rasamny, M., Vosburgh, A.M.: Entry and selection methods for specifying dates. Hum. Factors 31(2), 199–214 (1989). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tullis, T.S., Kodimer, M.L.: A comparison of direct-manipulation, selection, and data-entry techniques for reordering fields in a table. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 298–302. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnsgard, T.J., Page, S.R., Wilson, R.D., Zeno, R.J.: A comparison of graphical user interface widgets for various tasks. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 287–291. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hogg, A., Masztal, J.J.: Drop-down, radio buttons, or fill-in-the-blank? Effects of attribute rating scale type on web survey responses. In: Proceedings ESOMAR (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heerwegh, D., Loosveldt, G.: An evaluation of the effect of response formats on data quality in web surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 20(4), 471–484 (2002). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adak, M.F., Durdu, P.O.: Form elemanlarinin form doldurmadaki performansa etkisi. Int. J. Inform. Technol. 4(2), 11–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Butts, L., Cockburn, A.: An evaluation of mobile phone text input methods. In: Australian Computer Science Communications, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 55–59. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2002).
  18. 18.
    MacKenzie, S.I., Soukoreff, W.R.: Text entry for mobile computing: Models and methods, theory and practice. Hum. Comput. Interact. 17(2–3), 147–198 (2002). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riordan, B.O., Curran, K., Woods, D.: Investigating text input methods for mobile phones. J. Comput. Sci. 1(2), 189–199 (2005). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balagtas-Fernandez, F., Forrai, J., Hussmann, H.: Evaluation of user interface design and input methods for applications on mobile touch screen devices. In: Gross, T., Gulliksen, J., Kotzé, P., Oestreicher, L., Palanque, P., Prates, R.O., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5726, pp. 243–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen, T., Yesilada, Y., Harper, S.: What input errors do you experience? Typing and pointing errors of mobile Web users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 68(3), 138–157 (2010). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nicolau, H., Jorge, J.: Elderly text-entry performance on touchscreens. In: Proceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 127–134. ACM (2012).
  23. 23.
    Page, T.: Usability of text input interfaces in smartphones. J. Des. Res. 11(1), 39–56 (2013). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deniz, G., Onay Durdu, P.: Comparison of mobile input methods. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2016. LNCS, vol. 9748, pp. 3–13. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Commun. ACM 23(7), 396–410 (1980). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Systems Engineering, Graduate School of Natural and Applied SciencesKocaeli UniversityIzmitTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKocaeli UniversityIzmitTurkey
  3. 3.Human Computer Interaction Research Laboratory, Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKocaeli UniversityIzmitTurkey

Personalised recommendations