skip to main content
10.1145/2662253.2662317acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesinteraccionConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How efficient can be a user with a tablet versus a smartphone?

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

We can see at these days a large number of users utilizing a smartphone or a tablet as their daily working tool. Many professionals are changing the use of their desktop computers by using their mobile devices due to trends in their business. Thus, we can find more enterprise mobile apps that allow users to manage their companies using a mobile device in a more efficient and effective way and everywhere. This growing demand for mobile applications has become a challenge for current developers. We can find more and more enterprise applications delivered in three versions: desktop, tablet and smartphone. However, it is difficult to determine how productive a user can be in each version. In this paper we present a comparative usability study of one management mobile application designed for smartphone and tablet platforms for measuring the efficiency of the tablet version versus the smartphone version. We conducted a study with 8 participants to measure the efficiency of one mobile app and also measured the perceived usability using SUS questionnaire. This way, we obtained a ratio of the efficiency of using a tablet compared to a smartphone that could be significant for the development of future apps in small screens.

References

  1. Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., Miller, J. T. 2008. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human--Computer Interaction, 24, 6, 574--594.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bevan, N. 2009. International standards for usability should be more widely used. Journal of Usability Studies, 4,3, 106--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brooke, J. 1996. SUS: A 'quick and dirty' usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry. 189--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Computer monitor buying guide. http://www.digitaltrends.com/buying-guides/computer-monitor-buying-guide/#!BkZYFGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Dell'Amico, M., Díaz, J. C. D., Iori, M., & Montanari, R. 2009. The single-finger keyboard layout problem. Computers & Operations Research, 36,11, 3002--3012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dillon, A., Richardson, J., Mcknight, C. 1990. The effects of display size and text splitting on reading lengthy text from screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9,3, 215--227. doi:10.1080/01449299008924238Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Findlater, L., McGrenere, J. 2008. Impact of screen size on performance, awareness, and user satisfaction with adaptive graphical user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '08, 1247--1256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Laptop Buying Guide 2014: 9 Essential Tips http://blog.laptopmag.com/laptop-buying-guideGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Nielsen, J. 2000. Why you only need to test with 5 users. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Quinn, J. M., Tran, T. Q. 2010. Attractive phones don't have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '10. 353--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rubin, J., Chisnell, D. 2008. Handbook of usability testing: how-to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sanchez, C. A., Branaghan, R. J. 2011. Turning to learn: Screen orientation and reasoning with small devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2, 793--797. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Sanchez, C. A., Goolsbee, J. Z. 2010. Character size and reading to remember from small displays. Computers & Education, 55, 3, 1056--1062. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Schmitz, B., Zwick, C. 2006. Designing for Small Screens. AVA Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ziefle, M. 2010. Information presentation in small screen devices: the trade-off between visual density and menu foresight. Applied Ergonomics, 41,6, 719--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. How efficient can be a user with a tablet versus a smartphone?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      Interacción '14: Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Human Computer Interaction
      September 2014
      435 pages
      ISBN:9781450328807
      DOI:10.1145/2662253

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 September 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate109of163submissions,67%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader