Design and implementation of a system for evaluating the mobile Web usability by Kaveti, Rajesh, M.S., University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2010 , 51 pages; AAT 1478732 My Interest: 1) Mobile web usability. 2) Usability analysis. 3) Elaboration on Design & Implementation. Action: To read the Dissertation in the future. Motivation Led by the rapid growth of the smartphone market, mobile Internet usage in US is expected to approach 100% penetration and to reach 50% total usage by 2013. The usability of the mobile Web, however, remains as a thorny issue. A recent study shows that the task completion rate using the mobile Web ranges from 38% to 75% on different phones. The average success rate was only 59%, substantially lower than the roughly 80% success rate when testing websites on a regular PC today. Thus it is important to conduct usability research that is specifically tailored for the mobile Web, which will help provide better user experience and make broader impacts on the fast-growing mobile industry. Research Goal In this thesis, we present the design and implementation of a data-collection system for mobile Web usability evaluation, which consists of the instrumented Web browser on the mobile phones for data collection and the back end server components for data analysis. Methodology We chose the iPhone as our mobile platform and we developed a Web browser with the same look and feel as the default Safari browser using the iPhone SDK. The instrumented Web browser passively collects user interaction events, such as URL clicks, soft key presses, and finger movements. GPS and accelerometer data are also collected to provide usage context. We have implemented simple timing and key error analysis, which can provide insights to mobile Web usability. Future Work In future work, we plan to implement additional analysis methods and extend our system to other mobile platforms. II. RELATED WORK:.... 6 III. SYSTEM DESIGN 9 IV. SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION 12 The core application 12 UIApplication 12 The Application Delegate 13 Windows and Views 14 View Controllers 16 Event Handling 17 Text and Web 18 Instrumented Web Browser 19 Event Collection 25 Server Database 27 V. USABILITY ANALYSYS 30 VI. FEASIBILITY TESTING 34 |
Showing posts with label mobile usability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobile usability. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
20101013 - Kaveti, ...system for evaluating Mobile Web Usability
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Aug 27 - Syvanen & Nokelainen, Evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability
Evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability.
Antti Syvänen. antti.syvänen@uta.fi Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Finland.
Petri Nokelainen. petri.nokelainen@uta.fi Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere, FIN–13101 Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Attewell & Cavill-Smith (editor). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere. A book of papers from MLearn 2004. pg 191-185
Abstract
The major goal of the multidisciplinary Digital Learning 2 project is to develop an online tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials. This paper concentrates on describing the technical and pedagogical usability criteria and how they are specified in order to take account of the special features of mobile learning materials and environments. This was done by incorporating a ‘components of mobile learning’ (CML) evaluation model, which had been previously developed and empirically tested, into the criteria, after reviewing the other earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning.
The major goal of the project is to develop a tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials and environments. In order to reach that goal, numerous concepts and models have been defined; for example, the criteria for technical and pedagogical usability and the Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model.
The following components of the technical usability criteria were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 accessibility
2 ‘learnability’ and memorability
3 user control
4 help
5 graphical layout
6 reliability
7 consistency
8 efficiency
9 memory load
10 errors.
In addition, the following pedagogical usability components were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 learner control
2 learner activity
3 cooperative learning
4 goal orientation
5 applicability
6 effectiveness
7 motivation
8 valuation of previous knowledge
9 flexibility
10 feedback.
The Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model was developed for evaluation of mobile learning. The model (Ahonen et al. 2002) consists of:
1 continuity and adaptability
2 learning as a personal process
3 contextuality in learning
4 accessibility
5 support for time and learning management
6 flexible interaction.
My Comments: This paper is very relevant as a benchmark (reference point) for my PhD research. Syvanen and Nokelainen had developed a usability evaluation tool, and used a set of usability criteria (comprising technical & pedagogical usability).
The criteria for evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability have been
developed in the following stages:
# investigation of the previous research reports dealing with the characteristics of mobility and
mobile learning (2001–2002)
# development of the first version of the CML model (2002–2003; Ahonen et al. 2002)
# development and empirical testing of the criteria (2003; Syvänen et al. 2003, 2004)
# review of earlier categorisations for the evaluation of mobile learning and incorporation
into the technical and pedagogical usability criteria (2004).
Table 1 Summary of the earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning
>>>summarise Technical Usability from various sources
>>>summarise Pedagogical Usability from various sources.
Table 2 Evaluation of mobile learning materials and environments
>>>summarise Questions for each Technical/Pedagogical Usability Criteria.
Conclusions
In this paper we have specified the criteria for evaluation of mobile learning material in detail
and shown how mobile learning materials and environments are evaluated with an online evaluation tool. The real-life empirical testing of the evaluation tool was difficult to conduct as at
the time, there were only a few learning materials or environments defined solely for mobile use. However, the progress of developing such materials all over the world is rapid, and thus we see the mobile evaluation criteria as a meaningful part of the evaluation tool. In the future, we intend to develop the evaluation tool through empirical testing of real-life mobile learning materials and environments.
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Nokelainen P (2004). Conceptual definition of the technical and pedagogical usability criteria
for digital learning material. In Proceedings of ED–MEDIA 2004: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2004(1), 4249–4254.
Antti Syvänen. antti.syvänen@uta.fi Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Finland.
Petri Nokelainen. petri.nokelainen@uta.fi Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere, FIN–13101 Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Attewell & Cavill-Smith (editor). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere. A book of papers from MLearn 2004. pg 191-185
Abstract
The major goal of the multidisciplinary Digital Learning 2 project is to develop an online tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials. This paper concentrates on describing the technical and pedagogical usability criteria and how they are specified in order to take account of the special features of mobile learning materials and environments. This was done by incorporating a ‘components of mobile learning’ (CML) evaluation model, which had been previously developed and empirically tested, into the criteria, after reviewing the other earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning.
The major goal of the project is to develop a tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials and environments. In order to reach that goal, numerous concepts and models have been defined; for example, the criteria for technical and pedagogical usability and the Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model.
The following components of the technical usability criteria were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 accessibility
2 ‘learnability’ and memorability
3 user control
4 help
5 graphical layout
6 reliability
7 consistency
8 efficiency
9 memory load
10 errors.
In addition, the following pedagogical usability components were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 learner control
2 learner activity
3 cooperative learning
4 goal orientation
5 applicability
6 effectiveness
7 motivation
8 valuation of previous knowledge
9 flexibility
10 feedback.
The Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model was developed for evaluation of mobile learning. The model (Ahonen et al. 2002) consists of:
1 continuity and adaptability
2 learning as a personal process
3 contextuality in learning
4 accessibility
5 support for time and learning management
6 flexible interaction.
My Comments: This paper is very relevant as a benchmark (reference point) for my PhD research. Syvanen and Nokelainen had developed a usability evaluation tool, and used a set of usability criteria (comprising technical & pedagogical usability).
The criteria for evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability have been
developed in the following stages:
# investigation of the previous research reports dealing with the characteristics of mobility and
mobile learning (2001–2002)
# development of the first version of the CML model (2002–2003; Ahonen et al. 2002)
# development and empirical testing of the criteria (2003; Syvänen et al. 2003, 2004)
# review of earlier categorisations for the evaluation of mobile learning and incorporation
into the technical and pedagogical usability criteria (2004).
Table 1 Summary of the earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning
>>>summarise Technical Usability from various sources
>>>summarise Pedagogical Usability from various sources.
Table 2 Evaluation of mobile learning materials and environments
>>>summarise Questions for each Technical/Pedagogical Usability Criteria.
Conclusions
In this paper we have specified the criteria for evaluation of mobile learning material in detail
and shown how mobile learning materials and environments are evaluated with an online evaluation tool. The real-life empirical testing of the evaluation tool was difficult to conduct as at
the time, there were only a few learning materials or environments defined solely for mobile use. However, the progress of developing such materials all over the world is rapid, and thus we see the mobile evaluation criteria as a meaningful part of the evaluation tool. In the future, we intend to develop the evaluation tool through empirical testing of real-life mobile learning materials and environments.
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Nokelainen P (2004). Conceptual definition of the technical and pedagogical usability criteria
for digital learning material. In Proceedings of ED–MEDIA 2004: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2004(1), 4249–4254.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
