"Mobile, Handheld Devices with Touchscreens: How Perceived Usability Affects Communication"

Rebecca Birch 

Rebecca is a New Mexico Tech graduate who recently discovered the joys of tutoring and mentoring high school students in mathematics and language arts. While working with her students, Rebecca has learned much about the nuances of touchscreen technology and the role it plays in their communication. Other tactile activities include rock climbing, playing the viola, and enhancing her side work as a photographer.

Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

Survey

Discussion on HTDs in Regard to Literature and Survey

Considerations and the Future of HTDs

Works Cited

Appendix A

Literature Review

In order to understand usability concerns for HTDs, it is necessary to begin with a review of usability principles: what is meant by usability and how these definitions affect people using HTDs. After discussing usability principles, it will be necessary to review design principles in relation to both physical and graphical user interfaces. Finally, user interface design principles in relation to mobile, handheld devices will be discussed.

Usability

Mobile, handheld devices have become increasingly popular in the last ten years (Beloff 211). The use of touchscreens has also grown significantly in the last decade, and we have begun to see more integration of touchscreens into handheld mobile devices. Significant attention has been given to researching minimalist and object-oriented design, the use of handheld devices in a classroom, different types of touchscreens, and the general usability of technology. However, little research has been conducted specifically in relation to how handheld touchscreen devices (HTDs) affect communication. Minimalism and object-oriented design are foundational concepts in design research and it is therefore necessary to begin with a review of works by Jonathan Price and John M. Carroll, which have contributed significantly to these areas.

Price’s early discussion of information design for the Internet suggests that information design be performed as object-oriented design, a design theory which requires that each piece of information be arranged according to its quality and logical relevance to its context (Price 70-1). Even more handheld devices are able to access information on the Web, making the ability to browse and easily access information increasingly important. Object-oriented design is beneficial to facilitating faster, more user-friendly information access on handheld devices.

Gloria Reece expands on Price’s guideline for object-oriented design, providing several different definitions of usability and user-centered design. These definitions include “the measure of quality of the user experience when interacting with something—whether a Web site, a traditional software application, or any other device the user can operate in some other way or another” (2). Reece discusses usability and user-centered design specifically in relation to the vision- or hearing-impaired, and argues that these design theories are necessary in creating readable, logically laid-out websites for everyone as per ADA-508, the act which formulates accessibility standards for electronic and information technology on multiple applications and portable computers (4).

Maybury recognizes that digital, mobile environments have rapidly grown in their complexity and application (107), agreeing with Chae and Kim, Ziefle, and Stone that HTDs have become more complex because they can be used in so many applications. Therefore, Maybury recommends a system he developed which will “mitigate the complexity of interface design, [simplify] use and reuse, and [ease] maintenance and evolution” of HTD interfaces. The system he describes allows users content-based, personalized online access to news (108). He found that “effective incorporation of intelligence in the design or operation of the interface has been shown to improve the speed, accuracy, and naturalness of the creation and use of human computer interaction” (109).

Paolo Paolini and Maria Costabile state that usability is the “primary concern for most high quality applications” and that it “characterizes the property, of an application, of being effectively usable, by the intended users, providing the intended functions, for the intended use” (Paolini 111). Usability, says Costabile, is absolutely crucial to an interactive application’s quality as a whole (Costabile 124). Intrinsic to the concept of usability, she says, are learnability, efficiency, memorability, reliability, and user satisfaction. Paolini further discusses what should be taken into consideration for providing effective usability (111):

• Content: is there too much information, is its depth appropriate, is it properly organized?
• Appearance: is the interface well organized and easy to scan, are the visuals of a good quality?
• Structure: are items grouped together logically, is there a logical structure to the information and visuals?
• Navigation: is the navigation design effective?
• Interaction: are methods of content interaction (scrolling, zooming, etc.) well organized, is user control possible, do menus and icons make sense, are icons and menus usable?
• Performance: is the device’s response to user commands quick and efficient?
• Effectiveness: are the intended goals of the device achievable?

Paolini concludes that usability is determined by the purpose of the device and its applications; a graphical user interface, or GUI (navigation, structure, appearance), for a desktop computer browsing the Internet may differ from that of an HTD performing the same task, for example.

Since the user interface (UI) is both how and with what users interact with a device, Walten et al. researched different methods of chemically tempering glass in order to create a more physically pleasing UI (125, Walten 70). Chemical tempering is the process in which glass is immersed in a molten alkaline salt mixture, allowing alkaline ions currently in the glass to be exchanged for others in the alkaline salt mixture; the glass is more resistant to cracks and scratches as a result (71). The type of chemically tempered glass that Walten et al. espouse, Gorilla glass, is an alkalinalumino-silicate glass that is eight times more resistant to scratching and cracking than most other glasses (72). This resistance to wear and tear is of great benefit for users, since scratches and cracks not only annoy users but damage the overall functionality and usability of HTDs as well.

Graphical and Physical User Interface Design

Badre and Jacobs discuss the role that aesthetics play in user satisfaction, productivity, and efficiency, focusing primarily on websites (103). According to Badre and Jacobs, the “challenge for web site designers is…to structure the visual and auditory stimuli that comprise their sites in ways that maximize visitors’ abilities to construct meaningful conceptual and navigational paths through them” (104). They emphasize overall device performance, stating that a truly usable device allows users to perform tasks with ease and efficiency (105).

Chong et al. designed a single-layered touchscreen-based user interface that would make an HTD’s interface “more user-friendly with smaller size” (1156). The authors reinforce Ziefle, Chae and Kim, and Stone’s assertions that “the size and the user interface of mobile devices are the main concerns in the design of mobile devices” (1156). Like Paolini and Costabile, Chong et al. describe the user interface as what a user interacts with in a device, including audio, physical and visual elements. Additionally, a well-designed user interface will reduce the number of errors made by users and the cost spent on customer support (1156). The authors outline some design principles for producing an effective UI, which include keeping the interface simple and aesthetic, allowing the users to be productive, and allowing the interface to be customizable (1156, 1157).

To expand further on their design principles, Chong et al. state that simplicity means keeping objects “minimal and layered,” and that productivity should be task sensitive, reducing work steps as much as possible, and use the Pareto Principle for interface optimization (1157). The Pareto Principle, commonly known as the “80/20 rule,” in relation to information design means that 80% of all the information in a device is presented through only 20% of the total information (Pareto Principle). Layered objects are similar objects grouped under a single heading; for example, the “Contacts” heading in a phone’s menu will contain the “New Contact,” “Contact List,” “Groups,” “Speed Dials,” objects, which in turn contain their own objects. Layered objects are an effective method of simplifying information presentation. Aesthetics, of course, should make an interface inviting and appealing; a user should feel less as though he or she is fighting against the computer and instead more as though the computer is assisting the user accomplish his or her tasks (1157).

Building from the discussions on design principles for electronic media, Jonsson, Nass and Lee shift the focus specifically toward handheld devices. In their article "Mixing Personal Computer and Handheld Interfaces and Devices: Effects on Perceptions and Attitudes," they examine how the particular interface of handheld devices versus a traditional desktop computer changed perceptions about ease of use. They discuss the issue of presenting applications on a small, handheld interface versus on larger, desktop monitors or laptop screens. The authors brought in 39 participants, the majority of whom were unfamiliar with handheld devices, to test the usability of a laptop, a handheld without a keyboard, a handheld with a keyboard, and a traditional desktop (71, 75-78). The results of their study found that the participants perceived that the handheld interfaces in general were easier to use than the desktop, while the handheld with a keyboard was easier to use than the handheld without a keyboard (78-80). Their research prompted them to suggest designing an interface only once, allowing that same interface to appear on multiple platforms (72).

Laura Beloff also talks about interfaces, focusing primarily on how art is viewed on mobile devices and how we relate to physical art and objects. The nature of how we relate to art and objects has changed with the increased presence of mobile devices and wireless networks, Beloff says (211); mobile devices and wireless networks are “transforming or using existing possibilities and by doing it they are exposing the characteristics… of these devices” (215). She brings up the important point that our perceptions of how we view things such as art change depending on the system we view it in. She goes on to reinforce the fact that handheld devices are becoming more common, and that how users perceive information will change depending on the system they use to view that information. This ties in with minimalist design as discussed by Carroll in 1990 and 1998, where instructional material must be adapted to suit separate systems.

De Yoreo and Kauffman based their 2004 discussion of how minimalist design is effective for interactive design on Carroll’s research. Advocating the use of minimalist design, the authors say that the principles of minimalism are met in four ways: by allowing the user to accomplish real tasks by simulating the actual operation of the software; by minimizing front-end material and moving text-based procedures from the document into multimedia form; by supporting error recovery “by way of helpful tips, and user success or failure messages when the user types an incorrect response or clicks an incorrect location”; and by allowing users to “develop a library of modular, independent videos that can be viewed in any order,” because such “‘random access information’ is more in tune with how users actually work” (214). These design practices are especially helpful for people using handheld devices because the design allows the users to search for and manipulate information more easily and intuitively. Furthermore, minimalism is especially important for handheld devices because there is a much more limited viewing space.

HTD Interface Design and Evolution

Chae and Kim present concerns about mobile, handheld devices’ typically small screen size. In particular, it was found that the small screen size combined with a poorly designed GUI caused the most problems (Ziefle, Chong et al., Maybury). Additionally, Chae and Kim state that usability is context sensitive; the nature of the tasks being performed on an HTD will largely affect usability. Ziefle agrees about the difficulty of presenting information on mobile, handheld devices primarily due to the small screen size, and asserts because of the screen size it is common for users to become disoriented in the GUI of mobile handheld devices. In her study, Ziefle found that on their own visual density (information density) and menu design do not affect disorientation; rather it is the balance of visual density and menu design that affects disorientation and usability.

In their article "Guidelines for Handheld Mobile Device Interface Design," Gong and Tarasewich discuss “the characteristics and limitations of current mobile device interfaces” versus those of desktop environments and offer suggestions for allowing better usability in mobile interface design (3751). They base their suggestions for mobile interface design on Shneiderman’s “Golden Rules of Interface Design,” for which they provide some modifications (3751-55). Gong and Tarasewich state that reducing the number of operations required to perform routine tasks on mobile devices is helpful, as users are looking to decrease the amount of time spent performing such tasks. Gong and Tarasewich also favor the use of “top-down” interaction on mobile devices, a method of design in which a large amount of information is available to users in smaller, more manageable chunks. Multilevel information design according to Gong and Tarasewich is particularly conducive to the presentation of information on mobile devices. A third design guideline they present is the allowance of personalization of mobile devices. Because these devices are used by one person at a time and because “different users have different usage patterns, preferences, and skill levels,” the authors suggest that allowing users to personalize how text and images are displayed (for example) will be create greater ease of use with mobile devices (3755).

In 2002 Kim and Albers examined the potential usability of personal digital assistants (PDAs) and other handheld technologies in accessing and perusing information on the Internet. They mention that, in regard to information presentation on PDAs and other handhelds, designers must be cautious about trimming down information. Their research illustrates how the design and capabilities of handhelds can potentially affect a user’s ability to retrieve and understand the information presented on the handheld interface. Similarly, as Carrol, van derMeij, and Price discovered, less information is not always the best design choice. Kim and Albers also analyze the issues which arise in information presentation on handheld devices. Ina Treadwell assessed the use of PDAs by medical students taking a medical exam (855). Her study examined the usability of the PDAs versus traditional pencil and paper, as well as user satisfaction of the PDAs versus pencil and paper. User satisfaction was determined with a Likert scale by examining ease of navigation, identification of students, and the time taken to complete a checklist. Treadwell determined that users found navigation on the PDA to be very user-friendly. She also found that it took less time to perform the tasks asked on the PDA than via traditional means and that using the PDA caused less physical stress on the user.

Smith adds to the work done by Treadwell, Kim and Albers with her research on the use of pocket PCs in two separate courses researching burgeoning handheld technology (211). Her study allowed her to analyze how technical communication professionals and students used handheld devices (211), and laid the groundwork “for an ethnographic study of the use of handhelds by technical communicators” (212). In this study, students examined the rhetorical and theoretical issues with the pocket PC, and during this time “gained an understanding of a dynamic environment that demands quick but thorough development of flexible, technical documents” (211).

The study performed by Romeo et al. analyzes the use of full-size touchscreen technology by children ages 3 through 7 (329-30). Their study found that touchscreen technology can be difficult for children who are unfamiliar with touchscreens, especially if the interface was originally designed for a traditional desktop computer. It was found that the children had far more difficulty using a touchscreen interface when the graphics used were unclear in relation to the information (331-32). Similarly, when the icons were too small (or simply inappropriately sized for the interface), the children experienced difficulty. Banister expands on Romeo et al.’s discussion, bringing up how the iPod Touch can be utilized in a classroom setting (121). Banister lists several applications available on the iPod Touch which are applicable to the educational world, explaining what each application is capable of and its potential for helping children learn. Furthermore, Banister details how each application is used, describing the zoom-in and zoom-out, scrolling, top-down information presentation, personalization, and other GUI features. Although Banister discusses these aspects of a GUI solely in regards to children in the K-12, her commentary is beneficial to better understanding GUIs and usability on hand-held, touchscreen-utilizing devices on a broader level.

Naturally, since GUI design is built around user activities, a well-designed GUI should help users accomplish the most common tasks with ease. Text entry is one of the most common activities performed on HTDs, and Brewster et al.’s study tested the usability of tactile feedback on these devices. For their test they added a sensor to the iPAQ they were using which produced different kinds of vibrations to indicate to the test subjects when they had made mistakes or had selected the intended item (160). This test was conducted both in a lab and in the more natural user setting of an underground train. The results indicated that tactile feedback was beneficial to users, although not as beneficial as expected when users were themselves mobile (161). The participants were largely in favor of the tactile feedback (162).

Wu and Luo’s article studied the effects of stylus size on usability with touchscreen interfaces (149). The results of their study found that pen size and usability were directly correlated with the task being performed: for point-and-click tasks, longer pens with smaller diameters were more appropriate; for writing tasks, the diameter of the pens (8mm and 11mm were best) affected usability, and length did not; for drawing tasks, long touch pens with larger diameters performed the best. As a general guideline, the authors suggest that touch pens be longer than a user’s handbreadth, approximately 8mm.

Gary Anthes’s article discusses new breakthroughs in touchscreen technology. WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointing devices) technology has dominated human-computer interaction for roughly 15 years, and with the rise of touchscreen technology users are starting to be able to interact with technology in a more direct and intuitive way (36). According to Robert Jacob of Tufts University, touchscreen technology “uses gestures you know how to do right away” (36). As for reducing the complexity of interacting with touchscreen technology, Anthes quotes Bill Buxton of Microsoft as saying that reducing complexity is not simply stripping down the amount of information presented; rather, it is using more of the appropriate information in the appropriate place (38).

R. Stone advocates teaching students how to use and become familiar with handheld, touchscreen interface devices such as cell phones, some digital cameras, and PDAs (18). He says that there is a growing complexity in handheld technologies and now designers “must direct their focus to designing the ‘experience of interface interaction’” (18). To encourage students to think about good design as regards handheld touchscreen interfaces, he suggests the following questions be asked (19-20):

• How does the task flow work?
• What is the hierarchical focus?
• Are the product’s functions and features visible?
• Do the interfaces behave consistently?
• Are "cause and effect" actions visualized?
• Are metaphors appropriately used?
• Will users be able to recover from an error?
• Does the interface have a sense of aesthetics?

Keeping these questions in mind, designers are better able to create interfaces in which users are less likely to simply get lost and disoriented. Users are thus more likely to enjoy their experiences using their devices to communicate.

Xie et al. introduced “Document REpresentation for Scalable Structures (DRESS),” an acronym for an algorithm that allows content on handheld devices to be scalable to any display size (34). DRESS is designed to “help information providers make composite documents, typically web pages, scalable to display size in both logic and layout structure” (34). The purpose behind developing DRESS was to correct the obstacle to information access inherent in handheld devices, due to limited screen size. Since browsing the Internet is now another typical activity performed on handheld devices, it will be useful to examine the potential for making such browsing easier for users.

A short, eight-question survey by UK magazine Professional Engineering asked their readers about their views on mobile phones. According to the survey, 70% of the 406 respondents did not own a touchscreen mobile phone. 68% of readers who did own mobile phones did not use them to regularly access the Internet; many expressed distaste for browsing information on such small screens. Only 14% of respondents even considered purchasing an iPad (14).

Adding a more technical voice to the previous research of touchscreen interfaces, R.S. Schulz’s article reviews the basics of the touch screen interface and discusses the virtues of capacitive touch surfaces and resistive surfaces. Capacitive touch systems are more durable than are the resistive surfaces, but both serve different applications; capacitive systems “resist long-term tribological wear, scratching, and environmental extremes," while resistive systems “withstand long-term, repetitive application of stress and strain, while the top-sheet first surface must resist wear and scratching” (43).

The kind of optical coating used on a touch system is an important aspect as well, because users “must look through the touch sensor to see the display, the optical performance of the sensor can dominate the display’s appearance” (44). Schulz subsequently discusses how the use of different kinds of optical coatings for these touch systems determines visibility in the touch system, thereby affecting usability. He focuses on the physical display screen of handheld devices—the primary way users interact with their devices. If the physical interaction with an interface (screen) is generally unpleasant, if it is simply very hard to see because the screen is not suited to the device, or if the interface is more prone to getting scratched or cracked, users will indeed find difficulty in using the device.

In their 2010 article, Walton et al. presented a new type of glass for use in touchscreen devices. The authors suggested using chemically tempered glass—a process through which compressive stress is developed in the surface of the glass making the glass more resistant to scratching and cracking (71). The quality of glass used on touchscreens is highly important, say Walton et al., for “if the mobile touchscreen device is supposed to ‘disappear’ as the user is immersed in the experience, the display cover lens… needs to be scratch resistant, impact resistant, and transparent” (70). A heavy emphasis is placed on making the interface through which a user engages the device unnoticeable—easy to use physically and digitally. “The mobile device becomes an invisible conveyance, or window, into the content” (70).

According to Andrew Williams there are practical differences for users between resistive and capacitive touchscreens. His article "Touchscreen Lowdown: Capacitive vs. Resistive" explained the differences between the two touch interfaces and what the differences mean for users. In general, capacitive touchscreens feel “lighter” to use because they do not require application of pressure, but it can be harder for users to select objects accurately because of the screen’s sensitivity. Additionally, because capacitive screens only interact with an electroconductive material (i.e. a finger), their oversensitivity can frustrate users: several survey respondents complained that their iPhone would occasionally “mute itself” because their cheek accidentally triggered the mute button. Resistive screens, on the other hand, do not tend to have these problems because they require pressure (from either a finger or, typically, a stylus) to be used, but they do tend to feel clunky and outdated to many users. Erica Sadun said that “touch is not just about sticking a capacitive screen on a computer. It's about designing a different way for users to interact from the ground up” (tuaw.com).

Anthony Perreault sought to outline effective design principles that could be used for accurately presenting online content on mobile devices, so as to prevent a loss of “contextual relevance in the mobile environment” (1). As Perreault aptly points out, the needs of a user in a mobile environment differ from those of a user in a static environment; mobile users typically seek instantaneous response from their devices. When designing online content for mobile devices, Perreault states that to design with simplicity is best; the optimal websites “had minimal content for the mobile environment” (30). Smaller images, with complementary color tones, and effective use of icons (placement and visual meaning) were cited as keys to effective navigation in a mobile, handheld environment.

The past fifteen years have seen a dramatic rise in the use of cell phones and their sophistication. Touchscreen technology was developed in the 1970s, and in the past ten years touchscreen technology has become increasingly available in products such as laptop computers, and, since 1984 in mobile phones and other mobile devices. The integration of touchscreen technology into handheld, mobile devices has become increasingly popular; however, insufficient data exists on the usability of HTDs and the subsequent relation to communication.