Interaction, engagement, and perceived interactivity in single-handed interaction

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of interaction techniques (e.g. swiping and tapping) and the range of thumb movement on interactivity, engagement, attitude, and behavioral intention in single-handed interaction with smartphones. Design/methodology/approach A 2×2 between-participant experiment (technological features: swiping and tapping×range of thumb movement: wide and narrow) was conducted to study the effects of interaction techniques and thumb movement ranges. Findings The results showed that the range of thumb movement had significant effects on perceived interactivity, engagement, attitude, and behavioral intention, whereas no effects were observed for interaction techniques. A narrow range of thumb movement had more influence on the interactivity outcomes in comparison to a wide range of thumb movement. Practical implications While the subject of actual and perceived interactivity has been discussed, the issue has not been applied to smartphone. Based on the research results, the mobile industry may come up with a design strategy that balances feature- and perception-based interactivity. Originality/value This study adopted the perspective of the hybrid definition of interactivity, which includes both actual and perceived interactivity. Interactivity effect outcomes mediated by perceived interactivity.

[1]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Beyond pointing and clicking: how do newer interaction modalities affect user engagement? , 2011, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[2]  Dong-Hee Shin,et al.  Measuring the quality of smartphones: development of a customer satisfaction index for smart services , 2014, Int. J. Mob. Commun..

[3]  Phil Turner,et al.  Towards an account of intuitiveness , 2008, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[4]  Qian Xu,et al.  User Experience of On-Screen Interaction Techniques: An Experimental Investigation of Clicking, Sliding, Zooming, Hovering, Dragging, and Flipping , 2014, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Dong-Hee Shin,et al.  User experience in social commerce: in friends we trust , 2013, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[6]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Designing interactivity in media interfaces: a communications perspective , 2010, CHI.

[7]  Scott E. Caplan,et al.  Can You Hear Me Now? The Impact of Voice in an Online Gaming Community , 2007 .

[8]  Hyunseung Choo,et al.  Smart TV: are they really smart in interacting with people? Understanding the interactivity of Korean Smart TV , 2013, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[9]  Stephen A. Brewster,et al.  Investigating the effects of encumbrance on one- and two- handed interactions with mobile devices , 2014, CHI.

[10]  G. Zinkhan,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Web Site Interactivity , 2008 .

[11]  C. Judd,et al.  When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Hsi-Peng Lu,et al.  The influence of the components of storytelling blogs on readers' travel intentions , 2013, Internet Res..

[13]  Simon Rogers,et al.  28 frames later: predicting screen touches from back-of-device grip changes , 2014, CHI.

[14]  Paul Skalski,et al.  The Role of Social Presence in Interactive Agent-Based Persuasion , 2007 .

[15]  Mohammad Faizuddin Mohd Noor.  Exploring back-of-device interaction , 2013, UIST '13 Adjunct.

[16]  Patrick Baudisch,et al.  Back-of-device interaction allows creating very small touch devices , 2009, CHI.

[17]  Dawn Iacobucci,et al.  Introduction to Mediation , 2019, Mediation Theory and Practice.

[18]  Dongsong Zhang,et al.  A study of direction's impact on single-handed thumb interaction with touch-screen mobile phones , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[19]  N. O'Connor,et al.  Touch Screens for the Older User , 2012 .

[20]  Spiro Kiousis,et al.  Interactivity: a concept explication , 2002, New Media Soc..

[21]  Wei-Na Lee,et al.  A Comparison of Objective Characteristics and User Perception of Web Sites , 2004 .

[22]  Wei-Na Lee,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Perceived Interactivity , 2002 .

[23]  Eunil Park,et al.  IPS vs. AMOLED: Effects of Panel Type on Smartphone Users’ Viewing and Reading Experience , 2012 .

[24]  Per Ola Kristensson,et al.  Modeling the perception of user performance , 2014, CHI.

[25]  E. Bucy,et al.  The Mediated Moderation Model of Interactivity , 2007 .

[26]  Xiang 'Anthony' Chen,et al.  The fat thumb: using the thumb's contact size for single-handed mobile interaction , 2012, Mobile HCI.

[27]  Amy K. Karlson.  Interface Design for Single-Handed Use of Small Devices , 2006 .

[28]  Harold R. Robinson,et al.  Page flipping vs. clicking: The impact of naturally mapped interaction technique on user learning and attitudes , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Does Screen Size Matter for Smartphones? Utilitarian and Hedonic Effects of Screen Size on Smartphone Adoption , 2014, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[30]  A. Hayes.  Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[31]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[32]  Jose L. Contreras-Vidal,et al.  Understanding One-Handed Use of Mobile Devices , 2008 .

[33]  Joanna Bergstrom-Lehtovirta,et al.  Modeling the functional area of the thumb on mobile touchscreen surfaces , 2014, CHI.

[34]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Lights, Camera, Music, Interaction! Interactive Persuasion in E-commerce , 2014, Commun. Res..

[35]  Benjamin B. Bederson,et al.  AppLens and launchTile: two designs for one-handed thumb use on small devices , 2005, CHI.

[36]  Alan F. Smeaton,et al.  Designing a touch-screen sensecam browser to support an aging population , 2010, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[37]  B. Bederson,et al.  Understanding Single-Handed Mobile Device Interaction , 2006 .

[38]  C. Heeter.  Interactivity in the Context of Designed Experiences , 2000 .

[39]  Yuping Liu,et al.  A Dual-Process Model of Interactivity Effects , 2009 .

[40]  Alex Wang,et al.  Branding over Internet and TV Advertising , 2011 .

[41]  E. Thorson,et al.  The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites , 2001 .

[42]  M. Hagberg,et al.  Thumb postures and physical loads during mobile phone use - a comparison of young adults with and without musculoskeletal symptoms. , 2010, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[43]  Cong Li,et al.  Tweet or "re-tweet"? An experiment of message strategy and interactivity on Twitter , 2014, Internet Res..

[44]  Yang Li,et al.  Tap, swipe, or move: attentional demands for distracted smartphone input , 2012, AVI.

[45]  Nadine Vigouroux,et al.  Touch Screen User Interfaces for Older Subjects , 2010, ICCHP.

[46]  Hwiman Chung,et al.  Effects of Perceived Interactivity on Web Site Preference and Memory: Role of Personal Motivation , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[47]  Roope Raisamo,et al.  Touch gestures in communicating emotional intention via vibrotactile stimulation , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[48]  Sung H. Han,et al.  One-handed thumb interaction of mobile devices from the input accuracy perspective , 2010 .

[49]  Tseng-Lung Huang,et al.  Formation of augmented-reality interactive technology's persuasive effects from the perspective of experiential value , 2014, Internet Res..

[50]  Dan Odell,et al.  Enabling comfortable thumb interaction in tablet computers: a Windows 8 case study , 2012 .

[51]  Steven K. Feiner,et al.  Single-handed interaction techniques for multiple pressure-sensitive strips , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[52]  Guohua Wu,et al.  The Mediating Role of Perceived Interactivity in the Effect of Actual Interactivity on Attitude Toward the Website , 2005 .

[53]  Amy K. Karlson,et al.  Thumb Motor Performance Varies by Movement Orientation, Direction, and Device Size During Single-Handed Mobile Phone Use , 2012, Hum. Factors.