A comparison of mobile form controls for different tasks

Abstract Web forms are the design tools that are used for gathering inputs from users in interactive applications. These forms are mainly developed for desktop applications, and transferring them directly to a mobile context did not work well most of the time. Since user experience with mobile devices is different from with desktop computers, the efficiency and accuracy of form controls (buttons, text boxes, drop-down boxes, radio buttons, etc.) in the user interface is essential. In the scope of this research, a user study was conducted to compare the efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction of mobile form controls. In the user study, an experiment was set up to compare four different form controls that were frequently used in mobile web applications, considering variation by task type and size of data set, in the context of two different touch-based smartphones, one running the iOS operating system and the other running the Android operating system. The form controls in the experiment were button, radio button/switch, spinner/picker, and text field. The task types were mutually exclusive selection, non-mutually exclusive selection, and set-a-value. Set sizes were designated as either small set size for less than 5 items or large set size for more than 5 items. There were 30 participants in the study. The task performance, accuracy, and satisfaction levels of the participants, as well as their perceived and actual performances, were recorded. The results showed that the button was fastest for small-set, mutually exclusive tasks while the spinner was fastest for large sets. In addition, it was found that the radio button/switch was the most effective controller for the non-mutually exclusive tasks. Based on the results of the experiment and analysis of the existing literature, five key issues for these form controls were identified to guide application developers in mobile form design: visibility, data set size, task type, users' experience level with a system, and screen layout.

[1]  Thomas S. Tullis,et al.  A comparison of direct-manipulation, selection, and data-entry techniques for re-ordering fields in a table , 1992, CHI '92.

[2]  Jean Vanderdonckt,et al.  On the Problem of Selecting Interaction Objects , 1994, BCS HCI.

[3]  Alan J. Dix.  Human-Computer Interaction , 2018, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[4]  Benjamin Healey,et al.  Drop Downs and Scroll Mice: The Effect of Response Option Format and Input Mechanism Employed on Data Quality in Web Surveys , 2007 .

[5]  Heinrich Hußmann,et al.  Evaluation of User Interface Design and Input Methods for Applications on Mobile Touch Screen Devices , 2009, INTERACT.

[6]  John D. Gould,et al.  Entry and Selection Methods for Specifying Dates , 1989 .

[7]  Alexandre N. Tuch,et al.  Simple but Crucial User Interfaces in the World Wide Web: Introducing 20 Guidelines for Usable Web Form Design , 2010 .

[8]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  Scrutinising usability evaluation: does thinking aloud affect behaviour and mental workload? , 2009, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[9]  Tingting Zhao,et al.  The impact of two different think-aloud instructions in a usability test: a case of just following orders? , 2014, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[10]  James D. Foley,et al.  Providing high-level control and expert assistance in the user interface presentation design , 1993, INTERCHI.

[11]  T S Tullis,et al.  The Formatting of Alphanumeric Displays: A Review and Analysis , 1983, Human factors.

[12]  Antti Oulasvirta.  Human-Computer Interaction in Mobile Context : A Cognitive Resources Perspective , 2004 .

[13]  R. William Soukoreff,et al.  Text entry for mobile computing: models and methods , 2002 .

[14]  Joaquim A. Jorge,et al.  Elderly text-entry performance on touchscreens , 2012, ASSETS '12.

[15]  Alexandre N. Tuch,et al.  Working towards Usable Forms on the World Wide Web: Optimizing Date Entry Input Fields , 2011, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[16]  Yeliz Yesilada,et al.  What input errors do you experience? Typing and pointing errors of mobile Web users , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  Allen Newell,et al.  The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems , 1980, CACM.

[18]  Kevin Curran,et al.  Investigating text input methods for mobile phones , 2006, Telematics Informatics.

[19]  N. Cowan.  The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  Luke Wroblewski,et al.  Web Form Design: Filling in the Blanks , 2008 .

[21]  Tom Page,et al.  Usability of text input interfaces in smartphones , 2013 .

[22]  Alexandre N. Tuch,et al.  Designing usable web forms: empirical evaluation of web form improvement guidelines , 2014, CHI.

[23]  Geert Loosveldt,et al.  An Evaluation of the Effect of Response Formats on Data Quality in Web Surveys , 2002 .

[24]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  An Evaluation of Mobile Phone Text Input Methods , 2002, AUIC.

[25]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human-computer interactions , 2001 .

[26]  John D. Gould,et al.  Entry and Selection-Based Methods of Human-Computer Interaction , 1992 .

[27]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[28]  W. E. Hick.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[29]  Stanley R. Page,et al.  A Comparison of Graphical User Interface Widgets for Various Tasks , 1995 .

[30]  Maarten van Someren,et al.  The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes , 1994 .

[31]  Pinar Onay Durdu,et al.  Comparison of Mobile Input Methods , 2016, HCI.

[32]  Nelson Cowan,et al.  The legend of the magical number seven , 2007 .

[33]  M. Fatih Adak,et al.  Form Elemanlarının Form Doldurmadaki Performansa Etkisi , 2011 .

[34]  Rex Hartson,et al.  The UX book, process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience by Rex Hartson and Pardha S. Pyla , 2012, SOEN.