Advertisement

Usability Elements in Digital Textbook Development: A Systematic Review

  • Wan Noor Azhar Wan SulaimanEmail author
  • Siti Ezaleila Mustafa
Article

Abstract

The growth of digital technology triggers a new wave to the development of new media alternative including digital textbook. A variety of digital textbook formats and the content is easily transportable cross media can lead to complexity of user expectations. Considering usability elements is one of the critical successful factors to ensure the digital textbook meets the user expectation. Despite, overwhelming research and standards pertaining usability, there is still a lack of efforts to systematically review the concept of usability elements in the digital textbook development context. The research seeks at addressing this gap by evaluating the current literature on the notion of usability components regarded in digital textbook development. A systematic analysis of the Scopus and Web of Science databases acknowledged 17 related studies from 213 journal articles, guided by the evaluation method of the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis). Further review of these articles resulted 17 usability factors have been identified. These usability factors further produced a total of 49 usability properties. The review provides a better understanding of usability factors and criteria that need to be considered in the development of digital textbook and shows that usability elements is crucial for improving the digital textbook quality. In addition, this research provides a basis for the future research in usability elements of digital textbook.

Keywords

Digital textbook Usability element Usability criteria Usability factor Digital textbook development Systematic review 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out as part of the Multimedia Production PhD program of the University of Malaya, supported by the Department of Media and Communication Studies as well as the Division of Sponsorship, Ministry of Education, Malaysia. The research was conducted, and the authors would like to thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their timely comments and feedback to improve the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker S, Hesmondhalgh D. Creative labour: Media work in three cultural industries. London: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hetherington D. Book publishing: new environments call for new operating models. Publ Res Q. 2014;30(4):382–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jung J, Chan-Olmsted S, Park B, Kim Y. Factors affecting e-book reader awareness, interest, and intention to use. New Media Soc. 2012;14(2):204–24.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thompson JB. Books in the digital age: the transformation of academic and higher education publishing in Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Polity; 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson JB. Merchants of culture: the publishing business in the twenty-first century. New York: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bullock A. Book production. London: Routledge; 2012.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Banou C. Re-inventing the book: challenges from the past for the publishing industry. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2016.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maloney J. The rise of phone reading. Wall Str J. 2015. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-phone-reading-1439398395. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  10. 10.
    Nicholas D, Rowlands I, Jamali H. E-textbook use, information seeking behaviour and its impact: case study business and management. J Inf Sci. 2010;36(2):263–80.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeong H. A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. Electron Libr. 2012;30(3):390–408.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang YY, Wang MJJ, Lin R. Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays. 2009;30(2):49–52.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Bannon BW, Skolits GJ, Lubke JK. The influence of digital interactive textbook instruction on student learning preferences, outcomes, and motivation. J Res Technol Educ. 2017;49(3–4):103–16.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang CM, Huang CH. A study of usability principles and interface design for mobile e-books. Ergonomics. 2015;58(8):1253–65.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yeh C-J. The principles of interaction design in the post-digital age. Taipei: ARTIST-MAGAZINE; 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jin KA, Lim DK, Kang JJ. Development of digital textbook UI guideline: focused on percepted user interest experience. In: Computer applications for graphics, grid computing, and industrial environment. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 170–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shaffril HAM, Krauss SE, Samsuddin SF. A systematic review on Asian’s farmers’ adaptation practices towards climate change. Sci Total Environ. 2018;644:683–95.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin-Michiellot S, Mendelsohn P. Cognitive load while learning with a graphical computer interface. J Comput Assist Learn. 2000;16(4):284–93.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nicholls J, Howes M, Jones R. Information-seeking behaviour using paper and electronic versions of a textbook. The Institution of Electrical Engineers. IEEE Xplore. 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Railean EA. User interface design of digital textbooks. Singapore: Springer; 2017.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Horne S, Russell JE, Schuh KL. The adoption of mark-up tools in an interactive e-textbook reader. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2016;64(3):407–33.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yana LIU, Minhuaa WU, Zhonga SUN. Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use digital textbooks in primary teachers’ views. In: workshop proceedings of the 10th international conference on intelligent environments, vol 18. IOS Press; 2014, July. p. 127.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Online). 2011;343(7829):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sierra-Correa PC, Cantera Kintz JR. Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level rise: a systematic review for mangrove coasts. Mar Policy. 2015;51:385–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.013.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baker-Eveleth L, Stone RW. Usability, expectation, confirmation, and continuance intentions to use electronic textbooks. Behav Inf Technol. 2015;34(10):992–1004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gelderblom H, Matthee M, Hattingh M, Weilbach L. High school learners’ continuance intention to use electronic textbooks: a usability study. Educ Inf Technol. 2019;24(2):1753–76.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matraf MSB, Hussain A. Modeling measurement metrics for e-book app on mobile devices. J Telecommun electron Comput Eng (JTEC). 2018;10(1–11):63–7.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hussain A, Mkpojiogu EOC, Mortada S, Yue WS. Mobile experience evaluation of an e-reader app. J Telecommun Electron Comput Eng (JTEC). 2018;10(1–10):11–5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gatsou C, Politis A, Zevgolis D. E-reading in different media: an exploration to user experience. IJCSA. 2016;13(2):121–37.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shackel B. Usability—context, framework, design and evaluation. In: Shackel B, Richardson S, editors. Human factors for informatics usability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991. p. 21–38.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nielsen J. Usability engineering. San Diego: Academic Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shneiderman B. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human–computer interaction. 2nd ed. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T. Human–computer interaction. Reading: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd; 1994.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering—systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—System and software quality models. 2011.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ISO/IEC 9126:2001 Software engineering—product quality—part 1: quality model. 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    ISO/IEC. 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for OfTice Work with visual display terminals (VDT)s-part II guidance on usability. ISO/IEC 9241-11,1998 (E).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seffah A, Donyaee M, Kline RB, Padda HK. Usability measurement and metrics: a consolidated model. Softw Qual J. 2006;14(2):159–78.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reid K, Hartling L, Ali S, Le A, Norris A, Scott SD. Development and usability evaluation of an art and narrative-based knowledge translation tool for parents with a child with pediatric chronic pain: multi-method study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(12):e412.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang-Kennedy L, Abdelaziz Y, Chiasson S. Cyberheroes: the design and evaluation of an interactive ebook to educate children about online privacy. Int J Child Comput Interact. 2017;13:10–8.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jou M, Tennyson RD, Wang J, Huang SY. A study on the usability of E-books and APP in engineering courses: a case study on mechanical drawing. Comput Educ. 2016;92:181–93.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rezat S. A model of textbook use. In: Novotná J, Moraová H, Krátká M, Stehlíková NA, editors. Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 4. Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education; 2006. p. 409–16.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pepin B, Gueudet G, Yerushalmy M, Trouche L, Chazan D. E-textbooks in/for teaching and learning mathematics: a disruptive and potentially transformative educational technology. 2015.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rezat S. The textbook-in-use: students’ utilization schemes of mathematics textbooks related to self-regulated practicing. ZDM. 2013;45(5):659–70.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wagner A. Estimating coarse gene network structure from large-scale gene perturbation data. Genome Res. 2002;12(2):309–15.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Choi JI, Heo H, Lim KY, Jo IH. The development of an interactive digital textbook in middle school English. In: International conference on future generation information technology. Springer, Berlin. 2011, December. p. 397–405.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rose DH, Harbour WS, Johnston CS, Daley SG, Abarbanell L. Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: reflections on principles and their application. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2006;19(2):135–51.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Norman DA. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books; 2002.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Koohang A, Paliszkiewicz J. E-learning courseware usability: building a theoretical model. J Comput Inf Syst. 2016;56(1):55–61.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dumas J, Redish J. A practical guide to usability testing. Norwood: Ablex; 1993.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Guillemette RA. Usability in computer documentation design: conceptual and methodological considerations. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 1989;32(4):217–29.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Holms M. Web usability & navigation. New York: McGraw Hill; 2002.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rosenbaum S. Usability evaluations versus usability testing: when and why? IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 1989;32(4):210–6.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rubin J. Handbook of usability testing. New York: Wiley; 1994.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hoehle H, Venkatesh V. Mobile application usability: Conceptualization and instrument development. MIS Q. 2015;39(2).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Miller LN. Preference for print or electronic book depends on user’s purpose for consulting. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2014;9(3):95–7.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Alaamri F, Greuter S, Walz SP. Trees of tales: a playful reading application for Arabic children. In: International conference on entertainment computing. Berlin: Springer; 2014, October. p. 3–10.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schomisch S, Zens M, Mayr P. Are e-readers suitable tools for scholarly work? Results from a user test. Online Inf Rev. 2013;37(3):388–404.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Huang YM, Liang TH, Su YN, Chen NS. Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2012;60(4):703–22.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lim C, Song HD, Lee Y. Improving the usability of the user interface for a digital textbook platform for elementary-school students. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2012;60(1):159–73.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Davis FD. Technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems theory and results. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, MIT; 1986.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shin JH. Analysis on the digital textbook’s different effectiveness by characteristics of learner. Int J Educ Learn. 2012;1:23–38.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Park CS, Kim M, Yoo KH. Design and implementation of a problem-based digital textbook. Int J Softw Eng Appl. 2012;6(4):213–22.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Webb, J. The agile upside of XML—O’Reilly Radar. O’Reilly Radar. 2011. http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/10/xml-publisher-workflow-ebook-design.html.
  64. 64.
    Lau KH, Lam T, Kam BH, Nkhoma M, Richardson J, Thomas S. The role of textbook learning resources in e-learning: a taxonomic study. Comput Educ. 2018;118:10–24.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Scott SS, McGuire JM, Foley TE. Universal design for instruction: a framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity Excell Educ. 2003;36(1):40–9.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bevan N. Measuring usability as quality of use. Software Qual J. 1995;4(2):115–30.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kleper ML. The handbook of digital publishing, vol. 1. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2001.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chin WW, Newsted PR. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. Stat Strateg Small Sample Res. 1999;1(1):307–41.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hao Y, Jackson K. Student satisfaction toward e-textbooks in higher education. J Sci Technol Policy Manag. 2014;5(3):231–46.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shin S. E-book usability in educational technology classes: teachers and teacher candidates’ perception toward e-book for teaching and learning. Int J Distance Educ Technol (IJDET). 2014;12(3):62–74.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kim JK, Sohn WS, Hur K, Lee Y. Authoring and sharing annotation in touch-based mobile devices. Int J Control Autom. 2013;1(1):8.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    MacKenzie IS, Soukoreff RW. Text entry for mobile computing: models and methods, theory and practice. Hum Comput Interact. 2002;17(2–3):147–98.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lee YE, Benbasat I. A framework for the study of customer interface design for mobile commerce. In J Electron Commer. 2003;46(12):48–52.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Venkatesh V, Ramesh V, Massey AP. Understanding usability in mobile commerce. Commun ACM. 2003;46(12):53–6.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hyvärinen T, Kaikkonen A, Hiltunen M. Placing links in mobile banking application. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices & services. ACM; 2005. p. 63–8.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kaikkonen A, Kallio T, Kekäläinen A, Kankainen A, Cankar A. Usability testing of mobile applications: a comparison between laboratory and field testing. J Usability Stud. 2005;1(1):4–16.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kim H, Kim J, Lee Y. An empirical study of use contexts in the mobile internet, focusing on the usability of information architecture. Inf Syst Front. 2005;7(2):175–86.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Nah FFH, Siau K, Sheng H. The value of mobile applications: a utility company study. Commun ACM. 2005;48(2):85–90.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Massey AP, Khatri V, Ramesh V. From the web to the wireless web: technology readiness and usability. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, January 3–6, Los Alamitos, CA. IEEE Computer Society Press; 2005. p. 32–45.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Szajna B. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Manage Sci. 1996;42(1):85–92.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Cyr D, Head M, Ivanov A. Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce. Inf Manag. 2006;43(8):950–63.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Duh HBL, Tan GCB, Chen VH. Mobile usability: usability evaluation for mobile device: a comparison of laboratory and field tests. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference on human–computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Helsinki, Finland, September 12–153. 2006. p. 4–16.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Huang SC, Chou IF, Bias RG. Empirical evaluation of a popular cellular phone’s menu system: theory meets practice. J Usability Stud. 2006;1(2):91–108.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nielsen CM, Overgaard M, Pedersen MB, Stage J, Stenild S. It’s worth the hassle! the added value of evaluating the usability of mobile systems in the field. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human–computer interaction: changing roles. ACM; 2006. p. 272–80.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Venkatesh V, Ramesh V. Web and wireless site usability: understanding differences and modeling use. MIS Q. 2006;30(1):181–206.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hong S-J, Tam KY. Understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: the case of mobile data services. Inf Syst Res. 2006;17(2):162–79.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lyons K, Starner T, Gane B. Experimental evaluations of the twiddler one-handed chording mobile keyboard. Hum Comput Interact. 2006;21(4):343–92.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ziefle M, Bay S. How to overcome disorientation in mobile phone menus: a comparison of two different types of navigation aids. Hum Comput Interact. 2006;21(4):393–433.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ji YG, Park JH, Lee C, Yun MH. A usability checklist for the usability evaluation of mobile phone user interface. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2006;20(3):207–31.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Jokela T, Koivumaa J, Pirkola J, Salminen P, Kantola N. Methods for quantitative usability requirements: a case study on the development of the user interface of a mobile phone. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2006;10(6):345–55.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Urbaczewski A, Koivisto M. Measuring mobile device usability as a second order construct in mobile information systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th Americas conference on information systems, Keystone, CO, August 9–12. 2007.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Benbunan-Fich R, Benbunan A. Understanding user behavior with new mobile applications. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2007;16(4):393–412.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Mallat N. Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments—a qualitative study. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2007;16(4):413–32.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Burigat S, Chittaro L, Gabrielli S. Navigation techniques for small-screen devices: an evaluation on maps and web pages. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2008;66(2):78–97.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gebauer J, Tang Y, Baimai C. User requirements of mobile technology: results from a content analysis of user reviews. Inf Syst e-Bus Manag. 2008;6(4):361–84.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hummel KA, Hess A, Grill T. Environmental context sensing for usability evaluation in mobile HCI by means of small wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on advances in mobile computing and multimedia. ACM; 2008. p. 302–6.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Min Q, Li S, Zhong Q. An empirical study of m-commerce adoption from usability perspective. In: 2009 eighth international conference on mobile business. IEEE; 2009. p. 215–20.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Li X, Hess T, McNab A, Yu Y. Culture and acceptance of global web sites: a cross-country study of the effects of national cultural values on acceptance of a personal web portal. Data Base Adv Inf Syst. 2009;40(4):62–87.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kim S, Lee I, Lee K, Jung S, Park J, Kim YB, Kim SR, Kim J. Mobile Web 2.0 with multi-display buttons. Commun ACM. 2010;53(1):136–41.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Gebauer J, Shaw MJ, Gribbins ML. Task technology fit for mobile information systems. J Inf Technol. 2010;25(3):259–72.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sonderegger A, Sauer J. The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: effects on user performance and perceived usability. Appl Ergon. 2010;41(3):403–10.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Adipat B, Zhang D, Zhou L. The effect of tree-view based presentation adaptation on mobile web browsing. MIS Q. 2011;35(1):99–121.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Leung R, McGrenere J, Graf P. Age-related differences in the initial usability of mobile device icons. Behav Inf Technol. 2011;30(5):629–42.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kim K, Proctor RW, Salvendy G. The relation between usability and product success in cell phones. Behav Inf Technol. 2012;31(10):969–82.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Wu KC, Hsieh TY. Affective choosing of clustering and categorization representations in e-book interfaces. Aslib J Inf Manag. 2016;68(3):265–85.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Yi W, Park E, Cho K. E-book readability, comprehensibility and satisfaction. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication. ACM. 2011, February. p. 38.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Goertzen M. Longitudinal Analysis of undergraduate E-book use finds that knowledge of local communities drives format selection and collection development activities. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2017;12(1):112–5.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kim D, Gweon G, Lee G. SATS: structure-aware touch-based scrolling. ETRI J. 2016;38(6):1104–13.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Tovstiadi E, Wiersma G. Comparing digital apples and oranges: a comparative analysis of e-books across multiple platforms. Ser Libr. 2016;70(1–4):175–83.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Gibson C, Gibb F. An evaluation of second-generation ebook readers. Electron Libr. 2011;29(3):303–19.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Malama M, Landoni M, Wilson R. What readers want: a study of e-fiction usability. Phys Rev Online Arch. 2005;11(5).Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kuhlthau CC. Inside the search process: information seeking from the user’s perspective. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1991;42(5):361–71.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Chen GD, Chang CK, Wang CY, Jian XL. Development and evaluation of a novel e-book interface for scaffolding thinking context to learn from writing examples. Interact Learn Environ. 2018;26(7):970–88.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wan Noor Azhar Wan Sulaiman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Siti Ezaleila Mustafa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Media and Communication Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations