skip to main content
10.1145/2507065.2507066acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Understanding the process of learning touch-screen mobile applications

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 September 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mobile devices, together with touch-screen interfaces, have become part of the everyday usage items of many information consumers across the globe. However, it is clear that the learning curve for touch-screen interfaces is steeper than what was expected. This presents some problems especially along with the current trend towards designing more complex mobile applications. The objective of this research was to determine how users interact with applications on touch-screen mobile devices, and how they progress through the various learning phases. A literature study, two pilot studies and a full survey questionnaire were used to gather data and perceptions about the status quo of learning within mobile touch-screen interfaces. Results indicated the presence of recurring patterns in users' preferences. In particular, associations with personal characteristics, namely age, gender and the length of experience, were observed. These patterns might provide fundamental value as a theoretical ground for designing intuitive mobile applications.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. 1982. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychol. Rev. 89, 4 (Jul. 1982), 369--406. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.89.4.369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Böhmer, M., Hecht, B., Schöning, J., Krüger, A., and Bauer, G. 2011. Falling asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle: A large scale study on mobile application usage. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services (Stockholm, Sweden, August 30 - September 02, 2011). MobileHCI'11. ACM, New York, NY, 47--56. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2037373.2037383. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bragdon, A., Nelson, E., Li, Y., and Hinckley, K. 2011. Experimental analysis of touch-screen gesture designs in mobile environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, Canada, May 07-12, 2011). CHI'11. ACM, New York, NY, 403--412. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Burnett, M. M., Beckwith, L., Wiedenbeck, S., Fleming, S. D., Cao, J., Park, T. H., Grigoreanu, V., Rector, K. 2011. Gender pluralism in problem-solving software. Interact. Comput. 23, 5 (Sep. 2011), 450--460. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.06.004 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Carroll, J. M. and Carrithers, C. 1984. Training wheels in a user interface. Commun. ACM 27, 8 (Aug. 1984), 800--806. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/358198.358218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Carroll, J. M. and Rosson, M. B. 1987. Paradox of the Active User. In Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction, J. M. Carroll, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 80--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ericsson, K. A. 2006. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. R. Hoffman and P. J. Feltovich, Eds. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 685--705.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fitts, P. M. and Posner, M. I. 1967. Human Performance. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jain, M. and Balakrishnan, R. 2012. User learning and performance with bezel menus. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, TX, USA, May 05-10, 2012). CHI'12. ACM, New York, NY, 2221--2230. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Li, Y. 2010. Gesture Search: A tool for fast mobile data access. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (New York, NY, USA, October 03-06, 2010). UIST'10. ACM, New York, NY, 87--96. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1866029.1866044. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Mack, R. L., Lewis, C. H., and Carroll, J. M. 1983. Learning to use word processors: Problems and prospects. ACM T. Off. Inf. Syst. 1, 3 (Jul. 1983), 254--271. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/357436.357440. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. McGrenere, J. 2004. Iterative Design and Evaluation of Multiple Interfaces for a Complex Commercial Word Processor. In Multiple User Interfaces: Cross-Platform Applications and Context-Aware Interfaces, A. Seffah and H. Javahery, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 351--372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore, G. 1991. Crossing the chasm. HarperBusiness Book, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Norman, D. 2010. Natural user interfaces are not natural. ACM interactions 17, 3 (May-Jun. 2010), 6--10. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1744161.1744163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., and Kuorelahti, J. 2005. Interaction in 4-second bursts: The fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Portland, OR, USA, April 02-07, 2005). CHI'05. ACM, New York, NY, 919--928. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Oulasvirta, A., Wahlström, M., and Ericsson, K. A. 2011. What does it mean to be good at using a mobile device? An investigation of three levels of experience and skill. Int. J. Hum-Comput. St. 69, 3 (Mar. 2011), 155--169. DOI= dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.11.003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Rosson, M. B. 1983. Patterns of experience in text editing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA, December 12-15, 1983). CHI'83. New York, NY, 171--175. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/800045.801604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Shneiderman, B. and Hochheiser, H. 2001. Universal usability as a stimulus to advanced interface design. Behav. Inform. Technol. 20, 5 (Sep-Oct. 2001), 367--376. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290110083602.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Understanding the process of learning touch-screen mobile applications

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGDOC '13: Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on Design of communication
        September 2013
        200 pages
        ISBN:9781450321310
        DOI:10.1145/2507065

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 September 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGDOC '13 Paper Acceptance Rate21of38submissions,55%Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader