Usability Evaluation of the Touch Screen User Interface Design
With the advancement of ICT technologies, touch-screen interface mobile devices become a standard feature. This study aims to evaluate the Popover interface design under different age groups. The UI elements being considered for evaluation include location, window length and font size of the popover in three visual search tasks. The results show that there were significant differences in reaction time and accuracy rate between age groups. The worst performance was found in the older group. The best button position was on the bottom screen. In addition, significant performance differences between popover window length and font size were also found. Generally speaking, it is recommended to use the popover window with long cell length, and bigger font size for better readability, especially for the older age group users.
KeywordsTouch screen iPad User Interface Elements Popover Performance Measures
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Chaparro, B., Nguyen, B., Phan, M., Smith, A., Teves, J.: Keyboard Performance: iPad versus Netbook. Usability News 12(2) (2010)Google Scholar
- 2.Steele, J., Iliinsky, N.: Beautiful Visualization. O’Reilly, United States (2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Lee, S., Zhai, S.: The Performance of Touch Screen Soft Buttons. In: The 9th Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009), pp. 309–318. ACM, United States (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Budiu, B.R., Nielsen, J.: Usability of iPad Apps and Websites, 2nd edn. Nielsen Norman Group, United States (2011)Google Scholar
- 9.Apple Inc.: iPad Human Interface Guidelines: User Experience, United States (2011)Google Scholar
- 10.Bernard, M., Lida, B., Riley, S., Hackler, T., Janzen, K.: A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best? Usability News 4(1) (2002)Google Scholar
- 11.McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E.: An Interactive Activation Model of Context Effects in Letter Perception: Part 1. An Account of Basic Findings. Psychological Review 88(5), 282–371 (1981)Google Scholar