A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type

Full text

A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
1683
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
Dr. George Wagih Aziz
Assistant professor, Industrial design Dept., Faculty of Applied Arts, Helwan University, Egypt,
Abstract: Keywords:
- Interaction Design
- User Centered
Design (UCD)
- Activity Centered
Design (ACD)
- Affordances
- Mental Model
- Control design
The present study introduces a general framework of interaction design taking into
account the impact on type of control in devices the paper focuses on concepts of User-
Centered Design (UCD) & Activity-
Centered Design (ACD). The paper discusses how
an object manifestation offers cues on how it behaves and how humans may interact
with it. The size, shape, and weight of cell phone devices let us know that they should
be carried with us. Th
e framework indicates processes that underlie the different types
of button interaction experience through a mental model during using controls. Patterns
can be used to explain the personal interaction and the layered nature of a mental
model; they can als
o be of value for designers for assisting designers structured
attempts due to user experience. The study investigates the difference between Physical
affordances and digital affordances.
Problem: investigate the effect of interaction design concept on the control type. Aim
:
to reveal the influence of interaction design of control form in activities such as
connecting and interacting. The study carried out a survey on the impact of interaction
design concept on control type. Two groups of users with a va
ried experience in use and
age were examined. Methodology: The study uses an analytical approach. Results:
The
study concluded that interaction design has an effect of changing patterns and forms of
controls of devices; this confirms the relationship of in
teraction between the user and
devices they interact with. The study found out a direct correlation between devices
and their pattern of interaction design with users. Like acceleration performance, ease of
use, clarity of data and a sense of satisfaction during use.
Paper received 1st of August 2015, Accepted 4th of September 2015 Published 1st of October 2015
Introduction
Every moment of every day, millions of people
send an e-mail, talk on mobile phones, message
each other, record TV shows on digital video
recorders (DVRs), and listen to music on MP3
players. All of these things are made possible by
good engineering but only their interaction design
that makes them usable, useful, and fun.
Consumers benefits from good interaction design
all the time, as they:
• Go to an automatic teller machine (ATM) to
withdraw cash with a few simple touches on
a screen.
• Become engrossed in a computer game.
• Buy something online.
• Tweet using Twitter from a mobile phone.
• Update their status on Face book.
In the past decades, interaction design has grown
from a tiny, specialized discipline to one practiced
by tens of thousands of people all over the world,
many of whom don’t call themselves interaction
designers and may not even be aware of the
discipline. Universities now offer degrees in it, and
we’ll find practitioners of interaction design at
every major software and design firm, as well as in
banks, hospitals, and appliance manufacturers.
This is one of field’s works of the interaction
designer outside Egypt.
The rise of the commercial Internet in the mid
1990s and the widespread incorporation of
microprocessors into machines such as cars,
dishwashers, and phones where previously they
hadn’t been used led to this explosive growth in
the number of interaction designers because
suddenly a multitude of serious interaction
problems needed to be solved. Our gadgets became
digital, as did our workplaces, homes,
transportation, and communication devices. It was
the initial practitioners of interaction design—
mostly coming from other disciplines—who
helped us begin to make sense of our newly
digitized world and the Internet, and these same
people, now aided by new interaction designers,
continue to refine and practice the craft as our
devices, and our world, grow ever more complex.
Interaction Designers define the structure and
behavior of interactive products and services.
Interaction Designers create compelling
relationships between people and the interactive
systems they use, from computers to mobile
devices to appliances; Interaction Designers lay the

1684
International Design Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp
1
683
-
1
696
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
groundwork for intangible experiences.
1.Interaction design:
Interaction design as a formal discipline has been
around for less than two decades. It’s a young
field, still defining itself and figuring out its place
among disciplines such as information architecture
(IA), industrial design (ID), visual (or graphic)
design, user experience (UX) design, and human
factors. In addition, some of these other disciplines
are also new and still discovering their boundaries
as well, or are radically changing to accommodate
changing design landscape.(8) Figure (1) attempts
to clarify the relationships between them.
Figure (1) the disciplines surrounding interaction design.
(Controls between interaction design and industrial design)
As we can see, most of the disciplines fall at least
partially under the umbrella of user-experience
design, the discipline of looking at all aspects—
visual design, interaction design, sound design, and
so on—of the user’s encounter with a product, and
making sure they are in harmony .we see also there
are area for controls between the interaction design
and industrial design. There is no doubt where
there is affected by the types of control
convergence of interaction design with industrial
design.
2.User-Centered Design (UCD):
The philosophy behind user-centered design is
simply this: users know best. The people who will
be using a product or service know what their
needs, goals, and preferences are, and it is up to the
designer to find out those things and design for
them. One shouldn’t design a service for selling
coffee without first talking to coffee drinkers.
Designers, however well-meaning, aren’t the users.
Designers are involved simply to facilitate the
achievement of the users’ goals. Participation from
users is sought (ideally) at every stage of the
design process. Indeed, some designers view users
as co-creators.
The concept of user-centered design has been
around for a long time; its roots are in industrial
design and ergonomics and in the belief that
designers should try to fit products to people
instead of the other way around. Industrial designer
Henry Dreyfuss, who designed the iconic 500
series telephone for Bell Telephones, first
popularized the method with his 1955 book
designing for People. But while industrial
designers remembered this legacy, software
engineers were unaware of it, and for decades they
churned out software that made sense in terms of
the way computers work, but not in terms of the
way that people work. In the 1980s, designers and
computer scientists working in the new field of
human-computer interaction began questioning the
practice of letting engineers design the interface
for computer systems. Increased memory,
processing speed, and color monitors now made,
different types of interfaces possible, and a
movement began to focus the design of computer
software around users, not around computers. This
movement became known as user-centered design

A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
1685
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(UCD).(1)
The important Goals in UCD are designers focus
on what the user ultimately wants to accomplish.
The designer then determines the tasks and means
necessary to achieve those goals, but always with
the users’ needs and preferences in mind.
In the best (or at least most thorough) UCD
approach, designers involve users in every stage of
the project. Designers consult users (and potential
users) at the beginning of the project to see if the
proposed project will even address the users’
needs. Designers conduct extensive research up
front to determine what the users’ goals are in the
current situation. Then, as designers begin ideation
users are brought in to help generate concepts
(which are known as participatory design).
Designers (often alongside usability professionals)
evaluate and test prototypes with users as well.
3.Activity-Centered Design (ACD):
Activity-centered design (ACD) doesn’t focus on
the goals and preferences of users, but instead on
behavior surrounding particular tasks. Activities
can be loosely defined as a cluster of actions and
decisions that are done for a purpose. Activities
can be brief and simple (making a sandwich) or
time consuming and involved (learning a foreign
language). Activities can take moments or years.
You can do them alone or with others, as is the
case, for example, when you sing a song. Some
activities, such as withdrawing money from an
ATM, have a set ending—in this case, getting the
money. Others, such as listening to music, have no
fixed ending. The activity simply stops when the
actor (or some outside force) decides it is over.
ACD has its roots in activity theory, which is a
psychological framework from the first half of the
20th century. Activity theory posits that people
create tools as a result of “exteriorized” mental
processes. Decision-making and interior life of
individuals is de-emphasized in favor of what
people do and the tools they collectively create in
order to make (and to communicate). This
philosophy translates well into activity-centered
design, where the activity and the tools to support
it—not the user—are at the center of the design
process.(3)
Many of the products we use today were designed
using activity-centered design, especially
functional tools like appliances and cars. Activity-
centered design allows designers to tightly focus
on the work at hand and create support for the
activity itself, instead of for more distant goals,
thus, it’s well-suited for complicated actions or for
products with varied and large amounts of users.
Activities are made up of actions and decisions,
otherwise known as tasks. Tasks can be as discrete
as pushing a button or as complicated as
performing all the steps necessary to launch a
nuclear missile. The purpose of tasks is to engage
in (and possibly complete) an activity. Each task is
a moment in the life of the activity, and many of
those moments can be aided by design. For
example, a button can be provided to turn a device
on, and a label or instructions may aid a user in
making a decision.
The difference between a task and an activity can
be fairly minor. Some tasks have enough parts to
them to be considered sub activities unto
themselves. For example, in making a phone call,
one of the tasks is finding the right number to dial.
There are quite a few ways to find a phone
number: call a service for assistance, look up the
number in the phone or online, recall it from
memory, and so on. Each of these solutions to the
task of finding a number is itself a task. So is
finding a phone number a task or an activity? For
designers, the difference is usually academic; it has
to be designed for no matter what it’s called.
Like user-centered design, activity-centered design
relies on research as the basis for its insights, albeit
differently. Designers observe and interview users
for insights about their behavior more than about
their goals and motivations. Designers catalog
users’ activities and tasks, perhaps add some
missing tasks, and then design solutions to help
users accomplish the task, not achieve a goal per
se.
Ultimately, activity-centered design allows
designers to focus narrowly on the tasks at hand
and design products and tools that support those
tasks. The task “submit form” will probably
require a button. The task “turn device on” will
probably require a switch or button. And so on.
The activity, not necessarily the people doing the
activity, guides the design.
4. Affordances:
How something manifests gives us cues as to how
it behaves and how we should interact with it, The
size, shape, and even weight of mobile devices let
us know that they should be carried with us. The
sleek black or silver look of digital video recorders
tells us that they are pieces of electronic equipment
and belong alongside stereos and televisions.
Appearance is the major source of what cognitive
psychologist James Gibson, in 1966, called
affordances. Gibson explored the concept more
fully in his book The Ecological Approach to
Visual Perception1979, but it wasn’t until Don
Norman’s seminal book The Psychology of
Everyday Things, in 1988, that the term spread into

1686
International Design Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp
1
683
-
1
696
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
design. An affordance is a property, or set of
properties, that provides some indication of how to
interact with an object or feature. A chair has an
affordance of sitting because of its shape. A button
has an affordance of pushing because of its shape
and the way it moves (or seemingly moves). The
empty space in a cup is an affordance that tells us
we could fill the cup with liquid. An affordance
(or, technically, a perceived affordance) is
contextual and cultural. We know can push a
button because we have pushed one before.(1)
When objects or designs signal properties or
functions, the affordance describes to us what they
are used for or what they do. A handle on a drawer
allows (or affords) us to push and pull the drawer.
Similarly, a button on a digital page affords us to
press it. if the affordance is used properly, a basic
task should be easily utilized. When a basic
affordance is too complex and needs more
description, then the affordance no longer informs
the user about the Design’s purpose.
Interaction design can be thought of in part as
providing affordances so that the features and
functionality of a product can be discovered and
correctly used.
4.1. Physical Affordances:
As figure (2) a vertical crossbar on a door affords
the user to open the door by pushing. As figure (3)
the handle signals pull, but the function does not
afford the user to complete the task; it needs
further explanation and fails as a basic design.
Figure (2) a vertical
crossbar on a door Figure (3) the handle
signals pull
4.2. Digital Affordances:
As figure (4) Familiar shape and dimension of
buttons afford users the ability to click that area to
create an interaction. This is just one of many
possible examples. As figure (5) we see Proper
spacing between navigational elements and content
affords the user the ability to click a button.
Figure (4) Familiar shape and Dimension of
buttons
Figure (5) Proper spacing between Navigational
elements
5. Mental Model:
The definition of a mental model varies greatly
depending on the point of view or resource. In
general it's a strategy to help UX designers
understand the user's prior experiences,
assumptions and skills levels using a product,
digital device or interface. Mental models can also
be represented in an alignment diagram figure (6)
of the user's relationships to the environment,
behaviors and previous actions.(2)
Figure (6) Mental Model
Mental model is the term for a user’s internal
understanding of how a system or object works,
which may or may not reflect how the thing
actually does work. The best mental models allow
for a deep understanding of the thing, minus the
complexities involved in making the thing work.

A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
1687
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For instance, most people have a mental model of
how a car behaves, even though they don’t know
how a combustion engine works.
Mental models are usually constructed by users
from the cues provided by the designer in the form
of affordances, feedback, and feed forward.
Indeed, using those very things, designers can
manipulate the user’s mental model significantly,
hiding or exposing the product’s inner
workings.(6)
6. Controls between analog (Physical) and
digital:
The development of products within the
framework of interaction design, we find that the
design of control tools also evolved to meet the
needs of the user and the design of the control tool
change from analog system to digital system to
increase the interaction.(5)
6.1. Button analog (Physical):
Physical controls have strong metaphors and
history attached to them. Knobs and sliders
typically indicate that you’re looking for
something vague: the right volume or temperature
setting. Buttons and switches typically indicate a
choice is being made. Turn the lights on. Start the
microwave. Controls usually do only one thing.
Accordingly, one of the biggest challenges of
controls is that space, size, and cost limit you for
how many features are important enough to
warrant their own physical controls.
6.1.1. Switch:
A toggle switch is a very simple control. It moves
from one setting (“on”) to another (“off”) and stays
there until changed. Some common controls are
found only in the physical world and not on
screens (although they can certainly manipulate
objects on a screen).figure (7-1)
6.1.2. Latch:
A latch opens an otherwise tightly closed area.
Latches are useful for keeping some areas or items
hidden or safe until needed. They are good to use
when a button or drop-down menu might be too
easy to click or open. For example, latches are
frequently used on handheld devices to keep the
battery compartment safe. Figure (7-2)
6.1.3. Dial:
Dials provide more control than buttons, allowing
the user to select a setting along a continuum (such
as the amount of heat on a stove’s burner) or to
choose between different settings or modes (such
as the mode for taking pictures and the mode for
viewing them on a digital camera. Dials can move
freely, or simply turn from an established point to
other established points on a wheel. These points
are called detents. Some dials, like those often
found on clothes driers, can be pushed in and
pulled out, performing an action (such as turning
on or off) that can vary based on the dial’s rotation.
Figure (7-3)
6.1.4. Jog dial:
A jog dial is a type of dial that can be manipulated
with a single finger, usually a thumb. It can be
dial-like, or it can be a pad of buttons, typically
used on small devices for moving a cursor or
moving through menus. Jog dials are somewhat
difficult to control, especially for young children
and the elderly. Figure (7-4)
Figure (7) type of Physical Controls
6.1.5. Joystick:
A joystick is a physical device typically used in
digital gaming or in other applications that require
rapid movement and intensive manipulation of
remote physical or digital objects. Joysticks can
move in any direction or can be constrained to
move only left to right or only up and down.
Figure (8-1)
6.1.6. Trackball:
A trackball is a physical device for manipulating a
cursor or other digital or physical objects.
Trackballs are typically in a stationary base, but
the ball itself moves in any direction. A computer
mouse is often a trackball in a case. Figure (8-2)
Figure (8) type of Physical Controls
(Multidirectional)
Buttons are the interaction designer’s best friend.
Once we begin to look for them, it’s apparent that
buttons are everywhere, all over our interfaces. In a

1688
International Design Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp
1
683
-
1
696
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
word processing program, there are about 30
buttons visible at any given time. A mobile phone
may have about 40 buttons: the number keys for
dialing and a keyboard. A button is, at base, a
switch that is pressed or clicked to activate it. The
button can stay pressed (a toggle button),
requiring another press to reset it (like most on/off
buttons), or it can reset itself automatically (like
keys on a keyboard). Buttons can be used for a
wide variety of actions: from changing modes
(from writing text to drawing, say) to moving an
item or a cursor via arrow keys. Buttons can take
many forms, from tiny icons to physical squares on
a floor that can be stepped on. Buttons, however,
are good only for simple actions.
6.2. Button interaction:
The following are three examples of button
interaction. The first figure (9) is an analog button,
which is commonly found on keyboards, alarm
clocks and various power buttons. The second
figure (10) is a digital interface button, which is
often seen on digital tablets and mobile phones.
The last figure (11) is a standard GUI interface
where the user manipulates a mouse or track pad to
control an arrow on screen.
Controls are common components within screen-
based interface design that allow the user to
change, adjust or manipulate interface content.
Controls can fit into different categories (figure
(12)), working either together or separately. While
users might be familiar with standard controls, the
use of them does not equal good design and should
only be used in the right situation. The figure
shows for us just a few different types of examples
of controls.

A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
1689
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
6.3. Call to Action buttons:
A call to action (sometimes called call to action
buttons) is simply a visual prompt (call) by the
designer to the user in hope of a response (action).
They can be used to encourage users to sign up for
a service, download specific information or even
buy a product. Urgent language that activates the
user's attention is often seen in action buttons
figure (13), such as "Register Now" or "Try it for
Free."
Figure (13) call to action buttons
6.4. Multi-Touch Gestures:
Multi-touch gestures are various operations and
movements between a user's hand, touch pad or
multi-touch device. The gestures may vary
between devices and operating systems. As shown
in figure (14) some common gestures and their
functions.(7)
6.5. Touch Target:
Touch target refers to the target area of a digital
button or link in relation to a person's finger size
figure (15). The term has most concern with
mobile interface design, whereas screen size needs
to be balanced with content layout. The various
developers of mobile devices have varying
guidelines for touch target sizes.

1690
International Design Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp
1
683
-
1
696
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
6.6. Controls on screens:
While many controls are found in both the
physical, analog world and the digital one, some
controls are only found on screens. These digital
controls have grown from the original graphical
user interface (GUI) vocabulary that was invented
at Xerox PARC in the 1970s, reinvented in the
1980s in the Macintosh and PC operating systems,
and added to and expanded by Web conventions in
the 1990s:
6.6.1. Check box:
A check box enables users to select items from a
short list. Figure (16-1)
6.6.2. Twist:
Twists turn up or down, either revealing or hiding
content or a menu in a panel. Figure (16-2)
6.6.3. Scroll bar:
Scroll bars enable users to move content within a
particular window or panel. Scroll bars can be
vertical or horizontal. Scroll bars themselves can
be manipulated via the cursor or buttons (for
instance, by using arrow keys).Figure (16-3)
Figure (16) Check box & Twist & Scroll bar
6.6.4. Drop-down menu:
Drop-down menus allow designers to cluster
navigation, functionality, or content together
without having to display it all at once. Drop-down
menus can be displayed by rolling over them, or
they can be opened with a click. They can retract
after a selection has been made or the cursor rolls
off them, though not necessarily. Figure (17-1)(4)
6.6.5. Multiple-selection list (or list box):
Multiple-selection lists enable users to select
multiple items in a list. Figure (17-2)
Figure (17) Drop-down menu & Multiple-selection
list
6.6.6. Text box:
Text boxes enable users to enter numbers, letters,
or symbols. They can be as small as (and
constrained to) a single character or as large as the
whole screen. Figure (18)
Figure (18) Text box
6.6.7. Spin box:
Spin boxes are text boxes with additional controls
that enable users to manipulate what is inside the
text box without having to type a value. They are
good for suggesting values in what otherwise
might be an ambiguous text box. Figure (19)
Figure (19) Spin box
The combination of one (and usually more)
controls plus the system response is called
a widget. Widgets are the building blocks of any
application or device. An MP3 player, for instance,
is made of widgets: one for controlling volume,
one for controlling the playing of music files, one
for organizing files, one for exporting files, and so
on. In each case, the user uses controls to perform
an action, and the system responds. All
applications and devices are made up of widgets.
6.7. Non-traditional Inputs controls
We are arriving at a time when keyboards, mice,
and styluses aren’t the only—and possibly not
even the primary—way we interact with the digital
world. With the dawn of ubiquitous computing,
interactive environments, and sensor-enabled
devices, people will engage with many different
sorts of objects that have microprocessors and
sensors built into them, from rooms to appliances
to bicycles.
The controls for these faceless interfaces are the
human body: our voices, our movements, and
simply our presence.(9)
6.7.1. Voice:
Widespread implementation of voice-controlled
systems has been on the horizon for at least a
decade now. For now, voice-controlled interfaces
are most prevalent (naturally) on phone systems
and mobile phones. For example, people call their
banks and perform transactions or dial their mobile
phones with just their voices. Voice commands
typically control limited functionality, and the
device typically has to be ready to receive voice
commands, either because it only functions via
voice commands (as with automated phone
systems and some voice-controlled devices—
see or because it has been prepared to receive
voice commands, as with mobile phones that allow
voice-dialing.
6.7.2. Gestures in space:
To most computers and devices, people consist of
two things: hands and eyes. The rest of the human
body is ignored. But as our devices gain more
awareness of the movement of the human body
through sensors such as cameras, the better able
they will be to respond to the complete human
body, including gestures. Devices like the Wii and

A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
1691
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
the I Phone with their built-in accelerometers
allow for all manner of new ways of controlling
our devices via movements in space. Figure (20)
Figure (20) Gestures in space
Designers need to be especially aware of several
issues when designing gestural interfaces:
• Physiology and kinesiology. Designers have
to know how humans move and what the
limitations are for that movement. For
example, holding an arm out and making
gestures can be quickly tiring—a condition
known as “gorilla arm.”
• Presence and instruction. Since there might
be no visible interface—for example, consider
the hands-free paper towel dispenser in many
public restrooms—letting users know a
gestural device is there and how to use it
needs to be addressed.
• Avoiding “false positives.” Since human
beings make gestures all the time in the course
of just moving around, designing and then
detecting deliberate gestures can be
challenging.
• Matching gesture to task. Without standard
controls, figuring out the best motion to
trigger an action is important. Simple gestures
should be matched to simple tasks.(10)
6.7.3. Person’s presence:
Some systems respond simply to a
person’s presence. Many interactive games and
installations such as Daniel Rozin’s “Wooden
Mirror” respond to a body’s being near their
sensors.
There are many design decisions to be made with
presence-activated systems. Consider a room with
sensors and environmental controls, for example.
Does the system respond immediately when
someone enters the room, turning on lights and
climate-control systems, or does it pause for a few
moments, in case someone was just passing
through?
In addition, sometimes users may not want to be
known to be present. Users may not want their
activities and location known for any number of
reasons, including personal safety and simple
privacy. Designers will have to determine how and
when a user can become “invisible” to presence-
activated systems.
7. The Experimental studies:
The communication devices have evolved in an
unprecedented way in this age, and as a result the
attention of the companies for the user and provide
all that is suitable to him during use, this all was
her motivation for the use of interactive design in
the design of the devices. So the research is trying
to uncover some of the impressions and reaction
during user interaction with the mobile phone and
the impact of the interactive nature of the user
during the interactive design. These impressions
like acceleration, performance ease of use, clarity
of data and a sense of satisfaction during use,
through a questionnaire which consists of eight
questions pertaining to Age and Gender.
7.1 Demographic characteristics related to
research:
Sample size is 100 persons from Egypt.
Participation rates:
1-Gender split into participation rates as follows:
• females by 62%
• Males by 38%
2-The age was divided into three categories:
• Less than the age of 28 years (from 17 to 28
years) and was a representative sample of
47%
• From 28 to 40 years and was a representative
sample of 32%
• Greater than 40 years in a representative
sample of 21%
7.2 Statistical methods used:
• The arithmetic mean value & standard
deviation.
• Mann-Whitney test.
• Kruskal–Wallis test – one way ANOVA for
non parametric tests.
7.3 questionnaire contents:
Data was collected through a questionnaire,
containing the eight questions:
• What is your assessment overall in case you
use a mobile phone a keyboard (buttons)?
• What is your assessment overall in case you
use a mobile phone based on the touch panel
(screen)?
• What is your assessment of the ease of use for
the mobile phone based on the touch panel
(screen)?
• What is your assessment of the speed of usage
during use a mobile phone based on the touch
panel (screen)?
• What is your assessment of the interaction
during use a mobile phone based on the touch
panel (screen)?
• What is your assessment of the use of non-
conventional means of control (eye
movement, movement of the hand in the air

1692
International Design Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp
1
683
-
1
696
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(without touching the screen) during use
mobile phone with touch screen?
• What is your assessment of the possibility of
error during use (such as re-writing, re-
selection, touch the icons are not required...)?
• What is your assessment of speed of search
files for an order?
7.4 The result:
Q1:
What is your assessment overall in case you use a
mobile phone a keyboard (buttons)?
Table (1): the extent of the differences by gender
(male - female) about the evaluation of satisfaction
in the case of mobile phone use panel buttons,
keyboard:
Results shown in the previous table on the
existence of differences between the responses of
both male and female, where it stressed the value
Mann-Whitney test, which came significant at the
0.05 level has confirmed the statistical description,
that these differences were in favor of male
responses, as emphasized in the main and private
averages the results of the Mann-Whitney test
values.
Table (2a): The extent of difference depending on the age groups about the level of satisfaction in the case of
mobile phone use a keyboard (buttons).
(1) Refers to the main averages (mean ranks) for the results of the values for Kruskal–Wallis
test.
(2) Refers to Mann-Whitney test values.
(2)** Refers to the significant Mann Whitney test at the 0.01 level of significance.
Table (2b): A statistical description of the degree of
satisfaction in the case of using a mobile phone
keypad (buttons), depending on the age groups
Results confirmed the existence of statistically
significant differences between the responses of
the three age groups, where it confirmed that the
test Kruskal Wales values and a significant, which
came at 0.01 and Mann Whitney test between
every two categories separately show that,
These differences between the biggest age category
responses (greater than 40 years) with Minor
category (from 18 years to 28 years) and the
middle category (from 28 years to 40), have the
results of the major averages stressed that these
differences in favor of biggest age group (the
biggest 40 years) - see table (2a) and (2b).
Q2: What is your assessment overall in case you
use a mobile phone based on the touch panel
(screen)?
Table (3) : the extent of the differences by gender (male-female) about the evaluation of satisfaction in the case
of mobile phone based on the touch panel (screen).

A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
1693
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Results shown in the previous table on the
existence of differences between the responses of
both male and female, where it stressed the value
Mann-Whitney test, which came significant at the
0.05 level has confirmed the statistical description,
that these differences were in favor of female
responses, as emphasized in the main and private
averages the results of the Mann-Whitney test
values.
Table (4a): The extent of difference depending on the age groups about the level of satisfaction in the case of
mobile phone uses a touch panel (screen).
(1) Refers to the main averages (mean ranks) for the results of the values for Kruskal–Wallis
test.
(2) Refers to Mann-Whitney test values.
(2)** Refers to the significant Mann Whitney test at the 0.05 level of significance.
Table (4b): A statistical description of the degree of satisfaction in the case of using a mobile phone keypad
(buttons), depending on the age groups.
Results confirmed the existence of statistically
significant differences between the responses of
the three age groups, where it confirmed that the
test Kruskal Wales values and a significant, which
came at 0.05 and Mann Whitney test between
every two categories separately show that,
These differences between the Minor age category
responses (from 18 years to 28 years) with biggest
age category responses (greater than 40 years) and
the middle category (from 28 years to 40), have the
results of the major averages stressed that these
differences in favor of Minor age category
responses (from 18 years to 28 years) - see table
(4a) and (4b).
Q. (3, 4, 5, 7, 8)
Table (5) the extent of the differences by gender (male-female) about some of the advantages and
disadvantages of using mobile phones based on the touch panel (screen), as questions from 3 to 5 in addition to
questions 7 and 8.
Results confirmed in a table (5) the existence of
statistically significant differences between the
responses of males and females on the Question
No. 4 "Evaluation of speed during use mobile
phone based on the touch panel." Where it
emphasized the value of the Mann Whitney test,

1694
International Design Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp
1
683
-
1
696
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
which came significant at the 0.05 level has
confirmed the value of the main averages that these
differences in favor of females responses. It
stressed that description also statistical table. As
for the rest of the questions (3, 5, 7, 8), the results
confirmed that there is no statistically significant
differences between the responses of both males
and females.
Table (6a) the extent of the differences depending on the age group about some of the advantages and
disadvantages of using mobile phones based on the touch panel (screen).
(1) Refers to the main averages (mean ranks) for the results of the values for Kruskal–Wallis
test.
(2) Refers to Mann-Whitney test values.
(2)* Refers to the significant Mann Whitney test at the 0.05 level of significance.
(2)** Refers to the significant Mann Whitney test at the 0.01 level of significance.
Table (6b): A statistical description depending on the age group about some of the advantages and
disadvantages of using mobile phones based on the touch panel (screen).
Previous results outlined in Tables 6a, 6b,
confirmed the existence of significant differences
of the responses of the three age categories on all
the advantages and disadvantages where the results
were as follows:
1- Q3: Assessment of the ease of use for the
mobile phone based on the touch panel
(screen):
Results Came the differences between the
Minor age group (less than 28 years) with a
sample of Greater age group responses (the
largest of 40 years), and averages the main
stressed that these differences in favor of the
Minor age group responses, as in Table (6a)
and stressed that too Description Statistical. As
in table (6b).
2- Q4: Assessment of the speed of usage during
use a mobile phone based on the touch panel

A Study on how interaction design impinge on Controls type
1695
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(screen): Where it came differences between the
big age group (the largest of 40 years), with the
responses of both groups has been the major
averages values confirmed that these
differences in favor of responses each a
Category, Minor age group (less than 28 years)
and the middle category (from 28 years to 40
years) - as in Table (6a) and stressed that results
the Statistical Description also in Table (6b).
3- Q5: Assessment of the interaction during use
a mobile phone based on the touch panel
(screen).
Where it came differences between the Minor
age group (less than 28 years), with responses
research sample of the bigger age group (the
largest of 40 years) has been the major
averages values confirmed that these
differences in favor of responses the Minor
age group (less than 28 years) -as in Table
(6a) and stressed that results the Statistical
Description also in Table (6b).
4- Q7: Assessment of the possibility of error
during use (such as re-writing, re-selection,
touch the icons are not required...).
Where it came differences between the bigger
age group (the largest of 40 years), with the
responses of both groups has been the major
averages values confirmed that these
differences in favor of responses the bigger
age group (the largest of 40 years)- as in
Table (6a) and stressed that results the
Statistical Description also in Table (6b).
5- Q8: Assessment of speed of search files for
an order.
Where it came differences between the bigger
age group (the largest of 40 years), with the
responses of the middle category (from 28
years to 40 years) has been the major averages
values confirmed that these differences in
favor of responses the middle category (from
28 years to 40 years) - as in Table (6a) and
stressed that results the Statistical Description
also in Table (6b).
Table (7) the extent of the differences by gender (male-female) about assessment of the use of non-conventional
means of control (eye movement, movement of the hand in the air (without touching the screen) during use
mobile phone with touch screen.
Results shown in the previous table on the
existence of differences between the responses of
both male and female, where it stressed the
value Mann-Whitney test, which came significant
at the 0.05 level has confirmed the statistical
description, that these differences were in favor of
female responses, as emphasized in the main and
private averages the results of the Mann-Whitney
test values.
Table (8a): The extent of difference depending on the age groups about the level of satisfaction of the use of
non-conventional means of control (eye movement, movement of the hand in the air (without touching the
screen) during use mobile phone with touch screen.
(1) Refers to the main averages (mean ranks) for the results of the values for Kruskal–Wallis test.
(2) Refers to Mann-Whitney test values.
(2)* Refers to the significant Mann Whitney test at the 0.05 level of significance.
(2)** Refers to the significant Mann Whitney test at the 0.01 level of significance.

1696
International Design Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp
1
683
-
1
696
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Table (8b): A statistical description of the degree of satisfaction of the use of non-conventional means of control
(eye movement, movement of the hand in the air (without touching the screen) during use mobile phone with
touch screen. depending on the age groups.
Results confirmed the presence of statistically
significant differences between the responses of
the three age groups where stressed the value of
the Kruskal-Wallis test, which came at a
significant level of .01 and test Mann Whitney
show that there are significant differences between
the responses of the research sample of the three
age groups has resulted in differences between the
three categories, the attention of younger age group
(less than 28 years) using the means of control
unconventional, followed by the middle category
(from 28 to 40 years) came big age group
responses (over 40 years) in the latter arrangement
was confirmed by the value of the major averages -
Table 8 (a), as well as Description Statistical table
8 (b).
Discussion:
From previous results, we find that there are
responses in the user's acceptance of the use of
mobile phone based on the touch screen, where the
average was 4.4 in females and 4.03 in males vs.
female’s average at 1.97 and 2.45 in males in the
acceptance of the use of mobile phone-based
button. This percentage as it came soon in a rating
based on the age group, but for the benefit of least
28 years category (category Minor) and was also
attributed to accept the advantages of mobile
phone based on the touch screen ease of use, and
speed performance, and the extent of interaction
during use and how fast the transition between files
on face following the order of (4.27, 4.32 , 4.24
and 3.98) in females and averages (4.0 , 4.03 , 3.92
and 3.95) in men and this refers to the degree of
acceptance largely dealing with devices that rely
on interactive design, which makes it easier to
processes to use and gives the user a sense of
positive.
The results also find that the average over the
acceptance of the use of unconventional means the
ratio of 3.18 in females and 2.66 in males while the
group's younger an age the most accepting of it
was 3.55 average vs. 2.69 average for the category
an age and 2.14 biggest category an age and this
indicates that interaction devices appropriate to the
nature of the user younger.
Reference
1- Dan Saffer (2010), Designing For
Interaction: Creating Innovative
Applications And Devices, Second Edition,
New Riders
2- James Pannafino (2012), Interdisciplinary
Interaction Design, Assiduous Publishing
3- Richard Caddick (2011) ,Communicating
The User Experience: A Practical Guide For
Creating Useful Ux Documentation ,Wiley
4- Brando Jones (2010), Designing Effective
Entry Points In Web Design,
Http://Webdesign.Tutsplus.Com/Articles/De
sign-Theory/Deigning-Effective-Entry-
Points-In-Web-Design/
5- Donald A. Norman (2003), Attractive Things
Work Better, Emotional Design,
6- Tony Manninen (2004), Rich Interaction
Model For Game And Virtual Environment
Design, Oulun Yliopisto, Oulu
7- Dan Saffer (2009), Designing Gestural
Interfaces, O Reilly Media, Canada
8- Interaction Design Foundation,
Https://Www.Interaction-Design.Org/
9- Alan Cooper, Robert Reimann, And David
Cronin, (2007) The Essentials Of Interaction
Design, Wiley Publishing Inc, Usa
10- Donald A. Norman (2002), The Design Of
Everyday Things, Usa