pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.11069 · v2 · submitted 2025-02-16 · 💻 cs.HC

A survey on factors influencing mobile application usability through the lens of PACMAD+3 model

Pawel Weichbroth This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 02:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords mobile usabilityPACMAD+3 modeluser surveyefficiencyusability factorsmobile applicationshuman-computer interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Users rate efficiency as highly important for mobile app usability while rating seven other factors moderately important.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a survey that measures how much users value each of the eight factors in the PACMAD+3 model for mobile application usability. The model provides a list of factors thought to affect usability in mobile settings, and the study turns those factors into specific survey questions answered by 838 users. The central result is that efficiency receives a high average importance rating while cognitive load, errors, learnability, operability, effectiveness, memorability, and understandability receive moderate ratings. This ranking supplies concrete guidance on which aspects of an app to emphasize during design and testing. The work therefore supplies both an empirical baseline for the model and practical input for mobile developers.

Core claim

By operationalizing the PACMAD+3 factors into survey items and collecting responses from 838 users, the study establishes that efficiency is rated highly important on average for mobile application usability, whereas the other seven factors—cognitive load, errors, learnability, operability, effectiveness, memorability, and understandability—are rated moderately important.

What carries the argument

The PACMAD+3 model, an eight-factor framework for mobile usability, turned into a set of survey questions that measure users' perceived importance of each factor.

If this is right

  • Mobile app designers can give efficiency features higher priority than features tied to the other seven factors.
  • Usability evaluations can weight efficiency more heavily when scoring apps.
  • The moderate ratings for the remaining factors still require attention during development rather than complete neglect.
  • The survey instrument itself can be reused or adapted for further studies of mobile usability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Actual usage logs or task-completion data might show different relative impacts than the self-reported importance ratings collected here.
  • Importance rankings could shift across app categories such as games versus productivity tools.
  • The moderate ratings suggest room to test whether improving the lower-rated factors still yields measurable gains in user retention.

Load-bearing premise

The survey questions accurately captured users' views on how much each PACMAD+3 factor influences mobile app usability.

What would settle it

A new survey or behavioral study on a comparable user sample that finds a different ordering of average importance ratings for the eight factors would undermine the reported result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.11069 by Pawel Weichbroth.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Correlation heatmaps of mobile usability features. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Undeniably, the advent of mobile applications has brought new frontiers to usability engineering. To date, ongoing research has shown significant efforts to adopt and adapt usability principles to the mobile computing environment. One of these endeavors is the PACMAD+3 model. However, to the best of our knowledge, little or no effort has been made to empirically evaluate these factors against perceived influence. With this in mind, the objective of this study is to explore this issue. To achieve this goal in a reliable and reproducible manner, we took advantage of previous attempts to conceptualize the mobile usability factors, but we contribute by operationalizing these theoretical constructs into observable and measurable phenomena. In this sense, the survey was designed and carried out on a sample of 838 users to assess the significance of the PACMAD+3 factors on the perceived usability of mobile applications. Our findings show that, on average, users rated efficiency as highly important, while the remaining seven, namely: cognitive load, errors, learnability, operability, effectiveness, memorability, and understandability, were rated moderately important. Insights into the importance of usability factors and the corresponding features can also facilitate the design and development of mobile applications. Therefore, our research contributes to the field of human-computer interaction with theoretical and practical implications for mobile usability researchers, UX designers, and quality assurance engineers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from a survey of 838 mobile application users assessing the perceived importance of the eight factors in the PACMAD+3 usability model. The authors state that they operationalized the theoretical constructs (efficiency, cognitive load, errors, learnability, operability, effectiveness, memorability, and understandability) into measurable survey items; the primary finding is that users rated efficiency as highly important on average while rating the remaining seven factors as moderately important.

Significance. If the survey instrument validly and reliably measured the distinct constructs, the work would supply empirical data on user perceptions of mobile usability factors that could inform design guidelines and extend the PACMAD+3 model in HCI. The sample size is a positive feature. The absence of any reported validation steps, however, prevents assessment of whether the observed rating pattern reflects genuine differences in perceived importance.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methodology] Methodology section: the paper asserts that the survey operationalized the PACMAD+3 factors into observable and measurable phenomena, yet supplies no description of item generation, expert review, pilot testing, or reliability/validity checks (e.g., Cronbach's alpha, confirmatory factor analysis). This gap is load-bearing for the central claim, because the reported distinction between 'highly important' (efficiency) and 'moderately important' (the other seven factors) depends on the items accurately capturing the intended constructs rather than wording artifacts.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the summary of findings would be strengthened by a brief statement of survey design or analysis approach.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on the methodology. We agree that the lack of detail on survey item development and validation is a substantive gap that affects the interpretability of the results, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methodology] Methodology section: the paper asserts that the survey operationalized the PACMAD+3 factors into observable and measurable phenomena, yet supplies no description of item generation, expert review, pilot testing, or reliability/validity checks (e.g., Cronbach's alpha, confirmatory factor analysis). This gap is load-bearing for the central claim, because the reported distinction between 'highly important' (efficiency) and 'moderately important' (the other seven factors) depends on the items accurately capturing the intended constructs rather than wording artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not describe the process of operationalizing the PACMAD+3 constructs into survey items, nor does it report expert review, pilot testing, or reliability/validity analyses. The current text states only that the constructs were operationalized without providing the supporting methodological steps. In the revision we will expand the Methodology section to include: (1) how items were generated from prior PACMAD+3 literature, (2) any expert review or pilot testing performed, and (3) post-hoc reliability statistics (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) calculated from the collected data. If formal validation steps were limited, we will explicitly note this limitation rather than overstate the instrument's rigor. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct survey ratings with no derivation or self-referential fitting

full rationale

The paper reports average user ratings (n=838) on the perceived importance of eight PACMAD+3 factors. No equations, predictions, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains appear in the derivation. The central claim is an empirical summary of responses; it does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Lack of reported validation (pilot testing, reliability metrics) is a methodological limitation but does not constitute circularity under the defined patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical survey paper; the primary inputs are the existing PACMAD+3 model and standard survey techniques rather than new parameters or entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The PACMAD+3 model is a suitable and complete framework for assessing mobile application usability factors.
    The study relies on this model as the basis for the survey without independent validation of its factors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5770 in / 1242 out tokens · 42520 ms · 2026-05-23T02:57:59.297850+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 148 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Irani, P

    Ens, B., Eskicioglu, R. & Irani, P. Guidelines for designing awareness- augmented mobile DUIs. International Journal Of Human-Computer Interaction. 28, 730-736 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    & Abran, A

    Moumane, K., Idri, A. & Abran, A. Usability evaluation of mobile ap- plications using ISO 9241 and ISO 25062 standards. SpringerPlus. 5 pp. 1-15 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    & Schell, R

    Lee, V., Schneider, H. & Schell, R. Mobile applications: architecture, design, and development. (Prentice Hall PTR,2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Software engineering issues for mobile application devel- opment

    Wasserman, A. Software engineering issues for mobile application devel- opment. Proceedings Of The FSE/SDP Workshop On Future Of Soft- ware Engineering Research. pp. 397-400 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    & Conte, T

    Nascimento, I., Silva, W., Gadelha, B. & Conte, T. Userbility: a tech- nique for the evaluation of user experience and usability on mobile ap- plications. Human-Computer Interaction. Theory, Design, Development 27 And Practice: 18th International Conference, HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-22, 2016. Proceedings, Part I 18 . pp. 372-383 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    & Khajouei, R

    Jeddi, F., Nabovati, E., Bigham, R. & Khajouei, R. Usability evaluation of a comprehensive national health information system: relationship of quality components to users’ characteristics. International Journal Of Medical Informatics. 133 pp. 104026 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    & Malau-Aduli, B

    Adu, M., Malabu, U., Malau-Aduli, A. & Malau-Aduli, B. The devel- opment of My Care Hub mobile-phone app to support self-management in Australians with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Scientific Reports. 10, 7 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    & Chabrera, C

    Manzano-Monfort, G., Paluzie, G., D´ ıaz-Geg´ undez, M. & Chabrera, C. Usability of a mobile application for health professionals in home care services: A user-centered approach. Scientific Reports. 13, 2607 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    & Nak- aguchi, T

    Shinozaki, M., Saito, D., Tomita, K., Nakada, T., Nomura, Y. & Nak- aguchi, T. Usability evaluation of a glove-type wearable device for ef- ficient biometric collection during triage. Scientific Reports. 14, 9874 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    & Clemmensen, T

    Aryana, B. & Clemmensen, T. Mobile usability: experiences from Iran and Turkey.International Journal Of Human-Computer Interaction. 29, 220-242 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    & Villalba, L

    Da Costa, R., Canedo, E., De Sousa, R., Albuquerque, R. & Villalba, L. Set of usability heuristics for quality assessment of mobile applications on smartphones. IEEE Access. 7 pp. 116145-116161 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    & P¨ arn¨ anen, K

    Kivij¨ arvi, H. & P¨ arn¨ anen, K. Instrumental usability and effective user experience: Interwoven drivers and outcomes of Human-Computer in- teraction. International Journal Of Human–Computer Interaction . 39, 34-51 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    & Bradley, M

    Ham, D., Heo, J., Fossick, P., Wong, W., Park, S., Song, C. & Bradley, M. Conceptual framework and models for identifying and organizing us- ability impact factors of mobile phones. Proceedings Of The 18th Aus- tralia Conference On Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts And Environments. pp. 261-268 (2006) 28

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    & Razali, R

    Baharuddin, R., Singh, D. & Razali, R. Usability dimensions for mobile applications-a review. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol . 5, 2225-2231 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    & Vafadar, S

    Ghazizadeh, F. & Vafadar, S. A quantitative evaluation of usability in mobile applications: An empirical study. 2017 International Symposium On Computer Science And Software Engineering Conference (CSSE) . pp. 1-6 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    & Duce, D

    Harrison, R., Flood, D. & Duce, D. Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model. Journal Of Interaction Science. 1 pp. 1-16 (2013)

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Usability of mobile applications: A consolidated model

    Weichbroth, P. Usability of mobile applications: A consolidated model. IEEE Access. (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Usability of mobile applications: a systematic literature study

    Weichbroth, P. Usability of mobile applications: a systematic literature study. Ieee Access. 8 pp. 55563-55577 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    (2018), https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en [Accessed on: 02.11.2023]

    ISO ISO 9241-11:2018(en) Ergonomics of human-system interac- tion — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. (2018), https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en [Accessed on: 02.11.2023]

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    & Rezaei, M

    Parsazadeh, N., Ali, R. & Rezaei, M. A framework for cooperative and interactive mobile learning to improve online information evalua- tion skills. Computers & Education . 120 pp. 75-89 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    & Lunerti, C

    Miguel-Hurtado, O., Guest, R. & Lunerti, C. Voice and face interac- tion evaluation of a mobile authentication platform. 2017 International Carnahan Conference On Security Technology (ICCST) . pp. 1-6 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    & Damayanti, A

    Restuputri, D., Masudin, I. & Damayanti, A. The role of usability in business-to-customer digital transactions on multiservice platforms of Indonesian e-money providers. Digital Transformation Management. pp. 226-246 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    An empirical study on the impact of gender on mobile applications usability

    Weichbroth, P. An empirical study on the impact of gender on mobile applications usability. IEEE Access. 10 pp. 119419-119436 (2022) 29

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    & Coskun, F

    Rukzio, E., Noda, C., De Luca, A., Hamard, J. & Coskun, F. Automatic form filling on mobile devices. Pervasive And Mobile Computing. 4, 161- 181 (2008)

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    & Ruoti, S

    Oesch, S., Gautam, A. & Ruoti, S. The emperor’s new autofill frame- work: a security analysis of autofill on iOS and Android. Proceedings Of The 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference . pp. 996-1010 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    & Ruoti, S

    Simmons, J., Diallo, O., Oesch, S. & Ruoti, S. Systematization of pass- word manageruse cases and design paradigms. Proceedings Of The 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. pp. 528-540 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    & Yang, J

    Zhu, T., Qu, Z., Xu, H., Zhang, J., Shao, Z., Chen, Y., Prabhakar, S. & Yang, J. RiskCog: Unobtrusive real-time user authentication on mobile devices in the wild. IEEE Transactions On Mobile Computing . 19, 466-483 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    & Jung, S

    Shin, J. & Jung, S. Heuristic smartphone usability evaluations of the mobile application NANDA, nursing interventions classification, and nursing outcomes classification customized for nursing home registered nurses. International Journal Of Nursing Knowledge. 34, 307-315 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    & Annamalai, R

    Mahamad, S., Syed Mansoor, S. & Annamalai, R. User Perception on Intelligent Split Menu for Web Browser Data Entry. Innovations And Advanced Techniques In Computer And Information Sciences And En- gineering. pp. 439-442 (2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    & Schmidt, A

    Kern, D. & Schmidt, A. Design space for driver-based automotive user interfaces. Proceedings Of The 1st International Conference On Auto- motive User Interfaces And Interactive Vehicular Applications . pp. 3-10 (2009)

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Influence of Mental Model of GUI on Usability

    Yang, W. Influence of Mental Model of GUI on Usability. 9th Inter- national Conference On Kansei Engineering And Emotion Research. KEER2022. Proceedings. pp. 377-386 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    & Ibrahim, O

    Nosseir, A., Flood, D., Harrison, R. & Ibrahim, O. Mobile development process spiral. 2012 Seventh International Conference On Computer En- gineering & Systems (ICCES) . pp. 281-286 (2012) 30

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    & Sudirman, I

    Hutahaean, H., Govindaraju, R. & Sudirman, I. Identifying usability risks for mobile application. Proceedings Of The 2020 International Con- ference On Engineering And Information Technology For Sustainable Industry. pp. 1-6 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Classifying and selecting UX and usability measures

    Bevan, N. Classifying and selecting UX and usability measures. Interna- tional Workshop On Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement. 11 pp. 13-18 (2008)

    work page 2008

  35. [35]

    & Chakraborty, J

    Dixon, J., Dehlinger, J., Dixon, S. & Chakraborty, J. Usability Test- ing Results for a Mobile Medical Transition Application. Design, User Experience, And Usability: Novel User Experiences: 5th International Conference, DUXU 2016, Held As Part Of HCI International 2016, Toronto, Canada, July 17–22, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 5 . pp. 569-577 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    The User Experience of Smart-Phone Information Hierarchy and Screen Transition Patterns

    Nam-gu, I. The User Experience of Smart-Phone Information Hierarchy and Screen Transition Patterns. International Journal Of Multimedia And Ubiquitous Engineering. 11, 293-302 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Usability Testing of Mobile Applications: A Method- ological Framework

    Weichbroth, P. Usability Testing of Mobile Applications: A Method- ological Framework. Applied Sciences. 14, 1792 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    & Skorin-Kapov, L

    Barakovi´ c, S. & Skorin-Kapov, L. Multidimensional modelling of quality of experience for mobile web browsing. Computers In Human Behavior . 50 pp. 314-332 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    & Zhang, J

    Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Li, J. & Zhang, J. The effect of mobile applica- tions’ initial loading pages on users’ mental state and behavior.Displays. 68 pp. 102007 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Wang, J., Li, Y., Yang, S., Dong, S. & Li, J. Waiting experience: Opti- mization of feedback mechanism of voice user interfaces based on time perception. IEEE Access. 11 pp. 21241-21251 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    & Uehara, T

    Gao, J., Tsai, W., Paul, R., Bai, X. & Uehara, T. Mobile Testing-as- a-Service (MTaaS)–Infrastructures, Issues, Solutions and Needs. 2014 IEEE 15th International Symposium On High-Assurance Systems Engi- neering. pp. 158-167 (2014) 31

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    & Uitdenbogerd, A

    Majrashi, K., Hamilton, M. & Uitdenbogerd, A. Task continuity and mobile user interfaces.Proceedings Of The 17th International Conference On Mobile And Ubiquitous Multimedia . pp. 475-481 (2018)

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    & Oliveira Souza, L

    Wangenheim, C., Witt, T., Borgatto, A., Nunes, J., Lacerda, T., Krone, C. & Oliveira Souza, L. A usability score for mobile phone applications based on heuristics. International Journal Of Mobile Human Computer Interaction (IJMHCI). 8, 23-58 (2016)

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    & Fabil, N

    Saleh, A., Ismail, R. & Fabil, N. Evaluating usability for mobile appli- cation: A MAUEM approach. Proceedings Of The 2017 International Conference On Software And E-Business . pp. 71-77 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    & Wang, H

    Yu, M., Zhou, R., Cai, Z., Tan, C. & Wang, H. Unravelling the relation- ship between response time and user experience in mobile applications. Internet Research. 30, 1353-1382 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Dead Lock - iOS App Development

    Hussain, A. Dead Lock - iOS App Development. (2024), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dead-lock-ios-app-development- ios-mobile-app-developer–ua1nf/ [Accessed on: 09.05.2024]

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    & Kharisma, A

    Az-zahra, H., Fauzi, N. & Kharisma, A. Evaluating E-marketplace mo- bile application based on people at the center of mobile application de- velopment (PACMAD) usability model. 2019 International Conference On Sustainable Information Engineering And Technology (SIET) . pp. 72-77 (2019)

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Radio Mobile Apps Review: User Measurement and Ap- preciation

    Irwansyah, I. Radio Mobile Apps Review: User Measurement and Ap- preciation. Advanced Science Letters. 24, 7137-7140 (2018)

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    & Setchi, R

    Marsh, A. & Setchi, R. Design for intuitive use: a study of mobile phones. 4th I* PROMS Virtual International Conference . (2008)

    work page 2008

  50. [50]

    & Marsh, A

    Britton, A., Setchi, R. & Marsh, A. Intuitive interaction with multi- functional mobile interfaces.Journal Of King Saud University-Computer And Information Sciences. 25, 187-196 (2013)

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    & Hurtienne, J

    Naumann, A. & Hurtienne, J. Benchmarks for intuitive interaction with mobile devices. Proceedings Of The 12th International Conference On Human Computer Interaction With Mobile Devices And Services . pp. 401-402 (2010) 32

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    & Correia, A

    Liu, C. & Correia, A. A Case Study of Learners’ Engagement in Mobile Learning Applications.. Online Learning. 25, 25-48 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    & Chooramun, N

    Ramdowar, H., Khedo, K. & Chooramun, N. A comprehensive review of mobile user interfaces in mHealth applications for elderly and the related ageing barriers. Universal Access In The Information Society . pp. 1-17 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    & Yao, J

    Xiao, T., Wang, J., Zheng, H. & Yao, J. Design and optimization of mo- bile learning applications based on Hierarchical Bayes conjoint models of user preferences. Multimedia Tools And Applications . 83, 17001-17024 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    & Chetty, M

    Mathur, A. & Chetty, M. Impact of user characteristics on attitudes towards automatic mobile application updates. Thirteenth Symposium On Usable Privacy And Security (SOUPS 2017) . pp. 175-193 (2017)

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    & Wang, N

    Huang, R., Miao, H. & Wang, N. Updating APP to Improve Users’ Satisfaction: Insights from users’ Review. (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    & Hayati, S

    Nurdina, G., Putri, T. & Hayati, S. Usability Telecontextual Study for Nursing Students: Unfolding Case Study. KnE Life Sciences . pp. 697- 704 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    & El Qadi, A

    Lahrache, S., El Ouazzani, R. & El Qadi, A. Visualizations memorability through visual attention and image features.Procedia Computer Science. 127 pp. 328-335 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    & Kim, D

    Coursaris, C. & Kim, D. A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability studies. Journal Of Usability Studies . 6, 117-171 (2011)

    work page 2011

  60. [60]

    Evaluating PSAU mobile application based on people at the cen- ter of mobile application development (PACMAD) usability model: em- pirical investigation

    Afif, M. Evaluating PSAU mobile application based on people at the cen- ter of mobile application development (PACMAD) usability model: em- pirical investigation. Journal Of Computer Science . 17, 275-283 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    & Mehmood, R

    Nizamani, S., Hassan, S., Shaikh, R., Abozinadah, E. & Mehmood, R. A novel hybrid textual-graphical authentication scheme with better security, memorability, and usability. IEEE Access. 9 pp. 51294-51312 (2021) 33

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    & Zainuddin, N

    Abd Raof, S., Hashim, N. & Zainuddin, N. An Evaluation of Quran Memorization Mobile App among Middle-Aged Adults and Early El- derly. Journal Of Computing Research And Innovation . 4, 1-7 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Hsu, S., Perng, C., Chiou, W. & Ou, T. Usability Evaluation of Mobile Commerce Website on Internet–An empirical study. (2014)

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    & Ding, C

    Hung, C., Chou, J. & Ding, C. Enhancing mobile satisfaction through integration of usability and flow. Engineering Management Research. 1, 44 (2012)

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    & Yakunin, A

    Bodrunova, S. & Yakunin, A. Impact of menu complexity upon user behavior and satisfaction in information search. Human Interface And The Management Of Information. Information In Applications And Ser- vices: 20th International Conference, HIMI 2018, Held As Part Of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 20 . pp....

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    & Mourato-Dussault, F

    Nickerson, R. & Mourato-Dussault, F. Managing stored data for mobile apps: survey of apps and case study. (2015)

    work page 2015

  67. [67]

    & Mourato-Dussault, F

    Nickerson, R. & Mourato-Dussault, F. Selecting a stored data approach for mobile apps. Journal Of Theoretical And Applied Electronic Com- merce Research. 11, 35-49 (2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    & Edara, P

    Azadi, F., Adu-Gyamfi, Y., Sun, C. & Edara, P. Mobile application development and testing for work zone activity real-time data collection. Transportation Research Record. 2674, 351-362 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    & Bahaj, S

    Ali, W., Riaz, O., Mumtaz, S., Khan, A., Saba, T. & Bahaj, S. Mobile Application Usability Evaluation: A Study Based on Demography.IEEE Access. 10 pp. 41512-41524 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    & Padda, H

    Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R. & Padda, H. Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated model. Software Quality Journal . 14 pp. 159-178 (2006)

    work page 2006

  71. [71]

    & Weise, C

    Franke, D., Kowalewski, S. & Weise, C. A mobile software quality model. 2012 12th International Conference On Quality Software . pp. 154-157 (2012) 34

    work page 2012

  72. [72]

    & Toledo, C

    Alvarado, L., Dom´ ınguez, E., Vel´ azquez, Y., Isidro, S. & Toledo, C. Layered software architecture for the development of mobile learning objects with augmented reality. IEEE Access. 6 pp. 57897-57909 (2018)

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    & Cernuzzi, L

    N´ u˜ nez, M., Bonhaure, D., Gonz´ alez, M. & Cernuzzi, L. A model-driven approach for the development of native mobile applications focusing on the data layer. Journal Of Systems And Software. 161 pp. 110489 (2020)

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    & Rusu, V

    Inostroza, R., Rusu, C., Roncagliolo, S., Jimenez, C. & Rusu, V. Us- ability heuristics for touchscreen-based mobile devices.2012 Ninth Inter- national Conference On Information Technology-new Generations . pp. 662-667 (2012)

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    & Isom¨ aki, H

    Kuparinen, L., Silvennoinen, J. & Isom¨ aki, H. Introducing usability heuristics for mobile map applications. International Cartographic Con- ference. (2013)

    work page 2013

  76. [76]

    & Mandl, T

    Heuwing, B., K¨ oller, I., Schanz, V. & Mandl, T. Usability of Gesture- based Mobile Applications for First-time Use.. MuC. pp. 233-242 (2015)

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    & Song, J

    Pushp, S., Liu, Y., Xu, M., Koh, C. & Song, J. PrivacyShield: A mobile system for supporting subtle just-in-time privacy provisioning through off-screen-based touch gestures. Proceedings Of The ACM On Interac- tive, Mobile, Wearable And Ubiquitous Technologies . 2, 1-38 (2018)

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    & Yang, L

    Wu, H. & Yang, L. User-defined gestures for dual-screen mobile in- teraction. International Journal Of Human–Computer Interaction . 36, 978-992 (2020)

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    & Schlick, C

    Schneider, N., Wilkes, J., Grandt, M. & Schlick, C. Investigation of input devices for the age-differentiated design of human-computer interaction. Proceedings Of The Human Factors And Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 52, 144-148 (2008)

    work page 2008

  80. [80]

    & Zhang, Y

    Qin, J., Liu, X. & Zhang, Y. Usability Testing for Mobile Input Method Interaction Design. Applied Mechanics And Materials . 63 pp. 952-955 (2011)

    work page 2011

Showing first 80 references.