Hindawi

Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Volume 2017, Article ID 6787504, 22 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6787504

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, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand

Correspondence should be addressed to Lumpapun Punchoojit; [email protected]

Received 5 August 2017; Revised 5 October 2017; Accepted 19 October 2017; Published 9 November 2017

Academic Editor: Thomas Mandl

Copyright © 2017 Lumpapun Punchoojit and Nuttanont Hongwarittorrn. This 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 2007, touchscreens have completely changed
mobile user interface and interaction design. Some notable differences between mobile devices and desktops include the lack of
tactile feedback, ubiquity, limited screen size, small virtual keys, and high demand of visual attention. These differences have caused
unprecedented challenges to users. Most of the mobile user interface designs are based on desktop paradigm, but the desktop designs
do not fully fit the mobile context. Although mobile devices are becoming an indispensable part of daily lives, true standards for
mobile UI design patterns do not exist. This article provides a systematic literature review of the existing studies on mobile UI
design patterns. The first objective is to give an overview of recent studies on the mobile designs. The second objective is to provide
an analysis on what topics or areas have insufficient information and what factors are concentrated upon. This article will benefit
the HCI community in seeing an overview of present works, to shape the future research directions.

1. Introduction feedback under small-sized screen and a limited number of

buttons became an area of focus in the HCI community [4]. In
The emergence of computers into workplaces and home 2007, many companies, such as LG, Apple, and HTC, released
during the 1970s has brought attention to the interaction new models of mobile devices. The new models were no
between people and computer systems; and, thus, the field
longer equipped with keypads; instead, they were replaced by
of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) began to emerge
touchscreens. This caused a major shift on research attention
during the same period [1]. HCI encompasses extensive areas
ever since [5, 6].
and designing effective user interface (UI) is one of the
There are more than billion smartphone users world-
areas that has always been emphasized, as effective interfaces
wide which include a large proportion of nongeneric
provide potential to improve overall system performance [2].
It is a great challenge to design an effective UI, as it requires users—children, the elderly, and users with disorders or
understanding of different disciplines; for example, user’s disabilities. Although mobile platforms are becoming an
physical and cognitive capabilities, sociological contexts, indispensable part of daily lives, true standards for mobile UI
computer science and engineering, graphic design, and work design patterns do not exist. Seemingly, most of the designs
domain [2, 3]. An effective user interface would be created are based on the desktop paradigm [7]. The desktop paradigm
based upon perspectives from the disciplines. may be applicable, but there are notable differences between
HCI consistently evolves in response to technological mobile devices and desktops, including the lack of tactile
changes. At the first stage, HCI focused on how to facilitate feedback, limited screen size, and high demands of visual
convenient means for a single user to use a computer on a attention. Apart from differences in physical qualities, con-
fixed platform, such as desktop computers. At the second texts of use between desktop computers and mobile devices
stage, HCI was no longer confined to stationary computers. are different. Desktop computers are stationary, whereas
Mobile innovation started in the late 1990s. Many actions and mobile devices can be used anywhere or even while users are
2 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

walking, carrying objects, or driving. Thus, desktop designs thinks, and physically and mentally reacts to before and
do not fully fit mobile context. during the use of a product or service” [14]. Basically, an
There is a need to see an overview of usability studies on important concept in UX is the process by which users form
mobile UI design, to ascertain the current state of knowledge experiences since they first encounter the product and as
and research and to comprehend research gaps. This article the product is used throughout a period [15]. UX can be
provides systematic review of the existing studies on mobile explained by three characteristics. The first one is the holistic
UI design patterns. The first objective is to give an overview nature of UX. What is meant by holistic nature is that UX
of recent studies on mobile designs. The second objective is encompasses a broad range of qualities and includes not
to provide analyses on what topics or areas have insufficient only the visual, tactile, auditory aspects of the system but
information and what factors are concentrated upon. This also how the system functions under an appropriate usage
article will benefit the HCI community in seeing an overview environment or context [4]. The second characteristic is
of present works and knowledge gaps, to shape the future that UX focus is heavily tilted towards user’s perspective.
research directions. UX is often misunderstood for UI (user interface), as their
abbreviations are similar. UI tends to tilt towards computer
2. Theoretical Backgrounds side, and UI evaluations are often subjected to quantitative
measurement or usability testing. UX, in contrast, concerns
2.1. Usability. Usability is a core terminology in HCI. It has how users think, feel, and behave [4]. The third characteristic
been defined as “the extent to which a product can be used is that UX has strategic value in firm’s development of a
by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, product or service. UX has recently become an important
efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use” [8]. topic worth consideration by top executives [4].
The term usability was coined in the early 1980s to replace The goal of designing for UX is to encourage positive feel-
“user-friendly,” which was vague and contained subjective ings (e.g., satisfying, enjoyable, exciting, motivating, and fun)
connotation [9]. Usability is crucial to any products because if and minimizing negative feelings (e.g., boring, frustrating,
the users cannot achieve their goals effectively, efficiently, and annoying, and cutesy) towards the product. Unlike usability
in satisfactory manner, they can seek for alternative solutions goals, UX goals are subjective qualities and concerned with
to achieve their goals [10]. A usable product seeks to achieve how a product feels to a user. There were attempts to utilize
three main outcomes: (1) the product is easy for users to quantitative measurements to measure user’s emotion. The
become familiar with and competent in using it during the measurements were adopted from medical applications, such
first contact, (2) the product is easy for users to achieve their as measuring pulse and blood pressure, or using facial elec-
objective through using it, and (3) the product is easy for users tromyography (EMG) and electroencephalography (EEG) to
to recall the user interface and how to use it on later visits [11]. reflect computer frustration [13]. However, its validity in
Usability criteria ensure that the products meet the three measuring user experience remains questionable. Although
outcomes. There are several usability criteria mentioned in usability and UX are different, they are not completely
literature, for instance, effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, separated. In fact, usability is part of user experience. For
safety (error tolerance), utility, learnability (easy to learn), example, a product that is visually pleasing might evoke
memorability, and engaging [11, 12]. The objective of usability positive first-contact experience; however, if its usability
criteria is to enable the assessment of product usability in was inadequate, it could damage overall user experience.
terms of how the product can improve user’s performance Apart from usability, other core components of UX include
[12]. Some of the usability criteria are very much task- useful and desirable content, accessibility, credibility, visually
centered, where specific tasks are separated out, quantified, pleasing, and enjoyment [15].
and measured in usability testing [13]. For example, efficiency
which refers to how fast the user can get their job done [10] 2.3. User Diversity. One of the most important design
can be measured by time to complete a task or learnability philosophies in HCI is the universal design. It is the process of
can be measured by time to learn a task [12]. These criteria creating products that can be accessed by as many people as
can provide quantitative indicators of how productivity has possible, with the widest possible range of abilities, operating
improved [12]. Some of the usability criteria can hardly within the widest possible range of situations [16]. To make
be measured by using quantitative measurement, such as products that can be used by everyone is impossible; however,
satisfaction and engagement, as they are subjective and designers can try to exclude as few people as possible,
basically involve human emotion. There are several factors by ensuring that the products are flexible and adaptable
which contribute to overall satisfaction, and the factors may to individual needs and preferences [17]. To accomplish
include entertaining, helpfulness, aesthetically pleasing, and universal design goals, the understanding of user diversity is
rewarding, or there are some negative qualities such as needed. There are several dimensions of user diversity that
boring, frustrating, and annoying [12]. When it comes to differentiate groups of users.
evaluation whether users have pleasant or terrible experience, The first dimension is disabilities. Much of experimental
it is difficult to objectively measure. This is where user research has been conducted to understand how disabilities
experience has become another core terminology in HCI. affect interaction with technology. The main efforts of stud-
ies were to study the users themselves, their requirements
2.2. User Experience. User experience (UX) has been defined for interaction, appropriate modalities, interactive devices,
as “the combined experience of what a user feels, perceives, and techniques to address their needs [18]. The research
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 3

includes visual impairments, auditory impairments, motor regard 55 years as the beginning of old age. Nevertheless,
and physical impairments, and cognitive impairments [18]. there are enormous differences in abilities and problems
Visual impairments greatly affect human interaction with within elderly group; for example, people aged 55 and people
technology, as human relies on vision to operate computer aged 90 are extremely different [19]. Therefore, the age range
systems. Visual impairments encompass a wide range of is further divided into two or three groups: young-old (ages
vision problems related to acuity, accommodation (ability 55 to 75) and old-old (over 75) or young-old (ages 65 to 74),
to focus on objects at different distances from the eyes), old-old (ages 75 to 85), and oldest-old (over age 85) [19].
illumination adaption, perception of depth, and color vision Old age is associated with declines in vision, hearing, motor
[19]. Minor visual impairments can usually be addressed by function, and cognition [19]. Elderly people commonly have
magnifying the size of interactive elements, increasing color problems with vision acuity, depth of perception, color vision,
contrast, or selecting appropriate color combinations for hearing high frequency sounds, controlling coordination and
color-blinded users [18]. Unlike visual impairments, blind- movement, short- and long-term memory, and information
ness refers to a complete or nearly complete vision loss [20]. processing speed [19]. Children have unique characteristics.
Blind users benefit from audio and haptic modality for input They do not possess the same levels of physical and cognitive
and output. They are supported by screen readers, speech capabilities as the adults. They have limited motor abilities,
input and output, and Braille displays [18]. Auditory impair- spatial memory, attention, working memory, and language
ments (or hearing impairments) can also affect interaction abilities. Thus, the general characteristics of the elderly and
with technology. The impairments may vary in degree, from children need to be considered when developing products for
slight to severe. Majority of people with hearing impairments these two age groups.
have lost their hearing usually through aging. They have The third dimension is culture. Cultural differences
partially lost perception of frequency (cannot discriminate include date and time format, interpretation of symbols,
between pitches), intensity (need louder sounds), signal to color meaning, gestures, text direction, and language. Thus,
noise (distracted by background noise), and complexity (can designers must be sensitive to these differences during the
hardly perceive speech) [19]. Some people were prelingually development process and avoid treating all cultures the same
deaf, either were born deaf or had lost their hearing before [18].
they can speak [21]. Some strategies to address hearing The fourth dimension is computer expertise. Some
impairments are to provide subtitles or captions to auditory groups of users are unfamiliar with technology, for example,
contents or to provide sign-language translation of the con- older adults and those with minimal or no education. Some
tents [21]. Motor and physical impairments interfere with strategies to address differences in expertise level include
interaction with technology. Although causes and severity providing help options and explanations, consistent naming
of motor impairments vary, the common problems faced by convention to assist memory, and uncluttered user interface
individuals with motor impairments include poor muscle to assist attention [18].
control, arthritis, weakness and fatigue, difficulty in walking,
talking, and reaching objects, total or partial paralysis, lack 2.4. Mobile Computing. The first era of mobile devices dated
of sensitivity, lack of coordination of fine movement, and back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The models during
lack of limbs [18, 19]. The main strategy to address motor this era were precursor to present time’s laptops and were
impairments is to minimize movement and physical effort originally intended for children. The focus of this era was to
required for input, for instance, using text prediction, voice reduce the size of computer machine to support portability
input, switch control devices, and eye-tracking [18, 19]. [23]. Mobile phones introduced during this period were
Besides the aforesaid impairments, cognitive impairments still large and required enormous batteries [24]. Around
can also limit user’s interaction with technology. Cognitive ten years later, mobile devices reached the point where
impairments can be the result of brain injury, Alzheimer’s the sizes were small enough to be fit in a pocket. During
disease and dementia, dyslexia, Down’s syndrome, and stroke the same time, the network shifted to 2G technology and
[18, 19]. Cognitive disabilities limit user’s capacities to think, cellular sites became denser; thus, mobile connectivity was
to remember (either long-term or short-term), to sequence easier than before. This led to the increase in consumer
thoughts and actions, and to understand symbols [18, 19]. The demand for mobile phones. Increased demand meant more
strategies are to keep user interface simple, provide simple competition for service providers and device manufacturers,
methods for remembering, provide continuous feedback which eventually reduced costs to consumers [24]. In the
about position in the system, provide longer time to complete late 1990s, feature phones were introduced to the market.
task, and support user’s attention [19]. The phones were equipped with several “features,” such as
The second dimension is age. Age influences physical cameras, games, wallpapers, and customizable ringtones [24].
qualities and abilities, cognitive abilities, and how a person Smartphone era started around 2002. Smartphones have
perceives and processes information. The elderly and children the same capabilities as the feature phones; however, the
are the two major age groups that have age-dependent smartphones use the same operating system, have larger
requirements [18]. There are several definitions of children. screen size, and have a QWERTY keyboard or stylus for input
Some studies include adolescence (13–18 years) into child- and Wi-Fi for connectivity [24]. The most recent era starts in
hood, whereas some studies focus only on children under 2007 when Apple launched the iPhone [23, 24]. It was like
the age of 12 [18, 22]. Like the children group, there is no smartphones; however, it presented a novel design of mobile
consensus on the cut-off point of old age. Most researchers interactions. It introduced multitouch display with simple
4 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

touch gesture (e.g., pinching, swiping), and physical keyboard schemes that allowed users to work at focused and contextual
was completely removed from the phone. The iPhone was also views of dataset. The four schemes were overview + details,
equipped with context-awareness capabilities, which allowed zooming, focus + context, and cue-based techniques. Critical
the phone to detect orientation of the phone, or even the features of the four approaches and empirical evidence of
location of the users. It took a couple of years later for the their success were provided.
competitors to match up with the Android operating system, Some previous reviews focused on mobile use in some
mobile devices, and associated application store [23]. user groups. For instance, Zhou et al. [33] made a survey
The challenges of mobile interaction and interface design on the use and design of mobile devices for older users,
have evolved over time. Early mobile interaction design focusing particularly on whether and why older users accept
involved physical design, reducing physical size while opti- mobile devices and how to design the elderly-friendly mobile
mizing limited screen display and physical numeric keypads devices. Their article provided a summary on technology
[23]. Later, the challenges evolved to the development add-on acceptance of the elderly users, input devices, menus and
features, for example, digital cameras and media player. How- functions, and output devices.
ever, today challenges may have moved to a completely new Some more reviews concerned the impact of mobile
dimension. Physical shape and basic size of mobile phones use. Moulder et al. [34] reviewed the evidence concerning
have remained unchanged for many years. The challenges whether radiofrequency emitted from mobile phones were a
may have shifted to the development of software application cause of cancer. The article provided summary from relevant
or designing mobile interaction [23]. medical research. Nevertheless, the evidence for a causal
association between cancer and radiofrequency was weak and
unconvincing.
3. Previous Reviews
There have been several previous reviews of mobile user 4. Research Questions
interface; however, they did not focus on user interface
design patterns. Instead, the focus was primarily on certain This article surveys literature on usability studies on mobile
application domain of mobile devices. For instance, Coppola user interface design patterns and seeks to answer the
and Morisio [25] focused on in-car mobile use. Their article following two research questions:
provided an overview of the possibilities offered by connected
RQ1: in each area, what factors were concentrated?
functions on cars, technological issues, and problems of
recent technologies. They also provided a list of currently RQ2: what areas of mobile user interface design
available hardware and software solutions, as well as the main patterns had insufficient information?
features. Pereira and Rodrigues [26] made a survey on mobile
learning applications and technologies. The article provided 5. Literature Search Strategy
an analysis of mobile learning projects, as well as the findings
of the analysis. Becker [27] surveyed the best practices of Four phases were used to systematically survey literature: (1)
mobile website design for library. Monroe et al. [28] made listing related disciplines, (2) scoping databases, (3) specify-
a survey on the use of mobile phones for physical activities ing timeframe, and (4) specifying target design elements.
(e.g., exercising, walking, and running) and approaches for
encouraging and assessing physical activities using mobile 5.1. Listing Related Disciplines. The first phase was to list
phones. Donner [29] reviewed mobile use in the developing out HCI related disciplines, to cover user interface research
world. His article presented major concentrations of the from all related disciplines. Based on [3, 35], the related
research, the impacts of mobile use, and interrelationships disciplines are as follows: computer science and engineering,
between mobile technology and users. Moreover, the article ergonomics, business, psychology, social science, education,
also provided economic perspective on mobile use in the and graphic design.
developing world.
Some review articles concentrated on technical approach 5.2. Scoping Databases. The articles for review were retrieved
of mobile devices and user interface. For instance, Hoseini- from 24 online databases, based upon access provided by
Tabatabaei et al. [30] surveyed smartphone-based systems authors’ affiliation. The databases covered all disciplines
for opportunistic (nonintrusive) user context recognition. mentioned in Section 5.1, and they were listed in Table 1.
Their article provided introduction to typical architecture
of mobile-centric user context recognition, the main tech- 5.3. Specifying Timeframe. The current article was confined
niques of context recognition, lesson learned from previous to the papers published from 2007 to 2016. As stated, many
approaches, and challenges for future research. Akiki et companies released new touchscreen mobile devices in 2007,
al. [31] provided a review on adaptive model-driven user which was a turning point of research attention [5, 6].
interface development systems. The article addressed the
strengths and shortcomings of architectures, techniques, and 5.4. Specifying Target Design Elements. The categories of
tools of the state of the art. Summary of the evaluation, major design patterns defined in the book Designing Mobile
existing research gaps, and promising improvements were Interfaces, by Hoober and Berkman [7], were used to scope
also stated. Cockburn et al. [32] provided a review of interface literature search. The categories were listed in Table 2.
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 5

Table 1: Database list. papers. In each category, the papers which shared the com-
Number Database name
mon ground were grouped together, to posit research theme
in each design pattern.
(1) ABI/Inform
(2) Academic Search complete
(3) ACM 6. Research Overview
(4) Annual Reviews This section provided an overview of prior research and stud-
(5) Business Monitor ies on each category of mobile UI design pattern conducted
(6) Business Source Complete since 2007.
(7) Cambridge Journal Online
(8) Computer & Applied Science Complete 6.1. Page Composition. Page composition is a very broad term
(9) CRCnetBase for interface design. A composition of a page encompasses
various components, including scrolling, annunciator row,
(10) Credo Reference
notification, title, menu patterns, lock screen, interstitial
(11) Education Research Complete
screen, and advertising [7]. Only menu was discussed in
(12) Emerald Management this section. The other elements that were overlapped with
(13) EBSCOhost other topics would be discussed later (i.e., scrolling) or
(14) ERIC out of the scope of this current article (i.e., annunciator
(15) GALE row, notification, title, lock screen, interstitial screen, and
(16) H. W. Wilson advertising).
(17) IEEE Menu method is a popular alternative to traditional form
(18) Ingenta of retrieving information [36]. It plays a significant role
(19) JSTOR in overall satisfaction of mobile phones [37]. The primary
(20) PsycINFO function of menus is to allow users to access desired functions
(21) SAGE
of applications or devices. Early research on menus was
carried out on many topics. The research primarily examined
(22) ScienceDirect
effectiveness of menu patterns and relevant components on
(23) SpringerLink
desktop platform. The research included 2D and 3D menus,
(24) Taylor & Francis menu structures (depth versus breadth), menu adaptation,
Note. Items are ordered alphabetically. item ordering (categorically and alphabetically), item cate-
gorization, task complexity, menu patterns (hierarchical and
fisheye), help fields, methodological studies, and individual
There were altogether 10 categories of mobile UI design differences [36].
patterns. Some of them contained subelements; for instance, The first few studies of menus on mobile devices are due
in input mode and selection, the subelements of this category to small screen of devices. The guidelines or principles that
were gesture, keyboard, input area, and form. are generally applied from menus on personal computers
should be reexamined. Early studies on desktops show that
5.5. Inclusion Criteria. For each category of the design pat- 3D menus can convey more information than 2D menus. In
terns, the papers which contained any of these keywords: mobile context, superiority of 3D menus can be inconclusive
mobile, user, and interface as well as the name of the category as the screen size is more limited. In Kim’s study [36], 2D
were retrieved; for instance, keywords used in retrieving menu (i.e., list menu) was compared with three types of 3D
papers about icons were “icon”; “mobile”; “user”; and “inter- menus (i.e., carousel, revolving stage, and collapsible cylin-
face”. The subelements in the categories were also included in drical trees) on mobile phone. The performance of menus
retrieval keywords. was measured by task completion time, satisfaction, fun, and
The abstracts of all retrieved papers were initially read perceived use of space. The results partially substantiated
through. The papers which contained the input keywords but previous studies. With respect to overall metrics, 3D menus
did not discuss or were not related to mobile user interface
outperformed 2D menus; however, the 2D menus surpassed
were omitted; for instance, papers related to networking were
3D in high breadth level [36]. In fact, there are more types of
often retrieved in “navigation” category, as they contained the
2D and 3D menus that have not been examined, and they can
keywords “link” and/or “navigation.” Once the related papers
be further studied.
were identified, their main contents were read through. The
number of primary search results and the remaining papers Besides menu components, prior research showed that
in each category were listed in Table 3. user factors had influences on menu usability. The top-
From Table 3, the input mode and selection category ics included user language abilities, spatial abilities, visual
had the highest remaining papers—27—followed by icons (14 characteristics, and user expertise [36]. The scope became
papers), information control (9 papers), buttons (7 papers), narrower and it examined primarily on age and cultural
page composition, display of information, and navigation (4 differences since 2007.
papers each). The control and confirmation, revealing more Prior research highlighted cultural influences on usabil-
information, and lateral access categories had no relevant ity. The research was mostly at superficial level (e.g., text,
6 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Table 2: Design patterns and subelements.

Number Design patterns Subelements

(1) Page composition Menu
(2) Display of information List, classify, order
(3) Control and confirmation Sign on, confirmation, time-out
(4) Revealing more information Pop-up, prompt, hierarchical list
(5) Lateral access Tab, pagination
(6) Navigation Link, navigation
(7) Button No subelements
(8) Icon No subelements
(9) Information control Zoom, search, filter
(10) Input mode and selection Gesture, keyboard, input area, form

Table 3: Primary search results and remaining papers in each category.

Number Design patterns Primary search results Remaining

(1) Page composition 116 4

(menu = 116)
(2) Display of information 286 4
(list = 215, classify = 41, order = 30)
220
(3) Control and confirmation (pop-up = 0, confirmation = 0, time-out 0
= 220)
524
(4) Revealing more information (pop-up = 6, prompt = 500, hierarchical 0
list = 2)
(5) Lateral access 15 0
(tab = 15, pagination = 0)
(6) Navigation 1287 4
(link = 516, navigation = 771)
(7) Button 167 7
(8) Icon 2436 14

(9) Information control 839 9

(zoom = 102, search = 552, filter = 185)
1157
(10) Input mode and selection (gesture = 886, keyboard = 239, input area 27
= 0, form = 32 )
Total 68

number, and date and time format), whereas that at implicit Apart from cultural differences, influence of age differ-
cognition level was rare. Moreover, they were mostly con- ences on menu usability was also studied. As people aged,
ducted in desktop environment [38]. Thus, applying the find- there are changes and decline in sensation and percep-
ings from desktop research to mobile environment remained tion, cognition, and movement control, for instance, decline
unsettled. Kim and Lee [38] examined correlation between in vision acuity, color discrimination, hearing, selective
cultural cognitive styles and item categorization scheme attention, working memory, and force controls [39]. These
on mobile phones. They found different user preferences changes influence computer use. Thus, user interface must be
towards categorization of menu items. Dutch users (repre- designed to support the unique needs of older users. A study
senting Westerners) preferred functionally grouped menus, found that aging had influences on menu navigation. Menu
for instance, setting ringtones and setting wallpaper, as they navigation is an important concern when designing a menu,
shared a common function—setting. In contrast to Dutch as an effective menu leads users to correct navigational path.
users, Korean users (representing Easterners) preferred the- Effective menu is related to several components, including the
matically grouped menu, for instance, setting wallpaper and structure of the menu, its depth and breadth, and naming and
display, as they shared a common theme—pictorial items. allocation of menu items. Menu navigation is also associated
Menus should be optimized to fit user’s cognitive styles and with individual factors: spatial ability, verbal memory, visual
preferences to enhance system usability [38]. abilities, psychomotor abilities, and self-efficacy, and these
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 7

individual factors are age-related [40]. Menu navigation not provide support for frequently selected items, and this
is more challenging on mobile devices, as the menus are type of menus became less efficient when the number of
implemented on limited screen space and users can partially items was large. Adaptable menus were more robust but
see the menus; thus, users need to rely on working memory required a significant amount of time to learn adaptation and
more than on desktops. Arning and Ziefle [40] studied to memorize which items to adapt. The adaptable menu with
the menu navigation on mobile environment with younger highlights on recently selected items helped users recognize
(average age = 23.8) and older users (average age = 56.4), all which items should be adapted. Performance of the adaptive
of whom were experienced computer users. The performance menus was similar to the adaptable one; however, constantly
of menu navigation was measured by task completion time, changing item locations made it difficult for users to develop
number of tasks completed, detour steps, and node revisited. stable mental representation of the system. In sum, the results
Prior to navigation tasks, preliminary tests were conducted showed that adaptable menu with highlights were in favour by
to measure user’s spatial ability, verbal memory, and self- most users, as the highlights could reduce memory load for
efficacy. The results of the preliminary tests indicated that adaptation [44].
spatial ability, verbal memory, and self-efficacy of younger
users were significantly higher than older users. The navi- 6.2. Display of Information. On desktops, users are constantly
gation tasks found differences on user’s performance. Task surrounded by ocean of information. Many information
completion time, number of tasks completed, detour steps, display patterns help users in filtering and processing rel-
and nodes revisited of older users were significantly greater evant visual information. Examples of information display
than those of younger users; in other words, younger users patterns include different types of lists, including vertical list,
outperformed older users on mobile menu navigation [40]. thumbnail list, fisheye list, carousel, grid, and film stripe [7].
However, further analysis found that the variable which had Effective patterns should reflect user’s mental models and the
the best predictive power for navigation performance was not way users organize and process information.
age but spatial ability; age was only a carrier variable that was Limited screen size has caused a design challenge to
related to many variables which changed over the lifespan. information display patterns and effectiveness of applying
Although all older users in their study were experienced desktop designs to mobile platform unsettled. Since 2007,
computer users, the study found that more than half of them research has been directed to reassessment of display pattern
were not able to build a mental model of how the system was usability, specifically on efficiency, error rate, and subjec-
constructed. Their study also found that both verbal memory tive satisfaction. In [45], the fisheye list was compared to
and spatial ability were related to strategies employed in menu the vertical list on satisfaction and learnability, which was
navigation. Users with high spatial ability navigated through measured in terms of task execution time in this study. The
information structure based on their spatial representation study was carried out with 12 participants, aged 10 to 39.
of menu structure, while users with high verbal memory The results showed that the vertical list was better than the
referred to memorization of function names in navigation fisheye menu in task execution time; thus, the vertical list was
[40]. superior to the fisheye list in terms of learnability. Despite
With many individual factors and diversity of users, one- being more efficient, the vertical list was less preferred as
size-fits-all system is impossible to achieve, and tailoring the fisheye menu was more visually appealing [45]. Another
product to fit all segments of users is very costly. An alterna- study compared a list-based to a grid-based interface on click-
tive solution is to allow users to adapt the interface (adaptable path error and task execution time. The two layouts were
interface) or to allow the interface to adapt itself (adaptive very common on mobile devices [46]. The prototypes in
interface). Both types of interfaces locate frequently used Finley’s study were mobilized versions of the existing website
items in a position that can be easily selected by the users; of a university. He ran the experiment with 20 participants,
thus, menu selection time can be reduced [41]. However, each who were experienced mobile phone users, and all of them
of them has its own weaknesses. On adaptive interface, no were students, staffs, or faculty members of the university.
special knowledge of users is required, as the interface can The results showed that grid-based interface was significantly
adapt itself; however, users can have difficulty in developing more efficient, and it was rated as more appealing and more
mental model of the system due to frequent change of item comfortable by the users [46].
location. On adaptable interface, users can autonomously Besides the layouts, there has been an argument that
manipulate location of items, but users need to learn how interaction concepts established on desktops work only with
to move items to intended position [42]. Prior studies on restrictions [47]. Due to limited screen size, list scrolling and
desktops show that adaptive interfaces have potential for item selection can be more demanding on mobile devices
reducing visual search time and cognitive load, and adaptive than on desktops. Breuninger et al. [47] compared seven
interfaces can be faster in comparison to traditional nonadap- different types of touch screen scrolling lists on three metrics:
tive interfaces [43]. Nevertheless, these two approaches have input speed, input error, and user subjective rating. The seven
been less studied on mobile devices. Park et al. [44] examined types of list included (1) scrollbar, (2) page-wise scrolling with
conventional adaptive and adaptable menus, adaptive and arrow buttons, (3) page-wise scrolling with direct manip-
adaptable menus with highlights on recently selected items, ulation, (4) direct manipulation of a continuous list with
and traditional menu. The study found that the traditional simulated physics, (5) direct manipulation of a continuous
menu had higher learnability as the menu items did not list without simulated physics, (6) direct manipulation of a
change their positions. However, the traditional menu did continuous list with simulated physics and an alphabetical
8 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

index bar, and (7) direct manipulation of a continuous list process would repeat until the users find the information
without simulated physics and with an alphabetical index bar. they need [49]. This method is more difficult on mobile
The results indicated that there were variations in efficiency of environment, as the navigation is constrained by small screen
different list scrolling mechanisms. The input speed and error size. It was found that search behavior on mobile device
rate of “page-wise scrolling with direct manipulation without was different from that on desktop. Most mobile users used
physics” were significantly higher than other interaction mobile devices for directed search, where the objective was to
types. Although the differences between other interaction find a predetermined topic of interest with minimum diver-
types were not significant, participants most preferred direct gence by unrelated links [49, 50]. Some alternative solutions
manipulation with simulated physics [47]. to tackle this issue were to show a thumbnail of the page [51].
To compensate difficulty of input precision, interaction However, the thumbnail approach may benefit only desktops.
with mobile devices was sometimes done through a stylus, Thumbnail is a scaled down version of the target page. Thus,
pressure sensing, or alternative interaction styles. Quinn and it contains exceeded unnecessary amount of information
Cockburn [48] proposed “Zoofing,” which was a list selection when displayed on mobile screen. An alternative method may
interface for touch or pen devices. The experiment asserted be needed for mobile devices. Setlur et al. [49] and Setlur
that the Zoofing technique outperformed conventional [50] proposed context-based icons “SemantiLynx” to support
scrolling interaction on selection time and input errors [48]. navigation on mobile devices. SemantiLynx automatically
generated icons that revealed information content of a web
6.3. Control and Confirmation. Physical and cognitive limits page, by semantically meaningful images and keywords. User
of human users often cause unwanted errors that can be trivial studies found that SemantiLynx yielded quicker response and
to drastic. On computer systems, control and confirmation improved search performance [49, 50].
dialogues are being used to prevent errors, typically user Another challenge to navigation on mobile devices is
errors. A confirmation dialogue is used when a decision to display large amount of information on a small screen.
point is reached and user must confirm an action or choose Large amount of information makes it more difficult for
between options. Control dialogue is used to prevent against users to navigate through pages and select information they
accidental user-selected destruction, for example, exit guard need. Early research on desktop employed gaze tracking
and cancel and delete protection [7]. Since 2007, there technique to utilize navigation; however, peripheral devices
has been no research regarding control and confirmation and software were required in this approach [52]. Cheng
dialogues on mobile devices. et al. [53] proposed a new method for gaze tracking which
utilized the front camera of mobile devices. The performance
6.4. Revealing More Information. Two common types for on the prototype was satisfactory; however, comparison to
revealing more information are to display in a full page and conventional navigation technique was still lacking.
revealing in a context. Revealing in a full page is generally part Another challenge for mobile interaction is the need for
of a process, where large amounts of content will be displayed. visual attention [54]. As stated, contexts of use of desk-
Revealing in context is generally used when information top computers and mobile devices are different. Desktop
should be revealed quickly and within a context. Some of computers are always stationary, whereas mobile device is
the patterns for revealing more information include pop- ubiquitous. Users can use mobile devices while doing some
up, window shade, hierarchical list, and returned results [7]. other activities, such as walking, carrying objects, or driving.
Since 2007, there has been no research regarding patterns in This brings about inconvenience when users cannot always
revealing more information on mobile devices. look at the screen. Aural interface or audio-based interface is
an alternative solution. Users can listen to the content in text-
6.5. Lateral Access. Lateral access components provide faster to-speech form and sometimes look at the screen. However,
access to categories of information. Two common patterns it is difficult to design aural interface for large information
for lateral access are tabs and pagination. There are several architecture. Backtracking to previous pages is even more
benefits of using lateral access, including limiting number demanding, as users are forced to listen to some part of the
of levels of information users must drill through, reducing page to recognize the content. Yang et al. [54] proposed topic-
constant returning to a main page, and reducing the use of and list-based interface to support backnavigation on aural
long list [7]. Since 2007, there has been no research regarding interface. In topic-based backnavigation, the navigation went
lateral access on mobile devices. back to visited topic, rather than visited pages. In list-based
backnavigation, the navigation went back to visited list of
6.6. Navigation (Links). A link is a common element available items, rather than visited pages. The study found that topic-
on all platforms. It supports navigation and provides access based and list-based backnavigation enabled faster access to
to additional content, generally by loading a new page or previous page and improved navigation experience.
jumping to another section within the current page [7]. Early
research was primarily conducted on desktop environment 6.7. Buttons. Button is one of the most common design
and mainly supports web surfing. elements across all platforms. It is typically used to initiate
Navigation on small screen of mobile devices can be actions (i.e., standalone button) or to select among alterna-
more challenging. Typical web navigation technique tends tives (i.e., radio button) [7]. Early research covered several
to support depth-first search. In other words, users select a topics, including button size and spacing, tactile and audio
link on a page, then a new page would be loaded; and the feedback, and designing for users with disabilities [55–58].
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 9

Since 2007, research direction has been strongly influ- button is another approach to tackle the challenge. Pakkanen
enced by touchscreen characteristics. Touchscreen enabled et al. [61] compared three designs for creating haptic button
more versatility in interface designing as a large proportion edges: simple, GUI transformation, and designed. The stimuli
of the device is no longer occupied by physical buttons; in the simple design were accompanied with single bursts,
however, this brings about a new design challenge—the lack and identical stimuli were utilized whether towards or away
of physical response and tactile feedback. Without physical from the buttons. GUI transformation stimuli were combined
responses, users have less confidence on the consequences with several bursts. When moving over the edge, the burst
of their actions which eventually compromise system usabil- raised from the minimum to maximum, and the burst
ity [59]. Studies indicated that tactile feedback improved decreased from maximum to minimum when moving away
efficiency, error rate satisfaction, and user experience [60]. from the edge. In designed stimuli, when moving off the
Nevertheless, not all types of the feedback are equally button, there was a single burst which simulated slipping off
effective. There are certain factors that contribute to tactile the buttons. The results indicated that simple and designed
feedback quality. The first factor is the realistic feel of physical stimuli were most promising. Furthermore, stimuli with fast,
touch. Park et al. [59] compared different styles of tactile clear, and sharp responses were good choice for the haptic
effects, to evaluate perceived realism of physical response button edge. Another complementation for the demand for
and user preference. The varied styles of tactile effects visual attention is to utilize physical buttons, such as a power-
included slow/fast, bumpy/smooth, soft/hard, weak/strong, up button [62]. Spelmezan et al. [62] showed a prototype
vague/distinct, light/heavy, and dull/clear responses. The that can use a power-up button to operate functions, such
results found that participants preferred the clear or smooth as clicking, selecting a combo box, and scrolling a scrollbar.
tactile clicks over dull ones for virtual buttons [59]. Besides Even though the preliminary experiment yielded promising
the realistic feel of physical touch, simultaneity of touch- results, the prototype required the installation of additional
feedback and the effects of latency is another factor that sensors: proximity sensor, and pressure sensor [62].
influences tactile feedback quality. In [58], latency was varied Besides the lack of tactile feedback and demand for visual
from 0 to 300 ms. for tactile, audio, and visual feedback attention, touching gesture can be hard for users with fine
modalities. The results showed that long latency worsened motor disabilities. Pressing a small size button requires high
perceived quality. The perceived quality was satisfactory precision in fine motor control, and different contact time
when latency was between 0 and 100 ms. for visual feedback on buttons may alter actions (e.g., touching and pressing).
and between 0 and 70 ms. for tactile and audio feedback. Sesto et al. [55] investigated the effect of button size, spacing,
When the latency condition was 300 ms., quality of the and fine motor disability on touch characteristics (i.e., exerted
buttons dropped significantly for all modalities of feedback force, impulses, and dwell time). The results showed that
[58]. Koskinen et al.’s study [60] considered user preference touch characteristics were affected by the button size, but
towards different tactile feedback modalities. They compared not spacing. The users with fine motor disability had greater
three conditions of virtual button feedback—(1) Tactile and impulses and dwell time when touching buttons than nondis-
audio, (2) tactile and vibration, and (3) nontactile—to find the abled users. The findings of this study can guide designers
most preferred style of feedback. The results suggest the using in designing an optimal size and touch characteristics to
nontactile feedback was least preferred by the users. It also enhance accessibility of virtual button [55].
yielded the lowest user performance which was measured
by time to complete tasks and error rate. Tactile and audio 6.8. Icons. An icon is a visual representation that provides
feedback was more pleasant and better in user performance users with access to a target destination or a function in a
than the tactile and vibration one; however, the differences cursorily manner [7]. Icons serve altogether three different
were not significant [60]. functions. Those functions are (1) an access to a function or
Another challenge is the high demand for visual atten- target destination, (2) an indicator of system statuses, and
tion. As stated, mobile devices are designed for ubiquity. (3) a changer of system behaviors [7]. The topics of early
Users may need to do some other activities simultaneously research extended to various areas, including the use of icons
while using the devices. Pressing virtual buttons can be more to convey application status; interpretation of icon meaning,
difficult, and incorrect operations can occur more frequently icon recognition, and comprehensibility of icons; appropriate
as users need to divide their attention to the environment. size of an icon; and influences of cultural and age differences
To compromise high error rate, studies on spatial design of on icon interpretation [63–65].
virtual buttons were carried out to explore the appropriate Since 2007, research has been directed to two major areas:
button size, spacing between buttons, and ordered mapping icon usability and influences of individual differences (age
of buttons [55–57]. Conradi et al.’s study [56] investigated and culture). Research on icon usability examined several
the optimal size (5 × 5 mm, 8 × 8 mm, 11 × 11 mm, and icon qualities and how they affected system usability. Usabil-
14 × 14 mm.) of virtual buttons for use while walking. The ity of an icon is usually determined by findability, recognition,
results found significant differences on errors and time on interpretation, and attractiveness [66]. On mobile devices,
task between the smallest size (5 × 5 mm) and all other button the usability measurement criteria can be different. Touch
sizes. Walking also had a significant influence on errors for all screen allows direct manipulation using a finger. Interactive
button sizes. The influence was magnified with smaller but- elements became smaller on a mobile touchscreen; thus, the
tons. The findings of this study suggested that larger buttons finger occlusion often occurs. Touchable area is one of the
were recommended for the use while walking [56]. Haptic mobile usability components that dictates an activation area
10 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

of an interactive element. Im et al. [67] studied the suitable cultural effects on icon interpretation as well. The results
touchable area to improve touch accuracy for an icon. The showed that icon interpretability greatly depended on icon
study looked into the icon width-to-height ratio (0.5, 0.7, complexity and concreteness. The results of Chanwimalueng
and 0.9) and the grid size (3 × 4, 4 × 5, 5 × 6, and 6 × 8). and Rapeepisarn [77] and Pappachan and Ziefle [71] imply
User performance was determined by input offset, hit rate, that culture may have only small effect, and icon interpreta-
task completion time, and preference. The study found that tion should be regarded as cultural-unspecific. Abstractness
3 × 4 and 4 × 5 grid sizes and the icon ratio of 0.9 had causes larger effect and deteriorates icon usability.
better performance than the others [67]. In addition to touch Similar to the studies on cultural differences, the pri-
accuracy, shape and figure-background ratio of icons had mary concern of the studies on age differences focused on
the effect findability. In a vast array of icons, visual search icons interpretation. Since 2007, several studies have been
time must be minimized to assure system usability and user conducted, and their results were consistent. Gatsou et al.
satisfaction. Luo and Zhou [68] investigated the effects of [65] carried out a study to find any differences in recognition
icon-background shape and the figure-background ratio on rate among age groups. The participants underwent the
findability. Seven background shapes in Luo and Zhou’s study recognition test on sample icons that were selected from
[68] included (1) isosceles triangle, (2) isosceles trapezoid, (3) different mobile device brands. Although the participant’s
regular pentagon, (4) regular hexagon, (5) rounded square, recognition rate varied among icons, the recognition rate
(6) square, and (7) circle. Five figure-background ratios were dropped as age increased. Kim and Cho [76] conducted an
90%, 70%, 50%, 30%, and 10%. The results showed that evaluation study to evaluate multiple cognitive abilities of
unified background yielded better findability. The optimal different age groups, including button comprehension, icon
ratio was, however, related to a screen size; the smaller the interpretation, vocabulary comprehension, menu compre-
screen, the higher the figure-background ratio [68]. hension, perceived icon size, and perceived text size. The
Being aesthetic is another criterion of icon usability, and study found that performance time and error rate increased
color contributes to aesthetic quality of an icon. However, as age increased. Koutsourelakis and Chorianopoulos [75]
preference towards colors and color combinations can be also studied whether typical mobile phone icons could be
difficult to measure objectively. Huang [69] explored the interpreted by senior users. Younger and older participants
degree of agreement of subjective aesthetic preferences for underwent the icon recognition test. There were significant
different icon-background color combinations. In total, 3306 differences in icon recognition and interpretation perfor-
color combinations were rated. The results showed that mance of younger and older users. The results of Gatsou
30 color combinations consistently had high preference et al. [65], Kim and Cho [76], and Koutsourelakis and
scores. The rating was consistent between male and female Chorianopoulos [75] suggested that the older participants
participants; specifically, there was no significant effect of had more problems using mobile icons. More studies looked
gender differences. Thus, it was suggested to use certain into what factors contribute to icon usability for senior users.
color combinations to create appealing aesthetics. Besides Leung et al. [64] found that the factors included semantically
aesthetic values, colors are also used to convey messages [69]. close meaning (i.e., natural link between icon picture and
Ju et al. [70] conducted a study to find out whether there associated function), familiarity with icons, labelling, and
was a relationship between the change of icon colors and concreteness [64]. Ghayas et al. [72] also found that visual
the implicit message behind the changes. The study found complexity affected icon usability for senior users. Apart
that participants could perceive the relationship between from icon interpretation, icon color is another important icon
application status and the change of colors [70]. characteristic that assists icon discrimination. Kuo and Wu
The second research direction on icons was to investi- [73] studied the discrimination of colors and no-saturation
gate the effects of individual differences on icon usability. icons and color combination between icons and interface
The focus was on cultural differences [63, 70, 71] and age background. The results showed that colored icons were
differences [64, 65, 72–76]. The studies on cultural differences more distinguishable than no-saturation icons for elder users.
primarily concerned icon interpretation and whether it was Some color combinations were more difficult for older users
affected by culture. The results, however, were not consistent. to differentiate, such as green and blue. Salman et al. [74]
Only some of the studies found cultural influences on icon proposed the participatory icon design that could reduce
interpretability, whereas some did not. Ghayas et al. [72] system complexity and increase usability. The results of
compared the user performances from two different cultures: participatory approach in icon design were successful.
Malaysian and Estonian. The results found that Malaysian The studies of Gatsou et al. [65], Leung et al. [64], Ghayas
users could interpret more concrete icons than abstract et al. [72], and Koutsourelakis and Chorianopoulos [75] show
icons, whereas Estonian users performed better with abstract the effect of age on icon usability. The older users have
icons [72]. Chanwimalueng and Rapeepisarn [77] compared problems in interpreting icons, probably because of techno-
performances of Easterners (Thai, Malaysian, and Indonesian logical inexperience. Icon characteristics—complexity, con-
users) and Westerners (Finnish and German users). In creteness, semantic closeness, and labelling—contributed to
contrast to Ghayas et al. [72], no cultural differences on icon usability. These should be regarded as age-unspecific.
icon recognition, interpretation, and preference were found
in Chanwimalueng and Rapeepisarn’s study [77]. Rather, 6.9. Information Control. Limited size of mobile devices
icon recognition was influenced by icon concreteness and constraints the amount of information to be displayed on
abstractness. Pappachan and Ziefle [71] investigated the the screen. Information control mechanisms such as zooming
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 11

and scaling, searching, and sorting and filtering have been fast mobile search. Li [81] proposed a gesture-based search
utilized to assist users in finding, accessing, and focusing on technique which enabled a fast access to mobile data such as
intended information while minimizing unrelated informa- contacts, applications, and music tracks by drawing gestures.
tion [7]. A longitudinal study showed that gesture search enabled a
Zooming and scaling provide the ability to change the quicker way for accessing mobile data, and users reacted
level of detail in dense information, such as charts, graphs, positively to the usefulness and usability of gesture search
or maps [7]. There are several techniques used in zooming, technique [81].
for instance, on-screen buttons, hardware buttons, interactive The previous paragraph discussed how limited screen size
scale, and on-screen gesture. Early studies on zooming constrained user text entry and how that affected the design
covered several areas, including screen size, readability, font of information search and retrieval. Apart from that, limited
size, selection precision, and designing for visual-impaired screen size also influences the amount of search results to be
and senior users [78, 79]. displayed at a time. Early web design guidelines suggested
Since 2007, research direction on zooming is influenced that the number of search results per page should be around
by the limited screen size. Zooming methods are determined 30–40 sites, as users usually do not look at the search results
by device manufacturers, and there was no evaluation carried that are not in top 30 [84]. The study was intended for desktop
out to examine their usability. Garcia-Lopez et al. [78] platform and carried out only with adult participants. Zhou
examined the most efficient, effective, and satisfying zooming et al. [85] conducted a study to investigate how many search
methods by comparing zooming techniques from 19 different results should be displayed on mobile device for older users.
devices. The study found no significant differences on effi- Older adults have decline in their selective attention [39];
ciency and effectiveness among zooming techniques. Never- thus, they may be able to grasp limited amount of information
theless, users preferred using links to zoom in and zoom out. at a time. The results showed that most of the participants in
Zooming on a touchscreen relies on gesture. Children the study preferred 30–40 search results per page, which was
at very young age have limited fine motor skills; thus, they consistent with the existing guideline.
can probably face difficulty in manipulating gestures. Hamza Sorting and filtering is another important information
[80] carried out research to examine children ability to control function used on mobile devices. Sorting and filtering
perform touch screen gestures. The results showed that young aids exploratory search by disclosing search options to nar-
children (aged 4 and 5) were able to do gestures; however, row relevant results [7]. Early studies on sorting and filtering
older children were more accurate in the interaction with focused on data organizational patterns. Sorting and filtering
the screen. Although children were able to interact with criteria are usually predefined and cannot be changed, and the
the screen, the size of the targets had significant effect on system generally allows users to apply only one criterion at a
accuracy [80]. time. However, in practice, multiple criteria could be applied
Searching is another information control function which in sorting and filtering. Panizzi and Marzo [86] proposed that
allows users to quickly access specific information within the users should be enabled to sort items by using multiple
a long list or huge data array [7]. Early studies on search criteria. However, no preliminary experiment was conducted
covered several topics, including load and query, full-text to evaluate the proposed framework, and the authors did
search, and voice input [81, 82]. Research direction on search not highlight how the proposed idea was related to mobile-
function since 2007 is also influenced by the limited screen specific context.
size. Search function normally requires user-supplied text to
query the results; however, the limited screen size constrains 6.10. Input Mode and Selection. Input and selection concern
text input convenience and precision [83]. Thus, searching the methods by which users communicate to computer
on mobile devices can be more demanding. An alternative devices. On desktops, user input is received from major
solution to tackle the challenge is by minimizing a demand peripheral devices, such as keyboards and mice, and output
for user-supplied text. Shin et al. [82] proposed a semantic is displayed through different channels. In contrast, a touch-
search prototype, to reduce the amount of full-text search. screen works as both input and output channels. This has
Semantic approach enables keyword-based search where brought about changes to input methods; for instance, mouse
users can search for intended information without enter- gestures are replaced by touch gestures, and physical keys
ing exact search terms. A preliminary experiment revealed are replaced by virtual miniature keys. This has made data
better user experience results using the proposed prototype inputting on mobile devices more challenging task.
compared with full-text search [82]. Church and Smyth [83] Prior to 2007, research objectives can be classified into
suggested that context information, such as time and location, two main areas. The first one was to study factors that
should be integrated to mobile search to help search engine affected input accuracy, for instance, visual distraction, user’s
in retrieving more relevant information. For instance, when sensorimotor coordination, blindness, and aging [87–91]. The
users in a shopping mall searched by the word “Apple”, second one was to improve input accuracy, for instance,
the users would be more likely to look for an Apple Store changing keyboard layouts and increasing input feedback
than the nearest apple farm. In this approach, users would [92, 93]. Since 2007, research objectives are becoming more
be less likely to experience a long list of irrelevant search diverse. The objectives can be classified into seven areas:
results. However, no preliminary experiment was conducted effects of finger and thumb on input accuracy, user factors,
to compare the context-based search with the conventional novice users, external factors, eye-free interaction, large form
one. Gesture-based interaction is also utilized to enable input techniques, and alternative input methods.
12 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

A number of studies were carried out to examine how but the recommendation did not address specific differences
finger and thumb interaction affected input accuracy. When between desktop and mobile devices. Moreover, they were
entering text, users preferred to use their finger than a stylus based merely on observation [88]. This illustrates the need of
[94, 95]. As the size of the keys is too small, finger occlusion empirically based guidelines to assist designers in designing
often occurs. A small size of a key can also induce the lack accessible applications in mobile context.
of visual perception; in other words, a finger can block user’s More studies were carried out to assess usability of the
perception while they are pressing the key. This consequently existing input methods. Stößel [103] compared younger and
affects input accuracy. It has been suggested that the appro- older users on gestures with variation in familiarity (i.e.,
priate size for a key that guaranteed a greater hit rate was familiar versus unfamiliar gestures). In general performance,
9.2 mm, with 95% touchable area [96]. A touchable area is older users performed accurately as younger users; however,
an area around the key that could activate the respective the older users were significantly slower (1.3 times slower) and
key. An intended key might not be selected if the touchable less accurate with unfamiliar gesture [103]. This suggests con-
area is too small (e.g., 90%), but larger touchable area (e.g., sideration for choosing gesture and specifying gesture time-
99%) does not necessarily yield more precise selection as it out time for older users. Text entry is another challenging
could activate unintended neighboring keys. These numbers, task for elderly users. The lack of haptic feedback and small
however, were based on touch interaction tests with an key size make it harder for the elderly to accurately select
index finger [96]. On actual usage, some users prefer using targets [104]. Several input controls, such as autocompletion,
their thumb, while other users prefer using their finger. word prediction, drop-down list, and using locally stored
Compared to finger-based interaction, research found that data, are adopted from desktops to facilitate manual text
thumb-based interaction on virtual keyboards showed a 30% entry [7]. However, the input controls were not as efficient as
drop in throughput, as well as a significant drop in speed and on desktops. Rodrigues et al. [104] presented five keyboard
accuracy. Furthermore, thumb-based interaction had lower variants to support manual text entry. These variants were
stability in hand gripping [97]. Despite apparent drawbacks of different in color, width, size, and touch area of most probable
thumb-based interaction, users prefer using it [98]; perhaps letters or displaying predicted words. Although all variants
thumb-based interaction freed the other hand from the slightly improved input errors, there were variations in their
screen to attend to other events [99]. A few studies looked into efficiency. Color, width, and predicted word variants were
designs for thumb-based interaction and found that there more visually distracting, and they were slower than size and
were four factors that impacted accuracy of thumb-based touch area variants and QWERTY keyboard. This suggested
interaction: the size of the key, key location, thumb length, consideration for choosing appropriate keyboard variant and
and user age [100, 101]. Similar to index finger interaction, text-entry support for elderly users [104]. Input usability
input accuracy of thumb interaction increased as the size of assessment studies for children users were rarer. A study by
the key increases, and the key must be located within the Anthony et al. [89] investigated usability of visual feedback
areas that can be easily reached by a thumb, which were the for adult and children users. They found that participants of
bottom-left, the center, and the upper-right area [100]. Thumb both age groups seemed confused by the absence of feedback,
coverage area was also influenced by users’ thumb length but the results were magnified for children [89]. Anthony
and their age. Older users and users with longer thumbs et al.’s study [89] was one of a few studies that investigated
were likely to leave unreached space around the bottom- children users and input on mobile devices. Yet, many areas
right corner and the bottom edge of the screen [101]. This were left unexamined for children users, and it could be an
suggested consideration for positioning interactive elements opportunity for future research.
for generic and older users. The studies, however, did not Besides age differences, the research focus was on users
discuss handedness and thumb lengths of different ethnicity. with disorders or disabilities. The most popular topics were
Besides effects of finger and thumb, other aspects of user in users with blindness. The lack of tactile buttons obstructed
factors were examined. Major interest was on elderly users. blind users in locating interactive components and inputting
Usability assessment and accessibility issues have always commands. A common practice is to use audio augmentation
come after technology. Seemingly, there is a necessity of techniques, such as voice-over (a.k.a. screen reader) and
establishing design guidelines for elderly users, as it was speech recognition [90, 91]. However, audio augmentation
reported that elderly users faced difficulties in using mobile techniques can be interfered with by background noise [90],
phones as the phones were not properly designed for them and the performance of audio augmentation techniques is
[102]. To tackle difficulties, there were applications that also influenced by algorithm recognition accuracy. Recent
modified default interface into a more accessible and friendly studies have designed and developed a gesture-based set of
interface for elderly users. Diaz-Bossini and Moreno [87] commands [90] and tangible bendable gestures for blind
compared sample interface-modifying applications against users [91]. The studies highlighted that the gestures designed
accessibility guidelines, but they found that the applications for blind users should be logical and easy to learn and
did not meet requirements for accessibility. The study was, remember, as blind users rely much on their memories [91].
however, based on accessibility guidelines for websites (e.g., Other topics on user factors include users with upper extrem-
W3C, WDG) as there was a lack of guidelines for mobile ity disabilities [105], users with ALS [106], and users with
context [87]. A set of design recommendations for elderly Down’s syndrome [107]. This group of users face difficulties
users was presented by De Barros et al. [88]. The recommen- in precisely controlling their hands; thus, designers should
dations covered navigation, interaction, and visual design, consider selecting simple gestures (e.g., tapping) and flexible
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 13

error handling and avoiding gestures that involve a great and modal dialogue), and two menu designs (i.e., device
degree of hand-eye coordination (e.g., dragging and rotating). menu and context menu). The results indicated that the
A few studies looked into novice users. Mobile input scrolling, modal dialogue, and the device menu were more
methods could spell trouble for inexperienced users. Stan- efficient [113]. El Batran and Dunlop [114] compared two
dard QWERTY keyboard bombarded users with many keys, form navigation methods: tabbing and pan and zoom. The
and touch gestures had no standards or guidelines to show results showed that the pan and zoom technique was more
the users what they could do or how they could interact efficient. Nevertheless, there are more styles of input forms
with the systems [92, 93]. Geary [93] proposed alternative and navigation techniques that can be subjected to usability
keyboard layouts to assist novice users. The more frequently assessment.
used characters, based on MacKenzie and Soukoreff [108] and Alternative input methods were another research interest.
NetLingo.com [109], were arranged closer to the center of The main objective of the studies in this category was
the keyboard, as it was the area that can be easily reached to propose novel techniques to improve input accuracy.
when users used one or two thumbs to type. However, As the key size was very small, finger occlusion usually
the results of the experiments in Geary’s study indicated occurred. One solution to compensate finger occlusion was
no significant improvement from standard QWERTY was the regional correction. Regional correction was a dictionary-
found. Lundgren and Hjulström [92] proposed visual hinting based predictive text-entry method that activated not only
for touch gestures. However, the idea of visual hinting was the intended key but also neighboring keys. This method
not empirically verified, and it was not tested whether visuals selected valid words available in a dictionary for automatic
were the best way to hint interaction [92]. input correction. A study found that the regional correction
Apart from user factors, external factors also influenced method reduced time and the number of touches required
input efficiency. Durrani [110] found that environmental to complete text entry, but only when the keys were small
condition, cognitive load, and communication load had (i.e., 18 pixels). No significant differences were found between
effects on input efficiency. using and not using the regional correction when the keys
Eye-free interaction was another research interest. were large (i.e., 26 and 34 pixels) [115]. Some novel techniques
Besides the absence of tangible buttons, environmental were also proposed to deal with input imprecision. Koarai and
contexts of use of mobile devices were also different. Desktop Komuro [116] proposed a system which used two cameras
computers were stationary, whereas mobile devices were in combination with a touch panel to track user input.
ubiquitous. When users used mobile devices, they may The preliminary experiment revealed a lower number of
simultaneously move or do other activities. This could turn errors when the proposed technique was used, comparing
input and selection into demanding tasks. While users to nonzoomed text entry. However, the proposed technique
needed to focus on mobile screen which required high required the installation of additional equipment [116]. Some
visual attention, they also needed to pay attention to their mobile gears, such as a smart watch, had a very compact-
environment at the same time [111]. Ng et al. [112] found that size screen; thus, entering text from such devices is even
input accuracy for tapping interaction dropped to 65% while more difficult. Oney et al. [79] proposed an interaction called
users were walking and to 53% while they were carrying zoom-board to enable text entry from ultrasmall devices. The
objects. Input accuracy for tapping was noted as the highest proposed technique used the iterative zooming to enlarge tiny
among other touch gestures. Eye-free interaction can be keyboard to comfortable size. The preliminary experiment
optimal solution to increase accuracy. Nevertheless, there showed promising input rate from zoom-board interaction
were no empirical studies that may lead to establishing design [79]. Some other novel techniques include lens gestures [117],
guidelines for eye-free interaction. Touch screen interface is multistroked gesture [118], ambiguous keyboard input [119,
also gaining popularity in in-car interactive systems. This can 120], effect of key size [115], and five-key text-entry technique
be a great design challenge. As stated, a touch screen highly [121]. Nevertheless, these novel techniques required empirical
demands visual attention; however, when using in-car touch evaluation, to validate their usability with collected evidence.
screen, the touch screen can minimally distract user (i.e.,
driver) from the main task which was driving. Otherwise,
7. Findings
it could lead into an accident. Louveton et al. [111] assessed
three different interface layouts and interaction: binary To recapitulate, this article seeks to answer two research
selection (e.g., yes/no), list selection, and slide bar. The questions:
results indicated that the binary selection was most efficient
and demanded the lowest eye fixation, whereas the slide bar RQ1: in each area, what factors were concentrated?
was least efficient and demanded the highest eye fixation RQ2: what areas of mobile user interface design
[111]. However, more usability studies are needed to identify patterns had insufficient information?
appropriate layouts and interaction for in-car interactive
systems. This section elaborates the findings from surveying the
A form input can be a design challenge, as it can be literature.
too complex to display or to navigate on a small screen. Table 4 shows the information about page composition
There were only few studies that compared different input research. The range of research on page composition since
forms. Balagtas-Fernandez et al. [113] assessed two layouts 2007 was narrower than before 2007. The concentration on
(i.e., scrolling list and tabs), two input methods (i.e., keyboard this area was whether limited screen size affected menu
14 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Table 4: Page composition research.

Factors of interest since

Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
2007
(i) Depth and breadth
(i) 2D and 3D menus
(ii) Item ordering
(ii) Depth and breadth
(iii) Item categorization
(iii) Menu adaptation
(iv) Task complexity
(iv) Item ordering (i) 2D and 3D menus
(v) Menu patterns
(v) Item categorization (ii) Age differences (spatial ability, (i) Whether limited screen
(vi) Help fields
(vi) Task complexity verbal memory, visual abilities, size affect menu usability
(vii) Methodological studies
(vii) Menu patterns psychomotor skills, self-efficacy) (ii) Efficiency
(viii) Language abilities
(viii) Help fields (iii) Cultural differences (iii) User preference
(ix) Spatial abilities
(ix) Methodological studies (Westerners versus Easterners) (iv) Satisfaction
(x) Visual characteristics
(x) Language abilities (iv) Menu adaptation
(xi) User expertise
(xi) Spatial abilities
(xii) User with unique need (e.g.,
(xii) Visual characteristics
children, disabled users, user with
(xiii) User expertise
impairments)

usability, efficiency, user preference, and satisfaction. There differences on icon interpretation, aesthetic qualities of icons,
were several topics that were unexamined by experimental and touchable areas of icons. The factors of interest include
studies. icon recognition and interpretation.
Table 5 shows the information about display of informa- Table 12 shows the information about information control
tion research. The range of research since 2007 was wider than research. The major concerns in this area were how small
before 2007. However, the topics were still very limited. The screen size of mobile devices affects zooming, searching, and
concerns in this area were if limited screen size affects list filtering. The factors of interest include efficiency, effective-
access, efficiency, selection errors, and satisfaction. Several ness, and precision.
topics were unexamined by experimental studies. Table 13 shows the information about input mode and
Table 6 shows the information about control and con- selection research. The range of research topics since 2007
firmation research. There has been no research on control was wider than before 2007. The factors of interest include
and confirmation. There were several topics that were unex- input accuracy, efficiency, errors, key size, touchable area,
amined by experimental studies. This demonstrates a huge location of interactive elements, and eye fixation.
research gap in this area.
Table 7 shows the information about revealing more 8. Discussion, Conclusions, and Limitations
information research. There has been no research on reveal-
ing more information. There were several topics that were Mobile platforms have called for attention from HCI commu-
unexamined by experimental studies. This demonstrates a nity. Although there are several studies investigating dimen-
huge research gap in this area. sions related to mobile user interface, a standard of mobile
Table 8 shows the information about lateral access user interface design patterns has not been established. This
research. There has been no research on lateral access. There current article provides an overview of the existing studies on
were several topics that were unexamined by experimental mobile UI design patterns and covers altogether 10 different
studies. This demonstrates a huge research gap in this area. categories.
Table 9 shows the information about navigation research.
The range of research topics since 2007 was wider than before 8.1. Discussion. The research on page composition (menu)
2007. However, the topics were still very limited. The major was quite narrow. Since 2007, the topics included usability
concerns in this area were whether content navigation was assessment of 2D and 3D menus, adaptive menus, influence
affected by screen size and how to tackle the demand for of cultures on item categorization scheme, and influence
visual attention in navigation, efficiency, selection errors, and of aging on menu navigation. The primary concern was
satisfaction. There were several topics that were unexamined whether the limited screen size affected menu usability. The
by experimental studies. factors of interest included menu efficiency, user preference,
Table 10 shows the information about button research. and satisfaction, as it is important for users to promptly
The topics of research since 2007 were greater than before select the target menu item and complete intended tasks
2007. The concerns in this area were to simulate realistic in timely manner. This positively affects users’ preference
feeling of physical buttons on touchscreen. The factors of and satisfaction towards the system. In menu navigation
interest include user preference, experience, accuracy, errors, study, verbal memory and spatial abilities were also subjected
efficiency, exerted force, impulse, and dwell time. There were to investigation, as they were related to navigation perfor-
several topics that were unexamined by experimental studies. mance. The review showed that data from menu research are
Table 11 shows the information about icon research. The insufficient to establish guidelines for mobile menu patterns.
major concerns in this area were influences of cultural and age Empirical-based knowledge of what type of menus should be
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 15

Table 5: Display of information research.

Research topics prior to

Research topics since 2007 Factors of interest since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
2007
(i) Applying desktop design to (i) Whether list access was affected
(i) Other list patterns
mobile mobile screen size
(i) Evaluation of list (ii) User with unique need (e.g., the
(ii) Evaluation of list scrolling styles (ii) Efficiency
patterns elderly, children, disabled users,
(iii) Evaluation of list patterns (iii) Selection errors
user with impairments)
(iv) Novel scrolling techniques (iv) Satisfaction

Table 6: Control and confirmation research.

Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007 Factors of interest since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) Designing error message for mobile
screen
(ii) Error prevention
(i) N/A (i) N/A (i) N/A (iii) Error recovery
(iv) Users with difficulties in controlling fine
muscles (e.g., the elderly, children, upper
extremities impaired users)

Table 7: Revealing more information research.

Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007 Factors of interest since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) N/A (i) N/A (i) N/A (i) Applying desktop techniques of revealing
more information to mobile screen

Table 8: Lateral access research.

Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007 Factors of interest since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
(i) Applying desktop techniques of lateral
(i) N/A (i) N/A (i) N/A
access to mobile screen

Table 9: Navigation research.

Research topics prior to

Research topics since 2007 Factors of interest since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
2007
(i) Whether content navigation was
(i) Displaying contents on mobile affected by mobile screen size
(i) Evaluation of other list patterns
screen (ii) How to tackle high demand for
(i) Web surfing on (ii) User with unique need (e.g., the
(ii) Previewing content visual attention in navigation
desktops elderly, children, disabled users,
(iii) Gaze tracking (iii) Efficiency
user with impairments)
(iv) Aural interface (iv) Selection errors
(v) Satisfaction

Table 10: Button research.

Factors of interest since
Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
2007
(i) User preference
(ii) Experience
(i) Button size
(i) Simulating realistic response of (iii) Accuracy
(ii) Button spacing
physical buttons on touchscreen (iv) Errors (i) Applying desktop techniques of
(iii) Tactile feedback
(ii) Latency of response (v) Efficiency lateral access to mobile screen
(iv) Audio feedback
(iii) Usability of feedback modalities (vi) Exerted force
(v) Users with disabilities
(vii) Impulse
(viii) Dwell time
16 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Table 11: Icon research.

Factors of interest Unexamined/other
Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007
since 2007 possible topics
(i) Interpretation of icon meaning (i) Touchable area of icon
(ii) Icon recognition (ii) Effect of icon-background shape on
(iii) Comprehensibility findability
(i) Icon recognition
(iv) Appropriate size of icon (iii) Aesthetic (i) N/A
(ii) Icon interpretation
(v) Cultural differences on icon interpretation (iv) Cultural difference on icon
(vi) Age differences on icon interpretation interpretation
(vii) Using icon to convey application status (v) Age differences on icon interpretation

Table 12: Information control research.

Factors of interest since Unexamined/other
Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007
2007 possible topics
(i) Zooming
(i) Zooming
(a) Screen size
(a) Evaluation of zooming
(b) Readability
technique (i) Zooming
(c) Font size
(b) Evaluation of zooming (a) Efficiency
(d) Selection precision
gestures with children users (b) Effectiveness
(e) Designing for visual-impaired and (i) Novel techniques still
(ii) Searching (ii) Searching
senior users need validation and
(a) Minimizing user input (a) Efficiency
(ii) Searching evaluation
(b) Integration of context (b) Precision
(a) Load and query
information in search (iii) Sorting and filtering
(b) Full-text search
(iii) Sorting and filtering (a) N/A
(c) Voice input
(a) Enable multiple sorting
(iii) Sorting and filtering
criteria
(a) Data organization patterns

Table 13: Input Mode and Selection Research.

Factors of interest since

Research topics prior to 2007 Research topics since 2007 Unexamined/other possible topics
2007
(i) Finger and thumb interaction
(ii) User factors
(i) Factors affecting input accuracy (a) Elderly users (i) Accuracy (i) Effect of handedness
(a) Visual distraction (b) Disabilities (blindness, ALS, (ii) Efficiency (ii) Effect of finger and thumb
(b) Sensorimotor coordination Down’s syndrome) (iii) Errors lengths
(c) Blindness (iii) Novice users (iv) Key size (iii) Children users
(d) Aging (iv) External factors (v) Touchable area (iv) Evaluation of interaction
(ii) Improving input accuracy (v) Eye-free interaction (vi) Location of interactive elements in in-car usage
(a) Alternative keyboard layouts (a) Walking elements (v) Novel techniques need
(b) Increase input feedback (b) Driving (vii) Eye fixation validation and evaluation
(vi) Large form input
(vii) Alternative input methods

used in what context is still lacking. Many important elements to promptly access the target item with minimum errors. This
of menu composition were unexamined, for example, menu positively affects their preference and satisfaction towards the
depth and breadth, item ordering, task complexity, and system. The review showed that empirical data are not suffi-
assessment of other menu layouts. Other user groups with cient to draw a guideline for display patterns of information.
unique needs, such as children and user with disabilities or Other list layouts and possible effect of number of items are
disorders, were also uninvestigated. left unexamined. Moreover, the number of participants in the
The research on display of information was limited and research was considerably low. Other user factors that may
covered only a few areas. The research included usability have potential effects, such as elderly users, children, and user
evaluation of list scrolling styles and different list patterns with disabilities, were not studied. Clearly, the knowledge of
(i.e., fisheye and vertical list and grid and vertical list). The what type of display should be used in what context and for
key issue was whether list access and usability were affected which group of users is still lacking.
by a limited screen size. A novel list scrolling technique There has been no research on control and confirmation,
was also proposed. The factors of interest were efficiency, revealing more information, and lateral access categories.
selection errors, and satisfaction, as it is important for users These categories are important design elements on mobile
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 17

devices. The primary function of control and confirmation they want. Senior users faced greater problem recognizing
is to prevent errors, especially user errors. There is an and interpreting icons; however, it was due to technological
enormous knowledge gap which needs to be filled. For inexperience. It was found that, regardless of culture or
example, error message design cannot be directly adopted age, the factors that contribute to icon usability were icon
from desktop platform; they must be adjusted to fit small concreteness, low visual complexity, close semantic distance,
size dialogue. Touch screen is also prone to user errors, in user familiarity with icons, and sensible labelling. More
particular with users that have difficulties or have not fully studies examined visual qualities of icons, namely, color
developed the control of their fine muscles (e.g., the elderly, combination, shape and size of icons, and their influence on
children, and user with upper extremity disabilities). Error icon usability. Only icon study can be regarded as mobile-
prevention and error recovery mechanisms needed to be specific. The study examined optimal touchable area of an
designed for these groups of users. The function of revealing icon since it is important for users to select the intended icons,
more information is to display larger information for users. without activating neighboring functions.
With limited screen size, adopting information revealing Information control encompasses zooming, searching,
techniques from desktops can be ineffective. Moreover, the and sorting and filtering. The research topics were influ-
knowledge of what revealing techniques should be used in enced by limited screen size of mobile devices. Studies on
what context is still lacking. Nevertheless, these issues have zooming included evaluation of different zooming methods
not been empirically examined. Lateral access is another and zooming gesture performance of children users. The
important design element. Some examples of lateral access factors of interest of evaluation study concern efficiency and
are pagination and tabs. Lateral access provides a faster effectiveness as it is important for users to be able to zoom
access to intended information and reduces the use of long in and out and promptly select the target item and complete
lists. With limited screen size of mobile devices, it is still intended tasks in timely manner. The factor of interest of
unexamined whether adopting lateral access techniques from zooming and children study concerns only accuracy, but
desktops is practical. not efficiency. For children users, it is more important for
The research on navigation (links) was limited and them to understand gestures and accurately use their hand
covered only some areas. The research included previewing to do gestures than timely finish their task. Children users
content of web pages, gaze tracking, and designing aural have exploratory behaviors; thus, measuring efficiency does
interface. The key concerns were motivated by limited screen not match their behavior. Studies on searching were new
size and high demand for visual attention. The factors of searching techniques, including semantic search, context-
interest were efficiency, accuracy, and navigation experience, based search, and gesture-based search. The factors of interest
since it is important for users to accurately and promptly were efficiency and precision, as it is important for users to
access the target link and find intended information as quickly search for information from accurate and relevant
quick as possible. This positively affects their experience search results. A new idea was proposed in sorting and
of using the system. More empirical studies are needed to filtering category; however, the idea was not demonstrated or
establish guidelines for navigation on mobile screen. Other verified.
user factors that may have potential effects are also needed to As stated, input mode and selection contribute the highest
be examined. number of papers; thus, the research topics were considerably
The research on buttons was motivated by the lack of diverse. The topics were motivated by limited screen size of
physical response and tactile feedback. The lack of tactile mobile devices. The first area of topics concerned effects of
feedback makes users unconfident of their actions which finger and thumb on input accuracy. Although some mobile
consequently deteriorates system usability. Thus, the primary models were equipped with a stylus, users prefer using their
objective was to simulate realistic response of physical but- finger. As the key size is small, finger occlusion often occurs.
tons. The research topics included characteristics of response The factors of interest were accuracy, efficiency, and errors,
that gave realistic feeling of buttons, latency of response, since it is important for users to promptly and precisely
and usability of different feedback modalities. Unlike other supply input with minimum errors. Other factors include key
categories that focus on efficiency, the factors of interest size, touchable area size, and location of interactive elements
of button research primarily concern user preference and as they also contribute to input accuracy and efficiency.
experience since it is important for users to experience the However, no studies considered potential factors that would
realistic response that resembles physical button. Some other affect touch accuracy, such as handedness, and finger and
studies looked into spatial design of buttons (i.e., button size thumb length of different ethnicity. The second area of topics
and spacing), in order to find optimal design that needed less concerned user factors. The key issue was to study whether
visual attention and match the fine motor abilities of users. and how user characteristics affect input. User groups that
The array of factors of interest include accuracy, errors, and were included in the studies were mainly elderly users,
efficiency for generic users and exerted force, impulse, and blind users, and users with upper extremity disabilities or
dwell time of pressing for users with fine motor difficulties. difficulties. Only one study focused on children. The factors of
Unlike other categories, the research on icons was almost interest are accuracy and efficiency because it is important for
platform-unspecific. The topics heavily focused on influence users to promptly and precisely supply input. The third area
of age and culture on icon usability. The factors of interest of research focused on novice users. Mobile devices bombard
were icon recognition and icon interpretation, as it is crucial novice users with many input keys and touch gestures are
for users to correctly identify and select the right function that not visible. The factors of interest are accuracy and efficiency
18 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

because it is important for novice users to quickly learn 8.3. Limitations. During the review, inconsistency in termi-
the system and precisely supply input. The fourth area nologies used to refer to each design element was common.
concerned external factors. It was found that environmental For example, list is also referred to as linear or vertical
condition, cognitive load, and communication load affect menu, and grid menu is also referred to as table-based menu.
input accuracy and efficiency. The fifth area concerned eye- All papers with different terms that were considered by the
free interaction. The topics in this area were motivated by authors of this article are included in the review. However,
high demands for visual attention, and mobile ubiquity. some papers may be missing due to the use of different terms.
Without physical buttons, users cannot rely on their touch
to locate interactive elements. Moreover, users could attend Conflicts of Interest
some other activities (e.g., walking, carrying objects, and
driving) while simultaneously using mobile devices. As a The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
result, users cannot always fix their eyes on the screen. The regarding the publication of this paper.
factors of interest included accuracy, efficiency, and errors
because it is important for users to promptly and precisely
supply input with minimum errors. For in-car interaction, References
eye fixation was also a factor to study, as the interface cannot [1] E. F. Churchill, A. Bowser, and J. Preece, “Teaching and learning
distract users from driving. However, more evaluations are human-computer interaction: past, present, and future,” Inter-
needed to find out which input layouts and interaction are actions, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 44–53, 2013.
suitable for in-car interaction. The sixth area concerned [2] K. B. Bennett, A. L. Nagy, and J. M. Flach, “Visual display,” in
complex input form, as an input form can be too complex Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, G. Salvendy, Ed.,
to display on a small screen. Only a few studies examined John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
and compared input forms. The factors of interest included [3] A. Dix, J. Finlay, G. D. Abowd, and R. Beale, Human–Computer
accuracy, efficiency, and errors because it is important for Interaction, 1993.
users to quickly and correctly supply input with minimum [4] J. Kim, Design for Experience, Springer International Publishing,
errors. The last area of research topics concerned alternative Switzerland, 2015.
input methods. The objective of the research in this area was [5] S. C. Lee and S. Zhai, “The performance of touch screen soft
to propose novel techniques to compensate input accuracy. buttons,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference
Only some of them carried out experiment to assess the Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
proposed techniques. Similar to other areas, the factors of (CHI ’09), pp. 309–318, Boston, MA, USA, April 2009.
interest included accuracy, efficiency, and errors because it is [6] K. B. Perry and P. Hourcade, “Evaluation one handed thumb
important for users to quickly and correctly supply input with tapping on mobile touchscreen devices,” in Proceedings of the
minimum errors. Nevertheless, the proposed techniques still Graphics Interface (GI ’08), pp. 57–64, Ontario, Canada, May
require empirical evaluation. 2008.
[7] S. Hoober and E. Berkman, Designing Mobile Interfaces,
8.2. Conclusions. The review was made on 68 papers. Input Ontario, Canada, O’Reilly Media, 2011.
mode and selection contribute the highest number of [8] International Organization of Standardization (ISO), “Ergonomic
papers—27 papers. There were no papers discussing the requirements for office work with visual display terminals
designs of mobile user interface on three categories—(1) (VDTs)—part 11: guidance on usability,” ISO 9241-11:1998, 1998,
control and confirmation, (2) revealing more information, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-1:v1:en.
and (3) lateral access. Early research on mobile user interface [9] N. Bevan, “Usability is quality of use,” in Proceedings of the
was made with engineering approach, for instance, proposing 6th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction,
new techniques, new interaction styles, and prototyping. Yokohama, Japan, July 1995.
Since 2010, the focus has gradually shifted to usability [10] Interaction-Design.org, Introduction to Usability, n.d., https://
evaluation of design patterns and to studying user factors www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/an-introduction-
to-usability.
(e.g., age, culture, and disabilities).
[11] nteraction-Design.org, What is Usability?, n.d., https://www
To recapitulate, the review clearly shows that touch
.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/usability.
screen is the major factor that forms research directions
[12] Y. Rogers, J. Preece, and H. Sharp, Interaction Design: Beyond
of mobile user interface. Important touch screen qualities
Human-Computer Interaction, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex,
that shape research directions are limited screen size, lack UK, 2007.
of physical response and tactile feedback, invisible gesture,
[13] J. Lazar, J. H. Feng, and H. Hochheiser, Research Methods in
mobile ubiquity, and high demand for visual attention. The Human-Computer Interaction, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex,
review also showed that there is an enormous knowledge UK, 2010.
gap for mobile interface design. There are some categories [14] International Organization of Standardization (ISO), “Ergo-
where no research can be found, despite their importance nomics of human-system interaction—part 210: human-
to mobile interface and interaction design. Several categories centred design for interactive systems,” ISO 9241-210: 2010,
have insufficient empirical-based data to establish a solid 2010, https://www.iso.org/standard/52075.html.
design guideline, and there is still a need to assess more [15] Interaction-Design.org, User Experience (UX) Design, n.d.,
factors that influence its usability. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/ux-design.
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 19

[16] G. C. Vanderheiden, Application Software Design Guidelines: [33] J. Zhou, P.-L. P. Rau, and G. Salvendy, “Use and design of
Increasing the Accessibility of Application Software for People handheld computers for older adults: a review and appraisal,”
with Disabilities and Older Users, Trace Research and Develop- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 28,
ment Center, Madison, Wis, USA, 1992. no. 12, pp. 799–826, 2012.
[17] J. J. Abascal and C. Nicolle, “Why inclusive design guidelines?” [34] J. E. Moulder, K. R. Foster, L. S. Erdreich, and J. P. McNamee,
in Inclusive Design Guidelines for HCI, pp. 3–13, Taylor & “Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a
Francis, 2001. review,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 81, no.
[18] C. Stephandis, “Design for all,” in The Encyclopedia of Human- 3, pp. 189–203, 2005.
Computer Interaction, Interaction Design Foundation, 2nd edition, [35] N. Wagner, K. Hassanein, and M. Head, “Computer use by
2014, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the- older adults: a multi-disciplinary review,” Computers in Human
encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/design- Behavior, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 870–882, 2010.
4-all. [36] K. Kim, Derivation and evaluation of 3D menu designs for
[19] H. Petrie, “Accessibility and usability requirements for ICTs smartphones [Ph.D. thesis], Purdue University, West Lafayette,
for disabled and elderly people: a functional classification Indiana, 2011.
approach,” in Inclusive Design Guidelines for HCI, C. Nicolle and [37] C. Ling, W. Hwang, and G. Salvendy, “A survey of what cus-
J. Abascal, Eds., pp. 29–60, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK, tomers want in a cell phone design,” Behaviour & Information
2001. Technology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 149–163, 2007.
[20] D. A. L. Maberley, H. Hollands, J. Chuo et al., “The prevalence [38] J. Kim and K. Lee, “Culturally adapted mobile phone interface
of low vision and blindness in Canada,” Eye, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. design: correlation between categorization style and menu
341–346, 2006. structure,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
[21] H. Petrie, G. Weber, and J. Darzentas, “Designing for acces- Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
sibility,” in Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2017, (MobileHCI ’07, pp. 379–382, Singapore, September 2007.
vol. 10516 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 387–390, [39] W. A. Rogers, A. J. Stronge, and A. D. Fisk, “Technology and
Springer International Publishing, Mumbai, India, 2017. aging,” Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, vol. 1, no. 1,
[22] J. C. Read, “Children participating in HCI research,” in Human- pp. 130–171, 2005.
Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2017, vol. 10516 of Lecture [40] K. Arning and M. Ziefle, “Effects of age, cognitive, and personal
Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing, factors on PDA menu navigation performance,” Behaviour &
Mumbai, India, 2017. Information Technology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 251–268, 2009.
[23] J. Kjeldskov, “Mobile computing,” in The Encyclopedia of [41] J. Park, S. H. Han, Y. S. Park, and Y. Cho, “Adaptable versus adap-
Human-Computer Interaction, Interaction Design Foundation, tive menus on the desktop: performance and user satisfaction,”
2nd edition, 2014, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/ International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 37, no. 8, pp.
book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd- 675–684, 2007.
ed/mobile-computing. [42] G. Fischer, “User modeling in human-computer interaction,”
[24] B. Fling, Mobile Design and Development, O’Reilly Media, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 11, no. 1-2, pp.
Sebastopol, Cali, USA, 2009. 65–86, 2001.
[25] R. Coppola and M. Morisio, “Connected car: technologies, [43] L. Findlater and K. Z. Gajos, “Design space and evaluation
issues, future trends,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 49, no. 3, challenges of adaptive graphical user interfaces,” AI Magazine,
article 46, 2016. vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 68–73, 2009.
[26] O. R. E. Pereira and J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, “Survey and analysis of [44] J. Park, S. H. Han, and Y. S. Park, “Human complementary menu
current mobile learning applications and technologies,” ACM design for mobile phones,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 40,
Computing Surveys, vol. 46, no. 2, article 27, 2013. no. 16, pp. 67–72, 2007.
[27] D. A. Becker, “Best practices of library mobile website design: a [45] A. Osman, M. H. Ismail, and N. A. Wahab, “Combining fisheye
literature review,” College and Undergraduate Libraries, vol. 22, with list: evaluating the learnability and user satisfaction,” in
no. 2, pp. 167–187, 2015. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computer
[28] C. M. Monroe, D. L. Thompson, D. R. Bassett, E. C. Fitzhugh, Technology and Development (ICCTD ’09), pp. 49–52, Kota
and H. A. Raynor, “Usability of mobile phones in physical Kinabalu, Malaysia, November 2009.
activity—related research: a systematic review,” American Jour- [46] P. Finley, A study comparing table-based and list-based smart-
nal of Health Education, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 196–206, 2015. phone interface usability [Msc. thesis], Iowa State University,
[29] J. Donner, “Research approaches to mobile use in the develop- Ames, Iowa, USA, 2013.
ing world: a review of the literature,” The Information Society, [47] J. Breuninger, S. Popova-Dlugosch, and K. Bengler, “The safest
vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 140–159, 2008. way to scroll a list: a usability study comparing different
[30] S. A. Hoseini-Tabatabaei, A. Gluhak, and R. Tafazolli, “A survey ways of scrolling through lists on touch screen devices,” IFAC
on smartphone-based systems for opportunistic user context Proceedings Volumes, vol. 46, no. 15, pp. 44–51, 2013.
recognition,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 45, no. 3, article 27, [48] P. Quinn and A. Cockburn, “Zoofing!: faster list selections with
2013. pressure-zoom-flick-scrolling,” in Proceedings of the 21st Annual
[31] P. A. Akiki, A. K. Bandara, and Y. Yu, “Adaptive model-driven Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Spe-
user interface development systems,” ACM Computing Surveys, cial Interest Group - Design: Open 24/7 (OZCHI ’09), pp. 185–192,
vol. 47, no. 1, article 9, 2014. Melbourne, Australia, November 2009.
[32] A. Cockburn, A. Karlson, and B. B. Bederson, “A review of [49] V. Setlur, S. Rossoff, and B. Gooch, “Wish I hadn’t clicked that:
overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces,” ACM context based icons for mobile web navigation and directed
Computing Surveys, vol. 41, no. 1, article 2, 2008. search tasks,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM International
20 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’11), pp. 165–174, [63] S. Ghayas, S. Sulaiman, J. Jaafar, S. Mahamad, and M. Khan,
Palo Alto, Claif, USA, February 2011. “Mobile phone Icons recognition and cultural aspects,” in Pro-
[50] V. Setlur, “SemantiLynx: context based icons for mobile web ceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computer and
navigation and directed search tasks,” in Proceedings of the Information Sciences (ICCOINS ’14), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction June 2014.
with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’10), pp. 409-410, [64] R. Leung, J. McGrenere, and P. Graf, “Age-related differences
Lisbon, Portugal, September 2010. in the initial usability of mobile device icons,” Behaviour &
[51] A. Woodruff, A. Faulring, R. Rosenholtz, J. Morrsion, and P. Information Technology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 629–642, 2009.
Pirolli, “Using thumbnails to search the Web,” in Proceedings [65] C. Gatsou, A. Politis, and D. Zevgolis, “From icons perception
of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems to mobile interaction,” in Proceedings of the 2011 Federated Con-
(CHI ’01), pp. 198–205, Seattle, DC, USA, March 2001. ference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS
’11), pp. 705–710, Szczecin, Poland, September 2011.
[52] X.-D. Yang, E. Mak, D. McCallum, P. Irani, X. Cao, and S. Izadi,
“LensMouse: augmenting the mouse with an interactive touch [66] A. Harley, Usability Testing of Icons, 2016, https://www
display,” in Proceedings of the 28th Annual CHI Conference on .nngroup.com/articles/icon-testing/.
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10), pp. 2431–2440, [67] Y. Im, T. Kim, and E. S. Jung, “Investigation of icon design
Atlanta, Ga, USA, April 2010. and touchable area for effective smart phone controls,” Human
[53] D. Cheng, D. Li, and L. Fang, “A cluster information navigate Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries,
method by gaze tracking,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 251–267, 2015.
ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology [68] S. Luo and Y. Zhou, “Effects of smartphone icon background
(UIST ’13), pp. 61-62, Scotland, UK, October 2013. shapes and figure/background area ratios on visual search per-
formance and user preferences,” Frontiers of Computer Science,
[54] T. Yang, M. Ferati, Y. Liu, R. R. Ghahari, and D. Bolchini, “Aural
vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 751–764, 2015.
browsing on-the-go: listening-based back navigation in large
web architectures,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference [69] S.-M. Huang, “The rating consistency of aesthetic preferences
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), pp. 277–286, for icon-background color combinations,” Applied Ergonomics,
Austin, Tex, USA, May 2012. vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 141–150, 2012.
[70] S.-W. Ju, K. Jeong, and H.-J. Suk, “Changing the color attributes
[55] M. E. Sesto, C. B. Irwin, K. B. Chen, A. O. Chourasia, and
of icons to inform of the application status,” in Proceedings of
D. A. Wiegmann, “Effect of touch screen button size and
the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics
spacing on touch characteristics of users with and without
(ISCE ’14), JeJu Island, South Korea, June 2014.
disabilities,” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 425–436, 2012. [71] P. Pappachan and M. Ziefle, “Cultural influences on the compre-
hensibility of icons in mobile-computer interaction,” Behaviour
[56] J. Conradi, O. Busch, and T. Alexander, “Optimal touch button
& Information Technology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 331–337, 2008.
size for the use of mobile devices while walking,” Procedia
Manufacturing, vol. 3, pp. 387–394, 2015. [72] S. Ghayas, S. Sulaiman, M. Khan, and J. Jaafar, “Qualitative study
to identify icons characteristics on mobile phones applications
[57] K. Tanaka and K. Watanabe, “Interference between accustomed interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Symposium on
number-space mappings and unacquainted letter-space map- Wireless Technology and Applications (ISWTA ’13), pp. 310–315,
pings in a button press task,” Human Factors: The Journal of the Kuching, Malaysia, September 2013.
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1088–
[73] J. Kuo and F. Wu, “The elder’s discrimination of icons with
1100, 2013.
color discrimination on the cell phone,” in Advances in Cognitive
[58] T. Kaaresoja, S. Brewster, and V. Lantz, “Towards the temporally Ergonomics, D. Kaber and G. Boy, Eds., Advances in Human
perfect virtual button: touch-feedback simultaneity and per- Factors and Ergonomics Series, pp. 176–185, CRC Press, Boca
ceived quality in mobile touchscreen press interactions,” ACM Raton, Fla, USA, 2010.
Transactions on Applied Perception, vol. 11, no. 2, article 9, 2014. [74] Y. B. Salman, Y. Kim, and H. Cheng, “Senior—friendly icon
[59] G. Park, S. Choi, K. Hwang, S. Kim, J. Sa, and M. Joung, design for the mobile phone,” in Proceedings of the 6th Inter-
“Tactile effect design and evaluation for virtual buttons on a national Conference on Digital Content, Multimedia Technology
mobile device touchscreen,” in Proceedings of the 13th Interna- and its Applications (IDC ’10), South Korea, August 2010.
tional Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile [75] C. Koutsourelakis and K. Chorianopoulos, “Icons in mobile
Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’11), pp. 11–20, Stockholm, phones: comprehensibility differences between older and
Sweden, September 2011. younger users,” Information Design Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 22–
[60] E. Koskinen, T. Kaaresoja, and P. Laitinen, “Feel-good touch: 35, 2010.
finding the most pleasant tactile feedback for a mobile touch [76] J. Kim and Y. Cho, “Evaluation of the cognitive ability among
screen button,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Confer- aging groups using mobile phone,” in Proceedings of the Pan-
ence on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’08), pp. 297–304, Crete, Pacific Conference on Ergonomics, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Novem-
Greece, October 2008. ber 2010.
[61] T. Pakkanen, R. Raisamo, J. Raisamo, K. Salminen, and V. [77] W. Chanwimalueng and K. Rapeepisarn, “A study of the recog-
Surakka, “Comparison of three designs for haptic button edges nitions and preferences on abstract and concrete icon styles on
on touchscreens,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Haptics Symposium smart phone from Easterners and Westerners’ point of view,”
(HAPTICS ’10), pp. 219–225, Waltham, Mass, USA, March 2010. in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Machine
[62] D. Spelmezan, C. Appert, O. Chapuis, and E. Pietriga, “Control- Learning and Cybernetics, ICMLC 2013, pp. 1613–1619, Tianjin,
ling widgets with one power-up button,” in Proceedings of the China, July 2013.
26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and [78] E. Garcia-Lopez, L. de-Marcos, A. Garcia-Cabot, and J.-J.
Technology (UIST ’13), pp. 71–74, Scotland, UK, October 2013. Martinez-Herraiz, “Comparing zooming methods in mobile
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 21

devices: effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction in touch the immediate introduction of an alternative soft keyboard on
and nontouch smartphones,” International Journal of Human- a smartphone [Msc. thesis], Colorado Technical University,
Computer Interaction, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 777–789, 2015. Colorado Springs, Colo, USa, 2015.
[79] S. Oney, C. Harrison, A. Ogan, and J. Wiese, “ZoomBoard: a [94] A. K. Karlson, B. B. Bederson, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal,
diminutive QWERTY soft keyboard using iterative zooming “Studies in one-handed mobile design: habit, desire and agility,”
for ultra-small devices,” in Proceedings of the 31st Annual CHI HCIL-2006-02, Computer Science Department, University of
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing Maryland, College Park, Md, USA, 2006.
Perspectives (CHI ’13), pp. 2799–2802, Paris, France, May 2013. [95] D. Vogel and P. Baudisch, “Shift: a technique for operating pen-
[80] Z. Hamza, Study of touch gesture performance by four and five based interfaces using touch,” in Proceedings of the 25th SIGCHI
year-old children: point-and-touch, drag-and-drop, zoom-in and Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07),
zoom-out, and rotate [Msc. thesis], Minnesota State University, pp. 657–666, San Jose, Calif, USA, May 2007.
Mankato, Minn, USA, 2014. [96] E. S. Jung and Y. Im, “Touchable area: an empirical study on
[81] Y. Li, “Gesture search: a tool for fast mobile data access,” design approach considering perception size and touch input
in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on User behavior,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 49,
Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’10), pp. 87–96, New pp. 21–30, 2015.
York, NY, USA, October 2010. [97] I. Kim and J. H. Jo, “Performance comparisons between thumb-
[82] S. Shin, J. Ko, D.-H. Shin, J. Jung, and K.-H. Lee, “Semantic based and finger-based input on a small touch-screen under
search for smart mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the 18th realistic variability,” International Journal of Human-Computer
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’13), Interaction, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 746–760, 2015.
pp. 95-96, Santa Monica, Calif, USA, March 2013. [98] S. Hoober, How do users really hold mobile devices?, 2013,
[83] K. Church and B. Smyth, “Who, what, where & when: http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2013/02/how-do-users-
a new approach to mobile search,” in Proceedings of the 13th really-hold-mobile-devices.php.
international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (IUI ’08), [99] J. Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, A. Oulasvirta, and S. Brewster, “The
pp. 309–312, Gran Canaria, Spain, January 2008. effects of walking speed on target acquisition on a touchscreen
[84] U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Research-based interface,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on
web design & usability guidelines, 2007, https://guidelines Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
.usability.gov/. (MobileHCI ’11), pp. 143–146, Stockholm, Sweden, September
[85] R. Zhou, H. Sato, Q. Gao et al., “Mobile search: how to 2011.
present search results for older users,” in Proceedings of the [100] Y. S. Park and S. H. Han, “One-handed thumb interaction of
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and mobile devices from the input accuracy perspective,” Interna-
Engineering Management (IEEM ’07), pp. 457–461, Singapore, tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 746–
December 2007. 756, 2010.
[86] E. Panizzi and G. Marzo, “Multidimensional sort of lists in [101] J. Xiong and S. Muraki, “Effects of age, thumb length and
mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Working screen size on thumb movement coverage on smartphone
Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’14), pp. 375-376, touchscreens,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
Como, Italy, May 2014. vol. 53, pp. 140–148, 2016.
[87] J. Diaz-Bossini and L. Moreno, “Accessibility to mobile inter- [102] A. Holzinger, G. Searle, and A. Nischelwitzer, “On some
faces for older people,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 27, pp. aspects of improving mobile applications for the elderly,” in
57–66, 2014. Proceedings of the International Conference on Universal Access
[88] A. C. De Barros, R. Leitão, and J. Ribeiro, “Design and in Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI ’07), pp. 923–932,
evaluation of a mobile user interface for older adults: naviga- Universal assessment in Human-Computer Interaction, Coping
tion, interaction and visual design recommendations,” Procedia with Diversity, Beijing, China, July 2007.
Computer Science, vol. 27, pp. 369–378, 2014. [103] C. Stößel, “Familiarity as a factor in designing finger gestures
[89] L. Anthony, Q. Brown, J. Nias, and B. Tate, “Children (and for elderly users,” in Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 11th
adults) benefit from visual feedback during gesture interaction International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with
on mobile touchscreen devices,” International Journal of Child- Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’09), Bonn, Germany,
Computer Interaction, vol. 6, pp. 17–27, 2015. September 2009.
[90] N. K. Dim and X. Ren, “Designing motion gesture interfaces in [104] É. Rodrigues, M. Carreira, and D. Gonçalves, “Developing
mobile phones for blind people,” Journal of Computer Science a multimodal interface for the elderly,” Procedia Computer
and Technology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 812–824, 2014. Science, vol. 27, pp. 359–368, 2014.
[91] M. Ernst and A. Girouard, “Bending blindly: exploring bend [105] K.-S. Choi and T.-Y. Chan, “Facilitating mathematics learning
gestures for the blind,” in Proceedings of the 34th Annual CHI for students with upper extremity disabilities using touch-input
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA system,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, vol.
’16), pp. 2088–2096, San Jose, Calif, USA, May 2016. 10, no. 2, pp. 170–180, 2015.
[92] S. Lundgren and M. Hjulström, “Alchemy: dynamic gesture [106] S. Raupp, Keyboard layout in eye gaze communication access:
hinting for mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the 15th Inter- typical vs. als [Msc. thesis], East Carolina University, Greenville,
national Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future NC, USA, 2013.
Media Environments (MindTrek ’11), pp. 53–60, Tampere, Fin- [107] M. G. Alfredo, J. A. R. Francisco, M. G. Ricardo, A. E. Francisco,
land, September 2011. and M. A. Jaime, “Analyzing learnability of common mobile
[93] M. S. Geary, A quasi-experiment study comparing the gradual gestures used by Down syndrome users’,” in Proceedings of the
introduction of alternative soft keyboard on a smartphone versus 16th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction
 22 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

(INTERACCION ’15), Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain, September [121] B. Millet, Design and evaluation of three alternative keyboard
2015. layouts for five-key text entry technique, doctoral dissertation
[108] I. S. MacKenzie and R. W. Soukoreff, “Phrase sets for evaluating [Msc. thesis], University of Miami, Miami-Dade County, Fla,
text entry techniques,” in Proceedings of the Conference on USA, 2009.
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’03), pp. 754-
755, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, USA, April 2003.
[109] NetLingo.com, NetLingo List of Chat Acronyms & Text
Shorthand, n.d., http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php.
[110] 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,
2009.
[111] 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. 54, pp.
196–204, 2016.
[112] A. Ng, J. Williamson, and S. Brewster, “The effects 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. 536–546, Copenhagen, Denmark,
August 2015.
[113] 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. 5726 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 243–246, 2009.
[114] 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. 96–99, Amman, Jordan, March 2014.
[115] S. Kwon, D. Lee, and M. K. Chung, “Effect 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. 39, no. 5, pp. 888–893,
2009.
[116] N. Koarai and T. Komuro, “A zooming interface for accurate text
input on mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the CHI ’13 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1299–
1340, Paris, France, May 2013.
[117] X. Xiao, T. Han, and J. Wang, “LensGesture: augmenting mobile
interactions with back-of-device finger gestures,” in Proceedings
of the 15th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Inter-
action (ICMI ’13), pp. 287–294, Sydney, Australia, December
2013.
[118] O. P. González, S. España, 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 (Interacción ’15),
pp. 1–8, Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain, September 2015.
[119] J. Wang, K. Zhao, X. Zhang, and C. Peng, “Ubiquitous keyboard
for small mobile devices: Harnessing multipath fading for
fine-grained keystroke localization,” in Proceedings of the 12th
Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applica-
tions, and Services (MobiSys ’14), pp. 14–27, Bretton Woods, NH,
USA, June 2014.
[120] 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. 50, pp. 143–150, 2015.
 Advances in Journal of
Industrial Engineering
Multimedia
Applied
Computational
Intelligence and Soft
Computing
The Scientific International Journal of
Distributed
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 201

Advances in

Fuzzy
Systems
Modelling &
Simulation
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
http://www.hindawi.com

Submit your manuscripts at

-RXUQDORI
https://www.hindawi.com
&RPSXWHU1HWZRUNV
DQG&RPPXQLFDWLRQV  Advances in 
Artificial
Intelligence
+LQGDZL3XEOLVKLQJ&RUSRUDWLRQ
KWWSZZZKLQGDZLFRP 9ROXPH Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of Advances in

Biomedical Imaging $UWLÀFLDO
1HXUDO6\VWHPV

International Journal of
Advances in Computer Games Advances in
Computer Engineering Technology Software Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 201 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Reconfigurable
Computing

Advances in Computational Journal of

Journal of Human-Computer Intelligence and Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Interaction
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Neuroscience
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014