Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Review Article
Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns:
A Systematic Literature Review
Lumpapun Punchoojit and Nuttanont Hongwarittorrn
Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, ammasat University, Pathum ani, ailand
Correspondence should be addressed to Lumpapun Punchoojit; l.punchoojit@gmail.com
Received 5 August 2017; Revised 5 October 2017; Accepted 19 October 2017; Published 9 November 2017
Academic Editor: omas Mandl
Copyright © Lumpapun Punchoojit and Nuttanont Hongwarittorrn. is is an open access article distributed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
Mobile platforms have called for attention from HCI practitioners, and, ever since , touchscreens have completely changed
mobile user interface and interaction design. Some notable dierences between mobile devices and desktops include the lack of
tactile feedback, ubiquity, limited screen size, small virtual keys, and high demand of visual attention. ese dierences have caused
unprecedented challenges to users. Most of the mobile user interface designs arebase d ondesktop paradigm, but the desktop designs
do not fully t the mobile context. Although mobile devices are becoming an indispensable part of daily lives, true standards for
mobile UI design patterns do not exist. is article provides a systematic literature review of the existing studies on mobile UI
design patterns. e rst objective is to give an overview of recent studies on the mobile designs. e second objective is to provide
an analysis on what topics or areas have insucient information and what factors are concentrated upon. is article will benet
the HCI community in seeing an overview of present works, to shape the future research directions.
1. Introduction
e emergence of computers into workplaces and home
during the s has brought attention to the interaction
between people and computer systems; and, thus, the eld
of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) began to emerge
during the same period []. HCI encompasses extensive areas
and designing eective user interface (UI) is one of the
areas that has always been emphasized, as eective interfaces
provide potential to improve overall system performance [].
It is a great challenge to design an eective UI, as it requires
understanding of dierent disciplines; for example, user’s
physical and cognitive capabilities, sociological contexts,
computer science and engineering, graphic design, and work
domain [, ]. An eective user interface would be created
baseduponperspectivesfromthedisciplines.
HCI consistently evolves in response to technological
changes. At the rst stage, HCI focused on how to facilitate
convenient means for a single user to use a computer on a
xed platform, such as desktop computers. At the second
stage, HCI was no longer conned to stationary computers.
Mobile innovation started in the late s. Many actions and
feedback under small-sized screen and a limited number of
buttonsbecameanareaoffocusintheHCIcommunity[].In
, many companies, such as LG, Apple, and HTC, released
new models of mobile devices. e new models were no
longer equipped with keypads; instead, they were replaced by
touchscreens. is caused a major shi on research attention
ever since [, ].
ere are more than billion smartphone users world-
wide which include a large proportion of nongeneric
users—children, the elderly, and users with disorders or
disabilities. Although mobile platforms are becoming an
indispensable part of daily lives, true standards for mobile UI
design patterns do not exist. Seemingly, most of the designs
are based on the desktop paradigm []. e desktop paradigm
may be applicable, but there are notable dierences between
mobile devices and desktops, including the lack of tactile
feedback, limited screen size, and high demands of visual
attention. Apart from dierences in physical qualities, con-
texts of use between desktop computers and mobile devices
are dierent. Desktop computers are stationary, whereas
mobile devices can be used anywhere or even while users are
Hindawi
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
Volume 2017, Article ID 6787504, 22 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6787504
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
walking, carrying objects, or driving. us, desktop designs
do not fully t mobile context.
ere is a need to see an overview of usability studies on
mobile UI design, to ascertain the current state of knowledge
and research and to comprehend research gaps. is article
provides systematic review of the existing studies on mobile
UI design patterns. e rst objective is to give an overview
of recent studies on mobile designs. e second objective is
to provide analyses on what topics or areas have insucient
information and what factors are concentrated upon. is
article will benet the HCI community in seeing an overview
of present works and knowledge gaps, to shape the future
research directions.
2. Theoretical Backgrounds
2.1. Usability. Usability is a core terminology in HCI. It has
been dened as “the extent to which a product can be used
by specied users to achieve specied goals with eectiveness,
eciency, and satisfaction in a specied context of use” [].
e term usability was coined in the early s to replace
“user-friendly,” which was vague and contained subjective
connotation []. Usability is crucial to any products because if
the users cannot achieve their goals eectively, eciently, and
in satisfactory manner, they can seek for alternative solutions
to achieve their goals []. A usable product seeks to achieve
threemainoutcomes:()theproductiseasyforusersto
become familiar with and competent in using it during the
rst contact, () the product is easy for users to achieve their
objectivethroughusingit,and()theproductiseasyforusers
to recall the user interface and how to use it on later visits [].
Usability criteria ensure that the products meet the three
outcomes. ere are several usability criteria mentioned in
literature, for instance, eectiveness, eciency, satisfaction,
safety (error tolerance), utility, learnability (easy to learn),
memorability, and engaging [, ]. e objective of usability
criteria is to enable the assessment of product usability in
terms of how the product can improve user’s performance
[]. Some of the usability criteria are very much task-
centered, where specic tasks are separated out, quantied,
and measured in usability testing []. For example, eciency
which refers to how fast the user can get their job done []
canbemeasuredbytimetocompleteataskorlearnability
canbemeasuredbytimetolearnatask[].esecriteria
can provide quantitative indicators of how productivity has
improved []. Some of the usability criteria can hardly
be measured by using quantitative measurement, such as
satisfactionandengagement,astheyaresubjectiveand
basically involve human emotion. ere are several factors
which contribute to overall satisfaction, and the factors may
include entertaining, helpfulness, aesthetically pleasing, and
rewarding, or there are some negative qualities such as
boring, frustrating, and annoying []. When it comes to
evaluation whether users have pleasant or terrible experience,
it is dicult to objectively measure. is is where user
experience has become another core terminology in HCI.
2.2. User Experience. User experience (UX) has been dened
as “the combined experience of what a user feels, perceives,
thinks, and physically and mentally reacts to before and
during the use of a product or service” []. Basically, an
important concept in UX is the process by which users form
experiences since they rst encounter the product and as
the product is used throughout a period []. UX can be
explained by three characteristics. e rst one is the holistic
nature of UX. What is meant by holistic nature is that UX
encompasses a broad range of qualities and includes not
only the visual, tactile, auditory aspects of the system but
also how the system functions under an appropriate usage
environment or context []. e second characteristic is
thatUXfocusisheavilytiltedtowardsuser’sperspective.
UX is oen misunderstood for UI (user interface), as their
abbreviations are similar. UI tends to tilt towards computer
side, and UI evaluations are oen subjected to quantitative
measurement or usability testing. UX, in contrast, concerns
how users think, feel, and behave []. e third characteristic
is that UX has strategic value in rm’s development of a
product or service. UX has recently become an important
topic worth consideration by top executives [].
e goal of designing for UX is to encourage positive feel-
ings (e.g., satisfying, enjoyable, exciting, motivating, and fun)
and minimizing negative feelings (e.g., boring, frustrating,
annoying,andcutesy)towardstheproduct.Unlikeusability
goals, UX goals are subjective qualities and concerned with
how a product feels to a user. ere were attempts to utilize
quantitative measurements to measure user’s emotion. e
measurements were adopted from medical applications, such
as measuring pulse and blood pressure, or using facial elec-
tromyography (EMG) and electroencephalography (EEG) to
reect computer frustration []. However, its validity in
measuring user experience remains questionable. Although
usability and UX are dierent, they are not completely
separated. In fact, usability is part of user experience. For
example,aproductthatisvisuallypleasingmightevoke
positive rst-contact experience; however, if its usability
was inadequate, it could damage overall user experience.
Apart from usability, other core components of UX include
useful and desirable content, accessibility, credibility, visually
pleasing, and enjoyment [].
2.3. User Diversity. One of the most important design
philosophies in HCI is the universal design. It is the process of
creating products that can be accessed by as many people as
possible, with the widest possible range of abilities, operating
within the widest possible range of situations []. To make
productsthatcanbeusedbyeveryoneisimpossible;however,
designers can try to exclude as few people as possible,
by ensuring that the products are exible and adaptable
to individual needs and preferences []. To accomplish
universal design goals, the understanding of user diversity is
needed. ere are several dimensions of user diversity that
dierentiate groups of users.
e rst dimension is disabilities. Much of experimental
research has been conducted to understand how disabilities
aect interaction with technology. e main eorts of stud-
ies were to study the users themselves, their requirements
for interaction, appropriate modalities, interactive devices,
and techniques to address their needs []. e research
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
includes visual impairments, auditory impairments, motor
and physical impairments, and cognitive impairments [].
Visual impairments greatly aect human interaction with
technology, as human relies on vision to operate computer
systems. Visual impairments encompass a wide range of
vision problems related to acuity, accommodation (ability
to focus on objects at dierent distances from the eyes),
illumination adaption, perception of depth, and color vision
[]. Minor visual impairments can usually be addressed by
magnifying the size of interactive elements, increasing color
contrast, or selecting appropriate color combinations for
color-blinded users []. Unlike visual impairments, blind-
ness refers to a complete or nearly complete vision loss [].
Blind users benet from audio and haptic modality for input
and output. ey are supported by screen readers, speech
input and output, and Braille displays []. Auditory impair-
ments (or hearing impairments) can also aect interaction
with technology. e impairments may vary in degree, from
slight to severe. Majority of people with hearing impairments
have lost their hearing usually through aging. ey have
partially lost perception of frequency (cannot discriminate
between pitches), intensity (need louder sounds), signal to
noise (distracted by background noise), and complexity (can
hardly perceive speech) []. Some people were prelingually
deaf, either were born deaf or had lost their hearing before
they can speak []. Some strategies to address hearing
impairments are to provide subtitles or captions to auditory
contents or to provide sign-language translation of the con-
tents []. Motor and physical impairments interfere with
interaction with technology. Although causes and severity
of motor impairments vary, the common problems faced by
individuals with motor impairments include poor muscle
control, arthritis, weakness and fatigue, diculty in walking,
talking, and reaching objects, total or partial paralysis, lack
of sensitivity, lack of coordination of ne movement, and
lack of limbs [, ]. e main strategy to address motor
impairments is to minimize movement and physical eort
required for input, for instance, using text prediction, voice
input, switch control devices, and eye-tracking [, ].
Besides the aforesaid impairments, cognitive impairments
can also limit user’s interaction with technology. Cognitive
impairments can be the result of brain injury, Alzheimer’s
disease and dementia, dyslexia, Down’s syndrome, and stroke
[, ]. Cognitive disabilities limit user’s capacities to think,
to remember (either long-term or short-term), to sequence
thoughts and actions, and to understand symbols [, ]. e
strategies are to keep user interface simple, provide simple
methods for remembering, provide continuous feedback
about position in the system, provide longer time to complete
task, and support user’s attention [].
e second dimension is age. Age inuences physical
qualities and abilities, cognitive abilities, and how a person
perceives and processes information. e elderly and children
are the two major age groups that have age-dependent
requirements []. ere are several denitions of children.
Some studies include adolescence (– years) into child-
hood, whereas some studies focus only on children under
the age of [, ]. Like the children group, there is no
consensus on the cut-o point of old age. Most researchers
regard years as the beginning of old age. Nevertheless,
there are enormous dierences in abilities and problems
within elderly group; for example, people aged and people
aged are extremely dierent []. erefore, the age range
is further divided into two or three groups: young-old (ages
to)andold-old(over)oryoung-old(agesto),
old-old (ages to ), and oldest-old (over age ) [].
Old age is associated with declines in vision, hearing, motor
function, and cognition []. Elderly people commonly have
problems with vision acuity, depth of perception, color vision,
hearing high frequency sounds, controlling coordination and
movement, short- and long-term memory, and information
processing speed []. Children have unique characteristics.
ey do not possess the same levels of physical and cognitive
capabilities as the adults. ey have limited motor abilities,
spatial memory, attention, working memor y, and language
abilities. us, the general characteristics of the elderly and
children need to be considered when developing products for
thesetwoagegroups.
e third dimension is culture. Cultural dierences
include date and time format, interpretation of symbols,
color meaning, gestures, text direction, and language. us,
designers must be sensitive to these dierences during the
development process and avoid treating all cultures the same
[].
e fourth dimension is computer expertise. Some
groups of users are unfamiliar with technology, for example,
older adults and those with minimal or no education. Some
strategies to address dierences in expertise level include
providing help options and explanations, consistent naming
convention to assist memory, and uncluttered user interface
to assist attention [].
2.4. Mobile Computing. e rst era of mobile devices dated
backtothelatesandearlys.emodelsduring
this era were precursor to present time’s laptops and were
originally intended for children. e focus of this era was to
reduce the size of computer machine to support portability
[].Mobilephonesintroducedduringthisperiodwere
still large and required enormous batteries []. Around
ten years later, mobile devices reached the point where
thesizesweresmallenoughtobetinapocket.During
the same time, the network shied to G technology and
cellular sites became denser; thus, mobile connectivity was
easier than before. is led to the increase in consumer
demand for mobile phones. Increased demand meant more
competition for service providers and device manufacturers,
which eventually reduced costs to consumers []. In the
late s, feature phones were introduced to the market.
e phones were equipped with several “features,” such as
cameras, games, wallpapers, and customizable ringtones [].
Smartphone era started around . Smartphones have
thesamecapabilitiesasthefeaturephones;however,the
smartphones use the same operating system, have larger
screen size, and have a QWERTY keyboard or stylus for input
and Wi-Fi for connectivity []. e most recent era starts in
when Apple launched the iPhone [, ]. It was like
smartphones; however, it presented a novel design of mobile
interactions. It introduced multitouch display with simple
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
touch gesture (e.g., pinching, swiping), and physical keyboard
wascompletelyremovedfromthephone.eiPhonewasalso
equipped with context-awareness capabilities, which allowed
the phone to detect orientation of the phone, or even the
location of the users. It took a couple of years later for the
competitors to match up with the Android operating system,
mobile devices, and associated application store [].
e challenges of mobile interaction and interface design
have evolved over time. Early mobile interaction design
involved physical design, reducing physical size while opti-
mizing limited screen display and physical numeric keypads
[]. Later, the challenges evolved to the development add-on
features, for example, digital cameras and media player. How-
ever, today challenges may have moved to a completely new
dimension. Physical shape and basic size of mobile phones
have remained unchanged for many years. e challenges
mayhaveshiedtothedevelopmentofsowareapplication
or designing mobile interaction [].
3. Previous Reviews
ere have been several previous reviews of mobile user
interface; however, they did not focus on user interface
design patterns. Instead, the focus was primarily on certain
application domain of mobile devices. For instance, Coppola
andMorisio[]focusedonin-carmobileuse.eirarticle
provided an overview of the possibilities oered by connected
functions on cars, technological issues, and problems of
recent technologies. ey also provided a list of currently
available hardware and soware solutions, as well as the main
features. Pereira and Rodrigues [] made a survey on mobile
learning applications and technologies. e article provided
an analysis of mobile learning projects, as well as the ndings
of the analysis. Becker [] surveyed the best practices of
mobile website design for library. Monroe et al. [] made
asurveyontheuseofmobilephonesforphysicalactivities
(e.g., exercising, walking, and running) and approaches for
encouraging and assessing physical activities using mobile
phones. Donner [] reviewed mobile use in the developing
world. His article presented major concentrations of the
research, the impacts of mobile use, and interrelationships
between mobile technology and users. Moreover, the article
also provided economic perspective on mobile use in the
developing world.
Some review articles concentrated on technical approach
of mobile devices and user interface. For instance, Hoseini-
Tabatabaei et al. [] surveyed smartphone-based systems
for opportunistic (nonintrusive) user context recognition.
eir article provided introduction to typical architecture
of mobile-centric user context recognition, the main tech-
niques of context recognition, lesson learned from previous
approaches, and challenges for future research. Akiki et
al. [] provided a review on adaptive model-driven user
interface development systems. e article addressed the
strengths and shortcomings of architectures, techniques, and
toolsofthestateoftheart.Summaryoftheevaluation,
existing research gaps, and promising improvements were
also stated. Cockburn et al. [] provided a review of interface
schemes that allowed users to work at focused and contextual
views of dataset. e four schemes were overview + details,
zooming, focus + context, and cue-based techniques. Critical
features of the four approaches and empirical evidence of
their success were provided.
Some previous reviews focused on mobile use in some
usergroups.Forinstance,Zhouetal.[]madeasurvey
on the use and design of mobile devices for older users,
focusing particularly on whether and why older users accept
mobile devices and how to design the elderly-friendly mobile
devices.eirarticleprovidedasummaryontechnology
acceptance of the elderly users, input devices, menus and
functions, and output devices.
Some more reviews concerned the impact of mobile
use. Moulder et al. [] reviewed the evidence concerning
whether radiofrequency emitted from mobile phones were a
cause of cancer. e article provided summary from relevant
medical research. Nevertheless, the evidence for a causal
association between cancer and radiofrequency was weak and
unconvincing.
4. Research Questions
is article surveys literature on usability studies on mobile
user interface design patterns and seeks to answer the
following two research questions:
RQ: in each area, what factors were concentrated?
RQ: what areas of mobile user interface design
patterns had insucient information?
5. Literature Search Strategy
Four phases were used to systematically survey literature: ()
listing related disciplines, () scoping databases, () specify-
ing timeframe, and () specifying target design elements.
5.1. Listing Related Disciplines. e rst phase was to list
out HCI related disciplines, to cover user interface research
fromallrelateddisciplines.Basedon[,],therelated
disciplines are as follows: computer science and engineering,
ergonomics, business, psychology, social science, education,
and graphic design.
5.2. Scoping Databases. e articles for review were retrieved
from online databases, based upon access provided by
authors’ aliation. e databases covered all disciplines
mentionedinSection.,andtheywerelistedinTable.
5.3. Specifying Timeframe. e current article was conned
to the papers published from to . As stated, many
companies released new touchscreen mobile devices in ,
which was a turning point of research attention [, ].
5.4. Specifying Target Design Elements. e categories of
major design patterns dened in the book Designing Mobile
Interfaces,byHooberandBerkman[],wereusedtoscope
literature search. e categories were listed in Table .
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
T : Database list.
Number Database name
() ABI/Inform
() Academic Search complete
() ACM
() Annual Reviews
() Business Monitor
() Business Source Complete
() Cambridge Journal Online
() Computer & Applied Science Complete
() CRCnetBase
() Credo Reference
() Education Research Complete
() Emerald Management
() EBSCOhost
() ERIC
() GALE
() H. W. Wilson
() IEEE
() Ingenta
() JSTOR
() PsycINFO
() SAGE
() ScienceDirect
() SpringerLink
() Taylor & Francis
Note. Items are ordered alphabetically.
ere were altogether categories of mobile UI design
patterns. Some of them contained subelements; for instance,
in input mode and selection, the subelements of this category
were gesture, keyboard, input area, and form.
5.5. Inclusion Criteria. For each category of the design pat-
terns, the papers which contained any of these keywords:
mobile,user,andinterfaceaswellasthenameofthecategory
were retrieved; for instance, keywords used in retrieving
papers about icons were “icon”; “mobile”; “user”; and “inter-
face”. e subelements in the categories were also included in
retrieval keywords.
e abstracts of all retrieved papers were initially read
through. e papers which contained the input keywords but
did not discuss or were not related to mobile user interface
were omitted; for instance, papers related to networking were
oen retrieved in “navigation” category, as they contained the
keywords “link” and/or “navigation.” Once the related papers
were identied, their main contents were read through. e
number of primary search results and the remaining papers
in each category were listed in Table .
From Table , the input mode and selection category
had the highest remaining papers——followed by icons (
papers), information control ( papers), buttons ( papers),
page composition, display of information, and navigation (
papers each). e control and conrmation, revealing more
information, and lateral access categories had no relevant
papers. In each category, the papers which shared the com-
mon ground were grouped together, to posit research theme
in each design pattern.
6. Research Overview
is section provided an overview of prior research and stud-
ies on each category of mobile UI design pattern conducted
since .
6.1. Page Composition. Page composition is a very broad term
for interface design. A composition of a page encompasses
various components, including scrolling, annunciator row,
notication, title, menu patterns, lock screen, interstitial
screen, and advertising []. Only menu was discussed in
this section. e other elements that were overlapped with
other topics would be discussed later (i.e., scrolling) or
out of the scope of this current article (i.e., annunciator
row, notication, title, lock screen, interstitial screen, and
advertising).
Menu method is a popular alternative to traditional form
of retrieving information []. It plays a signicant role
in overall satisfaction of mobile phones []. e primary
functionofmenusistoallowuserstoaccessdesiredfunctions
of applications or devices. Early research on menus was
carried out on many topics. e research primarily examined
eectiveness of menu patterns and relevant components on
desktop platform. e research included D and D menus,
menu structures (depth versus breadth), menu adaptation,
item ordering (categorically and alphabetically), item cate-
gorization, task complexity, menu patterns (hierarchical and
sheye), help elds, methodological studies, and individual
dierences [].
e rst few studies of menus on mobile devices are due
to small screen of devices. e guidelines or principles that
are generally applied from menus on personal computers
should be reexamined. Early studies on desktops show that
D menus can convey more information than D menus. In
mobile context, superiority of D menus can be inconclusive
as the screen size is more limited. In Kim’s study [], D
menu (i.e., list menu) was compared with three types of D
menus (i.e., carousel, revolving stage, and collapsible cylin-
drical trees) on mobile phone. e performance of menus
was measured by task completion time, satisfaction, fun, and
perceived use of space. e results partially substantiated
previous studies. With respect to overall metrics, D menus
outperformed D menus; however, the D menus surpassed
D in high breadth level []. In fact, there are more types of
D and D menus that have not been examined, and they can
be further studied.
Besides menu components, prior research showed that
user factors had inuences on menu usability. e top-
ics included user language abilities, spatial abilities, visual
characteristics, and user expertise []. e scope became
narrower and it examined primarily on age and cultural
dierences since .
Prior research highlighted cultural inuences on usabil-
ity. e research was mostly at supercial level (e.g., text,
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
T : Design patterns and subelements.
Number Design patterns Subelements
() Page composition Menu
() Display of information List, classify, order
() Control and conrmation Sign on, conrmation, time-out
() Revealing more information Pop-up, prompt, hierarchical list
() Lateral access Tab, pagination
() Navigation Link, navigation
() Button No subelements
() Icon No subelements
() Information control Zoom, search, lter
() Input mode and selection Gesture, keyboard, input area, form
T : Primary search results and remaining papers in each category.
Number Design patterns Primary search results Remaining
() Page composition
(menu = )
() Display of information
(list=,classify=,order=)
() Control and conrmation
(pop-up = , conrmation = , time-out
= )
() Revealing more information
(pop-up = , prompt = , hierarchical
list=)
() Lateral access
(tab=,pagination=)
() Navigation
(link = , navigation = )
() Button
() Icon
() Information control
(zoom=,search=,lter=)
() Input mode and selection
(gesture = , keyboard = , input area
=,form=)
Tota l 68
number, and date and time format), whereas that at implicit
cognition level was rare. Moreover, they were mostly con-
ducted in desktop environment []. us, applying the nd-
ings from desktop research to mobile environment remained
unsettled. Kim and Lee [] examined correlation between
cultural cognitive styles and item categorization scheme
on mobile phones. ey found dierent user preferences
towards categorization of menu items. Dutch users (repre-
senting Westerners) preferred functionally grouped menus,
for instance, setting ringtones and setting wallpaper, as they
shared a common function—setting. In contrast to Dutch
users, Korean users (representing Easterners) preferred the-
matically grouped menu, for instance, setting wallpaper and
display, as they shared a common theme—pictorial items.
Menus should be optimized to t user’s cognitive styles and
preferences to enhance system usability [].
Apart from cultural dierences, inuence of age dier-
ences on menu usability was also studied. As people aged,
there are changes and decline in sensation and percep-
tion, cognition, and movement control, for instance, decline
in vision acuity, color discrimination, hearing, selective
attention, working memory, and force controls []. ese
changes inuence computer use. us, user interface must be
designed to support the unique needs of older users. A study
found that aging had inuences on menu navigation. Menu
navigation is an important concern when designing a menu,
as an eective menu leads users to correct navigational path.
Eective menu is related to several components, including the
structure of the menu, its depth and breadth, and naming and
allocation of menu items. Menu navigation is also associated
with individual factors: spatial ability, verbal memory, visual
abilities, psychomotor abilities, and self-ecacy, and these
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
individual factors are age-related []. Menu navigation
is more challenging on mobile devices, as the menus are
implemented on limited screen space and users can partially
see the menus; thus, users need to rely on working memory
more than on desktops. Arning and Ziee [] studied
themenunavigationonmobileenvironmentwithyounger
(average age = .) and older users (average age = .), all
of whom were experienced computer users. e performance
of menu navigation was measured by task completion time,
number of tasks completed, detour steps, and node revisited.
Prior to navigation tasks, preliminary tests were conducted
to measure user’s spatial ability, verbal memory, and self-
ecacy. e results of the preliminary tests indicated that
spatial ability, verbal memory, and self-ecacy of younger
users were signicantly higher than older users. e navi-
gation tasks found dierences on user’s performance. Task
completion time, number of tasks completed, detour steps,
and nodes revisited of older users were signicantly greater
than those of younger users; in other words, younger users
outperformed older users on mobile menu navigation [].
However, further analysis found that the variable which had
the best predictive power for navigation performance was not
age but spatial ability; age was only a carrier variable that was
related to many variables which changed over the lifespan.
Although all older users in their study were experienced
computerusers,thestudyfoundthatmorethanhalfofthem
were not able to build a mental model of how the system was
constructed. eir study also found that both verbal memory
and spatial ability were related to strategies employed in menu
navigation. Users with high spatial ability navigated through
information structure based on their spatial representation
of menu structure, while users with high verbal memory
referred to memorization of function names in navigation
[].
With many individual factors and diversity of users, one-
size-ts-all system is impossible to achieve, and tailoring
product to t all segments of users is very costly. An alterna-
tive solution is to allow users to adapt the interface (adaptable
interface) or to allow the interface to adapt itself (adaptive
interface). Both types of interfaces locate frequently used
itemsinapositionthatcanbeeasilyselectedbytheusers;
thus, menu selection time can be reduced []. However, each
of them has its own weaknesses. On adaptive interface, no
special knowledge of users is required, as the interface can
adapt itself; however, users can have diculty in developing
mental model of the system due to frequent change of item
location. On adaptable interface, users can autonomously
manipulate location of items, but users need to learn how
to move items to intended position []. Prior studies on
desktops show that adaptive interfaces have potential for
reducing visual search time and cognitive load, and adaptive
interfaces can be faster in comparison to traditional nonadap-
tive interfaces []. Nevertheless, these two approaches have
been less studied on mobile devices. Park et al. [] examined
conventional adaptive and adaptable menus, adaptive and
adaptable menus with highlights on recently selected items,
andtraditionalmenu.estudyfoundthatthetraditional
menu had higher learnability as the menu items did not
change their positions. However, the traditional menu did
not provide support for frequently selected items, and this
type of menus became less ecient when the number of
items was large. Adaptable menus were more robust but
required a signicant amount of time to learn adaptation and
to memorize which items to adapt. e adaptable menu with
highlights on recently selected items helped users recognize
which items should be adapted. Performance of the adaptive
menus was similar to the adaptable one; however, constantly
changing item locations made it dicult for users to develop
stable mental representation of the system. In sum, the results
showed that adaptable menu with highlights were in favour by
most users, as the highlights could reduce memory load for
adaptation [].
6.2. Display of Information. On desktops, users are constantly
surrounded by ocean of information. Many information
display patterns help users in ltering and processing rel-
evant visual information. Examples of information display
patterns include dierent types of lists, including vertical list,
thumbnail list, sheye list, carousel, grid, and lm stripe [].
Eective patterns should reect user’s mental models and the
way users organize and process information.
Limited screen size has caused a design challenge to
information display patterns and eectiveness of applying
desktop designs to mobile platform unsettled. Since ,
research has been directed to reassessment of display pattern
usability, specically on eciency, error rate, and subjec-
tive satisfaction. In [], the sheye list was compared to
the vertical list on satisfaction and learnability, which was
measured in terms of task execution time in this study. e
study was carried out with participants, aged to .
e results showed that the vertical list was better than the
sheye menu in task execution time; thus, the vertical list was
superiortothesheyelistintermsoflearnability.Despite
being more ecient, the vertical list was less preferred as
thesheyemenuwasmorevisuallyappealing[].Another
study compared a list-based to a grid-based interface on click-
path error and task execution time. e two layouts were
very common on mobile devices []. e prototypes in
Finley’s study were mobilized versions of the existing website
of a university. He ran the experiment with participants,
who were experienced mobile phone users, and all of them
were students, stas, or faculty members of the university.
e results showed that grid-based interface was signicantly
moreecient,anditwasratedasmoreappealingandmore
comfortable by the users [].
Besides the layouts, there has been an argument that
interaction concepts established on desktops work only with
restrictions []. Due to limited screen size, list scrolling and
item selection can be more demanding on mobile devices
than on desktops. Breuninger et al. [] compared seven
dierent types of touch screen scrolling lists on three metrics:
input speed, input error, and user subjective rating. e seven
types of list included () scrollbar, () page-wise scrolling with
arrow buttons, () page-wise scrolling with direct manip-
ulation, () direct manipulation of a continuous list with
simulated physics, () direct manipulation of a continuous
list without simulated physics, () direct manipulation of a
continuous list with simulated physics and an alphabetical
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
index bar, and () direct manipulation of a continuous list
without simulated physics and with an alphabetical index bar.
e results indicated that there were variations in eciency of
dierent list scrolling mechanisms. e input speed and error
rate of “page-wise scrolling with direct manipulation without
physics” were signicantly higher than other interaction
types. Although the dierences between other interaction
types were not signicant, participants most preferred direct
manipulation with simulated physics [].
To compensate diculty of input precision, interaction
with mobile devices was sometimes done through a stylus,
pressure sensing, or alternative interaction styles. Quinn and
Cockburn [] proposed “Zoong,” which was a list selection
interface for touch or pen devices. e experiment asserted
that the Zoong technique outperformed conventional
scrolling interaction on selection time and input errors [].
6.3. Control and Conrmation. Physical and cognitive limits
of human users oen cause unwanted errors that can be trivial
to drastic. On computer systems, control and conrmation
dialogues are being used to prevent errors, typically user
errors. A conrmation dialogue is used when a decision
point is reached and user must conrm an action or choose
between options. Control dialogue is used to prevent against
accidental user-selected destruction, for example, exit guard
and cancel and delete protection []. Since , there
has been no research regarding control and conrmation
dialoguesonmobiledevices.
6.4. Revealing More Information. Tw o commo n t ypes for
revealing more information are to display in a full page and
revealing in a context. Revealing in a full page is generally part
of a process, where large amounts of content will be displayed.
Revealing in context is generally used when information
should be revealed quickly and within a context. Some of
the patterns for revealing more information include pop-
up, window shade, hierarchical list, and returned results [].
Since , there has been no research regarding patterns in
revealing more information on mobile devices.
6.5. Lateral Access. Lateral access components provide faster
access to categories of information. Two common patterns
for lateral access are tabs and pagination. ere are several
benets of using lateral access, including limiting number
of levels of information users must drill through, reducing
constant returning to a main page, and reducing the use of
long list []. Since , there has been no research regarding
lateral access on mobile devices.
6.6. Navigation (Links). A link is a common element available
on all platforms. It supports navigation and provides access
to additional content, generally by loading a new page or
jumping to another section within the current page []. Early
research was primarily conducted on desktop environment
and mainly supports web surng.
Navigation on small screen of mobile devices can be
more challenging. Typical web navigation technique tends
to support depth-rst search. In other words, users select a
link on a page, then a new page would be loaded; and the
process would repeat until the users nd the information
they need []. is method is more dicult on mobile
environment, as the navigation is constrained by small screen
size. It was found that search behavior on mobile device
was dierent from that on desktop. Most mobile users used
mobile devices for directed search, where the objective was to
nd a predetermined topic of interest with minimum diver-
gencebyunrelatedlinks[,].Somealternativesolutions
to tackle this issue were to show a thumbnail of the page [].
However, the thumbnail approach may benet only desktops.
umbnail is a scaled down version of the target page. us,
it contains exceeded unnecessary amount of information
whendisplayedonmobilescreen.Analternativemethodmay
be needed for mobile devices. Setlur et al. [] and Setlur
[] proposed context-based icons “SemantiLynx” to support
navigation on mobile devices. SemantiLynx automatically
generated icons that revealed information content of a web
page, by semantically meaningful images and keywords. User
studies found that SemantiLynx yielded quicker response and
improved search performance [, ].
Another challenge to navigation on mobile devices is
to display large amount of information on a small screen.
Large amount of information makes it more dicult for
users to navigate through pages and select information they
need. Early research on desktop employed gaze tracking
technique to utilize navigation; however, peripheral devices
and soware were required in this approach []. Cheng
et al. [] proposed a new method for gaze tracking which
utilized the front camera of mobile devices. e performance
on the prototype was satisfactory; however, comparison to
conventional navigation technique was still lacking.
Another challenge for mobile interaction is the need for
visual attention []. As stated, contexts of use of desk-
top computers and mobile devices are dierent. Desktop
computers are always stationary, whereas mobile device is
ubiquitous. Users can use mobile devices while doing some
other activities, such as walking, carrying objects, or driving.
isbringsaboutinconveniencewhenuserscannotalways
look at the screen. Aural interface or audio-based interface is
an alternative solution. Users can listen to the content in text-
to-speech form and sometimes look at the screen. However,
it is dicult to design aural interface for large information
architecture. Backtracking to previous pages is even more
demanding,asusersareforcedtolistentosomepartofthe
page to recognize the content. Yang et al. [] proposed topic-
and list-based interface to support backnavigation on aural
interface. In topic-based backnavigation, the navigation went
back to visited topic, rather than visited pages. In list-based
backnavigation, the navigation went back to visited list of
items, rather than visited pages. e study found that topic-
based and list-based backnavigation enabled faster access to
previous page and improved navigation experience.
6.7. Buttons. Button is one of the most common design
elements across all platforms. It is typically used to initiate
actions (i.e., standalone button) or to select among alterna-
tives (i.e., radio button) []. Early research covered several
topics, including button size and spacing, tactile and audio
feedback, and designing for users with disabilities [–].
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
Since , research direction has been strongly inu-
enced by touchscreen characteristics. Touchscreen enabled
more versatility in interface designing as a large proportion
ofthedeviceisnolongeroccupiedbyphysicalbuttons;
however, this brings about a new design challenge—the lack
of physical response and tactile feedback. Without physical
responses, users have less condence on the consequences
of their actions which eventually compromise system usabil-
ity []. Studies indicated that tactile feedback improved
eciency, error rate satisfaction, and user experience [].
Nevertheless, not all types of the feedback are equally
eective. ere are certain factors that contribute to tactile
feedback quality. e rst factor is the realistic feel of physical
touch. Park et al. [] compared dierent styles of tactile
eects, to evaluate perceived realism of physical response
and user preference. e varied styles of tactile eects
included slow/fast, bumpy/smooth, so/hard, weak/strong,
vague/distinct, light/heavy, and dull/clear responses. e
results found that participants preferred the clear or smooth
tactile clicks over dull ones for virtual buttons []. Besides
the realistic feel of physical touch, simultaneity of touch-
feedback and the eects of latency is another factor that
inuences tactile feedback quality. In [], latency was varied
from to ms. for tactile, audio, and visual feedback
modalities. e results showed that long latency worsened
perceived quality. e perceived quality was satisfactory
when latency was between and ms. for visual feedback
and between and ms. for tactile and audio feedback.
When the latency condition was ms., quality of the
buttons dropped signicantly for all modalities of feedback
[]. Koskinen et al.’s study [] considered user preference
towards dierent tactile feedback modalities. ey compared
three conditions of virtual button feedback—() Tactile and
audio, () tactile and vibration, and () nontactile—to nd the
most preferred style of feedback. e results suggest the using
nontactile feedback was least preferred by the users. It also
yielded the lowest user performance which was measured
by time to complete tasks and error rate. Tactile and audio
feedback was more pleasant and better in user performance
than the tactile and vibration one; however, the dierences
were not signicant [].
Another challenge is the high demand for visual atten-
tion. As stated, mobile devices are designed for ubiquity.
Users may need to do some other activities simultaneously
while using the devices. Pressing virtual buttons can be more
dicult, and incorrect operations can occur more frequently
as users need to divide their attention to the environment.
To compromise high error rate, studies on spatial design of
virtual buttons were carried out to explore the appropriate
button size, spacing between buttons, and ordered mapping
of buttons [–]. Conradi et al.’s study [] investigated
the optimal size ( × mm, × mm, × mm, and
× mm.) of virtual buttons for use while walking. e
results found signicant dierences on errors and time on
task between the smallest size ( × mm) and all other button
sizes. Walking also had a signicant inuence on errors for all
button sizes. e inuence was magnied with smaller but-
tons. e ndings of this study suggested that larger buttons
were recommended for the use while walking []. Haptic
button is another approach to tackle the challenge. Pakkanen
et al. [] compared three designs for creating haptic button
edges: simple, GUI transformation, and designed. e stimuli
in the simple design were accompanied with single bursts,
and identical stimuli were utilized whether towards or away
from the buttons. GUI transformation stimuli were combined
with several bursts. When moving over the edge, the burst
raised from the minimum to maximum, and the burst
decreasedfrommaximumtominimumwhenmovingaway
from the edge. In designed stimuli, when moving o the
button, there was a single burst which simulated slipping o
the buttons. e results indicated that simple and designed
stimuli were most promising. Furthermore, stimuli with fast,
clear, and sharp responses were good choice for the haptic
button edge. Another complementation for the demand for
visual attention is to utilize physical buttons, such as a power-
upbutton[].Spelmezanetal.[]showedaprototype
that can use a power-up button to operate functions, such
as clicking, selecting a combo box, and scrolling a scrollbar.
Even though the preliminary experiment yielded promising
results, the prototype required the installation of additional
sensors: proximity sensor, and pressure sensor [].
Besides the lack of tactile feedback and demand for visual
attention, touching gesture can be hard for users with ne
motor disabilities. Pressing a small size button requires high
precision in ne motor control, and dierent contact time
on buttons may alter actions (e.g., touching and pressing).
Sesto et al. [] investigated the eect of button size, spacing,
and ne motor disability on touch characteristics (i.e., exerted
force, impulses, and dwell time). e results showed that
touch characteristics were aected by the button size, but
not spacing. e users with ne motor disability had greater
impulses and dwell time when touching buttons than nondis-
abled users. e ndings of this study can guide designers
in designing an optimal size and touch characteristics to
enhance accessibility of virtual button [].
6.8. Icons. An icon is a visual representation that provides
users with access to a target destination or a function in a
cursorily manner []. Icons serve altogether three dierent
functions. ose functions are () an access to a function or
target destination, () an indicator of system statuses, and
() a changer of system behaviors []. e topics of early
research extended to various areas, including the use of icons
to convey application status; interpretation of icon meaning,
icon recognition, and comprehensibility of icons; appropriate
size of an icon; and inuences of cultural and age dierences
on icon interpretation [–].
Since , research has been directed to two major areas:
icon usability and inuences of individual dierences (age
and culture). Research on icon usability examined several
icon qualities and how they aected system usability. Usabil-
ity of an icon is usually determined by ndability, recognition,
interpretation, and attractiveness []. On mobile devices,
the usability measurement criteria can be dierent. Touch
screen allows direct manipulation using a nger. Interactive
elements became smaller on a mobile touchscreen; thus, the
nger occlusion oen occurs. Touchable area is one of the
mobile usability components that dictates an activation area
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
of an interactive element. Im et al. [] studied the suitable
touchable area to improve touch accuracy for an icon. e
study looked into the icon width-to-height ratio (., .,
and.)andthegridsize(×, ×, ×, and ×).
User performance was determined by input oset, hit rate,
task completion time, and preference. e study found that
×and× grid sizes and the icon ratio of . had
better performance than the others []. In addition to touch
accuracy, shape and gure-background ratio of icons had
the eect ndability. In a vast array of icons, visual search
time must be minimized to assure system usability and user
satisfaction. Luo and Zhou [] investigated the eects of
icon-background shape and the gure-background ratio on
ndability. Seven background shapes in Luo and Zhou’s study
[] included () isosceles triangle, () isosceles trapezoid, ()
regular pentagon, () regular hexagon, () rounded square,
() square, and () circle. Five gure-background ratios were
%, %, %, %, and %. e results showed that
unied background yielded better ndability. e optimal
ratio was, however, related to a screen size; the smaller the
screen, the higher the gure-background ratio [].
Being aesthetic is another criterion of icon usability, and
color contributes to aesthetic quality of an icon. However,
preference towards colors and color combinations can be
dicult to measure objectively. Huang [] explored the
degree of agreement of subjective aesthetic preferences for
dierent icon-background color combinations. In total,
color combinations were rated. e results showed that
color combinations consistently had high preference
scores. e rating was consistent between male and female
participants; specically, there was no signicant eect of
gender dierences. us, it was suggested to use certain
color combinations to create appealing aesthetics. Besides
aesthetic values, colors are also used to convey messages [].
Ju et al. [] conducted a study to nd out whether there
was a relationship between the change of icon colors and
the implicit message behind the changes. e study found
that participants could perceive the relationship between
application status and the change of colors [].
e second research direction on icons was to investi-
gate the eects of individual dierences on icon usability.
e focus was on cultural dierences [, , ] and age
dierences [, , –]. e studies on cultural dierences
primarily concerned icon interpretation and whether it was
aected by culture. e results, however, were not consistent.
Only some of the studies found cultural inuences on icon
interpretability, whereas some did not. Ghayas et al. []
compared the user performances from two dierent cultures:
Malaysian and Estonian. e results found that Malaysian
users could interpret more concrete icons than abstract
icons, whereas Estonian users performed better with abstract
icons []. Chanwimalueng and Rapeepisarn [] compared
performances of Easterners (ai, Malaysian, and Indonesian
users) and Westerners (Finnish and German users). In
contrast to Ghayas et al. [], no cultural dierences on
icon recognition, interpretation, and preference were found
in Chanwimalueng and Rapeepisarn’s study []. Rather,
icon recognition was inuenced by icon concreteness and
abstractness. Pappachan and Ziee [] investigated the
cultural eects on icon interpretation as well. e results
showed that icon interpretability greatly depended on icon
complexity and concreteness. e results of Chanwimalueng
and Rapeepisarn [] and Pappachan and Ziee [] imply
that culture may have only small eect, and icon interpreta-
tion should be regarded as cultural-unspecic. Abstractness
causes larger eect and deteriorates icon usability.
Similar to the studies on cultural dierences, the pri-
mary concern of the studies on age dierences focused on
icons interpretation. Since , several studies have been
conducted, and their results were consistent. Gatsou et al.
[] carried out a study to nd any dierences in recognition
rate among age groups. e participants underwent the
recognition test on sample icons that were selected from
dierent mobile device brands. Although the participant’s
recognition rate varied among icons, the recognition rate
droppedasageincreased.KimandCho[]conductedan
evaluation study to evaluate multiple cognitive abilities of
dierent age groups, including button comprehension, icon
interpretation, vocabulary comprehension, menu compre-
hension, perceived icon size, and perceived text size. e
study found that performance time and error rate increased
as age increased. Koutsourelakis and Chorianopoulos []
also studied whether typical mobile phone icons could be
interpreted by senior users. Younger and older participants
underwent the icon recognition test. ere were signicant
dierences in icon recognition and interpretation perfor-
mance of younger and older users. e results of Gatsou
et al. [], Kim and Cho [], and Koutsourelakis and
Chorianopoulos [] suggested that the older participants
had more problems using mobile icons. More studies looked
into what factors contribute to icon usability for senior users.
Leung et al. [] found that the factors included semantically
close meaning (i.e., natural link between icon picture and
associated function), familiarity with icons, labelling, and
concreteness []. Ghayas et al. [] also found that visual
complexity aected icon usability for senior users. Apart
from icon interpretation, icon color is another important icon
characteristic that assists icon discrimination. Kuo and Wu
[] studied the discrimination of colors and no-saturation
icons and color combination between icons and interface
background.eresultsshowedthatcolorediconswere
more distinguishable than no-saturation icons for elder users.
Some color combinations were more dicult for older users
to dierentiate, such as green and blue. Salman et al. []
proposed the participatory icon design that could reduce
system complexity and increase usability. e results of
participatory approach in icon design were successful.
e studies of Gatsou et al. [], Leung et al. [], Ghayas
et al. [], and Koutsourelakis and Chorianopoulos [] show
the eect of age on icon usability. e older users have
problems in interpreting icons, probably because of techno-
logical inexperience. Icon characteristics—complexity, con-
creteness, semantic closeness, and labelling—contributed to
icon usability. ese should be regarded as age-unspecic.
6.9. Information Control. Limited size of mobile devices
constraints the amount of information to be displayed on
the screen. Information control mechanisms such as zooming
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
and scaling, searching, and sorting and ltering have been
utilized to assist users in nding, accessing, and focusing on
intended information while minimizing unrelated informa-
tion [].
Zooming and scaling provide the ability to change the
level of detail in dense information, such as charts, graphs,
or maps []. ere are several techniques used in zooming,
for instance, on-screen buttons, hardware buttons, interactive
scale, and on-screen gesture. Early studies on zooming
covered several areas, including screen size, readability, font
size, selection precision, and designing for visual-impaired
and senior users [, ].
Since , research direction on zooming is inuenced
by the limited screen size. Zooming methods are determined
by device manufacturers, and there was no evaluation carried
out to examine their usability. Garcia-Lopez et al. []
examined the most ecient, eective, and satisfying zooming
methods by comparing zooming techniques from dierent
devices. e study found no signicant dierences on e-
ciency and eectiveness among zooming techniques. Never-
theless, users preferred using links to zoom in and zoom out.
Zooming on a touchscreen relies on gesture. Children
at very young age have limited ne motor skills; thus, they
canprobablyfacedicultyinmanipulatinggestures.Hamza
[] carried out research to examine children ability to
perform touch screen gestures. e results showed that young
children (aged and ) were able to do gestures; however,
older children were more accurate in the interaction with
the screen. Although children were able to interact with
the screen, the size of the targets had signicant eect on
accuracy [].
Searching is another information control function which
allows users to quickly access specic information within
alonglistorhugedataarray[].Earlystudiesonsearch
covered several topics, including load and query, full-text
search, and voice input [, ]. Research direction on search
function since is also inuenced by the limited screen
size. Search function normally requires user-supplied text to
query the results; however, the limited screen size constrains
text input convenience and precision []. us, searching
on mobile devices can be more demanding. An alternative
solution to tackle the challenge is by minimizing a demand
for user-supplied text. Shin et al. [] proposed a semantic
search prototype, to reduce the amount of full-text search.
Semantic approach enables keyword-based search where
users can search for intended information without enter-
ing exact search terms. A preliminary experiment revealed
better user experience results using the proposed prototype
compared with full-text search []. Church and Smyth []
suggested that context information, such as time and location,
should be integrated to mobile search to help search engine
in retrieving more relevant information. For instance, when
usersinashoppingmallsearchedbytheword“Apple”,
theuserswouldbemorelikelytolookforanAppleStore
than the nearest apple farm. In this approach, users would
be less likely to experience a long list of irrelevant search
results. However, no preliminary experiment was conducted
to compare the context-based search with the conventional
one. Gesture-based interaction is also utilized to enable
fast mobile search. Li [] proposed a gesture-based search
technique which enabled a fast access to mobile data such as
contacts, applications, and music tracks by drawing gestures.
A longitudinal study showed that gesture search enabled a
quicker way for accessing mobile data, and users reacted
positively to the usefulness and usability of gesture search
technique [].
e previous paragraph discussed how limited screen size
constrained user text entry and how that aected the design
of information search and retrieval. Apart from that, limited
screen size also inuences the amount of search results to be
displayed at a time. Early web design guidelines suggested
that the number of search results per page should be around
–sites,asusersusuallydonotlookatthesearchresults
that are not in top []. e study was intended for desktop
platform and carried out only with adult participants. Zhou
etal.[]conductedastudytoinvestigatehowmanysearch
results should be displayed on mobile device for older users.
Older adults have decline in their selective attention [];
thus, they may be able to grasp limited amount of information
at a time. e results showed that most of the participants in
the study preferred – search results per page, which was
consistent with the existing guideline.
Sorting and ltering is another important information
controlfunctionusedonmobiledevices.Sortingandltering
aids exploratory search by disclosing search options to nar-
row relevant results []. Early studies on sorting and ltering
focused on data organizational patterns. Sorting and ltering
criteria are usually predened and cannot be changed, and the
system generally allows users to apply only one criterion at a
time. However, in practice, multiple criteria could be applied
in sorting and ltering. Panizzi and Marzo [] proposed that
the users should be enabled to sort items by using multiple
criteria. However, no preliminary experiment was conducted
to evaluate the proposed framework, and the authors did
not highlight how the proposed idea was related to mobile-
specic context.
6.10. Input Mode and Selection. Input and selection concern
the methods by which users communicate to computer
devices. On desktops, user input is received from major
peripheral devices, such as keyboards and mice, and output
is displayed through dierent channels. In contrast, a touch-
screenworksasbothinputandoutputchannels.ishas
brought about changes to input methods; for instance, mouse
gestures are replaced by touch gestures, and physical keys
are replaced by virtual miniature keys. is has made data
inputting on mobile devices more challenging task.
Priorto,researchobjectivescanbeclassiedinto
twomainareas.erstonewastostudyfactorsthat
aected input accuracy, for instance, visual distraction, user’s
sensorimotor coordination, blindness, and aging [–]. e
second one was to improve input accuracy, for instance,
changing keyboard layouts and increasing input feedback
[, ]. Since , research objectives are becoming more
diverse. e objectives can be classied into seven areas:
eects of nger and thumb on input accuracy, user factors,
novice users, external factors, eye-free interaction, large form
input techniques, and alternative input methods.
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
A number of studies were carried out to examine how
nger and thumb interaction aected input accuracy. When
entering text, users preferred to use their nger than a stylus
[, ]. As the size of the keys is too small, nger occlusion
oen occurs. A small size of a key can also induce the lack
of visual perception; in other words, a nger can block user’s
perception while they are pressing the key. is consequently
aects input accuracy. It has been suggested that the appro-
priatesizeforakeythatguaranteedagreaterhitratewas
. mm, with % touchable area []. A touchable area is
an area around the key that could activate the respective
key. An intended key might not be selected if the touchable
area is too small (e.g., %), but larger touchable area (e.g.,
%) does not necessarily yield more precise selection as it
could activate unintended neighboring keys. ese numbers,
however, were based on touch interaction tests with an
index nger []. On actual usage, some users prefer using
their thumb, while other users prefer using their nger.
Compared to nger-based interaction, research found that
thumb-based interaction on virtual keyboards showed a %
drop in throughput, as well as a signicant drop in speed and
accuracy. Furthermore, thumb-based interaction had lower
stabilityinhandgripping[].Despiteapparentdrawbacksof
thumb-based interaction, users prefer using it []; perhaps
thumb-based interaction freed the other hand from the
screen to attend to other events []. A few studies looked into
designs for thumb-based interaction and found that there
were four factors that impacted accuracy of thumb-based
interaction: the size of the key, key location, thumb length,
and user age [, ]. Similar to index nger interaction,
input accuracy of thumb interaction increased as the size of
the key increases, and the key must be located within the
areas that can be easily reached by a thumb, which were the
bottom-le, the center, and the upper-right area []. umb
coverage area was also inuenced by users’ thumb length
and their age. Older users and users with longer thumbs
were likely to leave unreached space around the bottom-
right corner and the bottom edge of the screen []. is
suggested consideration for positioning interactive elements
for generic and older users. e studies, however, did not
discuss handedness and thumb lengths of dierent ethnicity.
Besides eects of nger and thumb, other aspects of user
factors were examined. Major interest was on elderly users.
Usability assessment and accessibility issues have always
come aer technology. Seemingly, there is a necessity of
establishing design guidelines for elderly users, as it was
reported that elderly users faced diculties in using mobile
phones as the phones were not properly designed for them
[]. To tackle diculties, there were applications that
modied default interface into a more accessible and friendly
interface for elderly users. Diaz-Bossini and Moreno []
compared sample interface-modifying applications against
accessibility guidelines, but they found that the applications
did not meet requirements for accessibility. e study was,
however, based on accessibility guidelines for websites (e.g.,
WC, WDG) as there was a lack of guidelines for mobile
context []. A set of design recommendations for elderly
users was presented by De Barros et al. []. e recommen-
dations covered navigation, interaction, and visual design,
but the recommendation did not address specic dierences
between desktop and mobile devices. Moreover, they were
based merely on observation []. is illustrates the need of
empirically based guidelines to assist designers in designing
accessible applications in mobile context.
More studies were carried out to assess usability of the
existing input methods. St¨
oßel [] compared younger and
older users on gestures with variation in familiarity (i.e.,
familiar versus unfamiliar gestures). In general performance,
older users performed accurately as younger users; however,
the older users were signicantly slower (. times slower) and
less accurate with unfamiliar gesture []. is suggests con-
sideration for choosing gesture and specifying gesture time-
out time for older users. Text entry is another challenging
task for elderly users. e lack of haptic feedback and small
key size make it harder for the elderly to accurately select
targets []. Several input controls, such as autocompletion,
word prediction, drop-down list, and using locally stored
data, are adopted from desktops to facilitate manual text
entry []. However, the input controls were not as ecient as
on desktops. Rodrigues et al. [] presented ve keyboard
variants to support manual text entry. ese variants were
dierent in color, width, size, and touch area of most probable
letters or displaying predicted words. Although all variants
slightly improved input errors, there were variations in their
eciency. Color, width, and predicted word variants were
more visually distracting, and they were slower than size and
touch area variants and QWERTY keyboard. is suggested
consideration for choosing appropriate keyboard variant and
text-entry support for elderly users []. Input usability
assessment studies for children users were rarer. A study by
Anthony et al. [] investigated usability of visual feedback
for adult and children users. ey found that participants of
both age groups seemed confused by the absence of feedback,
but the results were magnied for children []. Anthony
etal.’sstudy[]wasoneofafewstudiesthatinvestigated
children users and input on mobile devices. Yet, many areas
were le unexamined for children users, and it could be an
opportunity for future research.
Besides age dierences, the research focus was on users
with disorders or disabilities. e most popular topics were
in users with blindness. e lack of tactile buttons obstructed
blind users in locating interactive components and inputting
commands. A common practice is to use audio augmentation
techniques, such as voice-over (a.k.a. screen reader) and
speech recognition [, ]. However, audio augmentation
techniques can be interfered with by background noise [],
and the performance of audio augmentation techniques is
also inuenced by algorithm recognition accuracy. Recent
studies have designed and developed a gesture-based set of
commands [] and tangible bendable gestures for blind
users []. e studies highlighted that the gestures designed
for blind users should be logical and easy to learn and
remember, as blind users rely much on their memories [].
Other topics on user factors include users with upper extrem-
ity disabilities [], users with ALS [], and users with
Down’s syndrome []. is group of users face diculties
in precisely controlling their hands; thus, designers should
consider selecting simple gestures (e.g., tapping) and exible
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
error handling and avoiding gestures that involve a great
degree of hand-eye coordination (e.g., dragging and rotating).
A few studies looked into novice users. Mobile input
methods could spell trouble for inexperienced users. Stan-
dard QWERTY keyboard bombarded users with many keys,
andtouchgestureshadnostandardsorguidelinestoshow
the users what they could do or how they could interact
with the systems [, ]. Geary [] proposed alternative
keyboardlayoutstoassistnoviceusers.emorefrequently
used characters, based on MacKenzie and Soukore [] and
NetLingo.com [], were arranged closer to the center of
the keyboard, as it was the area that can be easily reached
when users used one or two thumbs to type. However,
the results of the experiments in Geary’s study indicated
no signicant improvement from standard QWERTY was
found. Lundgren and Hjulstr ¨
om [] proposed visual hinting
for touch gestures. However, the idea of visual hinting was
not empirically veried, and it was not tested whether visuals
were the best way to hint interaction [].
Apart from user factors, external factors also inuenced
input eciency. Durrani [] found that environmental
condition, cognitive load, and communication load had
eects on input eciency.
Eye-free interaction was another research interest.
Besides the absence of tangible buttons, environmental
contexts of use of mobile devices were also dierent. Desktop
computers were stationary, whereas mobile devices were
ubiquitous. When users used mobile devices, they may
simultaneously move or do other activities. is could turn
input and selection into demanding tasks. While users
needed to focus on mobile screen which required high
visual attention, they also needed to pay attention to their
environment at the same time []. Ng et al. [] found that
input accuracy for tapping interaction dropped to % while
users were walking and to % while they were carrying
objects. Input accuracy for tapping was noted as the highest
among other touch gestures. Eye-free interaction can be
optimal solution to increase accuracy. Nevertheless, there
were no empirical studies that may lead to establishing design
guidelines for eye-free interaction. Touch screen interface is
also gaining popularity in in-car interactive systems. is can
be a great design challenge. As stated, a touch screen highly
demands visual attention; however, when using in-car touch
screen, the touch screen can minimally distract user (i.e.,
driver) from the main task which was driving. Otherwise,
it could lead into an accident. Louveton et al. [] assessed
three dierent interface layouts and interaction: binary
selection (e.g., yes/no), list selection, and slide bar. e
results indicated that the binary selection was most ecient
and demanded the lowest eye xation, whereas the slide bar
was least ecient and demanded the highest eye xation
[]. However, more usability studies are needed to identify
appropriate layouts and interaction for in-car interactive
systems.
Aforminputcanbeadesignchallenge,asitcanbe
too complex to display or to navigate on a small screen.
ere were only few studies that compared dierent input
forms. Balagtas-Fernandez et al. [] assessed two layouts
(i.e., scrolling list and tabs), two input methods (i.e., keyboard
and modal dialogue), and two menu designs (i.e., device
menu and context menu). e results indicated that the
scrolling, modal dialogue, and the device menu were more
ecient []. El Batran and Dunlop [] compared two
form navigation methods: tabbing and pan and zoom. e
results showed that the pan and zoom technique was more
ecient. Nevertheless, there are more styles of input forms
and navigation techniques that can be subjected to usability
assessment.
Alternative input methods were another research interest.
e main objective of the studies in this category was
to propose novel techniques to improve input accuracy.
As the key size was very small, nger occlusion usually
occurred. One solution to compensate nger occlusion was
the regional correction. Regional correction was a dictionar y-
based predictive text-entry method that activated not only
the intended key but also neighboring keys. is method
selected valid words available in a dictionary for automatic
input correction. A study found that the regional correction
method reduced time and the number of touches required
to complete text entry, but only when the keys were small
(i.e., pixels). No signicant dierences were found between
using and not using the regional correction when the keys
were large (i.e., and pixels) []. Some novel techniques
were also proposed to deal with input imprecision. Koarai and
Komuro [] proposed a system which used two cameras
in combination with a touch panel to track user input.
e preliminary experiment revealed a lower number of
errors when the proposed technique was used, comparing
to nonzoomed text entry. However, the proposed technique
required the installation of additional equipment []. Some
mobile gears, such as a smart watch, had a very compact-
size screen; thus, entering text from such devices is even
more dicult. Oney et al. [] proposed an interaction called
zoom-board to enable text entry from ultrasmall devices. e
proposedtechniqueusedtheiterativezoomingtoenlargetiny
keyboard to comfortable size. e preliminary experiment
showed promising input rate from zoom-board interaction
[]. Some other novel techniques include lens gestures [],
multistroked gesture [], ambiguous keyboard input [,
], eect of key size [], and ve-key text-entry technique
[]. Nevertheless, these novel techniques required empirical
evaluation, to validate their usability with collected evidence.
7. Findings
To recapitulate, this article seeks to answer two research
questions:
RQ: in each area, what factors were concentrated?
RQ: what areas of mobile user interface design
patterns had insucient information?
is section elaborates the ndings from surveying the
literature.
Table shows the information about page composition
research. e range of research on page composition since
was narrower than before . e concentration on
this area was whether limited screen size aected menu
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
T : Page composition research.
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest since
Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) D and D menus
(ii) Depth and breadth
(iii) Menu adaptation
(iv) Item ordering
(v) Item categorization
(vi) Task complexity
(vii) Menu patterns
(viii) Help elds
(ix) Methodological studies
(x) Language abilities
(xi) Spatial abilities
(xii) Visual characteristics
(xiii) User expertise
(i) D and D menus
(ii) Age dierences (spatial ability,
verbal memory, visual abilities,
psychomotor skills, self-ecacy)
(iii) Cultural dierences
(Westerners versus Easterners)
(iv) Menu adaptation
(i) Whether limited screen
size aect menu usability
(ii) Eciency
(iii) User preference
(iv) Satisfaction
(i) Depth and breadth
(ii) Item ordering
(iii) Item categorization
(iv) Task complexity
(v) Menu patterns
(vi) Help elds
(vii) Methodological studies
(viii) Language abilities
(ix) Spatial abilities
(x) Visual characteristics
(xi) User expertise
(xii) User with unique need (e.g.,
children,disabledusers,userwith
impairments)
usability, eciency, user preference, and satisfaction. ere
were several topics that were unexamined by experimental
studies.
Table shows the information about display of informa-
tion research. e range of research since was wider than
before . However, the topics were still very limited. e
concerns in this area were if limited screen size aects list
access, eciency, selection errors, and satisfaction. Several
topics were unexamined by experimental studies.
Table shows the information about control and con-
rmation research. ere has been no research on control
and conrmation. ere were several topics that were unex-
amined by experimental studies. is demonstrates a huge
research gap in this area.
Table shows the information about revealing more
information research. ere has been no research on reveal-
ing more information. ere were several topics that were
unexamined by experimental studies. is demonstrates a
huge research gap in this area.
Table shows the information about lateral access
research. ere has been no research on lateral access. ere
were several topics that were unexamined by experimental
studies. is demonstrates a huge research gap in this area.
Table shows the information about navigation research.
e range of research topics since was wider than before
. However, the topics were still very limited. e major
concerns in this area were whether content navigation was
aected by screen size and how to tackle the demand for
visual attention in navigation, eciency, selection errors, and
satisfaction. ere were several topics that were unexamined
by experimental studies.
Table shows the information about button research.
e topics of research since were greater than before
.econcernsinthisareaweretosimulaterealistic
feeling of physical buttons on touchscreen. e factors of
interest include user preference, experience, accuracy, errors,
eciency, exerted force, impulse, and dwell time. ere were
several topics that were unexamined by experimental studies.
Table shows the information about icon research. e
majorconcernsinthisareawereinuencesofculturalandage
dierences on icon interpretation, aesthetic qualities of icons,
and touchable areas of icons. e factors of interest include
icon recognition and interpretation.
Table shows the information about information control
research. e major concerns in this area were how small
screen size of mobile devices aects zooming, searching, and
ltering. e factors of interest include eciency, eective-
ness, and precision.
Table shows the information about input mode and
selection research. e range of research topics since
was wider than before . e factors of interest include
input accuracy, eciency, errors, key size, touchable area,
location of interactive elements, and eye xation.
8. Discussion, Conclusions, and Limitations
Mobile platforms have called for attention from HCI commu-
nity. Although there are several studies investigating dimen-
sions related to mobile user interface, a standard of mobile
user interface design patterns has not been established. is
current article provides an overview of the existing studies on
mobile UI design patterns and covers altogether dierent
categories.
8.1. Discussion. e research on page composition (menu)
was quite narrow. Since , the topics included usability
assessmentofDandDmenus,adaptivemenus,inuence
of cultures on item categorization scheme, and inuence
of aging on menu navigation. e primary concern was
whether the limited screen size aected menu usability. e
factors of interest included menu eciency, user preference,
and satisfaction, as it is important for users to promptly
select the target menu item and complete intended tasks
in timely manner. is positively aects users’ preference
and satisfaction towards the system. In menu navigation
study, verbal memory and spatial abilities were also subjected
to investigation, as they were related to navigation perfor-
mance. e review showed that data from menu research are
insucient to establish guidelines for mobile menu patterns.
Empirical-basedknowledgeofwhattypeofmenusshouldbe
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
T : Display of information research.
Research topics prior to
Research topics since Factors of interest since Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) Evaluation of list
patterns
(i) Applying desktop design to
mobile
(ii) Evaluation of list scrolling styles
(iii) Evaluation of list patterns
(iv) Novel scrolling techniques
(i) Whether list access was aected
mobile screen size
(ii) Eciency
(iii) Selection errors
(iv) Satisfaction
(i) Other list patterns
(ii) User with unique need (e.g., the
elderly, children, disabled users,
user with impairments)
T : Control and conrmation research.
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest since Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) N/A (i) N/A (i) N/A
(i) Designing error message for mobile
screen
(ii) Error prevention
(iii) Error recovery
(iv) Users with diculties in controlling ne
muscles (e.g., the elderly, children, upper
extremities impaired users)
T : Revealing more information research.
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest since Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) N/A (i) N/A (i) N/A (i) Applying desktop techniques of revealing
more information to mobile screen
T : Lateral access research.
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest since Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) N/A (i) N/A (i) N/A (i) Applying desktop techniques of lateral
access to mobile screen
T : Navigation research.
Research topics prior to
Research topics since Factors of interest since Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) Web surng on
desktops
(i) Displaying contents on mobile
screen
(ii) Previewing content
(iii) Gaze tracking
(iv) Aural interface
(i) Whether content navigation was
aected by mobile screen size
(ii) How to tackle high demand for
visual attention in navigation
(iii) Eciency
(iv) Selection errors
(v) Satisfaction
(i) Evaluation of other list patterns
(ii) User with unique need (e.g., the
elderly, children, disabled users,
user with impairments)
T : But t o n r e s e a r ch .
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest since
Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) Button size
(ii) Button spacing
(iii) Tactile feedback
(iv) Audio feedback
(v) Users with disabilities
(i) Simulating realistic response of
physical buttons on touchscreen
(ii) Latency of response
(iii) Usability of feedback modalities
(i) User preference
(ii) Experience
(iii) Accuracy
(iv) Errors
(v) Eciency
(vi) Exerted force
(vii) Impulse
(viii) Dwell time
(i) Applying desktop techniques of
lateral access to mobile screen
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
T : Icon research.
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest
since
Unexamined/other
possible topics
(i) Interpretation of icon meaning
(ii) Icon recognition
(iii) Comprehensibility
(iv)Appropriatesizeoficon
(v) Cultural dierences on icon interpretation
(vi) Age dierences on icon interpretation
(vii) Using icon to convey application status
(i) Touchable area of icon
(ii) Eect of icon-background shape on
ndability
(iii) Aesthetic
(iv) Cultural dierence on icon
interpretation
(v) Age dierences on icon interpretation
(i) Icon recognition
(ii) Icon interpretation (i) N/A
T : Information control research.
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest since
Unexamined/other
possible topics
(i) Zooming
(a) Screen size
(b) Readability
(c) Font size
(d) Selection precision
(e) Designing for visual-impaired and
senior users
(ii) Searching
(a) Load and query
(b) Full-text search
(c) Voice input
(iii) Sorting and ltering
(a) Data organization patterns
(i) Zooming
(a) Evaluation of zooming
technique
(b) Evaluation of zooming
gestures with children users
(ii) Searching
(a) Minimizing user input
(b) Integration of context
information in search
(iii) Sorting and ltering
(a) Enable multiple sorting
criteria
(i) Zooming
(a) Eciency
(b) Eectiveness
(ii) Searching
(a) Eciency
(b) Precision
(iii) Sorting and ltering
(a) N/A
(i) Novel techniques still
need validation and
evaluation
T : Input Mode and Selection Research.
Research topics prior to Research topics since Factors of interest since
Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) Factors aecting input accuracy
(a) Visual distraction
(b) Sensorimotor coordination
(c) Blindness
(d) Aging
(ii) Improving input accuracy
(a) Alternative keyboard layouts
(b) Increase input feedback
(i) Finger and thumb interaction
(ii) User factors
(a) Elderly users
(b) Disabilities (blindness, ALS,
Down’s syndrome)
(iii) Novice users
(iv) External factors
(v) Eye-free interaction
(a) Walking
(b) Driving
(vi) Large form input
(vii) Alternative input methods
(i) Accuracy
(ii) Eciency
(iii) Errors
(iv) Key size
(v) Touchable area
(vi) Location of interactive
elements
(vii) Eye xation
(i) Eect of handedness
(ii) Eect of nger and thumb
lengths
(iii) Children users
(iv) Evaluation of interaction
elements in in-car usage
(v) Novel techniques need
validation and evaluation
used in what context is still lacking. Many important elements
of menu composition were unexamined, for example, menu
depth and breadth, item ordering, task complexity, and
assessment of other menu layouts. Other user groups with
unique needs, such as children and user with disabilities or
disorders, were also uninvestigated.
e research on display of information was limited and
covered only a few areas. e research included usability
evaluation of list scrolling styles and dierent list patterns
(i.e., sheye and vertical list and grid and vertical list). e
key issue was whether list access and usability were aected
by a limited screen size. A novel list scrolling technique
was also proposed. e factors of interest were eciency,
selection errors, and satisfaction, as it is important for users
to promptly access the target item with minimum errors. is
positively aects their preference and satisfaction towards the
system. e review showed that empirical data are not su-
cient to draw a guideline for display patterns of information.
Other list layouts and possible eect of number of items are
le unexamined. Moreover, the number of participants in the
research was considerably low. Other user factors that may
have potential eects, such as elderly users, children, and user
with disabilities, were not studied. Clearly, the knowledge of
what type of display should be used in what context and for
which group of users is still lacking.
ere has been no research on control and conrmation,
revealing more information, and lateral access categories.
ese categories are important design elements on mobile
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
devices. e primary function of control and conrmation
is to prevent errors, especially user errors. ere is an
enormous knowledge gap which needs to be lled. For
example, error message design cannot be directly adopted
from desktop platform; they must be adjusted to t small
size dialogue. Touch screen is also prone to user errors, in
particular with users that have diculties or have not fully
developed the control of their ne muscles (e.g., the elderly,
children, and user with upper extremity disabilities). Error
prevention and error recovery mechanisms needed to be
designedforthesegroupsofusers.efunctionofrevealing
more information is to display larger information for users.
With limited screen size, adopting information revealing
techniques from desktops can be ineective. Moreover, the
knowledge of what revealing techniques should be used in
what context is still lacking. Nevertheless, these issues have
not been empirically examined. Lateral access is another
important design element. Some examples of lateral access
are pagination and tabs. Lateral access provides a faster
access to intended information and reduces the use of long
lists. With limited screen size of mobile devices, it is still
unexamined whether adopting lateral access techniques from
desktopsispractical.
e research on navigation (links) was limited and
covered only some areas. e research included previewing
content of web pages, gaze tracking, and designing aural
interface. e key concerns were motivated by limited screen
size and high demand for visual attention. e factors of
interest were eciency, accuracy, and navigation experience,
since it is important for users to accurately and promptly
accessthetargetlinkandndintendedinformationas
quick as possible. is positively aects their experience
of using the system. More empirical studies are needed to
establish guidelines for navigation on mobile screen. Other
user factors that may have potential eects are also needed to
be examined.
e research on buttons was motivated by the lack of
physical response and tactile feedback. e lack of tactile
feedbackmakesusersuncondentoftheiractionswhich
consequently deteriorates system usability. us, the primary
objective was to simulate realistic response of physical but-
tons. e research topics included characteristics of response
that gave realistic feeling of buttons, latency of response,
and usability of dierent feedback modalities. Unlike other
categories that focus on eciency, the factors of interest
of button research primarily concern user preference and
experience since it is important for users to experience the
realistic response that resembles physical button. Some other
studies looked into spatial design of buttons (i.e., button size
and spacing), in order to nd optimal design that needed less
visual attention and match the ne motor abilities of users.
e array of factors of interest include accuracy, errors, and
eciency for generic users and exerted force, impulse, and
dwell time of pressing for users with ne motor diculties.
Unlike other categories, the research on icons was almost
platform-unspecic. e topics heavily focused on inuence
of age and culture on icon usability. e factors of interest
were icon recognition and icon interpretation, as it is crucial
foruserstocorrectlyidentifyandselecttherightfunctionthat
they want. Senior users faced greater problem recognizing
and interpreting icons; however, it was due to technological
inexperience. It was found that, regardless of culture or
age, the factors that contribute to icon usability were icon
concreteness, low visual complexity, close semantic distance,
user familiarity with icons, and sensible labelling. More
studies examined visual qualities of icons, namely, color
combination, shape and size of icons, and their inuence on
icon usability. Only icon study can be regarded as mobile-
specic. e study examined optimal touchable area of an
iconsinceitisimportantforuserstoselecttheintendedicons,
without activating neighboring functions.
Information control encompasses zooming, searching,
and sorting and ltering. e research topics were inu-
enced by limited screen size of mobile devices. Studies on
zooming included evaluation of dierent zooming methods
and zooming gesture performance of children users. e
factors of interest of evaluation study concern eciency and
eectiveness as it is important for users to be able to zoom
in and out and promptly select the target item and complete
intended tasks in timely manner. e factor of interest of
zooming and children study concerns only accuracy, but
noteciency.Forchildrenusers,itismoreimportantfor
them to understand gestures and accurately use their hand
to do gestures than timely nish their task. Children users
have exploratory behaviors; thus, measuring eciency does
not match their behavior. Studies on searching were new
searching techniques, including semantic search, context-
basedsearch,andgesture-basedsearch.efactorsofinterest
were eciency and precision, as it is important for users to
quickly search for information from accurate and relevant
search results. A new idea was proposed in sorting and
ltering category; however, the idea was not demonstrated or
veried.
Asstated,inputmodeandselectioncontributethehighest
number of papers; thus, the research topics were considerably
diverse. e topics were motivated by limited screen size of
mobile devices. e rst area of topics concerned eects of
nger and thumb on input accuracy. Although some mobile
models were equipped with a stylus, users prefer using their
nger. As the key size is small, nger occlusion oen occurs.
e factors of interest were accuracy, eciency, and errors,
sinceitisimportantforuserstopromptlyandprecisely
supply input with minimum errors. Other factors include key
size, touchable area size, and location of interactive elements
as they also contribute to input accuracy and eciency.
However, no studies considered potential factors that would
aect touch accuracy, such as handedness, and nger and
thumb length of dierent ethnicity. e second area of topics
concerned user factors. e key issue was to study whether
and how user characteristics aect input. User groups that
were included in the studies were mainly elderly users,
blind users, and users with upper extremity disabilities or
diculties. Only one study focused on children. e factors of
interest are accuracy and eciency because it is important for
users to promptly and precisely supply input. e third area
of research focused on novice users. Mobile devices bombard
novice users with many input keys and touch gestures are
not visible. e factors of interest are accuracy and eciency
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
because it is important for novice users to quickly learn
the system and precisely supply input. e fourth area
concerned external factors. It was found that environmental
condition, cognitive load, and communication load aect
input accuracy and eciency. e h area concerned eye-
free interaction. e topics in this area were motivated by
high demands for visual attention, and mobile ubiquity.
Without physical buttons, users cannot rely on their touch
to locate interactive elements. Moreover, users could attend
some other activities (e.g., walking, carrying objects, and
driving) while simultaneously using mobile devices. As a
result, users cannot always x their eyes on the screen. e
factors of interest included accuracy, eciency, and errors
because it is important for users to promptly and precisely
supply input with minimum errors. For in-car interaction,
eye xation was also a factor to study, as the interface cannot
distract users from driving. However, more evaluations are
needed to nd out which input layouts and interaction are
suitableforin-carinteraction.esixthareaconcerned
complexinputform,asaninputformcanbetoocomplex
to display on a small screen. Only a few studies examined
and compared input forms. e factors of interest included
accuracy, eciency, and errors because it is important for
users to quickly and correctly supply input with minimum
errors. e last area of research topics concerned alternative
input methods. e objective of the research in this area was
to propose novel techniques to compensate input accuracy.
Only some of them carried out experiment to assess the
proposed techniques. Similar to other areas, the factors of
interest included accuracy, eciency, and errors because it is
important for users to quickly and correctly supply input with
minimum errors. Nevertheless, the proposed techniques still
require empirical evaluation.
8.2. Conclusions. e review was made on papers. Input
modeandselectioncontributethehighestnumberof
papers— papers. ere were no papers discussing the
designs of mobile user interface on three categories—()
control and conrmation, () revealing more information,
and () lateral access. Early research on mobile user interface
was made with engineering approach, for instance, proposing
new techniques, new interaction styles, and prototyping.
Since,thefocushasgraduallyshiedtousability
evaluation of design patterns and to studying user factors
(e.g., age, culture, and disabilities).
To recapitulate, the review clearly shows that touch
screen is the major factor that forms research directions
of mobile user interface. Important touch screen qualities
that shape research directions are limited screen size, lack
of physical response and tactile feedback, invisible gesture,
mobile ubiquity, and high demand for visual attention. e
review also showed that there is an enormous knowledge
gap for mobile interface design. ere are some categories
where no research can be found, despite their importance
to mobile interface and interaction design. Several categories
have insucient empirical-based data to establish a solid
design guideline, and there is still a need to assess more
factors that inuence its usability.
8.3. Limitations. During the review, inconsistency in termi-
nologies used to refer to each design element was common.
For example, list is also referred to as linear or vertical
menu, and grid menu is also referred to as table-based menu.
All papers with dierent terms that were considered by the
authorsofthisarticleareincludedinthereview.However,
some papers may be missing due to the use of dierent terms.
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that there are no conicts of interest
regarding the publication of this paper.
References
[] E. F. Churchill, A. Bowser, and J. Preece, “Teaching and learning
human-computer interaction: past, present, and future,” Inter-
actions,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] K.B.Bennett,A.L.Nagy,andJ.M.Flach,“Visualdisplay,”in
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics,G.Salvendy,Ed.,
JohnWiley&Sons,Hoboken,NJ,USA,.
[] A. Dix, J. Finlay, G. D. Abowd, and R. Beale, Human–Computer
Interaction,.
[] J. Kim,Design for Experience, Springer International Publishing,
Switzerland, .
[] S. C. Lee and S. Zhai, “e performance of touch screen so
buttons,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI ’09), pp. –, Boston, MA, USA, April .
[] K. B. Perry and P. Hourcade, “Evaluation one handed thumb
tapping on mobile touchscreen devices,” in Proceedings of the
Graphics Interface (GI ’08), pp. –, Ontario, Canada, May
.
[] S. Hoober and E. Berkman, Designing Mobile Interfaces,
Ontario, Canada, O’Reilly Media, .
[] International Organization of Standardization (ISO), “Ergonomic
requirements for oce work with visual display terminals
(VDTs)—part : guidance on usability,” ISO -:, ,
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/iso:std:iso::-:ed-:v:en.
[] N. Bevan, “Usability is quality of use,” in Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction,
Yokohama, Japan, July .
[] Interaction-Design.org, Introduction to Usability, n.d., https://
www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/an-introduction-
to-usability.
[] nteraction-Design.org, What is Usability?, n.d., https://www
.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/usability.
[] Y.Rogers,J.Preece,andH.Sharp,Interaction Design: Beyond
Human-Computer Interaction, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex,
UK, .
[] J. Lazar, J. H. Feng, and H. Hochheiser, Research Methods in
Human-Computer Interaction, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex,
UK, .
[] International Organization of Standardization (ISO), “Ergo-
nomics of human-system interaction—part : human-
centred design for interactive systems,” ISO -: ,
, https://www.iso.org/standard/.html.
[] Interaction-Design.org, User Experience (UX) Design, n.d.,
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/ux-design.
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
[] G. C. Vanderheiden, Application Soware Design Guidelines:
Increasing the Accessibility of Application Soware for People
with Disabilities and Older Users, Trace Research and Develop-
mentCenter,Madison,Wis,USA,.
[] J. J. Abascal and C. Nicolle, “Why inclusive design guidelines?”
in Inclusive Design Guidelines for HCI,pp.–,Taylor&
Francis, .
[] C. Stephandis, “Design for all,” in e Encyclopedia of Human-
Computer Interaction, Interaction Design Foundation, nd edition,
, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-
encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-nd-ed/design-
-all.
[] H. Petrie, “Accessibility and usability requirements for ICTs
for disabled and elderly people: a functional classication
approach,” in Inclusive Design Guidelines for HCI, C. Nicolle and
J. Abascal, Eds., pp. –, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK,
.
[] D. A. L. Maberley, H. Hollands, J. Chuo et al., “e prevalence
of low vision and blindness in Canada,” Eye,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] H. Petrie, G. Weber, and J. Darzentas, “Designing for acces-
sibility,” in Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2017,
vol. of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,pp.–,
Springer International Publishing, Mumbai, India, .
[] J. C. Read, “Children participating in HCI research,” in Human-
Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2017,vol.ofLecture
Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing,
Mumbai, India, .
[] J. Kjeldskov, “Mobile computing,” in e Encyclopedia of
Human-Computer Interaction, Interaction Design Foundation,
nd edition, , https://w ww.inter action-des ign.org /literature/
book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-nd-
ed/mobile-computing.
[] B. Fling, Mobile Design and Development, O’Reilly Media,
Sebastopol, Cali, USA, .
[] R. Coppola and M. Morisio, “Connected car: technologies,
issues, future trends,” ACM Computing Surveys,vol.,no.,
article , .
[] O. R. E. Pereira and J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, “Survey and analysis of
current mobile learning applications and technologies,” ACM
Computing Surveys,vol.,no.,article,.
[] D. A. Becker, “Best practices of library mobile website design: a
literature review,” College and Undergraduate Libraries,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] C.M.Monroe,D.L.ompson,D.R.Bassett,E.C.Fitzhugh,
and H. A. Raynor, “Usability of mobile phones in physical
activity—related research: a systematic review,” American Jour-
nal of Health Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. Donner, “Research approaches to mobile use in the develop-
ing world: a review of the literature,” e Information Society,
vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. A. Hoseini-Tabatabaei, A. Gluhak, and R. Tafazolli, “A survey
on smartphone-based systems for opportunistic user context
recognition,” ACM Computing Sur veys,vol.,no.,article,
.
[] P. A. Akiki, A. K. Bandara, and Y. Yu, “Adaptive model-driven
user interface development systems,” ACM Computing Surveys,
vol.,no.,article,.
[]A.Cockburn,A.Karlson,andB.B.Bederson,“Areviewof
overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces,” ACM
Computing Surveys,vol.,no.,article,.
[] J. Zhou, P.-L. P. Rau, and G. Salvendy, “Use and design of
handheld computers for older adults: a review and appraisal,”
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,vol.,
no.,pp.–,.
[] J. E. Moulder, K. R. Foster, L. S. Erdreich, and J. P. McNamee,
“Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a
review,” International Journal of Radiation Biology,vol.,no.
,pp.–,.
[]N.Wagner,K.Hassanein,andM.Head,“Computeruseby
older adults: a multi-disciplinary review,” Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] K. Kim, Derivation and evaluation of 3D menu designs for
smartphones [Ph.D. thesis], Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, .
[] C. Ling, W. Hwang, and G. Salvendy, “A survey of what cus-
tomers want in a cell phone design,” Behaviour & Information
Techn o l o g y,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. Kim and K. Lee, “Culturally adapted mobile phone interface
design: correlation between categorization style and menu
structure,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
(MobileHCI ’07, pp. –, Singapore, September .
[] W.A.Rogers,A.J.Stronge,andA.D.Fisk,“Technologyand
aging,” Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics,vol.,no.,
pp. –, .
[] K. Arning and M. Ziee, “Eects of age, cognitive, and personal
factors on PDA menu navigation performance,” Behaviour &
Information Technology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J.Park,S.H.Han,Y.S.Park,andY.Cho,“Adaptableversusadap-
tive menus on the desktop: performance and user satisfaction,”
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] G. Fischer, “User modeling in human-computer interaction,”
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. , no. -, pp.
–, .
[] L. Findlater and K. Z. Gajos, “Design space and evaluation
challenges of adaptive graphical user interfaces,” AI Magazine,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] J.Park,S.H.Han,andY.S.Park,“Humancomplementarymenu
design for mobile phones,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes,vol.,
no.,pp.–,.
[] A. Osman, M. H. Ismail, and N. A. Wahab, “Combining sheye
with list: evaluating the learnability and user satisfaction,” in
Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computer
Technology and Development (ICCTD ’09),pp.–,Kota
Kinabalu, Malaysia, November .
[] P. Finley, A study comparing table-based and list-based smart-
phone interface usability [Msc. thesis],IowaStateUniversity,
Ames, Iowa, USA, .
[] J. Breuninger, S. Popova-Dlugosch, and K. Bengler, “e safest
way to scroll a list: a usability study comparing dierent
ways of scrolling through lists on touch screen devices,” IFAC
Proceedings Volumes,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] P. Quinn and A. Cockburn, “Zoong!: faster list selections with
pressure-zoom-ick-scrolling,” in Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Spe-
cial Interest Group - Design: Open 24/7 ( OZCHI ’09), pp. –,
Melbourne, Australia, November .
[] V. Setlur, S. Rosso, and B. Gooch, “Wish I hadn’t clicked that:
context based icons for mobile web navigation and directed
search tasks,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM International
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’11),pp.–,
PaloAlto,Claif,USA,February.
[] V. Setlur, “SemantiLynx: context based icons for mobile web
navigation and directed search tasks,” in Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’10), pp. -,
Lisbon, Portugal, September .
[] A. Woodru, A. Faulring, R. Rosenholtz, J. Morrsion, and P.
Pirolli, “Using thumbnails to search the Web,” in Proceedings
of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI ’01), pp. –, Seattle, DC, USA, March .
[] X.-D. Yang, E. Mak, D. McCallum, P. Irani, X. Cao, and S. Izadi,
“LensMouse: augmenting the mouse with an interactive touch
display,” in Proceedings of the 28th Annual CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10),pp.–,
Atlanta,Ga,USA,April.
[] D. Cheng, D. Li, and L. Fang, “A cluster information navigate
method by gaze tracking,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual
ACM Symposium on User Interface Soware and Technology
(UIST ’13), pp. -, Scotland, UK, October .
[] T. Yang, M. Ferati, Y. Liu, R. R. Ghahari, and D. Bolchini, “Aural
browsing on-the-go: listening-based back navigation in large
web architectures,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), pp. –,
Austin, Tex, USA, May .
[] M. E. Sesto, C. B. Irwin, K. B. Chen, A. O. Chourasia, and
D. A. Wiegmann, “Eect of touch screen button size and
spacing on touch characteristics of users with and without
disabilities,” HumanFactors:eJournaloftheHumanFactors
and Ergonomics Society,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. Conradi, O. Busch, and T. Alexander, “Optimal touch button
sizefortheuseofmobiledeviceswhilewalking,”Procedia
Manufacturing,vol.,pp.–,.
[] K. Tanaka and K. Watanabe, “Interference between accustomed
number-space mappings and unacquainted letter-space map-
pings in a button press task,” Human Factors: e Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] T. Kaaresoja, S. Brewster, and V. Lantz, “Towards the temporally
perfect virtual button: touch-feedback simultaneity and per-
ceived quality in mobile touchscreen press interactions,” ACM
Transactions on Applied Perception, vol. , no. , article , .
[] G. Park, S. Choi, K. Hwang, S. Kim, J. Sa, and M. Joung,
“Tactile eect design and evaluation for virtual buttons on a
mobile device touchscreen,” in Proceedings of the 13th Interna-
tional Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile
Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’11), pp. –, Stockholm,
Sweden, September .
[] E. Koskinen, T. Kaaresoja, and P. Laitinen, “Feel-good touch:
nding the most pleasant tactile feedback for a mobile touch
screen button,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Confer-
ence on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’08),pp.–,Crete,
Greece, October .
[] T. Pakkanen, R. Raisamo, J. Raisamo, K. Salminen, and V.
Surakka, “Comparison of three designs for haptic button edges
on touchscreens,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Haptics Symposium
(HAPTICS ’10),pp.–,Waltham,Mass,USA,March.
[] D.Spelmezan,C.Appert,O.Chapuis,andE.Pietriga,“Control-
ling widgets with one power-up button,” in Proceedings of the
26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Soware and
Technology (UIST ’13),pp.–,Scotland,UK,October.
[] S. Ghayas, S. Sulaiman, J. Jaafar, S. Mahamad, and M. Khan,
“Mobile phone Icons recognition and cultural aspects,” in Pro-
ceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computer and
Information Sciences (ICCOINS ’14), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
June .
[] R. Leung, J. McGrenere, and P. Graf, “Age-related dierences
in the initial usability of mobile device icons,” Behaviour &
Information Technology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] C. Gatsou, A. Politis, and D. Zevgolis, “From icons perception
to mobile interaction,” in Proceedings of the 2011 Federated Con-
ference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS
’11), pp. –, Szczecin, Poland, September .
[] A. Harley, Usability Testing of Icons, , https://ww w
.nngroup.com/articles/icon-testing/.
[] Y. Im, T. Kim, and E. S. Jung, “Investigation of icon design
and touchable area for eective smart phone controls,” Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries,
vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Luo and Y. Zhou, “Eects of smartphone icon background
shapes and gure/background area ratios on visual search per-
formance and user preferences,” Frontiers of Computer Science,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] S.-M. Huang, “e rating consistency of aesthetic preferences
for icon-background color combinations,” Applied Ergonomics,
vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S.-W.Ju,K.Jeong,andH.-J.Suk,“Changingthecolorattributes
of icons to inform of the application status,” in Proceedings of
the18thIEEEInternationalSymposiumonConsumerElectronics
(ISCE ’14),JeJuIsland,SouthKorea,June.
[] P. Pappachan and M. Ziee, “Cultural inuences on the compre-
hensibility of icons in mobile-computer interaction,” Behaviour
& Information Technology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Ghayas, S. Sulaim an, M. Khan, and J. Jaafar, “Qualitative study
to identify icons characteristics on mobile phones applications
interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Symposium on
Wireless Technology and Applications (ISWTA ’13), pp. –,
Kuching, Malaysia, September .
[] J. Kuo and F. Wu, “e elder’s discrimination of icons with
color discrimination on the cell phone,” in Advances in Cognitive
Ergonomics, D. Kaber and G. Boy, Eds., Advances in Human
Factors and Ergonomics Series, pp. –, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Fla, USA, .
[] Y. B. Salman, Y. Kim, and H. Cheng, “Senior—friendly icon
design for the mobile phone,” in Proceedings of the 6th Inter-
national Conference on Digital Content, Multimedia Technology
and its Applications (IDC ’10),SouthKorea,August.
[] C. Koutsourelakis and K. Chorianopoulos, “Icons in mobile
phones: comprehensibility dierences between older and
younger users,” Information Design Journal,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] J. Kim and Y. Cho, “Evaluation of the cognitive ability among
aging groups using mobile phone,” in Proceedings of the Pan-
Pacic Conference on Ergonomics, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Novem-
ber .
[] W. Chanwimalueng and K. Rapeepisarn, “A study of the recog-
nitions and preferences on abstract and concrete icon styles on
smart phone from Easterners and Westerners’ point of view,”
in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Machine
Learning and Cybernetics, ICMLC 2013, pp. –, Tianjin,
China, July .
[] E. Garcia-Lopez, L. de-Marcos, A. Garcia-Cabot, and J.-J.
Martinez-Herraiz, “Comparing zooming methods in mobile
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
devices: eectiveness, eciency, and user satisfaction in touch
andnontouchsmartphones,”International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] S. Oney, C. Harrison, A. Ogan, and J. Wiese, “ZoomBoard: a
diminutive QWERTY so keyboard using iterative zooming
for ultra-small devices,” in Proceedings of the 31st Annual CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing
Perspectives (CHI ’13),pp.–,Paris,France,May.
[] Z. Hamza, Study of touch gesture performance by four and ve
year-old children: point-and-touch, drag-and-drop, zoom-in and
zoom-out, and rotate [Msc. thesis], Minnesota State University,
Mankato, Minn, USA, .
[] Y. Li, “Gesture search: a tool for fast mobile data access,”
in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on User
Interface Soware and Technology (UIST ’10),pp.–,New
Yo r k , N Y , U S A , O c t o b e r .
[] S. Shin, J. Ko, D.-H. Shin, J. Jung, and K.-H. Lee, “Semantic
search for smart mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’13),
pp. -, Santa Monica, Calif, USA, March .
[]K.ChurchandB.Smyth,“Who,what,where&when:
a new approach to mobile search,” in Proceedings of the 13th
international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (IUI ’08),
pp.–,GranCanaria,Spain,January.
[] U.S. Department of Health and Human S ervice, Research-based
web design & usability guidelines, , https://guidelines
.usability.gov/.
[] R. Zhou, H. Sato, Q. Gao et al., “Mobile search: how to
present search results for older users,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IEEM ’07),pp.–,Singapore,
December .
[] E. Panizzi and G. Marzo, “Multidimensional sort of lists in
mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Working
Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’14), pp. -,
Como, Italy, May .
[] J. Diaz-Bossini and L. Moreno, “Accessibility to mobile inter-
faces for older people,” Procedia Computer Science,vol.,pp.
–, .
[] A. C. De Barros, R. Leit˜
ao, and J. Ribeiro, “Design and
evaluation of a mobile user interface for older adults: naviga-
tion, interaction and visual design recommendations,” Procedia
Computer Science,vol.,pp.–,.
[] L. Anthony, Q. Brown, J. Nias, and B. Tate, “Children (and
adults) benet from visual feedback during gesture interaction
on mobile touchscreen devices,” International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction,vol.,pp.–,.
[] N. K. Dim and X. Ren, “Designing motion gesture interfaces in
mobile phones for blind people,” Journal of Computer Science
and Technology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] M. Ernst and A. Girouard, “Bending blindly: exploring bend
gestures for the blind,” in Proceedings of the 34th Annual CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA
’16), pp. –, San Jose, Calif, USA, May .
[] S. Lundgren and M. Hjulstr¨
om, “Alchemy: dynamic gesture
hinting for mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the 15th Inter-
national Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future
Media Environments (MindTrek ’11), pp. –, Tampere, Fin-
land, September .
[] M. S. Geary, A quasi-experiment study comparing the gradual
introduction of alternative so keyboard on a smartphone versus
the immediate introduction of an alternative so keyboard on
a smartphone [Msc. thesis], Colorado Technical University,
Colorado Springs, Colo, USa, .
[] A. K. Karlson, B. B. Bederson, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal,
“Studies in one-handed mobile design: habit, desire and agility,”
HCIL--, Computer Science Department, University of
Maryland, College Park, Md, USA, .
[] D. Vogel and P. Baudisch, “Shi: a technique for operating pen-
based interfaces using touch,” in Proceedings of the 25th SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07),
pp.–,SanJose,Calif,USA,May.
[] E. S. Jung and Y. Im, “Touchable area: an empirical study on
design approach considering perception size and touch input
behavior,” International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics,vol.,
pp.–,.
[] I. Kim and J. H. Jo, “Performance comparisons between thumb-
based and nger-based input on a small touch-screen under
realistic variability,” International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Hoober, How do users really hold mobile devices?, ,
http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives///how-do-users-
really-hold-mobile-devices.php.
[]J.Bergstrom-Lehtovirta,A.Oulasvirta,andS.Brewster,“e
eects of walking speed on target acquisition on a touchscreen
interface,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
(MobileHCI ’11), pp. –, Stockholm, Sweden, September
.
[] Y. S. Park and S. H. Han, “One-handed thumb interaction of
mobile devices from the input accuracy perspective,” Interna-
tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] J. Xiong and S. Muraki, “Eects of age, thumb length and
screen size on thumb movement coverage on smartphone
touchscreens,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
vol. , pp. –, .
[] A. Holzinger, G. Searle, and A. Nischelwitzer, “On some
aspects of improving mobile applications for the elderly,” in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Universal Access
in Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI ’07), pp. –,
Universal assessment in Human-Computer Interaction, Coping
with Diversity, Beijing, China, July .
[] C. St¨
oßel, “Familiarity as a factor in designing nger gestures
for elderly users,” in Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with
Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’09), Bonn, Germany,
September .
[] ´
E. Rodrigues, M. Carreira, and D. Gonc¸alves, “Developing
a multimodal interface for the elderly,” Procedia Computer
Science,vol.,pp.–,.
[] K.-S. Choi and T.-Y. Chan, “Facilitating mathematics learning
for students with upper extremity disabilities using touch-input
system,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology,vol.
,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Raupp, Keyboard layout in eye gaze communication access:
typical vs. als [Msc. thesis], East Carolina University, Greenville,
NC, USA, .
[] M.G.Alfredo,J.A.R.Francisco,M.G.Ricardo,A.E.Francisco,
and M. A. Jaime, “Analyzing learnability of common mobile
gestures used by Down syndrome users’,” in Proceedings of the
16th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
(INTERACCION ’15),VilanovailaGeltr
´
u, Spain, September
.
[] I. S. MacKenzie and R. W. Soukore, “Phrase sets for evaluating
text entry techniques,” in Proceedings of the Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’03),pp.-
, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, USA, April .
[] NetLingo.com, NetLingo List of Chat Acronyms & Text
Shorthand, n.d., http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php.
[] S. K. Durrani, Data entry error in mobile keyboard device
usage subject to cognitive, environmental, and communication
workload stressors present in fully activated emergency operations
[Msc thesis], University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fla, USA,
.
[] N. Louveton, R. McCall, V. Koenig, T. Avanesov, and T. Engel,
“Driving while using a smartphone-based mobility application:
evaluating the impact of three multi-choice user interfaces on
visual-manual distraction,” Applied Ergonomics,vol.,pp.
–, .
[] A. Ng, J. Williamson, and S. Brewster, “e eects of encum-
brance and mobility on touch-based gesture interactions for
mobile phones,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Confer-
ence on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and
Services (MobileHCI ’15), pp. –, Copenhagen, Denmark,
August .
[] F. Balagtas-Fernandez, J. Forrai, and H. Hussmann, “Evalua-
tion of user interface design and input methods for applica-
tions on mobile touch screen devices,” in Human-Computer
Interaction—INTERACT 2009,vol.ofLecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. –, .
[] K. El Batran and M. Dunlop, “Improved form navigation
on mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology
(CSIT ’14),pp.–,Amman,Jordan,March.
[] S. Kwon, D. Lee, and M. K. Chung, “Eect of key size and acti-
vation area on the performance of a regional error correction
method in a touch-screen QWERTY keyboard,” International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. , no. , pp. –,
.
[] N. Koarai andT. Komuro, “A zo oming interface for accurate text
input on mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the CHI ’13 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,pp.–
, Paris, France, May .
[] X. Xiao, T. Han, and J. Wang, “LensGesture: augmenting mobile
interactions with back-of-device nger gestures,” in Proceedings
of the 15th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Inter-
action (ICMI ’13),pp.–,Sydney,Australia,December
.
[] O. P. Gonz´
alez, S. Espa˜
na, and O. Pastor, “Including multi-
stroke gesture-based interaction in user interfaces using a
model-driven method,” in Proceedings of the XVI International
Conference on Human Computer Interaction (Interacci´
on ’15),
pp. –, Vilanova i la Geltr´
u, Spain, September .
[] J. Wang, K. Zhao, X. Zhang , and C. Peng, “Ubiquitous keyboard
for small mobile devices: Harnessing multipath fading for
ne-grained keystroke localization,” in Proceedings of the 12th
Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applica-
tions, and Services (MobiSys ’14), pp. –, Bretton Woods, NH,
USA, June .
[] Y.-C. Huang and F.-G. Wu, “Visual and manual loadings
with QWERTY-like ambiguous keyboards: Relevance of letter-
key assignments on mobile phones,” International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics ,vol.,pp.–,.
[] B. Millet, Design and evaluation of three alternative keyboard
layouts for ve-key text entry technique, doctoral dissertation
[Msc. thesis], University of Miami, Miami-Dade County, Fla,
USA, .
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
