Understanding the Process of Learning Touch-screen Mobile Applications

Tokárová, Lucia; Weideman, Melius

Proceedings of the 31st ACM International conference on Design of communication

Tokárová, L. & Weideman, M. 2013. Understanding the Process of Learning Touch-screen Mobile Applications. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International conference on Design of communication. North Carolina, USA. 30 Sept - 1 October. p 157-164. Accessible at http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2507065.2507066

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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  8. Fitts, P.M. and Posner, M.I. 1967. Human Performance. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  13. Moore, G. 1991. Crossing the chasm. HarperBusiness Book, New York, NY.
  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.
  15. Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., and Kuorelahti, J. 2005. Interaction in 4-second bursts : The fragmented nature 163 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.
  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.
  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.
  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.

Full text of Conference Paper No 0036: Understanding the Process of Learning Touch-screen Mobile Applications

Digital Library with full-text of academic publications on website visibility, usability, search engines, information retrieval

Back to Abstracts page