Recommendations for Improvement for Applications Used in This Study 62

In this research, four mobile applications for iPhone/iPod were tested. They are in different categories: shopping (Kroger), travel (KAYAK, Frugal Flyer), and weather (FOX2 Weather). Each kind of mobile application has its unique function and usability features. To satisfy customers’ need for different age groups, designers could make several changes on these mobile applications.

For Kroger, it is a simple shopping application, and has got high level of TAM measures (PU/PEU). If the data entry room is bigger when users typing in store address, it is better for older people to use it.

For KAYAK, it is a travel application, and also has high level of TAM measures. Two functions could be changed to make it easier to use. First, scrolling button could be bigger when users choosing car pick-up time and price range. Second, certain prompts or cues should pop out if users make a mistake which will lead a non-results search.

For Frugal Flyer, it is also an application for travel, but it got the lowest level of TAM measures and usability scores. Several crucial disadvantages should be noticed. Font size of this application is extreme small for both older and younger people. Too much data should be typed in during searching. Users should choose search engine themselves after they typed in all necessary data. It takes too many steps and is not easy for users to get appropriate results, even if it supplies much comparative information from companies.

For FOX2 Weather, it is a simple weather application. The background contrast is designed nicely. But its font size is too small to be recognized. It has a long scrolling

menu which should make it easy to use, but there is no distinct sign to help users to find it, which make it worse to use.

6.3. Recommendation and Future Work

In this research, all participants were recruited from local community, and only two age groups were tested. Most of them were highly educated and had a bachelors or above. Future work could recruit more participants from different areas with different education background, and larger age range is necessary. More data points will enhance the results, and age could be set as a factor of user preference on mobile applications for future study.

This lab experiment only included one session, which had a forty minutes of training and practice. Future work could extend experiment by adding one or two more field sessions in one or two months after the original lab session. This would allow participants to spend more time learning new mobile applications and having field experience on using these applications.

Many new mobile applications are designed and published every day. The original research only chose four applications in shopping, travel, and weather. Future studies could choose more applications in different categories, like entertainment, health and medical, business, education, game, navigation, social networking, and productivity.

TAM was used as a theoretical construct, and eleven items of usability

characteristics in four aspects were tested in this research. Future work could test more usability characteristics, and use other model or testing tools to study usage of mobile applications. Different versions and products of same mobile applications could be

studied and compared, for example, applications between different kinds of smart phones, operating systems, or web vs. mobile based systems.

REFERENCES

[1] Mobile Application. Mobile Marketing Association, 2008, pp. 1.

[2] E. Folmer, and J. Bosch, "Architecting for usability: A survey," Journal of

Systems and Software, vol. 70, pp. 61-78, 2004.

[3] J. Heo, D-H. Hamb, S. Park, C. Song, and W.C. Yoon, "A framework for

evaluating the usability of mobile phones based on multi-level, hierarchical model of usability factors," Interacting with Computers, vol. 21, pp. 263-275, 2009.

[4] A. Chadwick-Dias, M. McNulty, and T. Tullis, "Web usability and age: how design changes can improve performance," ACM SIGCAPH Computers and the

Physically Handicapped, pp. 30-31-37, 2002.

[5] U.S. Administration on Aging and U.S. Bureau of the Census, A Profile of Older Americans: 2010.

[6] G. M. Jay, and S. L. Willis, "Influence of direct computer experience on older adults' attitudes toward computers." J. Gerontol. : Psychol. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 250- 257, 1992.

[7] K. L. Norman, "Better design of menu selection systems through cognitive psychology and human factors," Hum. Factors, vol. 50, pp. 556-559, 2008.

[8] T. A. Salthouse, and S. J. Czaja, "Structural constraints on process explanations in cognitive aging," Psychol. Aging, vol. 15, pp. 44-55, 2000.

[9] K. Sarmiento, F. A. Langlois, and J. Mitchko, ""Help seniors live better, longer: prevent brain injury": An overview of CDC's education initiative to prevent fall- related TBI among older adults," J. Head Trauma Rehabil., vol. 23, pp. 164-167, 2008.

[10] R. Pak, and M. M. Price, "Designing an information search interface for younger and older adults," Hum. Factors, vol. 50, pp. 614-628, 2008.

[11] A. Holzinger, G. Searle, and A. Nischelwitzer, "On some aspects of improving mobile applications for the elderly," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4554, pp. 923-932, 2007.

[12] D. Zhang, and B. Adipat, "Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications," International Journal of Human-Computer

Interaction, vol. 18, pp. 293-308, 2005.

[13] F. D. Davis, "Technology Acceptance Model for empirically testing new end-user information systems theory and results," Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1986.

[14] K. Mathieson, "Predicting user intentions comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the theory of planned behavior," Information Systems Research, vol. 2, pp. 173-191, 1991.

[15] B. Szajna, "Empirical evaluation of the revised Technology Acceptance Model,"

[16] D. Straub, "Measuring system usage implications for is theory testing,"

Management Science, vol. 41, pp. 1328-1342, 1995.

[17] P. J. Hu, "Examining the Technology Acceptance Model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology," Journal of Management Information

Systems, vol. 16, pp. 91-112, 1999.

[18] J. v. Biljon, P. Kotze, and K. Renaud, " Modelling the Factors that Influence Mobile Phone Adoption," the 2007 annual research conference of the South

African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries, p.152-161, 2007.

[19] K. Renaud, and J. v. Biljon, "Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: A qualitative study," in SAICSIT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual

Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (2008), 2008,

pp. 210-219.

[20] K. Renaud, and J. Ramsay, "Now what was that password again? A more flexible way of identifying and authenticating our seniors," Behaviour & Information

Technology, vol. 26, pp. 309-322, 2007.

[21] H. B. Duh , G. Tan , and V. H.Chen, "Usability evaluation for mobile device: a comparison of laboratory and field tests, " the 8th conference on Human-

[22] K. A. Siek, "Mobile Design for Older Adults, " User interface design and

evaluation for mobile technology, 2008, pp. 624-634.

[23] A. Olwal, D. Lachanas, and E. Zacharouli, " OldGen: Mobile Phone

Personalization for Older Adults, " the 2011 annual conference on Human factors

in computing systems, 2011, pp. 3393-3396.

[24] R. Gafni, "Usability issues in mobile-wireless information systems, " The Journal

of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, vol 6.(2), 2009, pp.

755-769.

[25] D. Pierotti, "Heuristic Evaluation - A System Checklist, " Xerox Corporation, 2007, pp. 1-21.

[26] "PopCap Mobile Phone Games Presentation," Information Solutions Group, 2011.

[27] R. Longoria, " Designing mobile applications: Challenges, methodologies, and lessons learned, " Usability evaluation and interface design: Cognitive

engineering, intelligent agents and virtual reality, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001, pp. 91-95.

APPENDIX 1: DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND QUESTIONNAIRE