skip to main content
10.1145/3472714.3473620acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mobile Interface Theory: A Conceptual Tool for Identifying Digital Rhetoric in a Mobile Context

Published:12 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to expand the theoretical and methodological practices of technical communicators by expounding on the use of Mobile Interface Theory (MIT) in the usability evaluation of a telemedicine mobile interface. MIT is an effective conceptual tool to use to design usability studies of user interfaces in the mobile context as well as to identify digital rhetoric for which usability serves as a proxy.

References

  1. Reem Alnanih, Thiruvengadam Radhakrishnan, and Olga S. Ormandjieva. 2012. Characterising Context for Mobile User Interfaces in Health Care Applications. Procedia Computer Science 10, (January 2012), 1086–1093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.06.153Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lori Uscher-Pines, Andrew Mulcahy, David Cowling, Gerald Hunter, Rachel Burns, and Ateev Mehrotra. 2016. Access and Quality of Care in Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 22, 4 (April 2016), 282–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2015.0079Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Predrag Klasnja and Wanda Pratt. 2012. Healthcare in the pocket: mapping the space of mobile-phone health interventions. J Biomed Inform 45, 1 (February 2012), 184–198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2011.08.017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Elizabeth Borycki, Andre Kushniruk,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Khan Kalimullah and Donthula Sushmitha. 2017. Influence of Design Elements in Mobile Applications on User Experience of Elderly People. Procedia Computer Science 113, (January 2017), 352–359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.344Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Zia Agha, Charlene R. Weir, and Yunan Chen. 2013. Usability of Telehealth Technologies. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications 2013, (2013), 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/834514Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Calvin K. L. Or and Ben-Tzion Karsh. 2009. A Systematic Review of Patient Acceptance of Consumer Health Information Technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 16, 4 (July 2009), 550–560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2888Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Gaby Anne Wildenbos, Linda Peute, and Monique Jaspers. 2017. Facilitators and barriers of electronic health record patient portal adoption by older adults: a literature study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2017, 235, 308-312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lori Uscher-Pines, and Ateev Mehrotra. 2014. Analysis Of Teladoc Use Seems To Indicate Expanded Access To Care For Patients Without Prior Connection To A Provider. Health Affairs 33, 2 (February 2014). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0989Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. William Brown, Po-Yin Yen, Marlene Rojas, and Rebecca Schnall. 2013. Assessment of the Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) for evaluating mobile health (mHealth) technology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 46, 6 (December 2013), 1080–1087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2013.08.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Brian McNely, Clay Spinuzzi, and Christa Teston. 2015. Contemporary Research Methodologies in Technical Communication. Technical Communication Quarterly 24, 1 (January 2015), 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2015.975958Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. ISO 9241-11:2018(en), Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Retrieved May 2, 2021 from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Po-Yin Yen and Suzanne Bakken. 2012. Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19, 3 (June 2012), 413–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Janice Redish and Carol Barnum. 2011. Overlap, Influence, Intertwining: The Interplay of UX and Technical Communication. JUS 6, 6 (May 2011), 90-101. Retrieved April 24, 2021 from https://uxpajournal.org/overlap-influence-intertwining-the-interplay-of-ux-and-technical-communication/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Lloyd. F. Bitzer. 1968. The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, 1, (January 1968), 1-14. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236733Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Aristotle. (1991). On Rhetoric. (G. Kennedy, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford. (Original work published 350 B.C.E)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lantolf, J. P. 2009. Activity Theory. In Littejohn, S. W., and Foss, K. A. eds. Encyclopedia of communication theory. Sage, Los Angeles, 14-16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael J. Albers. 2003. Multidimensional Audience Analysis for Dynamic Information. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 33, 3 (July 2003), 263–279. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2190/6KJN-95QV-JMD3-E5EEGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. David R. Kaufman, Vimla L. Patel, Charlyn Hilliman, Philip C. Morin, Jenia Pevzner, Ruth S. Weinstock, Robin Goland, Steven Shea, and Justin Starren. 2003. Usability in the real world: assessing medical information technologies in patients’ homes. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 36, 1 (February 2003), 45–60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1532-0464(03)00056-XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lumpapun Punchoojit and Nuttanont Hongwarittorrn. 2017. Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2017, (November 2017), e6787504. DOI :https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6787504Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. William Brown, Po-Yin Yen, Marlene Rojas, and Rebecca Schnall. 2013. Assessment of the Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) for evaluating mobile health (mHealth) technology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 46, 6 (December 2013), 1080–1087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2013.08.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lejla Vrazalic. 2003. Website Usability in Context: An Activity Theory Based Usability Testing Method. In G. Whymark (Eds.), In Transformational Tools for 21st Century Minds. Eveleigh, NSW: Knowledge Creation Press Pty Ltd., 41-47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ilse Harms and Werner Schweibenz. 2001. Evaluating the Usability of a Museum Web Site. Papers Museums and the Web 2001. Retrieved March 12, 2021 from https://www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/schweibenz/schweibenz.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jason Farman. 2012. Mobile interface theory: embodied space and locative media. Routledge, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Douglas Eyman. 2015. Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. digitalculturebooks, Ann Arbor, MI. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Johanna Drucker. 2011. Humanities Approaches to Interface Theory. Culture Machine 12, 1-20. Retrieved March 12, 2021 from /paper/Humanities-Approaches-to-Interface-Theory-Drucker/2d7090599550f8734f2fe07b048285e3486bd8b6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Donald D. Hoffman. 2016. The Interface Theory of Perception. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 25, 3 (June 2016), 157–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416639702Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Jacques Derrida. 1998. Of grammatology (Corrected ed ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Lloyd. F. Bitzer. 1968. The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, 1, (January 1968), 1-14. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236733Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ljilja Kascak, Claudia B. Rébola, Richard Braunstein, and Jon A. Sanford. 2013. Icon design for user interface of remote patient monitoring mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on Design of communication (SIGDOC ’13), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2507065.2507104Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ann Brady. 2004. Rhetorical Research: Toward a User-Centered Approach. Rhetoric Review 23, 1 (2004), 57–74. DOI:10.1207/s15327981rr2301_4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. R. L. Bashshur. 1995. On the definition and evaluation of telemedicine. Telemed J 1, 1 (1995), 19–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.1.1995.1.19Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Ateev Mehrotra, Lori Uscher-Pines, and Michelle S. Lee. 2018. The Dawn of Direct-to-Consumer Telehealth. In Karen Schulder Rheuban and Elizabeth A. Krupinski, eds. Understanding Telehealth. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY. Retrieved April 25, 2021 from accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?aid=1153060838Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. J. Scott Ashwood, Ateev Mehrotra, David Cowling, and Lori Uscher-Pines. 2017. Direct-To-Consumer Telehealth May Increase Access To Care But Does Not Decrease Spending. Health Affairs 36, 3 (March 2017), 485–491. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1130Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Matthew R. Gardner, Sarah M. Jenkins, Daniel A. O'Neil, Douglas L. Wood, Barbara R. Spurrier, and Sandhya Pruthi. 2015. Perceptions of Video-Based Appointments from the Patient's Home: A Patient Survey. Telemed J E Health 21, 4 (April 2015), 281–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0037Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Julia EWC van Gemert-Pijnen, Nicol Nijland, Maarten van Limburg, Hans C Ossebaard, Saskia M Kelders, Gunther Eysenbach, and Erwin R Seydel. 2011. A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies. J Med Internet Res 13, 4 (Oct/Dec 2011), e111. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1672Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Pascale Carayon and Peter Hoonakker. 2019. Human Factors and Usability for Health Information Technology: Old and New Challenges. Yearb Med Inform 28, 1 (August 2019), 71–77. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677907Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Mita Sanghavi Goel, Tiffany L. Brown, Adam Williams, Andrew J. Cooper, Romana Hasnain-Wynia, and David W. Baker. 2011. Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18 Suppl 1, (December 2011), i8-12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000473Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. A. W. Kushniruk, V. L. Patel, and J. J. Cimino. 1997. Usability testing in medical informatics: cognitive approaches to evaluation of information systems and user interfaces. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp (1997), 218–222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Kagiso Ndlovu, Leonard Mauco, and Ryan Littman-Quinn. 2018. Telemedicine in Low Resource Settings: A Case for Botswana. In Healthcare Policy and Reform: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. 1104–1123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6915-2.ch050Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Geoff Cooper and John Bowers. 1995. Representing the user: notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of human-computer interaction. In Peter J. Thomas, ed. The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces. Cambridge University Press, USA, 48–66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Anders Ericsson and Herbert A Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Retrieved May 4, 2021 from http://cognet.mit.edu/book/protocol-analysis-revised-editionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. K. Anders Ericsson and Herbert A. Simon. 1980. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87, 3 (1980), 215–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Marsha E. Fonteyn, Benjamin Kuipers, and Susan J. Grobe. 1993. A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis. Qual Health Res 3, 4 (November 1993), 430–441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300403Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Heljä Lundgrén-Laine and Sanna Salanterä. 2010. Think-aloud technique and protocol analysis in clinical decision-making research. Qual Health Res 20, 4 (April 2010), 565–575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309354278Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 1990 Conference, (Seattle, WA), 249-256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Kraig Becker. The 14 best telemedicine services for a virtual doctor's appointment. Insider. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://www.insider.com/best-telemedicine-servicesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Epic MD. 2018. World's First Physician Focused Virtual Care Platform “Carie Health” is Making Virtual Concierge Care The Standard of Care, and it's FREE to Every Doctor. GlobeNewswire News Room. Retrieved May 4, 2021 from https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/09/18/1572705/0/en/World-s-First-Physician-Focused-Virtual-Care-Platform-Carie-Health-is-Making-Virtual-Concierge-Care-The-Standard-of-Care-and-it-s-FREE-to-Every-Doctor.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Cam Escoffery, Kathleen R. Miner, Daniel D. Adame, Susan Butler, Laura McCormick, and Elizabeth Mendell. 2005. Internet use for health information among college students. J Am Coll Health 53, 4 (February 2005), 183–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.53.4.183-188Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Samantha R. Paige, Janice L. Krieger, and Michael L. Stellefson. 2017. The Influence of eHealth Literacy on Perceived Trust in Online Health Communication Channels and Sources. J Health Commun 22, 1 (January 2017), 53–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1250846Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi. 2020. Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems. Qual Life Res 29, 2 (February 2020), 325–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02329-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Andre Kushniruk, Elizabeth Borycki, Nicole Kitson, and Joseph Kannry. 2019. Development of a Video Coding Scheme Focused on Socio-Technical Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction in Healthcare. Stud Health Technol Inform 257, (2019), 236–243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Mobile Interface Theory: A Conceptual Tool for Identifying Digital Rhetoric in a Mobile Context

    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 '21: Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
      October 2021
      402 pages
      ISBN:9781450386289
      DOI:10.1145/3472714

      Copyright © 2021 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: 12 October 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format