A Study for Usability Risk Level in Physical User Interface of Mobile Phone

  • Beomsuk Jin
  • Sangmin Ko
  • Jaeseung Mun
  • Yong Gu Ji
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4559)


The purpose of this study is to develop a framework of quantitative evaluation of PUI risk level to ensure the usability in designing mobile devices. Three PUI factors—key type, use scene and device form—were selected as the main criteria for PUI risk level. They are defined as Key Manipulation Value (KMV), Function Manipulation Value (FMV) and Handling Value (HV), considering the requirements. In short, this study provides a framework of quantitative evaluation with the requirements of the three PUI factors, and analyzes risk level by KMV, FMV and HV. This result can be utilized as a criterion for usability at the design phase. In addition, evaluation with this framework at the early design phase helps to anticipate the problems, so the opportunity to solve the problem can be offered in advance.


Mobile Phone Physical User Interface Risk Level 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brewster, S.A.: Overcoming the Lack of Screen Space on Mobile Computers. Personal and Ubiquitous computing 6(3), 188–205 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swindells, C., MacLean, K.E.: A Case-Study of Affect Measurement Tools for Physical User Interface Design. Graphic Interface, pp. 243–250 (2006) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilbert, B.C., Hahn, H.A., Gilmore, W.E., Schurman, D.L.: Thumb up:anthropometry of first finger. Human factors 20(6), 747–750 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    How to Cope with Diffusion of Mobile Convergence: Samsung Economic Research Institute (2005),
  5. 5.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lumsden, J., Brewster, S.: A Paradigm Shift:Alternative Interaction Techniques for Use with Mobile & Wearable Devices (2003) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy, J., Kjeldskov, J., Howard, S.: THE CONVERGED APPLIANCE – I LOVE IT... BUT I HATE IT. In: Proceedings of OZCHI 2005, Canberra, Australia (November 2005) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kadefors, R., Areskoug, A., Dahlman, S., Kilbom, A., Sperling, I., Oester, J.: An approach ergonomics evaluation of the hand tools. Applied Ergonomics 24(3), 203–211 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hornbaek, K.: Current practice in measuring usability-Challenges to usability studies and research. Human Computer Studies 64, 79–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirotaka, N.: Reassessing Current Cell Phone Designs-Using Thumb Input Effectively. In: CHI 2003, New Horizons (2003) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ha, R.W., Ho, P.-H., Shen, X.S.: SIMKEYS-An Efficient Keypad Configuration for Mobile Communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, University of Waterloo, (November 2004) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shneiderman, B.: Designing the User Interface Strategies for Effective Human Computer Interractive Working. Addison-wesley, Reading (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silfverberg, M., Mackenzie, I.S., Korhonen, P.: Predicting text entry speed mobile phone. CHI 2000 Letters 2(1), 9–16 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beomsuk Jin
    • 1
  • Sangmin Ko
    • 1
  • Jaeseung Mun
    • 1
  • Yong Gu Ji
    • 1
  1. 1.Yonsei University., 134 Sinchon-Dong, Seodaemun-gu, SeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations