Received February 28, 2018, accepted April 3, 2018, date of publication April 17, 2018, date of current version

May 9, 2018.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2827358

Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone User

Interface in Supporting Elderly Users
From Experts’ Perspective
HASANIN MOHAMMED SALMAN , WAN FATIMAH WAN AHMAD, AND SUZIAH SULAIMAN
Computer and Information Sciences Department, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia
Corresponding authors: Hasanin Mohammed Salman ([email protected]) and
Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad ([email protected])
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) from the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia under
Grant FRGS/1/2017/ICT04/UTP/02/2. The work of H. M. Salman was supported by Universiti Teknologi Petronas.

ABSTRACT Despite the necessity for smartphones to be designed to better accommodate the elderly user,
currently available smartphone user interfaces (UIs) do not appear to be optimized for that purpose. The
objectives of this paper are to identify the potential usability problems among elderly adults when interacting
with a smartphone’s UI, and recommend improvements to UI designs. The heuristic evaluation technique
was used to determine the anticipated usability problems. SMASH, a set of 12 usability heuristics for
smartphone and mobile applications was applied within a controlled environment, with five experts with
the necessary competence to perform the evaluation. The results of the study indicated that there were
27 usability problems and 27 heuristic violations encountered. ‘‘Minimize the user’s memory load’’ and
‘‘match between system and real world’’ were the two most frequently violated heuristics. This study was
complemented by testing with elderly people, and the results show that 79.17% of the problems experienced
by the elderly were predicted by the experts. Usability problems were classified into four categories:
1) appearance; 2) language; 3) dialogue; and 4) information. Problems categories were further divided into
sub-categories, and design solutions were suggested for each sub-category. This study’s findings contribute
to understanding the problems that hinder elderly users in using smartphones and provide valuable feedback
to designers of smartphone technology regarding improvements to the UI to better suit the elderly.

INDEX TERMS Usability, heuristic evaluation, smartphone, user interface, elderly.

I. INTRODUCTION Therefore, they employ incorrect misconceptions and stereo-

The smartphone is a valuable technological device for the types [9]. Failure to design ‘‘elderly friendly’’ interfaces may
elderly, aged 60 years and above [1], as it enables them to lead to reluctance to the use of smartphones by the elderly [4],
communicate fully with their family and friends, making while a properly designed UI that respects the elderly’s needs
them feel less isolated, more secure and independent [2]. can tackle this issue [4], [10]. This statement motivated the
Smartphone is a generic term used for a category of mobile current study to evaluate the usability of smartphone UI in
phones, having an independent operating system, thereby supporting elderly users.
allowing users to install various third-party software appli- According to Lewis [11], there are two major concep-
cations themselves (for example, games and other apps) [3]. tions of usability commonly referred to as ‘‘summative’’ and
Despite the necessity for smartphones to be designed to ‘‘formative’’. The focus of summative usability measurement
better accommodate elderly users, currently available smart- is on metrics associated with meeting global task and product
phone user interfaces (UIs) do not appear to be optimized goals (i.e., measurement-based usability) [11]. The focus of
for the elderly [4]–[6]. Instead, they address the young and formative usability is the detection of usability problems and
tech-savvy [7], [8], whose requirements and attributes vary the design of interventions to reduce or eliminate their impact
from those of elderly users. In general, UIs designers have (i.e., diagnostic usability) [11]. The formative conception of
not had the opportunity to work closely with elderly [9]. usability is also the focus of this study. In this study, usability

2169-3536 2018 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only.
22578 Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. VOLUME 6, 2018
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

evaluation builds upon the heuristic evaluation technique, quick [12], [14], and its implementation is easy [14].
with the main objective to answer the question: what are Applying the heuristic evaluation technique, ‘‘the expert
the potential usability problems that would be experienced reviewers critique an interface to determine conformance
by elderly adults when interacting with a smartphone’s UI? with a short list of design heuristics’’ [16]. When an expert
Answering this question is crucial in identifying the issues encountered a usability problem, then one or more of the
that hinder elderly users. Another objective is recommending heuristics listed were violated [16]. Various heuristics have
improvements of smartphone UI designs; specifically, for been recommended by many authors to facilitate the design
elderly users. This would help provide insights to the design- of different applications. For example, Jakob Nielsen recom-
ers of smartphone technologies, with regards to potential mended ten generic principles of interaction design which
improvements for designing elder-friendly UIs. are among the most utilised heuristics used for designing
This study is structured into sections. Section II introduces the UI [18]. Although heuristics appear generic, they help to
the main concepts with regard to the definitions of usability assess the majority of user interfaces, where specific heuris-
and the techniques for the usability evaluation, with a thor- tics are required for particular domains, making sure that
ough explanation of the technique for a heuristic evaluation specific usability issues are detected [19]. Thus, using gen-
of the usability of mobile phones for the elderly. Section III uine heuristics is highly relevant as it can potentially reveal
describes the profiles of the experts, the evaluation apparatus more specific usability matters related to the application’s
and the procedure that was applied. Section IV presents the domain [20].
usability problems that were detected and the design solutions The participation of three to five experts can be produc-
along with a discussion. Finally, the conclusion is presented tive in detecting around 75 % of usability problems [12],
in Section V. [16], [21]. Being a usability expert is not mandatory to
conduct an evaluation [14]. Heuristic evaluation can be
II. BACKGROUND
conducted by those with either usability expertise, domain
knowledge, or both [22], [23]. Not all detected usability prob-
A. USABILITY
lems are treated equally, some may be defects resulting from
The typical definitions of usability either pertain with mea-
aesthetic design, while other problems may affect the execu-
surements of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction (sum-
tion of the main functions of the system [24]. An efficient
mative) or the absence of usability problems (formative) [11].
method to categorise the severity of usability problems is to
Considering the formative conception, the presence of
use a five-level arrangement of which include; not a usability
usability depends on the absence of usability
problem, cosmetic problem, minor usability problem, major
problems [11].
usability problem, and usability catastrophe [24]. Based on
Typical examples of usability methods, which are used
this arrangement or categories, the experts assign a severity
for formative evaluation, are heuristic evaluation, and cog-
rating to the identified usability problem.
nitive walkthrough. Both methods include experts inspecting
the human-computer interface and predicting problems users C. HEURISTIC EVALUATION OF MOBILE USABILITY
might have when interacting with it [12]. In broad terms, FOR THE ELDERLY
usability evaluation techniques can be classified into two
According to Hermawati and Lawson [19] and
groups [13], [14]; user-based, and expert-based.
de Lima Salgado et al. [25], heuristics of Al-Razgan et al. [26]
User-based methods; also, known as testing methods, find
is the only set specific for evaluating mobile-based applica-
and identify usability problems through observing people
tions for the elderly. However, Hermawati and Lawson [19]
who are representing users while using/commenting on the
show, that out of 70 studies, related to usability heuristics
system interface [14], [15]. The aim of user-based tests is to
for specific domains their study reviewed, only 19 studies
assess the degree to which the system supports the intended
could be used to provide indications on the effectiveness
users in their workflow [13].
of domain specific heuristics. Al-Razgan’s heuristics [26]
Expert-based methods; referred to as the inspection
is not among these 19 studies. As reinforced by the study
methods, in which experts inspect the UI and predict prob-
of Hermawati and Lawson [19], validation of Al-Razgan’s
lems users would have while interacting with the inter-
heuristics [26] is still reduced. Validation was performed
face [12]. The outcome of such studies can be a formal
only by four undergraduate students (non-professionals) and
report highlights problems identified or recommendations
conducting a validation in which effectiveness of heuristics
for changes [16]. Among the various expert-based usability
is compared to another heuristic set is missing.
methods, heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough are
Of the limited existing studies applying heuristic evalua-
the two most widely used in the field of human-computer
tion of mobile applications intended to be used by the elderly,
interaction (HCI) [17].
are the studies of Watkins et al. [27], and Silva et al. [28].
In Watkins et al. [27] study, three experts evaluated five
B. HEURISTIC EVALUATION TECHNIQUE ‘‘healthy eating’’ applications using heuristics which were
Heuristic evaluation presents several advantages over other synthesised and adapted from three sets of existing heuris-
evaluation techniques: it is comparatively inexpensive, tics and guidelines. Eight usability problems were identified.

VOLUME 6, 2018 22579

 H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

TABLE 1. Experts’ profile. The second category of experts included one graphic
designer, and one game developer. These experts are team
members in a multimedia company specialising in mobile
apps development, gaming and virtual reality technologies.
They are part of the company’s projects focusing on devel-
oping mobile apps to help to enhance user experience, also
projects in collaboration with academic researchers to design
UI for special purpose smartphone apps, (e.g., medical, and
spiritual apps).
B. APPARATUS
The study was conducted on an Android-based smartphone
device, specifically a Samsung Galaxy J7 device running
Android v6.0.1 OS (Marshmallow). The Galaxy J7 has
Among these problems, three violated the ‘‘flexibility and a 5.5-inch Super AMOLED capacitive touchscreen with
efficiency of use’’ heuristic, and two violated the ‘‘match 720 x 1280 pixels’ resolutions. The Galaxy J7’s default theme
between the application and the real world’’ heuristic. has been evaluated to prevent any bias in results.
While, Silva et al. [28] evaluated two mobile ‘‘health and C. PROCEDURE
fitness’’ applications. This study aimed to understand Considering the formative concept of usability, along with
whether the evaluated applications are capable to accom- the advantages of heuristic evaluation (as demonstrated in
modate the elderly users’ needs across a list of heuristics section II.B), a heuristic evaluation method is applied to
which came from the combination of four sets of heuristics evaluate the usability of the smartphone UI in supporting
and guidelines. The study’s result indicates that the inspected elderly users. As defined by Rogers et al. [12], heuristic eval-
applications do not comply with the standard needs for suc- uation has three stages: briefing session, evaluation period,
cessful use by elderly users. The common heuristics violated and debriefing session. The heuristic evaluation procedure in
found in the applications’ UI are; visual design, navigation this study is comprised of these three stages.
and perception. Regardless of the merits of these two studies, In the first stage, each expert was briefed by the observer
since they performed an evaluation of mobile applications (normally called the ‘‘experimenter’’ [21]) regarding the
for elderly users across some proposed heuristics; two main background of the study and the objectives, heuristics
gaps still can be identified. Firstly, usability heuristics used by applied, the apparatus and target users. Each expert was
Watkins et al. [27], and Silva et al. [28] require validation to provided with a thorough explanation of the limitations of the
support their effectiveness. Secondly, these studies evaluated elderly users. The age-related limitations which may affect
UIs for certain types of application, and did not cover the eval- the ability of elderly aged adults to use a smartphone include;
uation of currently available smartphone UIs, e.g., Android- vision, hearing, cognitive and motor function limitations [4].
based UIs, which are related to performing the essential and These limitations were summarised in a checklist to help
basic daily tasks. the experts envision the target users (elderly) of smartphones
during the evaluation stage.
III. METHOD AND MATERIALS The evaluation period (stage 2) comprised of five sessions,
A. EXPERTS where each session commenced when one of the five experts
The experts selected to participate in the study were from independently inspected the smartphone UI hoping to iden-
two categories; (1) three experts with usability expertise and tify elements that could potentially violate the applied heuris-
domain knowledge, and (2) two experts with domain knowl- tics. Two criteria were defined to select the heuristics to be
edge. Table 1 shows the experts’ profiles. applied in the study: (1) heuristics should be specific for the
The experts in the first group were; two academic staff who smartphone and mobile applications domain, and (2) heuris-
work in the HCI area, and one web graphics designer with tics that are experimentally validated. Based on these criteria,
usability expertise. The academic staff experts have taught SMASH [20], a set of 12 SMArtphone’s uSability Heuristics
HCI courses for undergraduate and postgraduate students for smartphone and mobile applications was adopted to be
and conducted research into the usability of smartphones applied in this study. SMASH was experimentally validated,
and touchscreen devices. They also have relevant experi- and the results supported its utility and effectiveness [20].
ence in performing heuristic evaluations on several products, SMASH builds on an earlier version of validated usabil-
including mobile interfaces. The third expert gained usability ity heuristics for Touchscreen-based Mobile Devices (TMD)
knowledge through participating in HCI workshops which [29]. TMD validation performed in two stages resulted in
included conducting heuristic evaluations as a part of the the refinement of heuristics at each stage [19]. Further
workshop activities. In addition to his usability knowledge, additional validation experiments have been performed on
the expert has experience in website development (mobile TMD, and based on the experimental results, TMD heuristics
friendly website). were refined and renamed as SMASH [20]. The new name

22580 VOLUME 6, 2018

H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

highlights that heuristics is focusing on smartphones, rather • 2 = minor usability problem; fixing it should be given
than other touchscreen-based mobile devices. SMASH low priority.
12 heuristics are listed below with their corresponding tags • 3 = major usability problem; important to fix, should be
(words between brackets): given high priority.
• SMASH1. [Visibility] Visibility of system status. • 4 = usability catastrophe; imperative to fix this before
• SMASH2. [Match] Match between system and the real product can be released.
world. At the conclusion, the master sheet was reviewed by a
• SMASH3. [Control] User control and freedom. HCI specialist who had the relevant experience in heuristic
• SMASH4. [Consistency] Consistency and standards. evaluation. This specialist revision corroborated the findings
• SMASH5. [Error] Error prevention. in the master sheet, specifically the problems and heuristics
• SMASH6. [Memory] Minimise the user’s memory load. association.
• SMASH7. [Customization] Customisation and This study was complemented by testing with eight elderly
shortcuts. participants to check to what extent the usability problems
• SMASH8. [Efficiency] Efficiency of use and identified by the experts would be perceived as real problems
performance. by the elderly. Testing started when experimenter welcomed
• SMASH9. [Minimalist] Aesthetic and minimalist a participant and gave him/her a background on the purpose
design. of the test, then provided the participant with a written list
• SMASH10. [Recover] Help users recognise, diagnose, of tasks. The tasks were identical to the representative tasks
and recover from errors. given to experts during the heuristic evaluation, as well as
• SMASH11. [Help] Help and documentation. the smartphone; a Samsung J7 under default settings. During
• SMASH12. [Ergonomics] Physical interaction and testing, the participant’s interaction with the smartphone was
ergonomics. observed, and the detection of usability problems and the
According to Rogers et al. [12], if heuristic evaluation is successful task completion rate were recorded.
conducted on a functioning product, the experts need to have
some specific user tasks in mind to focus the inspection. IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Therefore, representative tasks were defined for the experts, A. EVALUATION OF THE SMARTPHONE UI
including: The UI compliance to SMASH was investigated while the
• Basic daily tasks: unlock screen, make phone calls, send experts performed their respective tasks. In total, there were
messages, connect to Wi-Fi, and respond to notifications 27 usability problems and 27 heuristic violations identi-
and alerts. fied on the UI. One to one heuristic violations were deter-
• Other essential tasks: contact management-related tasks mined for each usability problem. ‘‘Memory’’ and ‘‘Match’’
(i.e., save a new contact, edit, and share), apps were the two most frequently violated heuristics encountered
management-related tasks (i.e., search, sort, add to home (7 counts each). The next most common violations were
screen, and uninstall), alarm management-related tasks ‘‘Help’’ and ‘‘Consistency’’ (4 and 3, respectively). The four
(i.e., set and delete), and modifying smartphone settings- heuristics were identified 21 times, equivalent to 77.78 %
related tasks (i.e., change a ringtone, and add a new input of the overall violations. Visibility, Control, Customization,
language). Minimalist, and Ergonomics were account for 22.22 % of
These representative tasks are the main gateway through all violations. While, no violations have been addressed for
which elderly can interact with the smartphone to do essential error, efficiency, and recovery heuristics, since the experts
activities. Thus, the tasks will either encourage or discourage did not identify usability problems associated to these
the elderly to continue using the smartphone. Experimenter heuristics.
read through all the problems identified by the five experts, During debriefing session, experts estimated the severity
eliminate duplicates, and compiled into a single master sheet. of each usability problem with the average (mean) recorded.
Master sheet identifying the detected usability problems; The results showed that there were four catastrophic (severity
explanation, place of occurrence, and associated heuristics rating >= 3.5), 16 major (3.5 > severity rating >= 2.5),
that were violated. seven minor (2.5 > severity rating >= 1.5), and zero cos-
In the final stage (debriefing session), the experts were metic (1.5 > severity rating) usability problems identified.
provided with a master sheet listing all the detected usability Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of usability problems in
problems, including those detected by other experts, and SMASH’s 12 heuristics.
asked to rate the problem’s severity as well as devise sug- The results show that the current smartphone UI inter-
gested solutions to fix the problems. Problem’s severity was face failed to comply with the SMASH heuristics in many
rated based on applying the Nielsen scale [24], then mean was aspects. Sections 1 to 5 describe in detail the heuristics
taken. Nielsen scale [24] includes: violations relating to the UI. There were four sections allo-
• 0 = not a usability problem. cated to each of the top four violated heuristics, with the
• 1 = cosmetic problem; need not be fixed unless extra fifth section left for added discussion on other violated
time is available. heuristics.

VOLUME 6, 2018 22581

 H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

FIGURE 1. Distribution of usability problems into SMASH.

1) SMASH6: MINIMISE THE USER’S MEMORY LOAD

The SMASH6 definition states that the smartphone should
provide visible objects, actions and options to prevent the
user from having to memorise useless or irrelevant infor-
mation [20]. This definition has been violated three times
throughout the UI. First, under ‘‘CONTACTS’’ tab, the nar-
row width of the search bar border and the pale colour of the
placeholder not visible against the white background colour,
makes it difficult for the elderly to observe the search bar
and read the placeholder (refer to Figure 2 (a)). Secondly,
low contrast between the unlock screen instruction and back-
ground, in addition to the small font size reduces the visibility
to read and interpret the instruction (Figure 2 (b)). Thirdly,
using uppercase letters to refer to the button (e.g., CREATE
and MORE), while a word using capital letters normally
relates to a title (e.g., Phone). This reduces the elderly per-
son’s ability to detect buttons and differentiate them from the
titles (Figure 2 (c)).
SMASH6 suggests ‘‘it is important that sensitive infor-
mation should be placed in a visible spot ’’[20]. Violations
to this suggestion have been detected in three instances;
(1) Greater area is given to the apps icons on the centre of the
screen versus limited area, almost on the top of the screen,
for substantial SEARCH, A-Z, and EDIT buttons (refer to FIGURE 2. Heuristic 6 [Memory] Violations.
Figure 2 (d)). (2) The position of the ‘‘SAVE’’ button at
the top of the screen is opposite to the direction of the save during the device charging process and instead, is replaced by
contact task (up to down). This position could make the a charging percentage (refer to Figure 2 (g)).
‘‘SAVE’’ button not noticeable to the elderly. (Figure 2 (e)). Due to the elders limited or failing vision [4], dim
(3) Notifications and alerts are scattered between the notifi- and undistinguishable UI elements may fail to catch the
cation panel (opens by swiping down the top of the screen) elderly user’s attention. Also, presenting UI elements in hid-
and the application drawer (refer to Figure 2 (f)). Alerts and den/unobserved spots could cause a visibility issue for this
notifications are not assembled and organised in a visible area group of users. Hence, elderly’s anxiety and memory load
on the UI. could be increased since they would need to recall how and
The system suffers from an absence of appropriate easy to where to find these elements.
read instructions in some areas of the UI. These instructions The usability problems mentioned above are presented in
are meant to guide the user to execute tasks which require Appendix A. Appendix A shows the problem’s ID, location
performing interactions which the user may be unaware of. of the problems occurrence, the mean severity ratings, and the
This absence conflicts with SMASH6 that urges instructions related figure.
on how to use the system be visible or easy to access and
follow [20]. Unlock screen is an example of a task that suf- 2) SMASH2: MATCH BETWEEN SYSTEM AND REAL WORLD
fers from the temporary absence of instructions. The unlock On the smartphone, the search function is presented as an
instruction is provided as shown in Figure 2 (b) but disappears uppercase word at the top of the screen (refer to Figure 3 (a)).

22582 VOLUME 6, 2018

H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

could be difficult to comprehend given an elderly user’ mental

and motor ability limitations. The not so intuitive ‘‘tap and
hold’’, and ‘‘drag and drop’’ interactions do not comply with
SMASH2 which requires smartphones to provide interaction
modes to help the user perform tasks in an intuitive way [20].
Due to these interactions (‘‘tap and hold’’/‘‘drag and drop’’)
and their dynamic nature, this problem cannot be illustrated
graphically in this study. The usability problems as discussed
above are listed in Appendix B.

3) SMASH11: HELP AND DOCUMENTATION

SMASH11 indicates that the smartphone should provide
easy-to-find documentation and help, centred around the
FIGURE 3. Heuristics 2 [Match] Violations.
user’s current task and recommending concrete steps to fol-
low [20]. When the user taps on the ‘‘Phone’’ button, a search
function will be provided (refer to Figure 2 (a)). However, the
Such design for the search function would not be well search placeholder, which consists of one word (Search), does
known or understood by the elderly who would be more not present an informative instruction that would help to brief
familiar with a search bar feature, typically accompanied by a the user to enter the contact’s name and/or number to perform
magnifier glass icon, to represent the search function. To save search. An elderly adult may not understand how this search
a new contact after entering the contact’s name and phone engine functions and could be confused as to whether it
number, the user would click on ‘‘SAVE’’ button. The posi- provides search for Internet, applications, or contacts. While
tion of the ‘‘SAVE’’ button (in the upper part of the screen) under the screen lock, home screen, and application drawer,
is opposite to the logical and natural order of the direction three usability problems related to the absence of contextual
of the task being performed (i.e., up to down), refer to cues were discovered. These contextual cues should provide
Figure 2 (e). The design of the search function and the posi- users guidance that would help to communicate right func-
tion of the ‘‘SAVE’’ button conflicts with the SMASH2 defi- tionalities to the user thereby removing the need for the user
nition; ‘‘the device should follow real world conventions and to guess. The swipe to unlock screen feature caused violations
display information in a logical and natural order.’’ [20] to SMASH11 since there was no tooltip provided in the UI
The SMASH2 definition indicates that the smartphone informing the user to perform a swipe interaction to unlock
should speak using the user’s language rather than using the screen (refer to Figure 2 (b)). Even the available instruc-
system-oriented concepts and technicalities [20]. In fact, tion is replaced by the charging percentage while charging
the system used jargon technical terms in many instances the smartphone (refer to Figure 2 (g)). Even though swipe
throughout the UI. For example, to unlock the screen, the user interaction may look intuitive for young users, it may not be
is required to enter their ‘‘PIN’’ number, which is proba- the case for elderly adults given their limited and diminishing
bly incomprehensible term to most elderly people (refer to abilities to perceive and remember things [4]. The same issue
Figure 3 (b)). ‘‘Also, the language should be related to the was repeated with add application to home screen task, which
real world and/or recognisable concepts.’’ [20], while vague also suffers from the absence of a tooltip. This task requires
terms are used to express various smartphone UI elements. dragging the application from the application drawer and
For example, under the screen lock, the ‘‘OK’’ button is placing it on the home screen. Due to the dynamic nature
used to function as ‘‘Enter’’ in desktop/laptop’s keyboard of this task, an illustration cannot be shown. The access
(refer to Figure 3 (b)). The elderly would be more familiar quick settings panel functions (e.g., Wi-Fi, Location, etc.)
to use ‘‘Enter’’ based on their experiences using a computer. experiences an absence of any visual cues on top of the screen
Similarly, the settings options language is not easy to under- (e.g., expand indicator), which would help to make the user
stand. One-word option (e.g., Bluetooth) or a brief sentence aware of swiping down the top of the screen to expose these
(e.g., Data Usage) doesn’t convey the required meaning about functions (Figure 4 (a)). The usability problems are presented
the option’s function (refer to Figure 3 (c)). in Appendix C.
The Smartphone provides several tasks which are required
to perform unfamiliar and challenging interactions, e.g., ‘‘tap 4) SMASH4: CONSISTENCY AND STANDARDS
and hold’’ on the Wi-Fi icon to access available Wi-Fi access According to SMASH4, the smartphone should follow estab-
points. The elderly would continue pressing down on the lished conventions, allowing users to do tasks in a familiar,
Wi-Fi icon for a relatively long time, which is difficult to per- standard and consistent manner [20]. Similar designs have
ceive, since ‘‘tap’’ to activate function is a lot more common been applied to the UI elements that adopt distinct roles.
than ‘‘tap and hold’’. A similar issue was identified for the For example, the message icon is similar to the conventional
‘‘drag and drop’’ interaction that requires continuous contact email icon (Figure 5 (a)). Also, similar terms have been used
between the finger and touchscreen on the device, which to label the UI elements that performing distinct functions.

VOLUME 6, 2018 22583

 H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

FIGURE 4. Heuristic 11 [Help] Violations. FIGURE 6. Others SMASHs Violations.

area on the UI. While in Figure 5 (f), the favourites screen

is shown after tapping on the ‘‘Phone’’ button because
‘‘FAVOURITES’’ was the last accessed tab, in this sce-
nario. This violates SMASH4 which expects the system to
allow the user to perform tasks in a standard and consistent
manner [20]. The usability problems mentioned above are
presented in Appendix D.

5) OTHER SMASHS VIOLATIONS

The evaluation identified those actions that are automatically
performed by the operating system (OS), auto connects to a
known Wi-Fi network, is an example of such a case. In this
example, the OS will directly connect the smartphone with a
known (previously connected) Wi-Fi network without giving
the user the ability to select between the all available net-
works. This limits the elderly’s ability to manage the selection
between the networks, especially in the case where there is
more than one known network. The OS will connect with
one of these networks which may not be the network that the
elderly adult is trying to connect to. Additionally, the user
receives many notifications and alerts during daily use of a
smartphone. The collection of notifications and alerts can be
shown by performing a ‘‘swipe down’’ interaction from the
top of the screen to display the notification panel, or they
may be scattered on the application drawer (refer to Figure 2
FIGURE 5. Heuristic 4 [Consistency] Violations. (f)). The user is required to make various attempts to respond
to the intended notification/alert. Therefore, there is an issue
which lacks a control widget that could collect received alerts
The two instances are classified under the issue; (1) ‘‘Apps’’ and notifications and assist elderly to manage them. These
on the home screen and Microsoft Apps and Samsung two problems violate SMASH3 that requires that the user
Apps in the application drawer (refer to Figure 5 (b, c)). should be able to easily manage running applications, and
(2), the default keyboard and Samsung keyboard under resources in use [20].
settings (Figure 5 (d)). The SMASH9 definition identifies that the smartphone
In some instances, the system shows a different response should avoid displaying unwanted information which could
to the same user action, which can negatively affect the overload the screen [20]. The smartphone interface design
user’s experience. When the user taps on the ‘‘Phone’’ but- shows a lot of information/UI elements under one screen.
ton, a different screen will be shown depending on the last As shown in Figure 6 (a), there are many options under
tab accessed (LOG, FAVOURITES, and CONTACTS). For settings. Also, many options under language and input; lan-
example, in Figure 5 (e), the contacts screen is shown after guage, default keyboard, Samsung keyboard, etc. (refer to
tapping on the ‘‘Phone’’ button because the user tapped on figure 5(d)). A lot of these options elderly rarely needs for
the ‘‘CONTACTS’’ tab previously before leaving to another frequent settings.

22584 VOLUME 6, 2018

H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

Regarding SMASH1 violations, the system does not pro-

vide an observed feedback when certain actions are per-
formed. For example, when the user changes the ringtone,
no visual confirmation feedback is provided when the new
ringtone was selected. Although audio feedback is provided,
but not if using the ‘‘silent’’ mode. Such absence of ade-
quate feedback would leave the elderly uncertain about the
consequences of their actions, which is consequently in con-
flict with the SMASH1 definition; ‘‘the device should keep
the user informed about all the processes and state changes
through feedbacks and in a reasonable time’’ [20].
The system did not provide a convenient alternative to the
problematic ‘‘drag and drop’’ interaction to add an appli-
cation, particularly for frequent apps, to be placed onto the FIGURE 7. Problems identified by elderly participants.
home screen (create shortcut). An alternative interaction is
provided through the ‘‘EDIT’’ button, suffers from the same participant(s) should either tap on ‘‘MORE’’ button,
usability problem that the ‘‘SEARCH’’ button suffers from. or ‘‘tap and hold’’ on the contact participant required to
Hence, SMASH7 proposes to ‘‘provide basic and advanced share.
configuration options that allow definitions and customiza- • Missed call logo was not distinguishable on the status
tion of shortcuts to frequent actions’’ which in this case were bar (refer to figure 7 (c)). Therefore, the participant(s)
not fulfilled [20]. failed to realise that there was a missed call that should
The position of the ‘‘Save’’ button at the top of the screen be responded to.
is not within reach of the user’s thumb (Figure 2 (e)). This • Once the cross sign ‘‘X’’ was tapped, the alarm was
is considered to be in conflict to SMASH12 suggestion to immediately deleted. No confirmation message was
provide functionalities that fit the natural posture and within shown to alert participant(s) about the consequence of
reach of the user’s dominant hand [20]. The usability prob- this action.
lems referred to other SMASHs violations are presented Observing the participants’ behaviour revealed that task
in Appendix E. associated with the ‘‘drag and drop’’ gesture recorded a
remarkable low successful task completion rate. The success-
B. TESTING WITH ELDERLY USERS ful task completion rate is the number of elderly participants
Eight participants took part in the testing, according to who completed the task divided by the number who attempted
Nielsen [30] having five participants can reveal most of the the task (eight participants) and then multiplied by 100. Only
problems. The participants were aged 60 years and above. one participant succeeded to add an application to the home
Three of them were females, while the rest were males. As for screen task, equivalent to 12.5% successful task completion
their educational background, four of the participants were rate, due to failure in applying ‘‘drag and drop’’ experienced
college graduates or had a postgraduate degree, and three had by the rest of participants. Even when gesture was demon-
some college/high school credits. Seven participants had been strated to the participants during the post-testing discussion,
using smartphones for about two years, and all of them were the successful task completion rate was improved to 25%
using Android-based smartphones. (2/8), i.e., only one more participant could apply the gesture
Overall, 24 usability problems were encountered by the correctly after explanation. A low successful task completion
elderly participants, 19 of them were identified through rate was also recorded with task associated ‘‘tap and hold’’
applying heuristic evaluation using SMASH, i.e., 79.17% gesture which was equivalent to 37.5%. Three participants
of the problems experienced by elderly were predicted by only were able to apply ‘‘tap and hold’’ to access available
the experts. User testing also revealed new five usability Wi-Fi networks menu. Even after the gesture was demon-
problems which were not predicted by the experts through strated to the participants, the successful task completion rate
heuristic evaluation. Each of these problems was experienced was improved to 50% (4/8), i.e., only one more participant
by one or more participant, and is: could apply ‘‘tap and hold’’ correctly after explanation.
• The meaning of the floating button was not obvious, e.g., Motor skills inability to apply ‘‘drag and drop’’ and ‘‘tap
add contact button (refer to figure 7 (a). Participant(s) and hold’’ gestures was the reason for the failure given by
was not able to understand button’s function. the participants. Thus, the issue with ‘‘drag and drop’’ and
• ‘‘Enter message’’ was not easily distinguishable; after ‘‘tap and hold’’ did not originate from the elderly user’s
entering the intended recipient, the participant(s) con- deficiency to understand the gestures mechanism only, rather
tinued typing the message in ‘‘Enter recipient’’ (refer to from elderly user’s physical inability to perform the gestures,
figure 7 (b)). even after the gestures were demonstrated for them. While no
• Some useful functions were hidden from the UI, e.g., issue, physical or cognitive, was demonstrated by the elderly
‘‘SHARE’’ (refer to figure 7 (a)). To access ‘‘SHARE’’, participants regarding applying the ‘‘tap’’ gesture.

VOLUME 6, 2018 22585

 H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

C. USABILITY PROBLEMS CATEGORIES AND

DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Through analysing the set of usability problems identified
by experts and the five problems revealed by the elderly
participants during user testing, the problems were classified
into four categories as illustrated in Table 2. The usability
defects presented by ISO/IEC 25066 [31], were considered as
the basis to define the usability problem categories. ISO/IEC
25066 [31] defines seven typical usability defects as follows:
(1) additional unnecessary steps not required as part of com-
pleting a task, (2) misleading information, (3) insufficient FIGURE 8. Approach to the compilation of subcategory design solutions.
and/or poor information on the UI, (4) unexpected system
responses, (5) limitations in navigation, (6) inefficient use
error recovery mechanisms, and (7) physical characteristics
of the UI that are not suitable for the physical characteristics identified during the evaluation session. The five new prob-
of the user. lems identified by the elderly users were reported to the
First, the usability problems were mapped with the match- experts, who then suggested solutions for each problem.
ing usability defects. Among the seven usability defects, Since each sub-category consisted of a set of usability prob-
problems were found to match with four defects; physical lems (P1 to Pn), the solutions suggested by the experts for
characteristics of the UI, unexpected system responses, mis- each individual problem classified under that sub-category
leading information, insufficient and/or poor information. were compiled into broad and comprehensive design solu-
Based on these four defects, four primary usability problems tions. The list of design solutions, which was a compila-
categories were identified: appearance, language, dialogue, tion of the suggested solutions by the experts for fixing the
and information. Table 2 shows these four categories. overall usability problems underlying that subcategory, were
The appearance and language problems derived from presented as bullet points. Figure 8 illustrates the approach for
the physical characteristics of the UI defects. Though they the compilation of the design solutions, while Table 2 elabo-
derived from the same usability defect, appearance and lan- rates on the design solutions.
guage were defined as two separate categories because they
are concerned with different aspects of the usability prob- D. DISCUSSION
lems. Appearance focuses on aspects of the problems related SMASH detected 27 specific usability problems related to
to the way the elderly user examines UI elements, while the smartphone’s domain along with 27 heuristic violations.
language concerns aspects of the problems related to the Based on the frequencies of the heuristics violated by cat-
way the elderly user interprets and understands words on egory, there were two categories of unfulfilled heuristics;
UI. According to ISO 9241-110 [32] , dialogue is defined (1) Memory, Match, Help, and Consistency which account
as an ‘‘interaction between a user and an interactive system for 77.78 % of all violations, (2) Visibility, Control, Cus-
as a sequence of user actions (inputs) and system responses tomisation, Minimalism, and Ergonomics which account
(outputs) in order to achieve a goal’’. The dialogue cate- for 22.22 % of all violations. While no violations have
gory has been expanded from unexpected system response been addressed for error, efficiency, and recovery heuris-
defects since it concerns aspects of problems related to user tics. Heuristic evaluation studies show that the frequencies
actions and system response, rather than system response of the heuristics violated could differ from one study to
only. The information category was formed by merging insuf- another, however, evaluation results of various systems show
ficient/poor information, and misleading information defects that ‘‘Consistency’’ and ‘‘Match’’ were among the top four
into one category. Problems related to the elderly user’s violated heuristics, while ‘‘Memory’’ showed a considerable
comprehension of the information presented in the UI were number of violations [33]–[36]. Previous studies show that
classified under this category. having unviolated heuristics is possible, for example ‘‘Recov-
The four primary usability categories were further analysed ery’’ was not violated in study findings reported in [33].
and classified into sub-categories each concerning a specific This study was complemented by testing with eight elderly
set of usability problems belonging to the comprehensive participants. It was found that 79.17% of the problems expe-
usability issues which the primary category relates to. For rienced by the elderly were predicted by the experts through
example, under the language category, there are three sets heuristic evaluation. This results in a good agreement with
of language-related problems (sub-categories); (1) using not previous studies which indicated that five participants usu-
meaningful language (e.g., OK button), (2) using jargon terms ally find around 75% of the total usability problems in the
(e.g., PIN), (3) and terms similarity (e.g., Apps, Microsoft UIs [12], [16], [21].
Apps, and Galaxy Apps). Testing with the elderly participants also revealed issues
During the debriefing stage, solutions were suggested by regarding the gestures applied by the elderly to perform a
the experts to solve the usability problems that had been task. The ‘‘tap’’ gesture was the easiest for the elderly to
22586 VOLUME 6, 2018
H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

TABLE 2. Usability problems categories and associated design solutions.

VOLUME 6, 2018 22587

 H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

TABLE 2. Continued. Usability problems categories and associated design solutions.

operate on the smartphone. While task requiring a ‘‘drag and drop’’, and ‘‘tap and hold’’ gestures. Therefore, it is sug-
drop’’ gesture shows the lowest successful task completion gested that the use of these gestures be eliminated or at least
rate. These findings are in good conformance with the find- reduced.
ings of Leitão [37] that revealed the ‘‘tap’’ gesture was easily This study has contributed to the classification of usabil-
understood and performed, while the ‘‘drag and drop’’ gesture ity problems into categories and subcategories, and provid-
was more confusing and harder to perform. ing design solutions to fix the problems underlying each
Some of the usability problems identified in this study sub-category. A classification containing categories and sub-
have a pronounced impact on the elderly adult user. For categories which capture the essence of the individual usabil-
example, performing the ‘‘drag and drop’’. Other problems ity problems, results in more meaningful problem clusters
could have a general impact on both elderly adults and and advances the understanding of the sets of problems hin-
novice users. Like differentiating between the title and but- dering elderly users. While design solutions would help to
ton design similarities; capital letters (e.g., Phone) refers provide insights to smartphone UI designers into potential
to the title, a word with uppercase letters (e.g., CREATE) design improvements for UIs. Such improvements in design
relates to the button. The novice young users could be con- of ‘‘elderly friendly’’ interfaces would help to reduce the
fused between these similar designs that present different reluctance of the elderly to use smartphones.
outcomes, but the impact on them will be redundant after Even though a heuristic evaluation of Android-based
few attempts because of the novice user’s cognitive ability to smartphones contributed to the classification of usability
discriminate. A similar observation has been demonstrated by problems, an evaluation of iOS-based smartphones would
Harada et al. [38]. According to Harada et al. [38], younger have been able to reveal new usability problems, which in turn
users might be able to swiftly learn to encounter the different could extend the defined categories and suggested solutions
challenges (For example, non-instinctive multi-finger ges- for usability problems. Thus, one limitation of this study was
tures) through trial-and-error and by relying on their mental that it lacked an iOS evaluation.
models to gel with newest technologies; however, the hin- As a future work, a prototype of a smartphone launcher will
drances could be greater for elderly users. be designed in view of the findings of this study, specifically,
the design solutions. The launcher prototype will be subjected
V. CONCLUSIONS to usability testing with elderly participants. By analysing
Applying a heuristic evaluation technique using SMASH was the interactions of the elderly participants with the pro-
shown to be effective in identifying a large proportion of totype, while doing their respective tasks, and their feed-
the usability problems the elderly users faced while inter- back from a retrospective think-aloud session, the usability
acting with a smartphone. The usability problems were not problems categories can be refined, and the launcher pro-
only due to UI design, some of the problems were due to totype enhanced. The enhanced prototype can then be the
difficulties of the elderly in performing the gestures which basis for the implementation of a commercialised smartphone
applied to the corresponding task; specifically, the ‘‘drag and launcher.

22588 VOLUME 6, 2018

H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

TABLE 3. Seven usability problems (out of 27) and SMASH6 violations.

TABLE 4. Seven usability problems (out of 27) and SMASH2 violations.

TABLE 5. Four usability problems (out of 27) and SMASH11 violations.

TABLE 6. Three usability problems (out of 27) and SMASH4 violations.

APPENDIX A APPENDIX C
See Table 3. See Table 5.

APPENDIX B APPENDIX D
See Table 4. See Table 6.

VOLUME 6, 2018 22589

 H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

TABLE 7. Six usability problems (out of 27) and other SMASHs violations.

APPENDIX E [15] R. Inostroza, C. Rusu, S. Roncagliolo, and V. Rusu, ‘‘Usability heuristics

See Table 7. for touchscreen-based mobile devices: Update,’’ in Proc. Chilean Conf.
Hum.-Comput. Interaction, 2013, pp. 24–29.
[16] B. Shneiderman, C. Plaisant, M. Cohen, and S. Jacobs, Designing the User
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. London,
Many thanks to all experts who took part in the heuristic U.K.: Pearson, 2016.
[17] A. W. Kushniruk, H. Monkman, D. Tuden, P. Bellwood, and E. M. Borycki,
evaluation stages that this study required. Special thanks to ‘‘Integrating heuristic evaluation with cognitive walkthrough: Develop-
Dr. Cristian Rusu and Ms. Daniela Otey for the insights in ment of a hybrid usability inspection method,’’ Stud. Health Technol.
applying SMASH. Inform., vol. 208, pp. 221–225, Jan. 2015.
[18] J. Nielsen, ‘‘10 usability heuristics for user interface design,’’ Nielsen
Norman Group, California, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. 1.1, 1995.
REFERENCES [19] S. Hermawati and G. Lawson, ‘‘Establishing usability heuristics for
[1] U. DeSA, ‘‘World population prospects: The 2012 revision,’’ Pop- heuristics evaluation in a specific domain: Is there a consensus?’’ Appl.
ulation Division Dept. Econ. Soc. Affairs United Nat. Secretariat, Ergonom., vol. 56, pp. 34–51, Sep. 2016.
New York, NY, USA, Tech. Rep. ESA/P/WP.228, 2017. [20] R. Inostroza, C. Rusu, S. Roncagliolo, V. Rusu, and C. A. Collazos,
[2] A. Olwal, D. Lachanas, and E. Zacharouli, ‘‘OldGen: Mobile phone ‘‘Developing SMASH: A set of SMArtphone’s uSability heuristics,’’ Com-
personalization for older adults,’’ in Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors put. Standards Interfaces, vol. 43, pp. 40–52, Jan. 2016.
Comput. Syst., 2011, pp. 3393–3396. [21] J. Nielsen, ‘‘How to conduct a heuristic evaluation,’’ Nielsen Norman
[3] Z. Linghao and L. Ying, ‘‘On methods of designing smartphone interface,’’ Group, Fremont, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. 1, 1995.
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. Service Sci. (ICSESS), Jul. 2010, [22] J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering. London, U.K.: Academic, 1993.
pp. 584–587. [23] J. Zhang, T. R. Johnson, V. L. Patel, D. L. Paige, and T. Kubose,
[4] J. Balata, Z. Mikovec, and T. Slavicek, ‘‘KoalaPhone: Touchscreen mobile ‘‘Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices,’’
phone UI for active seniors,’’ J. Multimodal User Interfaces, vol. 9, no. 4, J. Biomed. Inform., vol. 36, nos. 1–2, pp. 23–30, 2003.
pp. 263–273, 2015. [24] J. Nielsen, ‘‘Usability inspection methods,’’ in Proc. Conf. Companion
[5] K. Kalimullah and D. Sushmitha, ‘‘Influence of design elements in mobile Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 1994, pp. 413–414.
applications on user experience of elderly people,’’ Proc. Comput. Sci., [25] A. de Lima Salgado, S. S. Rodrigues, and R. P. M. Fortes, ‘‘Evolving
vol. 113, pp. 352–359, Jan. 2017. Heuristic Evaluation for multiple contexts and audiences: Perspectives
[6] M. Al-Razgan and H. S. Al-Khalifa, ‘‘Sahl: A touchscreen mobile launcher from a mapping study,’’ in Proc. 34th ACM Int. Conf. Design Commun.,
for Arab elderly,’’ J. Mobile Multimedia, vol. 13, nos. 1–2, pp. 75–99, 2017. 2016, Art. no. 19.
[7] F. Arab, Y. Malik, and B. Abdulrazak, ‘‘Evaluation of PhonAge: An [26] M. S. Al-Razgan, H. S. Al-Khalifa, and M. D. Al-Shahrani, ‘‘Heuristics for
adapted smartphone interface for elderly people,’’ in Human-Computer evaluating the usability of mobile launchers for elderly people,’’ in Proc.
Interaction—INTERACT. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013, pp. 547–554. Int. Conf. Design, User Exper., Usability, 2014, pp. 415–424.
[8] J. Strengers, ‘‘Smartphone interface design requirements for seniors,’’ [27] I. Watkins, B. Kules, X. Yuan, and B. Xie, ‘‘Heuristic evaluation of healthy
in Information Studies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Univ. Amsterdam, eating apps for older adults,’’ J. Consum. Health Internet, vol. 18, no. 2,
2012. pp. 105–127, 2014.
[9] J. Johnson and K. Finn, Designing User Interfaces for an Aging Popula- [28] P. A. Silva, K. Holden, and A. Nii, ‘‘Smartphones, smart seniors, but not-
tion: Towards Universal Design. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, so-smart apps: A heuristic evaluation of fitness apps,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf.
2017. Augmented Cognition, 2014, pp. 347–358.
[10] A. M. Piper, R. C. Garcia, and R. N. Brewer, ‘‘Understanding the chal- [29] R. Inostroza, C. Rusu, S. Roncagliolo, C. Jiménez, and V. Rusu, ‘‘Usability
lenges and opportunities of smart mobile devices among the oldest old,’’ heuristics validation through empirical evidences: A touchscreen-based
Int. J. Mobile Hum. Comput. Interaction, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 83–98, 2016. mobile devices proposal,’’ in Proc. 31st Int. Conf. Chilean Comput. Sci.
[11] J. R. Lewis, ‘‘Usability: Lessons learned. . . and yet to be learned,’’ Int. Soc. (SCCC), Nov. 2012, pp. 60–68.
J. Hum.-Comput. Interaction, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 663–684, 2014. [30] J. Nielsen, ‘‘Why you only need to test with 5 users,’’ Jakob Nielsen’s
[12] Y. Rogers, H. Sharp, and J. Preece, Interaction Design: Beyond Human- Alertbox, Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont, CA, USA, Tech. Rep., 2000.
Computer Interaction. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2015. [31] Software Engineering—Software Product Quality Requirements and Eval-
[13] A. Dillon, ‘‘The evaluation of software usability,’’ in International Ency- uation (SQuaRE)—Common Industry Format (CIF) for Usability Test
clopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. London, U.K.: Taylor & Reports, Standard ISO/IEC FDIS 25066, International Organization for
Francis, 2001. Standardization (ISO). Switzerland, 2016.
[14] R. Y. Gómez, D. C. Caballero, and J.-L. Sevillano, ‘‘Heuristic evaluation [32] Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 110: Dialogue Princi-
on mobile interfaces: A new checklist,’’ Sci. World J., vol. 2014, Sep. 2014, ples, Standard ISO 9241-110, International Organization for Standardiza-
Art. no. 434326. tion (ISO). Switzerland, 2006.

22590 VOLUME 6, 2018

H. M. Salman et al.: Usability Evaluation of the Smartphone UI in Supporting Elderly Users from Experts’ Perspective

[33] E. Hildebrand, J. M. Bekki, B. L. Bernstein, and C. J. Harrison, ‘‘Online WAN FATIMAH WAN AHMAD received
learning environment design: A heuristic evaluation,’’ in Proc. 120th ASEE the Ph.D. degree from Universiti Kebangsaan
Annu. Conf. Expo., 2013, pp. 1–11. Malaysia. She is currently an Associate Professor
[34] M. J. Graham, T. K. Kubose, D. Jordan, J. Zhang, T. R. Johnson, and with 25 years of experience as an academia. She
V. L. Patel, ‘‘Heuristic evaluation of infusion pumps: Implications for is also the Head of the Department of Computer
patient safety in intensive care units,’’ Int. J. Med. Inform., vol. 73, and Information Sciences, Universiti Teknologi
nos. 11–12, pp. 771–779, 2004. Petronas, Malaysia. Her research interests include
[35] N. Borovina, D. Bošković, J. Dizdarević, K. Bulja, and A. Salihbe-
multimedia, human–computer interaction, mathe-
gović, ‘‘Heuristic based evaluation of Mobile Services Web portal usabil-
matics education, e-learning, and mobile learning.
ity,’’ in Proc. 22nd Telecommun. Forum Telfor (TELFOR), Nov. 2014,
pp. 1150–1153.
[36] P. H. Lilholt, M. H. Jensen, and O. K. Hejlesen, ‘‘Heuristic evaluation of a
telehealth system from the danish telecare north trial,’’ Int. J. Med. Inform.,
vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 319–326, 2015.
[37] R. A. Leitão, ‘‘Creating mobile gesture-based interaction design patterns
for older adults: A study of tap and swipe gestures with Portuguese
seniors,’’ M.S. thesis, Faculdade Eng., Univ. Porto, Porto, Portugal, 2012.
[38] S. Harada, D. Sato, H. Takagi, and C. Asakawa, ‘‘Characteristics of elderly
user behavior on mobile multi-touch devices,’’ in Human-Computer
Interaction—INTERACT. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013, pp. 323–341.

HASANIN MOHAMMED SALMAN received SUZIAH SULAIMAN received the B.Sc. degree
the bachelor’s degree in computer engineering from Dalhousie University, the M.Phil. degree
from Al-Fateh University, Libya, and the master’s from London South Bank University, and the
degree in computer science, specialized in soft- Ph.D. degree from University College London,
ware engineering, from Universiti Putra Malaysia. U.K. She is currently a Senior Lecturer with the
He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in Department of Computer and Information Sci-
information technology with Universiti Teknologi ences, Universiti Teknologi Petronas. Her research
Petronas, Malaysia. His research interests include interests include human–computer interaction,
human–computer interaction, user experience, and user experience, and haptic interactions.
usability.

VOLUME 6, 2018 22591