Introduction Websites provide information through various media, like text, video, and audio. The majority of this information was designed for being consumed via desktop devices, i.e., personal computers, and laptops, as well as notebooks, although to a lesser extent. The evolution of mobile technology, particularly the emergence of smartphones and tablets, enabled ubiquitous access to the Internet in order to consume information. In recent years, the use of mobile phones has been extended from voice calls to interactive services and information provided in diverse formats. According to Duggan and Rainie (2012), at least 85% of American adults owned a mobile phone during the years 2009-2012. However, in 2009, only 25% of them used the mobile phone to access the Internet, while in 2012, 56% of them did so. By the beginning of 2014, 90% of American adults had a cell phone, while 58% of them had a smartphone. (Pew Research Center, 2014). Worldwide, the number of people owning a smartphone is increasing. Although it may seem difficult to use the mobile interface, customers are adopting this channel to get information. Surveys indicate that smartphone users learn how to use the applications of these devices and gradually adopt more applications (Smith, 2012). In order to improve information consumption, as well as information dissemination, there is a need to examine which information formats are more effective when accessed through mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. Handheld mobile devices face obstacles due to their size, e.g., tiny screens, resolution, small keyboards, and connectivity limits (Barnes & Huff, 2003; Gafni, 2008). If they are not satisfactorily taken care of by information providers, some of these factors may impair implementation success. To enable consumers to access information through handheld mobile devices in an appropriate manner, the information provider has to develop a suitable interface, technically adapted to the characteristics of mobile devices and to different operating systems of smartphones and tablets. These interfaces need to be specially designed to fit mobile screens due to different usage modes, such as touch screens (Parsons, 2007). For mobile devices, each information format requires specific development in order to make it accessible, as well as to cope with the informing challenge (Cohen, 2009; Gill & Bhattacherjee, 2007, 2009) and deliver the information effectively. The purpose of this study is to examine diverse information media in order to identify those formats that are most suitable for consumption via handheld mobile devices. The novelty of this research is that it takes the perspective of the users and measures their preferences objectively by analyzing actual data of their relative use of handheld mobile devices and desktop devices for consumption of information presented in various formats. Furthermore, until the development of smartphones and similar devices, it was assumed that due to their size constraint mobile devices were most suitable for parsimonious information formats (Barnes & Huff, 2003), preferably short text. Prior research indicated that incongruent display of information designed for other devices may impair its value, e.g., by negatively influencing critical reading (Eshet-Alkalai, & Geri, 2010). However, it seems that the current handheld mobile devices may be appropriate for consumption of rich formats of information, such as video and audio, but may be less convenient for reading lengthy texts (Gafni & Geri, 2013a). This study focuses on mobile learning (m-learning) and examines consumption of information in various formats by students via desktop and handheld mobile devices. M-learning contexts were chosen, rather than a commercial setting, since in a learning environment the interests of information providers (i.e., the instructors) are in accord with those of the information consumers (i. …
[1]
A. Barth,et al.
How large is the magnitude of fixed-mobile call substitution? Empirical evidence from 16 Europen countries
,
2012
.
[2]
Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.
The Informing Sciences at a Crossroads: The Role of the Client
,
2007,
Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..
[3]
Yair Levy,et al.
A study of online exams procrastination using data analytics techniques
,
2012
.
[4]
Ruti Gafni.
Generation Y versus Generation X : Differences in Smartphone Adaptation
,
2013
.
[5]
Hsing Kenneth Cheng,et al.
An empirical study of mobile commerce in insurance industry: Task-technology fit and individual differences
,
2007,
Decis. Support Syst..
[6]
Barry Smyth,et al.
Mobile web surfing is the same as web surfing
,
2006,
Commun. ACM.
[7]
Stuart J. Barnes,et al.
Rising sun: iMode and the wireless Internet
,
2003,
CACM.
[8]
Dongsong Zhang,et al.
The Effects of Tree-View Based Presentation Adaptation on Model Web Browsing
,
2011,
MIS Q..
[9]
Larry Downes,et al.
Big Bang Disruption
,
2013
.
[10]
H. Pakkala,et al.
Using Google Analytics to measure visitor statistics: The case of food composition websites
,
2012,
Int. J. Inf. Manag..
[11]
Anne-Kathrin Barth Ulrich Heimesho.
How Large is the Magnitude of Fixed-Mobile Call Substitution? - Empirical Evidence from 16 European Countries
,
2012
.
[12]
Jinwoo Kim,et al.
What's so different about the mobile Internet?
,
2003,
CACM.
[13]
Eli B. Cohen,et al.
Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline a Philosophy of Informing Science
,
2022
.
[14]
Nitza Geri,et al.
The U-Curve of E-Learning: Course Website and Online Video Use in Blended and Distance Learning.
,
2014
.
[15]
A. Barth,et al.
What is the magnitude of fixed-mobile call substitution? Empirical evidence from 16 European countries
,
2014
.
[16]
Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.
Whom are we informing? issues and recommendations for MIS research from an informing sciences perspective 1
,
2009
.
[17]
Clayton Shepard,et al.
Characterizing web use on smartphones
,
2012,
CHI.
[18]
Motoi Iwashita,et al.
Mobile Internet-Access Behavior Analysis
,
2012,
2012 13th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing.
[19]
Iris Vessey,et al.
Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature*
,
1991
.
[20]
Brian Clifton,et al.
Advanced Web Metrics with Google Analytics
,
2008
.
[21]
Yoram Eshet-Alkalai,et al.
Does the medium affect the message? The effect of congruent versus incongruent display on critical reading
,
2010
.
[22]
David Parsons.
Mobile Portal Technologies and Business Models
,
2007,
Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies and Applications.
[23]
Virpi Roto,et al.
How people use the web on mobile devices
,
2008,
WWW.
[24]
Roger Bateman,et al.
Smartphones Give You Wings: Pedagogical Affordances of Mobile Web 2.0
,
2010
.
[25]
V. Venkatesh,et al.
AGE DIFFERENCES IN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION DECISIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR A CHANGING WORK FORCE
,
2000
.
[26]
Mirjana Spasojevic,et al.
They call it surfing for a reason: identifying mobile internet needs through pc internet deprivation
,
2008,
CHI Extended Abstracts.
[27]
Barry Smyth,et al.
Who, what, where & when: a new approach to mobile search
,
2008,
IUI '08.
[28]
E. Rogers,et al.
Diffusion of Innovations
,
1964
.
[29]
Stina Nylander,et al.
At home and with computer access: why and where people use cell phones to access the internet
,
2009,
CHI.