Issuu on Google+

London College of Communication course: Digital Media Production

Mobile Phone’s Unified Graphical User Interface Pilot Study 2008.03 By Bart Sakwerda

BA Dissertation

p. 1/78


TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of figures:....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology: Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Qualitative Research (A-C)...............................................................................................................................13 A Independent Content(Software) Developers, NETWORK OPERATORS ....................................................... 13 “Fragmentation” VS. “DIVERSIFICATION”, HANDSETS, CONTENT, DEVELOPERS.................................................. 13 touchscreen impact, UNIFCIATION and USER EXPERIENCE – APPLE PRODUCTS .................................................. 15 GUI TRENDS........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Outsourcing PLATFORM porting, GUI librariers (+ appendix A) ............................................................................ 17

B. perspective of Operating System/Handset PRODUCERS ............................................................................ 18 Mobile Phone Operating systems ......................................................................................................................... 19 Possible effects of the Universal GUI on handset producers business models:.................................................... 24

C. the perspective of the mobile phone User.................................................................................................. 25 Usage of the mobile phone phones ...................................................................................................................... 25

Quantitve Research (D1-D3).............................................................................................................................27 METHODS: Operational Variables, concepts for the further study................................................................. 28 Variables................................................................................................................................................................ 28

D1 Quantitive research: User Experience........................................................................................................ 30 Methodology......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 31

D2 Quantitative research: User Attitude Survey (2008-02) ............................................................................ 33 Methodology of the survey ................................................................................................................................... 33 Questions and variables, Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 34 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 35

D3 Quantitative research User sentiment (2008-02) ...................................................................................... 38 p. 2/78


Methodology of the survey ................................................................................................................................... 38 Questions .............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 40

FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND RECCOMENDATIONS .................................................................................44 Findings derrived from the Qualitative researcH ............................................................................................ 44 Findings from the Quantitative ....................................................................................................................... 46 The QNT research confirmed the following: ......................................................................................................... 50

Effects .............................................................................................................................................................. 51 Resources [6000 words] ...................................................................................................................................52 Index...................................................................................................................................................................... 52 References............................................................................................................................................................. 53 Appendix A - Trends in Research & Development of the Mobile Phone User Interface....................................... 61 Appendix B - Desktop UIs ...................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix C - Content Development Platforms ..................................................................................................... 65 appendix D - Major Handset producers ................................................................................................................ 70 Appendix E - Mobile Phone, GUI - Definitions and classification .......................................................................... 73 Appendix F - Academic and ANALYST research..................................................................................................... 75

p. 3/78


TABLE OF FIGURES: Figure 3 Nokia Devices 1984 - 2006

1

Figure 4 Mobile Phone Abstraction Layer

1

Figure 6 NTT DoCoMo Japan - FOMA 905i phones

1

Figure 1 iPhone UI elements - Chinese language

1

Figure 5 Flash Lite 2.x UI component Framework in Actionscript 2

1

Figure 7 Symbian OS development milestones

1

Figure 8 Microsoft's Windows Mobile 6

1

Figure 9 Windows Mobile 'Today Screens' Versions 5, 4, 3, 1

1

Figure 10 Microsoft windows SBS Skin

1

Figure 11 London Apple Store – iPhone stand 2008-02

1

Figure 12 Comparison of subjective usability criteria MPUQ with the existing usability questionnaires modified from Keinonen (1999) by Ryu, SmithJackson (2007)

1

Figure 13 Apple Store – London Regent’s St

1

Figure 14 2008-02 User's Attitude Survey - Model

1

Figure 15 D3 Questions 7, 8, 9, 10

1

Figure 16 D3 Questions 7 & 8

1

p. 4/78


ABSTRACT Both Mobile phone content and hardware production, are a rapidly changing industries. Market is shaped by the hardware producers, software developers, technology and Operating System vendors, interlinked by the complex business relations enhancing fierce competition and shortening of the product life-spans. This challenging environment lead to high level of diversification, resulting in technology and Graphical User Interface fragmentation of content and mobile phone’s interactive layer. User Experience has been assessed quantitatively by the marketers and critics in cases of numerous portable digital devices, however, as for March 2008 very little attention has been spared, in order to, analyze the use and the design of the Mobile Phone content and its services. This however, was deemed to be necessary to develop prototype of the software implementing concept of the Unified Graphical User interface pilot study. The contribution of this evaluation are the following: •

report of the current state of the GUI (perspectives of Users, mobile content developers ad manufacturers)

a basic survey model assessing User in relation to mobile phones’ Graphical User Interface and

data from mobile phone user experience and satisfaction surveys

Report provides a qualitative assessment of the Industry from the key perspectives, establishing the basis for the further Quantitative research, its methodology and model.. The model allows user to express Experience, Satisfaction and Preference in a non-technical terms, implemented in subsequent User surveys conducted at the retail outlets of Apple store, beginning of 2008 in London.. The findings will be implemented in further development of the functional Graphical User Interface concept application.

p. 5/78


Figure 1 VisonMobile – User Interface Industry Map

p. 6/78


METHODOLOGY: OBJECTIVES Mobile Phone devices in 2008, are no longer limited to making voice calls. The ‘post 2005’ devices, are capable of accessing the internet and operate sophisticated hardware and sensors. The range of services allowed by the technical capacity, reaches far ahead of sending text messages or serving as a alarm-clock, and extends to Location Based services, Multimedia, organisation and productivity tools. (NTT DoCoMo, 2008) Graphical User interface is on the forefront of the mobile phone capabilities. Personal Computers, TV screens, multimedia players, game console and personal navigation devices, all share similar abstract elements of the Graphical User Interface, such us on/off switches, grid menus, icons etc... To serve the purpose of the increasing capabilities of these connected devices, there is a need for a appropriate UI. Until the advance of 3G networks allowing mobile phone devices to access the internet at much higher speeds, main Graphical User Interface look, feel and graphical style was governed by the software GUI libraries of Operating System and software runtime platforms. As a result, the business model of handset producers, content developers encouraged differentiation through the implementation of various Graphical User Interfaces leading to fragmented and diversified UI environments. In contrast, human cognition and attention is more constrained (van Bilijon, 2006) and some mobile phone users find it difficult to operate devices because of the a) unfamiliar concepts and b) fragmentation of the GUI. This paper is focused on the 1) impact of the GUI on the Users, and 2) effects of the Unified approach to the design of the content (software) designated for the mobile phones, and 3) trends in the mobile phones’ Graphical User Interface design.GUI assessment have been conducted from four different perspectives (Content developers, Operating system/ Handset producers, Academic/Analyst industry, Mobile Phone User), through qualitative literature review, specialist interviews and user surveys. To date, there are only a few scientific/industry quantitative studies and qualitative analysis assessments of the Mobile Phone User Interface. Studies examined properties and common problems in the context of usability (Users), platform. Fragmentation, handset, software design (software developers, handset producers). The idea behind quantitative research (Marti, S. 2007) In 2008 mobile content developers and designers are facing major issues while designing interaction. Interaction factors have a direct impact on a every element of the mobile phone industry: from the structure development process, to content reach, its quality and distribution. Some of the direct implications depend on the choice of the User Interface for all parties: the users, developers and network operators. Research also aims to discover the role, that the Graphical User Interface (GUI) design plays within the wider, mobile phone industry, i.e. direct implications of events like Apple’s iPhone or Google’s Android OS , and tries to answering the following questions through the four ‘research perspectives’: A Independent Developers

Is Unified GUI across platforms helping to deliver better products faster ? Is there a need for a open source GUI framework/software libraries ?

B Operating System

How Operating Systems and Network Operators are affecting diversification in the mobile phone GUI ? What are the strategies and technologies of handset manufacturers and operating systems companies? What are the current mobile phone GUI and the developments? What is the academic/analyst stance on the GUI Unification ? What we can expect in terms of GUI designs for the mobile phone web and new roles ?

C Academics

D Users

Does the User care about User Interface ? p. 7/78


How User sees GUI ? What is his attitude towards the UI ? How Graphical User Interface differentiation affects the User’s attitude and satisfaction ?

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: MODEL, VARIABLES, OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS Qualitative research draws from the insights of experts in the field of Interaction, Usability and Mobile Content and the analysis of the state of the UK’s and worldwide mobile phone handset trends in 2007 and 2008. Qualitative analysis of the mobile phones’ GUI is supported by deductive interviews and review of the literature and articles written by the Usability academic, industry and content development practitioners. This is divided into 4 groups, representing the perspectives of the following: A. Content developers B. Operating system/ Handset producers C. Analyst industry D. Mobile Phone Users ( Quantitative research: 3 surveys) The knowledge base review, included: •

over 6 private, critical expert opinions,

analysis of several published academic papers ,

transcripts from Informa’s Mobile Usability conference in London 2007-12,

over 10 publications on measuring mobile phone handset usability,

references and guidelines aimed at the developers, published by the technology vendors,

transcripts from the Mobile User Experience conference in London 2008-05.

Case-studies

Analysis of the knowledge body are mostly subjective, and where it is not stated, they employ description from the perspective of the Content Developer, therefore employing mostly qualitative concepts and descriptive constant variables, i.e. elements of the physical phone User Interface i.e. touchscreen. Information originating from the Operating Systems vendors and software platform was delivered in an explanatory, hierarchical and descriptive manner, as a ‘white papers, design guidelines” Primarily the purpose of the study, is to ascertain the proprietary framework for measuring Usability related concepts (i.e. Users’ Satisfaction, GUI effectiveness ...). Qualitative Research aims to draw a conceptual framework from the established body of knowledge, which from 2007 offered limited number of structured and verifiable resources concentrated on Unification or assessment of the mobile phone Graphical User Interface . The telecom industry analysis provided objective numerical and statistical data, however no information related to the ‘GUI experience’ per se has been identified. Secondarily, Qualitative research also complements quantitative research, by providing the scientific base for the Design and Analysis of the Quantitative data collected in a series of surveys. This helped to establish the concepts by which the survey questions were based and helps put collected data in the context of the industry dynamics – mobile phone and content production. p. 8/78


QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: Qualitative research identified the possible elements necessary to construct the conceptual framework of the later surveys. Temporal structure, developed during the initial qualitative research, was based upon the variables derived from the usability pool, i.e. navigation or User Experience. Relations between variables, were analysed based upon the analogies between parallel thematic categories, their casual inferences and statistical syllogisms i.e. users’ satisfaction vs. Users’ experience and Mobile Phone GUI elements vs. User satisfaction. The relation between the variables created, dependencies, although some variables (or wider concepts) remained independent. Relations between variables, including extraneous and intervening variables are described in corresponding quantitative research sections. This theoretical framework employs reasoning based upon cause and consequence , in the sense, that one conceptual category, causes changes to occur in another. Such relationships are interactions when one of the ends is a user designing physical or abstract User Interface. (Jones,2006) Analysis of the concepts like ‘User Experience’ revealed that, social aspects of User’s activities and preferences are related to the technical specification of the device. This has been fairly similar with the following model proposed by Stefan Marti (MIT Media Lab, 2002) Example of such ‘consequential relationship’ or. inductive or casual coding would be: User( experience) dependent on the User(ownership time interval), or User (satisfaction). Dependant on the Graphical User Interface and its complexity level. “Although the ‘user interface’ can be looked at, as an dependent variable, it is clear that the relationship between social impact and user UI is bi-directional. Although certain social phenomena calls for certain kinds of interfaces, a given user interface design would also aggravate or alleviate desired social phenomena.” (Marti,S. 2002) For the purpose of this paper the concepts have been divided into two items (or variable) categorisations: user centred and mobile phone oriented models. (Jones,2006) the Usability Criteria have been divided into two groups: 1) Mobile Phone properties and 2) criteria related to the User perception. ‘Mobile Phone’ variables included: ease of use, learn-ability, task accomplishment, temporal efficiency, documentation value, clarity of presentation. ‘User’ variables included satisfaction, experience and attitude. Those variables, were derived from the Ryu’s Usability Questionnaire (MPUQ), which evaluated “the usability of mobile phones for the purpose of making decisions among competing variations in the end-user market” and determined alternative elements of the prototype GUIs during the development process. It also accompanied research process during an ‘iterative design progression’. (Ryu, 2005) Dr. Ryu examined the following Usability Criteria: Satisfaction, Affect, Mental effort, Frustration, Perceived usefulness, Flexibility, Ease of use, Learn-ability, Controllability, Task accomplishment, Temporal efficiency, Helpfulness, Compatibility, Accuracy, Clarity of presentation, Understand-ability, Installation, Documentation, Pleasure-ability, Specific Tasks and Feedback to the most relevant items. Therefore, in this study, the response from an existing usability questionnaires (Ryu, 2005 ) –mainly Users’ sentimental attitude towards elements of the GUI - were applied to the characteristics of existing handsets like Apple iPhone, Nokia N95 mainly using . nominal and subjective (derived from the context) values illustrated by the table below. Table 1 Example of concepts, variables and research methods (sample)

Concept User Experience Operating System Tactile UI User Satisfaction

Variable USER(experience) MobilePhone.OS MobilePhone.UI( variable) USER(satisfaction)casual relationship

measurement / scale(magnitude) Subjective / interval Nominal value Nominal Subjective / interval

p. 9/78


D0 PILOT SURVEY (CONDUCTED IN 2007-12 LONDON) The primary pilot survey was conducted in December 2007 in London. The research attempted, to reflect upon personal industry expert opinions and speculation and recommendations assessing the concept of the Unified GUI on the mobile phones. The initial pilot study aimed also, to establish the quality of the sample - UK customers, present in the central London mobile phone retail outlets. Testing the sample had no specific epistemology and has been employed to deal with the basic qualitative data accumulated before December 2007. The survey examined thirty randomly selected users of mobile phones in the flagship retail outlet of iPhone producer Apple, Regent Street, London. During the period the Apple Company was involved in the promotion of their new portable device – iPhone, what could provide opportunity to poll users of the mobile phone handsets, conscious of GUI, software and basic usability concepts.

Image 1 D0 Pilot study survey

On average respondents used mobile phone more than two years and were familiar with at least two mobile phones (consequently, more than two different Graphical User Interfaces.) Thirteen short, simple questions were prepared, out of which, section of dichotomous (‘yes/no’) answers were gathering answers related with the three different elements and variables of no specific codification, i.e.: Initial Research Survey 2007-12 aims were to: • • • •

establish the best way to asses User Satisfaction evaluate sample and its properties test the variable/concept model of the study establish working relationship with Apple Store London

personal data(gender, age, attitude...)

phone usage (phone brands)

Users’ attitude towards mobile phones

Sample answers considered 1) 70% interested in Handset Usability, and 2) 60% satisfaction with the phone functionality. The survey confirmed also the ‘subjectivity of the User’s attitude’ towards the concept of satisfaction, productivity and user friendliness. Crude answers designed to assess the sample, provided for the theoretical grounds and validity of the research area – concept Unified Graphical User Interface, and authorized quantitative data originating from the public (Users) surveys as a research method. This was achieved through series of a short surveys directed at the UK user of the mobile phone handsets and contents, designed to assess User’s relationship with mobile phone, through Graphical User Interface .This grounded the idea, of Users’ Experience and Satisfaction variables being assessed through subjective questionnaires Pilot study confirmed findings of the model grounding papers by Judith van Bilion (van Bilion, 2006) and Sun Kyong Lee(Lee,2007). It also approved further evaluation of the qualitative data, conducted through cross-referencing and triangulation of the variables, employing replication of the qualitative research findings in further quantitative research. Reference: Sakwerda, Bart (2007) Research methods: Mobile Phone user Pilot Survey 2007-12, London, LCC.

p. 10/78


p. 11/78


Figure 2 Nokia Devices 1984 - 2006

p. 12/78


QUALITATIVE RESEARCH (A-C) A INDEPENDENT CONTENT(SOFTWARE) DEVELOPERS, NETWORK OPERATORS “FRAGMENTATION” VS. “DIVERSIFICATION”, HANDSETS, CONTENT, DEVELOPERS Many mobile phones used currently in the UK, are set apart “The structure of the mobile industry is killing by the different Operating Systems, software platforms and application developers.”(Taylor,2008) content in terms of Graphical User Interface styles, file system organization and physical appearance. The industry's handset manufacturers, network operators and platform vendors have created a mobile eco-system, which is fragmented at every level: I handset Operating Systems, II. default Operator internet(content) portals, III. application platforms These however have negative implications on mobile application developers and the users. This trend has already been spotted in Nokia’s 2004 S60 developer guidelines:“Diversification between handset designs and capabilities has greatly increased. This has resulted in minimal similarity amongst competitive devices in terms of screen size, keypad, browser, and other elements of the user interface. Applications, services, and other content have to be adapted to these different devices.”(Nokia,2004) Nokia has made the Series 60 Platform available for licensing by other handset manufacturers enabling them to bring phones to market with equivalent and compatible functionality. “Standardizing the application environment helps service creation and application interoperability. Common input methods, APIs, and supported technologies allow services and applications to interoperate seamlessly, but still give licensees the freedom to innovate and design excellent smartphones.” (Nokia,2004) Nokia stated two main benefits of the Unified GUI (for the content producers): 1.a larger market – increasing potential revenues; 2. a market that is accessible through one common platform – lowers the costs of the development. Although some handset manufacturers are focused on providing consistent User Experience (i.e. Nokia introduced very little changes to its default OS GUI since 2005), they provide facilities for operators to customize the Experience by implementing custom, branded GUI.Network Operators use the opportunity to modify the suppliers GUI, not only to “reinforce the Operator’s brand”, but also to guarantee the revenues from the content sales on the default internet portals on the devices. (WirelessDev,2007) Differentiation of the content and distribution channels, can be illustrated by the practices of the UK operators like Vodafone, O2, Orange and others and their implementation of branded GUI of Operating systems and internet portals. “ The difference is one of approach. Whereas Orange has actively chosen to spin out separate mobile portal and on-device portal offerings for distinct user groups or interest groups, other operators have chosen to stick with the one-size-fits-all model, providing users with features to re-configure their own content positioning and even pull applications straight to the homepage, if required. Likewise, O2’s spotty use of content recommendation is in stark contrast to the broader initiatives of leading competitors to leverage both operator-driven and user-driven recommendation to steer end-user content choices. The treatment of location-based technology is also creating some major differentiation between the competitors’ portal offerings, both at a functionality level and at a services level.” (Mohr McClune , Current analysis 2008)

p. 13/78


Negative impact on the content developers is yet increased, by the introduction of new software platforms or software environments, i.e.: Java ME/Brew in 2004, Symbian S60, Windows Mobile in 2006, iPhone AppleMacOS in 2007, Adobe’s Flash in 2001(Japan), Google Android in 2008 and plethora of Linux Mobile variations since 2004.(Nokia, 2007) As a result, portability of applications between platforms inhibits growth of the developer community, spawning platform-specific ecosystems and an applications testing industry, consuming development resources and affecting User Experience. “Often, the only way to be certain a product will deliver the user experience envisaged by its creators is to invest in physically testing it on every handset on every network. It would be like asking web developers to buy every model of PC and test it on every broadband supplier.” (Carl Taylor, Global Tech Strategy, Hutchison EU, 2008)

“There are both advantages and disadvantages to the user in having a common user interface on all mobile phones. One the one hand, implementing a common UI would provide consistency when upgrading and may allow for greater sharing of content(applications and data) between users. By standardising the UI, handset manufacturers could focus on working together to develop hardware innovations and new applications. However, I believe there is a far stronger argument that standardising the UI would have a negative effect. It would limit customer choice and prevent the cycle of competitive innovation which ensures there are a wide range of different UIs to suit all needs and all users. The objective of the mobile industry should be to ensure every user feels as if their handset has been designed for them as an individual. If anything, we should be encouraging even greater diversity in UIs and perhaps even looking at how we can give users simple tools to customise their own interfaces. The advent of touchscreens in the mass market provides greater flexibility to customise the user interface (the iPhone is the best example of this, where almost all of the UI is implemented in software). However, they are more expensive than traditional screens and currently they lack the tactile feedback so important to the mobile experience (check out www.immersion.com for an example of how haptic feedback can be added to touchscreen devices). There are certain elements within the UI which could be standardised. Having a common visual language for certain key functions, like mobile internet access or secure mobile payments, could help to promote usage by creating familiarity. It would, however, be a significant challenge to standardise this between all the players involved – network operators, handset manufacturers, OS developers and content providers.”( Marek Pawlowski, PMN User Experience Ltd., 2008-02) To complicate matters further, developers which manage to overcome the technical challenges, face additional battle to negotiate commercial agreements with the numerous companies that control billing relationships with their prospective customer base. “These often result in terms that would be deemed punitive in any other industry, with distribution and billing often accounting for more than 50% of the price, paid by the end consumer.” (Pawlowski, 2008) This also results in implementation of yet another diversification in the GUI layer, this time in the content distribution. “Small companies wanting to deploy services through the mobile channel face a minefield of self-proclaimed 'standards' and incompatible software platforms. This increases technical development costs, staff requirements and time-to-market, making it prohibitively expensive for small companies to prosper in the mobile phone business.” (Mobile User Experience, 2008)

p. 14/78


TOUCHSCREEN IMPACT, UNIFCIATION AND USER EXPERIENCE – APPLE PRODUCTS Released in June 2006, iPhone sales reached global 8th position in number of sold devices (3th quarter of 2007).(WirelessDeveloper 2007) iPhone with its touchscreen, signalled transition towards haptic interfaces, touchscreens in particular. This change has been quickly acknowledged by Users, competitors and developers however clear ideas towards the main GUI style or Interaction models are yet to be defined based not only on the iPhone. Success of the iPhone, certainly convinced decision makers in the leading handset producing companies, to follow the footsteps of Apple in terms of technology i.e. touchscreens, accelerometers,etc What we can expect, is the technological change in which the industry will be going – following the popular solutions among customers, like touchscreen handsets 2006 LG Prada or 2007 LG Viewty (LG Mobile 2007). However the necessity of change in the area has to include ‘new thinking’ of User Experience and content consumption.Example of Apple products showed specific approach to all three layers of the graphical interface: I handset Operating Systems: MacOS on iPhone is consistent with the GUI of the PC Mac operating systems, this includes the icons and certain interaction elements like ‘sliders’ II. default internet portal or ODP (on device portal): despite iTunes functionality , iPhone and PC GUIs are identical III. application platforms: elements of unified GUI are implemented in the iPhone API Apple therefore is dedicated to provide great User experience through universal functionality and unified Graphical User Interface. Approach which, is very different to established ones, i.e. represented by Nokia, with its clients – Network Operators and content delivery companies having ‘customized’ or diversified GUI as default. In March of 2008, we can speculate that the device-exclusive content distribution application might be also in the centre of Nokia’s transition, from the hardware producer to software company. Such approach could be confirmed by the non-mobile software products like Nokia PC Suite and Nokia MOSH content delivery client. However at this stage, such speculations and non-professional assessment of the industry is extremely difficult due to the extremely volatile consumer market caused by the 2007/2008 financial crisis and limited iPhone effects studies and analysis. The impact however, might be assessed based on the public, semi –official developer opinions, i.e. the following response to the “dominant iPhone GUI model” query on the online developers forum: “I think Apple iPhone is okay, until you start comparing it -- then it's comes off better. Really the cell phone is a device in transition. Smart phones are like saying "horseless carriage" and at about that stage of development. And not even Apple is close to where things are headed, I look to Apple developers for some interesting ideas. iPhone application Quickorde is one example. Frucall is another fusion of online and offline, "shop physical, buy virtual" by Amazon... or BuddyBuzz. This UI completely upends the concepts of what can be done. ”(public response to my thread on the http://groups.google.com/interaction-design, by john.soellner@gmail.com, 2008-02)

p. 15/78


GUI TRENDS The idea of diversification, as a mean to create unique product and to create ‘unique experience’ is no longer an option. Users are becoming more conscious about the User Interface (Quantitative Research A) and their comfort of using content. As the market of mobile phone digital content matures, developers become to understand that their revenues are connected with the number of Users who are satisfied with the experience. “It will be clunky, trouble-prone, and will not match the level of user experience that the user is accustomed to on their device. Compared to the native apps on the device, yours will be the "weird" one that somehow just doesn't work quite right.”(Hautameki, Froum Nokia 2007) The challenge of providing positive User Experience became an important issue, as it may determine the success of all parties involved. This issue has been a main theme of two consecutive events in London dedicated mainly to the content developers: Mobile Usability & Application Design 2007-11 ,organized by Informa TM UK and Mobile User Experience London organized by PMN 2008-05. This events focused entirely on the issues faced by Mobile Telecom industry and delivered feedback from the Analysts, Academics as well as ‘wider industry’. One of the MU2007 conference speakers, Maththew Menz, examined the development decisions and processes in creating the first Motorola smartphone in presentation called “ Motorola Z8: Taking a More Agile, Pattern-Based Approach to Development for Greater Usability “ He discussed The principals for pattern-based User Experience i.e. user interface as a manifestation of sets of repeating patterns, ways to approach multi-interaction points . Overall theme focused on achieving a lighter touch in specification by lessening the load of complicated style guides. (Matthew Menz, Head of Interaction, Motorola, USA) This exemplifies the calls from the Handset production industry for common, Usable interaction platform. The need of change in the industry was also main theme of the MEX 2008 conference. Radical new ideas, like theme “Content itself will be the interface of the future”, where icons “are dead” and the content itself is the interface. Such proposals, inspired by the successful market entry of the iPhone, suggest “stripping away the confusion and clutter of traditional interface elements” ,like menus, scroll bars and instead placing content, like photos, music and video at the “heart of the user experience.”Thomas Kleist, Director of Interaction Experience (Native ) and Tom Airaksinen, Interaction Designer, (Ocean Observations)Such concepts of the future interfaces, predict UI to be content- and context aware, ranking photos and web pages content, on the same level of the interaction hierarchy, as voice calls and text messages functionality. Another example of developers innovation, usage of the activity logs, has been introduced by the Tom Airaksinen, Interaction Designer, (Ocean Observations) Proposed idea makes Users think in terms of friends, tasks, days out, favourite songs and web-sites instead of the present structure of functional separation.”Separating these elements into individual application silos, the industry is limiting how big a role they play in the mobile experience.”(Airaksinen, 2008) The Series 60 multimedia gallery, the CoverFlow system on the iPhone, Google Maps are all examples, of applications where the content itself is at the heart of the user interface. “If a user wants to browse music, he should be able to flick through the album art as if he was exploring covers in a record store. Photos should fill the screen and pan and scroll when the phone is moved or tilted.” (Airaksinen, 2008)

p. 16/78


OUTSOURCING PLATFORM PORTING, GUI LIBRARIERS (+ APPENDIX A) Increased costs of the development caused by platform fragmentation, created an industry of the GUI libraries. This software components are intended to be the universal implemented in content and applications.( Appendix A ) Examples of such UI libraries: Japanese Acrodea(product: vivid UI), Digital airwaves (product: Kaleido) and TricastMedia (product: TWUIK).

Such efforts introduce great User Experience, however it is once again diversified by new GUI standards. Great technology is assumed to automatically equate to a great customer experience. Many argue however, that focusing on what the user needs and finding practical solutions, regardless of how ‘advanced’ the underlying technology is perceived to be. As of today, some developers are confused about the GUI diversification problem, current state and the future of the platforms - period in which “companies confused the market by trying to sell platforms rather than solutions”. (Pawlowski, 2008) “…There are a couple of alternatives. One is a UI pattern library, very common to web design patterns. This allows for a certain level of consistency without being overly constraining. The other is internal coherency or "internal integrity." Too many of the interaction design problems of mobile UI is the idea of dumping a dozen or more discrete individual applets, thinly lashing everything together, and pretending this is a unified whole simply because a graphic artist gave it a makeover. That's not a UI, it's a bucket… “ (2008-02, public response on the http://groups.google.com/interaction-design, by john.soellner@gmail.com) Similar trends might occur during GUI transition towards touchscreen interfaces. Already such diversification visible, since touchscreen phones were introduced in 2006 by LG, FOMA and Samsung producers and dominated by the 2007q. This already sparked UI competition in that area, i.e. development of several touchscreen GUIs Apple Touch, Samsung Touchiwiz, Sony-Ericsson Touch G-series UIQ etc.

p. 17/78

Figure 3 VisionMobile - application environments chart


B. PERSPECTIVE OF OPERATING SYSTEM/HANDSET PRODUCERS Recent developments in this fast-moving industry, i.e. release of the new software platforms: Google Android and Apple iPhone, proved that, Graphical User Interface is a critical factor in this competitive field, yet still, until recently, it has hardly been recognized/marketed as the handset’s or Operating system’s crucial feature. Since approximately 1997, Mobile phones were equipped with the monochromatic screen displaying textual information. The firmware, embedded Operating System’s GUI provided basic functionality i.e. voice calls, texts messaging , contacts/ book management, alarm-clock, phone’s status information and other embedded applications.(Nokia, 2008) Introduction of third party applications through embedded (preinstalled) software platforms like Sun’s Java Micro Edition or .net applications on the Microsoft’s Windows Mobile, has opened the platform for the external content. This increased functionality and multimedia capabilities of the phones and turned them into multimedia devices, requiring new and more sophisticated User Interfaces. However, to serve required Handset Producers to employ third party Operating Systems [OS], like Symbian, Microsoft’s Windows Mobile, Linux Mobile. Operating System development has become burdensome and expensive for the Handset Producers like Motorola. Rapid pace of the handset market growth, coupled with quick technological development cycles forced, forced American producer to employ third party Operating System. In case of Motorola, this resulted in shutting down OS department and investment in venture like UIQ, which limited diversification. (UIQ, 2008) Increasing number of companies producing mobile phones and Operating System, platforms delivered to the market, lead to increased platform fragmentation. That caused an obstructions for content(software) developers, creating competitive environment where handsets price and customization (desired by Telecom operators) caused inconsistent environments for the developers and users. Proprietary Graphical User Interface were customized, to promote the Operator’s brand by the network operator, or on the internet content portal. In 2007, releases of handsets like Nokia’s N95, Apple’s iPhone proved that mobile devices production is one of the most competitive and vibrant among digital device production. Core functions of the mobile phones, since its birth – voice and text – are becoming less important, giving way to the data connection which can successfully emulate voice and text, as well as, create environment where content consumption and apps functionality become the main role of the mobile phone handsets . This affecting both the handset producers and OS vendors. (WirelessDeveloper,2007) The business strategy proposed to the market by the Apple in 2007 and 2008, namely iPhone handset, iTunes content distribution system and MobileMe PC sync tool, has lead to industry wide debate on the Implementation of subjective Usability and User’s satisfaction,(WirelessContent, 2007), as well as, put focus on the Apples strategy of coherent and unified design of the Graphical and physical User Interfaces across range of iPhone non-related Apple products, like MacBook, iPod T, software products: MacOS, iLife, etc.... (Apple Developer, 2008) “iPhone Effect” and Google Android prove that unification of the User Interface has positive effect on the content Figure 4 NTT DoCoMo Japan - FOMA 905i phones

p. 18/78


consumption, development process and overall User Satisfaction. Great illustration of this, is a movement generated both from by the handsets producers to copy the ‘proved concept’, as well as, by the user base i.e. through simulating the Apple GUI appearance and customizing the GUI on devices running different operating systems and distribute them freely using the internet peer-to-peer networks 2007. (Quantitative Research C)

MOBILE PHONE OPERATING SYSTEMS Initially, (198x-2002 in Europe) Handsets were running on basic proprietary Operating Systems, (i.e. enhanced version present in RIM’s Blackberry devices) however it changed with the Handsets Manufacturers strategies of lowering production (R&D) costs to license designated mobile phone Operating Systems, including Symbian, Linux Mobile.(Nokia, 2007)

According to Canalys Research, in fourth quarter of 2007 Symbian had 67% share of the worldwide smartphone market, followed by Microsoft on 13%, with RIM(Blackberry) 10%. (Canalys Research, 2007) however , however, there is also growing trend among the handset producers (seeking lower costs) to employ open and free (no licensing fees) operating systems.

Figure 5 iPhone UI elements - Chinese language

Figure 6 Flash Lite 2.x UI component Framework in Actionscript 2

p. 19/78


EMBEDDED LINUX – LINUX MOBILE Linux is an Operating System developed on the UNIX platform, implemented in many mobile devices, including following mobile phone devices distributions and GUI styles:    

Openmoko OS by First International Computer, Inc. (Taiwan) –open source OS/software platform LiMo Platform OS by LiMo Foundation (Motorola, NEC, NTT DoCoMo, Panasonic Mobile, Samsung, LG…) Android Linux based OS by Google Access Linux Platform by Access Co. Ltd (Japan, 2007-03 acquisition of Palm OS/Software), open source Linux

Solutions based on the open-source Embedded Linux platform are supported by the IT giant like Google and its Android platform. (Google 2008) Two main reasons are capabilities and very low/free costs of implementation. Linux Mobile developed by several organizations including Google and NTT DoCoMo, with Android platform and popular handsets like Motorola RAZR is the fastest growing. (ABI Research, 2007) We can assume, that Linux will become the third-biggest OS within a year from now on, however, according to the research (ABI Research, 2007) Linux is particularly appealing to mobile phone makers such as Motorola who are uncomfortable with the dominance of either Microsoft or Nokia, Symbian's largest shareholder. The software is highly customizable and inexpensive, but is not as standardized as the Symbian OS, the report said, arguing that, “fragmentation of Linux will continue to stagnate its growth." Despite the low costs of implementation,. Linux mobile has no common Development policy in terms of GUI. As it is a Open Source, community driven initiative, it has been difficult to gather developers attention around the issue of the GUI(WirelessDeveloper,2007) Despite standardization initiatives, Linux mobile will probably be dominated by Google Android, and its policy on unification: implementing Visual (GUI) style and maximization of the functionality, and we can expect same look and feel of products like Google Search, Maps, Mail, Docs on the mobile platform. It is certain that such strategy will follow Apple and its range of products. (Pawlowski, 2008)

Figure 7 NEO1973 Linux powered phone

Figure 8 Logo and concept at of the Google Android (source: Google 2008-02)

p. 20/78


SYMBIAN Symbian Ltd. is a company established in 1998, in which majority stakes, are held by Ericsson (15.6%), Nokia (47.9%), Panasonic (10.5%), Samsung (4.5%), Siemens (8.4%) and Sony Ericsson (13.1%). 188 new million cumulative Symbian smartphones shipped since the formation of Symbian (Symbian.com, 2007)Symbian’s share of the overall mobile phone market grew from 5% in 2006 to 7% in 2007 (Symbian.com/Strategy Analytics, 2007) Symbian was designed, to operate on processors produced by ARM Corporation (75% of all embedded 32-bit mobile phone processors)(ARM Corporation, 2007). Symbian is [powering phones from Nokia and leading FOMA 905 handsets in Japan. (Symbian, 2008) Symbian OS are competing, to dominate the platform with the most 'user-friendly and supported by developers OS. Its biggest appeal, is the ability to customize the software's functionality and appearance "With increasing competition and high churn rates, operators have felt the need to differentiate their products, whih was accommodated by the Symbain GUI system" (Vora, Kenil ABI Research, 2008) User interfaces designed for Symbian OS include:   

Nokia’s S60, NTT DoCoMo’s MOAP user interface for the FOMA™ 3G network’ UIQ, UIQ Technology (Motorola and Sony Ericsson)

Mobile phone manufacturers that shipped Symbian smartphones in Q4 2007 are Nokia, FOMA (Fujitsu, Mitsubishi Electric, Sharp) Samsung, Sony Ericsson, LG Electronics and Motorola

Figure 9 Symbian S60 Menu screen

Figure 10 Symbian OS development milestones

p. 21/78


MICROSOFT - WINDOWS MOBILE Windows Mobile is a Microsoft’s Operating system designed to operate on handheld mobile phones in 2002. Windows Mobile is bundled with other Microsoft’s software products, including: Internet Explorer™ Mobile, Office™ Mobile, Windows Media Player and many others. (Microsoft, Windows Mobile 2008) Windows have been present on different mobile platforms, including Pocket PC™ and Microsoft’s portable media player – Zune™. Graphical User Interface is consistent across range of devices. Some GUI alternatives are available for the users i.e. Windows Mobile Shell by SPB, offered for the price of 30 U$D, extending its visual functionality.

Figure 11 Microsoft's Windows Mobile 6

“ The success of the iPhone in 2007 may have focused everyone's attention on the user interface, but SPB was already well on the way to making the Windows Mobile platform more usable than ever. Version 1 of Mobile Shell brought large finger-friendly buttons and widespread customization to the PPC interface to replace the stylus-sized icons and unwieldy menu system. With version 2 it has refined the app further, confirming its place as on of the first programs a new WM user should install.” (PDA/GPS Essentials 2008)

“When we installed this shell on our communicator, it is a huge relief, partly thanks to the fact that we didn't have to take the stylus in hands too often, if ever; and when we had no other option, it was only in applications that weren't optimized for finger-based navigation. On the plus side, this utility doesn't require your mobile device to be a powerhouse and has almost no effect on the performance of fairly old or slow systems.” (MobileReview.com, 2007)

Figure 12 Windows Mobile 'Today Screens' Versions 5, 4, 3, 1

p. 22/78


APPLE - MAC OS iPhone Phone in USA on September 2007 on AT&T network.(Apple 2007)In the UK telephone is present since December 2007. iPhone, is said, to revolutionize the entire mobile phone handset and mobile phone internet industries. (WirelessWatch, 2007) Large part of the iPhone’s success, can be assigned to the unambiguous, simplistic or minimal approach to the Usability. (ZDNet, 2007) The GUI has been acclaimed by the industry and has found many successors on other touch-screen platforms. Key features of the GUI, highlighted by the users who transferred the usability layer to different devices, point the following issues: large icons, panels and graphical effects perfectly suit the navigational. iPhone GUI has been hacked and distributed on the Windows Mobile devices (xxxx). This proves, that iPhone’s GUI is seen as a ‘reference point’ in the User Interface.

Figure 13 iPhone screens

Figure 14 iPhone's consistent GUI in different applications

p. 23/78


POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THE UNIVERSAL GUI ON HANDSET PRODUCERS BUSINESS MODELS: The short term growth in the telephone market is fairly difficult to predict, because of the highly competitive and secretive corporate environment fuelled by rapidly changing technology and operators business strategies. However few predictions can be made, based on the economic principles, technology and User preference trends. If the user’s learning curve and the ‘brand loyalty will not be as strong as in the current months, Symbian’s position as a top OS vendor may start to slip in the first half of 2009 at earliest. (WirelessWatch 2008) Until then, the all major Operating System vendors including Symbian Microsoft, Apple will face competition from Linux minimal integration costs and ‘time-to-market’ development Liberalization of the development community, is often caused by corporate strategy. Willing to tap on the value of the vibrant and active development communities often promises very low costs. This ratio of development output/value creation to actual cost of support is often significantly lower than domestic/internal development teams. Another reason for the OS companies to compete for developers is that the open development communities often have different perspective on the software and grow in a organic fashion, rather than corporate resource scalability (proof: benefits of open development communities) therefore often create more compelling content and are more lucrative business. Such initiatives have been demonstrated in recent weeks by two significant players. Firstly, publication of the iPhone Software Development Kit by Apple, which has been downloaded over 100.000 times in the first week.(Apple 2008-06)This has been released 8 months after introduction of the iPhone in the USA and only 4 months after UK and other major markets. (Apple, 2008) This is said to significantly improve the ecosystem and should provide developers Figure 15 Microsoft windows SBS Skin with most favourable terms of distributing content through recognized online channel – iTunes with generous revenue share (Apple iTunes, 2008) Second major move, came from Google and it hot Android platform. Not only SDK was released on December 2007, but parallel the competition with prizes of U$10.000.000 has been established to boost rapidly market for development of the application for the platform. (Google Android, 2008) Decrease in price of OS, introduction of new standards catering touchscreens.

p. 24/78


C. THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE MOBILE PHONE USER USAGE OF THE MOBILE PHONE PHONES //The users awareness of differences, and negative impact of the fragmentation on the User’s Experience and Satisfaction 2007 Nokia celebrated 10 years of its mobile phone content industry, which transformed

USERS AS INDIVIDUALS: UNIQUELY COMPLEX AND CONTRADICTORY Customers cannot be defined by numbers or segments or demographics. Every user is uniquely complex and contradictory. If we are to design experiences which recognize customers as individuals, we must develop research tools and analysis techniques which allow us to live and breath the world as users see it. and call waiting to texting to decline calls, which are failing because of poor user experience. (reference http://www.pmn.co.uk/mex/agenda08.shtml ) // Price Price still a dominant factor in purchases of mobile phone handsets (evidence) Development of custom UIs etc ... // smoothing learning curve for the new handset evidence: interview with sales people in the retail outlets (London, 2007q4) Learning the new GUI Users purchasing new handsets often have to learn new Operating System procedures, same applies to the Software. “Choosing the right functionality is difficult. Novices are best served by constrained, simple set of actions, but users’ experience increases, so does their desire for more extensive functionality and rapid performance. A layered or levelstructured design is one approach to graceful evolution from novice to expert usage. Users can move up to higher layers when they need additional features or have time to learn. A simple example is the design of search engines, which almost always have a basic and advanced interface. Another approach to winning novice users is to carefully trim the features to make simple device, such as the highly successful Palm Pilot. Low cost is another important goal because of lively competition.” (Schneiderman, Designing the User Interface p.18 Usability Motivations)

“The rapid expansion of office , home and entertainment applications is the third source of interest in usability. Personal-computing applications include e-mail, bank machines, games, educational packages, search engines, cell phones and other mobile devices. For these interface, ease of learning, low error rates and subjective satisfaction are paramount, because use is frequently discretionary and competition is fierce. If the users cannot succeed quickly, they will abandon the use of a computer or try competing package. In case where use is intermittent, clear easy –toremember procedures are important and if retention is still faulty, comprehensible online help becomes important.” (Schneiderman, Designing the User Interface p.18 Usability Motivations) //External support “users almost never know everything there is to know about the applications they use, and when they need to do something new, they look to the extended interface for help”

p. 25/78


// Unified User Interface The positive impact unified platform has on the User’s Satisfaction, based on the example of the iPhone and other Apple products … Development of ‘UI awareness’, through guidelines and marketing terminology. //Surveys

21%: More than a fifth of US consumers who purchased smartphones over the holiday season (2007-12) subsequently returned the products, with 16% citing the 'poor setup experience' as their primary reason. (Opinion Research Corporation, 2007)

p. 26/78


QUANTITVE RESEARCH (D1-D3) ‘Quantitative research’ section of this document focuses on the design, methodology and results of the three User centred surveys. Data is collected primarily in order to understand the User, specify magnitude of technical awareness and foremost, to measure Users’ Experience and Sentiment towards mobile phone Graphical User Interface. The main three themes are allocated to the following surveys: •

Survey 2008-02 D1 – Users’ Experience and Satisfaction

Survey 2008-02 D2 – Users’ Attitude

Survey 2008-02 D3 – Users’ GUI sentiment/preference

Each of the surveys has a main theme, however, the circumstances of data collection demanded core variables to feature in all three surveys. Therefore the character of the study, places it closer to a commercial customer research, rather than a full scale, detailed Product’s Usability test.

Figure 16 London Apple Store – iPhone stand 2008-02

Quantitative data is collected in primarily in order to understand the User, specify level of technical awareness and foremost Users’ Experience and Sentiment towards mobile phone Graphical User Interface.

Quantitative studies in total, targeted over ninety random customers of the retail outlets in the central London, primarily in the Apple Store – flagship retail outlet of major producer of personal computers and mobile devices – iPod and iPhone. Its 10,000 sq foot floor space, hundreds of visitors at any given moment, has been chosen as a suitable place to question customers with relative ‘electronic gadget’ awareness in February 2008, several months after UK’s iPhone handset premiere. Survey D2 has been also conducted in the Carphone Warehouse – Oxford St, mobile phone handset/service resellers premises. (Apple, 2008) The survey data and statistical features (mean and deviation ratios) of the surveys are published online, and were calculated during the process of online data gathering Using Google’s Docs – Spreadsheet application (2008-02) and can be viewed online. (references)

p. 27/78


METHODS: OPERATIONAL VARIABLES, CONCEPTS FOR THE FURTHER STUDY To deliver research data, several mobile phone user surveys have been designed, largely based on the prior scientific studies of the User’s Experience and Satisfaction papers. Literature analysis identified several Operational concepts which were later transformed into coded variables in the user surveys, of which, User’s Satisfaction and User’s Experience were the key variables The qualitative research has identified areas, parts of which should be followed by more conclusive quantitative studies, i.e. in case of addressing users with new Graphical User Interface designs. (Schneidermann, 2004) The quantitative and qualitative data collection methods employed similar descriptive concepts i.e. both methods use ‘User Experience’ and ‘Graphical User Interface’ as an abstract idea and as a real model, which can be described and compared, however those concepts might not be known to the users. (Ryu, 2006). .

VARIABLES The concepts identification methodology of has loosely based on the paper by Ryu Young Sam, Smith-Jackson, T.L. (2006-11)Reliability and Validity of the Mobile Phone Usability Questionnaire – MPUQ at the Virginia Polytechnic, USA. This study determined the psychometric qualities of the usability questionnaires and items derived from a authors previous studies (Ryu and Smith-Jackson, 2005). The revision also attempted to find a subset of items, that represent a higher measure of reliability and validity. Findings revealed a factor/concepts structure, which grouped abstract items constituting mobile phone GUI into six categories: (1) Ease of learning and use, (2) Assistance with operation and problem solving, (3) Emotional aspect and multimedia capabilities, (4)Commands and minimal memory load, (5) Efficiency and control, and (6) Typical tasks for mobile phones.

Figure 17 Comparison of subjective usability criteria MPUQ with the existing usability questionnaires modified from Keinonen (1999) by Ryu, SmithJackson (2007)

For the purpose of this study, only three of those categories were used as a study framework.1. Ease of learning,3. emotional attitude, as a part of the User concept, and 5. Efficiency as a part of the e assessment. Research itself, was sourced from the ‘Usability Questionnaire design’ paper by Dong-Han Ham,et al. in 2007, titled “ModelBased Approaches to Quantifying the Usability of Mobile Phones” published by Springer, Berlin. The paper stated that “Several factors make it difficult to quantify the usability of mobile phones. Nevertheless, a quantified value of the usability could be used for several purposes, such as design innovation and benchmarking.” The paper proposed three qualification approaches to quantifying the usability of mobile phones, on the basis of a hierarchical model of usability factors: task centred, usability indicator-based, design area-based. Each of models provides process and rules for calculating the usability score of a mobile phone, by applying and weighting value assignment methods. “Through two case studies, we could obtain empirical data to be used for determining the weighting value for quantification and confirm the usefulness of the proposed approaches.”(Dongp. 28/78


Han Ham,et al 2007). Analysis of the paper in the subdivision ‘Qualitative Research B – Academic and analyst research’ explains in detail also other studies of the User- GUI relationship, academic base of the following research.

p. 29/78


D1 QUANTITIVE RESEARCH: USER EXPERIENCE Survey 2008-02 D1 is the first survey from the cycle of 3, concerning Mobile User and his relation to the mobile GUI. Survey consisted of 16 questions and was subjected to the 23 customers of the Carphone Warehouse, Oxford St, London on 2008-02-20. Customers were asked to fill out was online survey and connected laptop.

METHODOLOGY Prior Qualitative research defined the conceptual framework of the research, however no grounding data has been at the disposal, exclude 2008-01 Pilot study provided simple profile of the sample, and this study is also focused upon profiling of the user. The methodology of the first survey is operating on the following usercentred variables: experience, attitude and satisfaction. The questions are as follows: A. Users’ demographics: experience, attitude, adaptability 1. What is your age ? 2. What is your gender B.

Handset ownership, User Experience 3. How many phones do you currently own ? -User(experience) 4. How long have you been using mobile phones ? -User(experience) 5. How many phones have you been using so far ? -User(experience) 10. Did you ever experiment with new features ? -User(experience) 11. Have you ever been confused by the differences in mobile's User Interface? Phone(GUI) 12. Did you read handset's manual ? -User(experience) 13. Did you ever try to customize your phone ? -User(experience)

C.

User Satisfaction 6. Are you satisfied with your current handset ? -User(satisfaction.) 7. What is your current mobile handset's brand ? -Phone(model) 8. Is navigating your handset functional ? -User(attitude) 9. Did you encounter any problems while adapting to the different brand of phone ? -User(adaptability) 14. Are you satisfied with the amount of time required to: type and send text message ? -User(satisfaction) 15. Are you satisfied with the amount of time required to: access internet search engine ? -User(satisfaction) 16. Are you satisfied with the amount of time required to: find desired media file ? -User(satisfaction)

Out of 16 questions, User Experience appears in 6 questions, User Satisfaction in 4, making it leading theme of this preparation survey. Questions are simple and require respondents to return simple answer, value of the variable. Identification and interpretation of the answers in this case, is fairly straight forward. The survey delivered following results, which concluding findings can be drawn from. The order of the survey is later repeated in two remaining surveys.

p. 30/78


FINDINGS USERS DEMOGRAPHICS: EXPERIENCE, ATTITUDE, ADAPTABILITY Survey demographics were not disproportionate in terms of respondents’ gender and age. Majority of respondents represented the age of 18-25 (57%) and 25-60 (35%) respectively. 87% of the respondents owned 1 handset only. Handset ownership, in terms of the handsets’ brand, displayed majority handsets produced by Finnish producer, Nokia with 43% of the sample market share. 13% owned Sony-Ericsson, 9% LG. The samples remainder - 35% did not specify brand of their handset. The model, and respectively version of the OS and technical capabilities of the device were not specified.

USERS’ EXPERIENCE 65 % of the respondents experienced phones for over 6 years, started to use phones before 2002. This means that respondents used at least several handsets: 3 mobiles (45%), 2 headphones (45%). However, 77% were confused by the differences in the mobile phone GUI on different devices. Among them however, 65% were puzzled at some stage with the transfer to another handset (presumably with different Operating system or GUI, Question 9). Only 9% stated that their present mobile is their first mobile phone. 3 out of 10 answerer experienced problems with their handset, however nature of the difficulty was not specified. Half did not read handset’s manual, prior to the first usage of their handset. 73% experimented with the unknown hardware/software features and nearly half of Users tried to customize their phone’s GUI. ( Survey did not explain the term ‘customization’ to respondents, however it was assumed, that it is known to the public, as the process of changing default settings of the Interface, like order of the icons in the menu, or change to the graphical them, whether in graphical them, or by replacing it with 3rd party content, like ringtones, or graphical images.)

p. 31/78


USER SATISFACTION User Satisfaction results have been assessed in 6 questions., where majority of the respondents were satisfied, both with the handsets and with the navigation systems (74% in both cases). Basic functions of the handsets, like sending text messages or browsing/finding desired media files using phone navigation, proved to be functional on all of the handsets. Efficiency however, did not apply to the Internet browsing experience, where only 26% satisfied with the speed required to access their homepage or search engine (study did not specify, whether Users were accustomed to accessing the internet). NB In the UK, major operators used to utilize extra button in the physical mobile phone interface to bind it with the branded, operators website. Since 2005 it has been main channel of third party content distribution, including news, mobile phone games, ringtones or multimedia downloads. The direct access to those websites as a default, earned them term ‘walled gardens’ as it proved to be great source of revenues for the Operators and limited partners. Since 2007 proliferation of robust data plans (offered by T-Mobile UK, Three Hutchinson-Whampoa UK and Vodafone UK) enabled users to access other websites and to download content from third parties, however browsing functionality remained below the level of expectations. This has been addressed, i.e. by Google Search Mobile application shortening access to the internet on Nokia Symbian Phones to merely 14 seconds. (Google, 2008-02)

p. 32/78


D2 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: USER ATTITUDE SURVEY (2008-02) The seconds quantitative study was conducted in the two mobile phone retail outlets, in London January 2008. Survey subjected 35 shoppers of the Apple Store - Regents St and Phones4u - Oxford St. The survey was aiming to gather data on mobile Graphical User Interface user preferences and attitude required it to be brief and consume very little time. The only criteria, was respondent’s minimum age of 18 and prior experience of at least two different mobile phones. In previous survey D1, majority of respondents had lengthy previous experience with different models of mobile Figure 18 Apple Store – London Regent’s St phones.

METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY Survey tried to establish the state of users’ attitude towards Graphical User Interface. Secondary task, was to asses User’s awareness, in the field of the GUI. The subject did not measure marketing campaign effectiveness, however it did relate to the wide advertising campaign by the US electronic device and online service vendor Apple, marketing its first mobile phone – the iPhone. The survey took place in the Apple Retails store, which consequently affects the User Sample. The Users are therefore drawn the store from several possible reasons, i.e. interest in the iPhone, interest in the other Apples’ products or perhaps interest in the Store itself. Whatever the reasons might were, the Users were familiar with the concept of the new, ground breaking phone, with large touchscreen and its characteristic Graphical User Interface, as it, at the time was difficult to avoid. Questions were assessing respondents’ subjective attitude positioned towards certain variables. Those values, mainly elements of the GUI, were formed in the previous research, and grouped into two conceptual spheres. First group was User centric and included: USER-GUI relation (experience and attitude), USER-Phone relation (attitude), USER (learning) ability. Second group of variables focused on PHONE’s GUI and included learnability, structure of contents and concept of GUI similarity.

Figure 19 2008-02 User's Attitude Survey - Model

The main objective was to examine relations, between User Experience, GUI, User.. with Users attitude. Orientation ... Based on the previous experience with surveys in the busy retail spaces, it often happened that the respondents had little time and patience at their disposal, so the surveys have been designed to accommodate short dichotomous questions delivering concrete data. This is easy to process, however often cross-reference questions have to be developed to receive full picture of the situation.

p. 33/78


QUESTIONS AND VARIABLES, ANALYSIS The Survey properties of the User’s behaviour like personal preference and evolution or transfer to another GUI environment. In questions were organized in the following groups: Question A 1. Have you used different mobile phones ?) Based on the variable: USER.GUI (experience), simple dichotomous yes/no question have been introduced. Relating to user’s prior experience, it aimed to eliminate users with limited user experience. Such questions deliver crude data and are often suite for online internet survey, where numerous questions can be asked in the short time span.

User Satisfaction Question 2 - Question in which respondents can identify his/her attitude towards the general usability statement. Question 3 - in which respondents can identify his/her attitude towards the general usability statement. USER(Satisfaction) Problem in this case, is that the variable is not definitive, meaning that learn ability of the GUI, can also mean high user’s learning talent. In this case it is assumed that the user with prior extensive experience poses proficiency in adapting to similar looking interfaces. User satisfaction 2 ‘Mobile Phones are easy to use … - USER-Phone (attitude) 3. I am satisfied with my mobile phone. - USER-Phone.model(attitude) 4. I have no difficulties with operating handsets from different brands... - Phone.GUI(learn-ability) User Handset relationship (attitude, experience, learnability) 4 I have no problems operating handsets from different brands? 5. I change mobile phone handset every 12, 18 months. – USER(experience) 6. It takes days to learn how to operate new handset. -Phone.GUI(learn-ability),USER (learning) 7. I think, every phone works in the same way. - USER-GUI(attitude) GUI awareness 9. I like graphical effects while using mobile phone. variable: USER-GUI (attitude) 11. ‘I like Apple’s iPhone User Interface’ –USER 13. I am eager to see more innovations in mobile GUI Content similarities 8. “Every program I have downloaded i.e. game looked similar.” -CONTENT(GUI) 10. “I’d like mobile 'Graphical User Interface' to look similar on every phone.”-Phone.GUI(similarity) 12. I would like my mobile phone to resemble other electronic devices... -Phone.GUI(similarity) Content organization 14. I would like to customize as much elements as possible on my mobile phone handset. Phone.GUI() 15. I like the way, in information and contents are organised on my handset. -Phone.GUI(contents structure)

p. 34/78


FINDINGS USER HANDSET RELATIONSHIP Questions 4, 5, 6, 7 aimed to examine User-Handset relationship through their attitude, experience, learnability, in a situation of regular swapping of handsets and consequently GUI environments. Question 7 delivered straight forward data, confirming belief of the Users, that phones do not vary significantly in their functionality, with 59% agreeing with ‘phones working the same way’ and over a half of respondents do not experience difficulties(Question 4) while operating handsets from different producers. Over half of the respondents agreed with the statement. To establish another important variable, belonging to ‘user group’, explaining whether User is adapt in learning new GUI environments and can operate device of a different GUI question. 5 was asked. Nearly 70% agreed to swapping mobile phone handset regularly, every 12, 18 months. This might be connected with the nature of UK’s mobile phone service contracts, offered for that time periods. This might also have an effect on the tech-savvy user, of which 54% agrees, that “it only takes days to learn, how to operate new handset”(Question 6). 14% strongly agrees with the statement, while less than 15% disagrees or have no opinion. is indicating established that, majority of the mobile phone users is having little or no trouble with switching the handsets (models or brand). Therefore User’s ‘ loyalty to given brand’ or User’s habit need further examination, especially for products designers and marketing specialists, to examine this valuable relationships further.

p. 35/78


USER SATISFACTION & GUI AWARENESS Positive relationship between the Phone User and the handset, resulted in support of the ‘Mobile Phones are easy to use’ statement, supported by 43% and strongly by 14%. This attitude was also confirmed by Question 3, in which 40% agreed and 9% agreed strongly. However 23% respondents did not have an opinion and 26% are dissatisfied.. Several conclusions can be drawn from both basic questions, i.e. possibility of relationship between ‘ease-of-use’ and User Satisfaction. However it is important to analyse results of other questions, barring that the respondents of this survey are content with their handsets, and consequently with their functionality. This requires more direct references to the User Interface, i.e. implemented in survey D3. Unknown levels of User awareness, limited survey time and significance of the survey setting – Apple Store, lead to indirect questions, through the following statements: 9. I like graphical effects while using mobile phone, and 13. I am eager to see more innovations in the mobile phone space. Both questions assessing direct Users’ attitude and awareness of the GUI concepts. 49% respondents agree to liking graphical effects (animations, non-default colour themes etc...) with 37% which could not agree or did not fully understand the concept. Second question revealed surprising curiosity towards the innovation in the field of the GUI design. 47% strongly agreed, followed by 37% support of the statement. 11. ‘I like Apple’s iPhone User Interface’ Direct data gathering, conditioned by the presence in the London flagship of iPhone producer –Apple. 63% percent strongly agreed, followed by 16% agreement and 19% left without taking a stand on the issue.

p. 36/78


CONTENT 8. “Every program I have downloaded i.e. game looked similar.” -CONTENT(GUI) 10. “I’d like mobile 'Graphical User Interface' to look similar on every phone.”-Phone.GUI(similarity) 12. I would like my mobile phone to resemble other electronic devices... -Phone.GUI(similarity) Question 12 - aims at the assess the importance of the UI similarity on different electronic handheld Such connection was suggested in the Nokia Handsets Poster from the year 2006. Also, correlation between devices might prove the fundamental ideas behind the theory of Ben Schneiderman. 14. I would like to customize as much elements as possible on my mobile phone handset. Phone.GUI() 15. I like the way, in information and contents are organised on my handset. -Phone.GUI(contents structure) Data received from the queries, may lead to a numerous conclusions, i.e.: User reaching outside of the handset to acquire content from third party sources are more adapt to the user interface variations. This may lead to another conclusion, that adapt in operating third party GUI user, is more likely to browse the internet and possibly spend money online, using mobile phone. of the mobile phone User Experience.

p. 37/78


D3 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH USER SENTIMENT (2008-02) METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY During previous studies, a need has been realized for questionnaires tailored to the evaluation of electronic mobile phone Graphical User Interface , wherein usability is dependent on variables like: hardware and software reliability, as well as, the emotional appeal and aesthetic integrity of the UI design. However, several factors make it difficult to quantify the usability of mobile phones. Nevertheless, a quantified value of the usability could be used for several purposes, such as design innovation and benchmarking. Research D3 is based on the research lead by Mr. Dong Ham “Model-Based Approaches to Quantifying the Usability of Mobile”. It proposed three approaches: task centred, usability indicator-based, and design area-based quantification/ to quantifying the usability of mobile phones on the basis of a hierarchical model of usability factors. Each of them provides process and rules for calculating the usability score of a mobile phone by applying weighting value assignment methods. “Through two case studies, we could obtain empirical data to be used for determining the weighting value for quantification and confirm the usefulness of the proposed approaches. Furthermore, we developed a hierarchical model which organizes usability factors in terms of goal-means relations. Lastly, we developed a set of checklists that are helpful to measure the usability of mobile phones, thereby increasing the practicality of the framework and model. Usability questionnaires can play, even more significant role, during the development life cycle by diagnosing usability problems and providing metrics for making comparative decisions.”(Dong Han-Ham et al, 2007) Proposed conceptual framework which has five views to reflect different aspect of interactions between users and mobile phones, and from which various usability impact factor models can be derived. Five views include: user view, product view, interaction view, dynamic view, and execution view.

Survey was answered by the 30 respondents, using online survey. 10 questions and additional material, were accessed through a portable laptop computer inside the London Apple Store and CarphoneWarehouse retail outlet. . Questionnaire aimed to deliver crude data with accordance to the model by Dong Han Ham and recommendations, from Young Sam Ryu and Smith-Jackson (Young Sam Ryu and Smith-Jackson, T.L., 2005) supporting the idea of direct consumer indicator-based surveys. Additionally, visual aid consisting of 4 slides aiming to compare users sentiment towards presented phones were used.

p. 38/78


QUESTIONS 10 questions have been organised into three sections. I. First section, relates to the Users experience satisfaction and handset functionality, with the following questions: 1. How would you describe your experience with mobile phones ? variable: User(experience) 2. Is your mobile phone easy to use ? User(satisfaction) 3. Do you have problems with task accomplishment on your mobile phone ? Phone(functionality) II. Second section focuses on the Users’ attitude towards Apple iPhone product. It was assumed, that the Users are aware of the features, as the survey was taking place in the Apple Retail outlet, with a marketing and retail focused on promotion of that product. Users’ attitude and sentiment is a vital part of the GUI appraisal, as it often results in a vital purchase decisions of the handsets. Importance of the GUI has also been assessed in the prior research D2. 4. Are you familiar with the Apple's iPhone ? 5. Which of the iPhone’s physical features do you like the most ? 6. Which element of the iPhone GUI do you value the most ? III. The third section consisted of four questions aided by the graphical aides. To enhance the ability to identify usability problems, specific features or interface elements, graphical aid has been used, depicting 12 mobile phone Graphical User Interfaces. The visual material featured in the 4 comparison questions. Adding external information of corresponding design features and interface elements to each questionnaire, proved to increase interest and GUI awareness among the surveyed UK customer. Moreover, questions 9 & 10 tried to mix GUI elements with different GUI layout proprietary to competitive Operating systems, i.e. iPhone theme on Windows Mobile 6 and vice versa (Q. 10) 7. Which ‘Menu GUI’ you like the most? (A. Nokia N-series,B. iPhone theme on Symbian, C. 8. Which menu you like the most ? (A.iPhone theme on Windows Mobile 6, B Windows Vista Mobile theme on iPhone) 9. Which dialpad you like the most ? (A. iPhone, B HTC Touch, C. LG Viewty) 10. Which ‘idle screen’ you like the most? (A. HTC Touch, B. NEO 1973, C.Apple iPhone,D LG Viewty)

Figure 20 D3 Questions Visual aid - 7, 8, 9, 10

p. 39/78


FINDINGS USER AWARENESS Questions concerning Users’ awareness, delivered following results: 47% respondents strongly agreed, with having a positive experience of mobile phones. (D3,Question 1) 50% respondents acknowledged also ‘ease of use of their mobile phone’ (D3, Question 2), however majority of users experienced problems with the phone. (D3, question 3). Nature of the problem, have not been specified, allowing problems like malfunctioning OS functions, problems with content or User actions and difficulties with the manipulating the GUI. The Users GUI awareness study results revealed positive experience of the users with their mobile phone handsets. Yet it also revealed degree of problems Users are having with Interaction and design of the mobile phones. This might be attributed to the survey taking place inside the Apple retail store, and its high-tech oriented, curious customers. Perhaps, the design and usability are values of equal importance to the technical capabilities, hidden inside and useless without a proper interface.

Figure 21. D3 Questions 1, 2, 3

p. 40/78


IPHONE Questions 4, 5 and 6 were focused entirely on the Apple iPhone, of which majority respondents inside Apple Store was aware of, as proved in Question 4. Users value iPhone for its features in the following order: touchscreen (54%), size of the display(27%) and overall concept of ‘design’, referring to physical handset and its GUI (believed). In question 6, referring entirely to iPhone’s GUI, (survey did not established whether the users actually owned the iPhone) Users were asked also to rate importance of several visual features, like: virtual keyboard, multitouch capability, clarity of icons and menu, intuitiveness of the interface and ease of use. Of those features, ‘GUI clarity’ and general ‘easer of use’ was chosen as the most important one, both by 33% of respondents. ‘Intuitive interface’ and ‘multitouch’, chosen by 19% and 15% respectively, were secondary to the need of a clear GUI and functionality.

Figure 22 D3 Question 4,5,6 - results

p. 41/78


GUI Question 7. “Which ‘Menu GUI’ you like the most? (A. Nokia N-series,B. iPhone theme on Symbian, C.)”, and question 8. “Which menu you like the most ? ( A.iPhone theme on Windows Mobile 6, B Windows Vista Mobile theme on iPhone)” delivered results favouring design and integrity of the iPhone’s graphical User Interface. Both n question 7, where 73% of users preferred ‘iPhone stylised’ graphical theme on Nokia Symbian Powered devices and in question 8, where PC stylized Microsoft’s Vista graphical style was put on top of the layout of MacOs powered iPhone (Q8 B). Characteristic default icon layout consisted of three rows of application icons and main functions placed at the bottom, of the idle screen and corresponded with the layout of Windows Mobile 6, stylized on Apple’s iPhone.(A) Deliberate stylization confused Users, of which 57% opted for Windows version of iPhone, proving the shapes and layout is relatively similar to the ‘look’ and character of the icons content. This can also prove the thesis that, Users strive for similarities, rather than differentiation.

Figure 23 D3 Questions 7 & 8

Figure 24 D3 Questions 7, 8 - results

p. 42/78


Questions 9, 10 specified Users’ Preference of the examples of mobile phones GUI. 9. Which dialpad you like the most ? (A. iPhone, B HTC Touch, C. LG Viewty) 77% of respondents preferred iPhone’s dialpad. Both HTC with Windows Mobile OS and LG Viewty were rated by 13% and 10% respectively 10. Which ‘idle screen’ you like the most? (A. HTC Touch, B. NEO 1973, C.Apple iPhone,D LG Viewty). 40% of the respondents chose HTC Touch and 37% chose ‘iconic’ iPhone idle screen. Users did not find Neo 1973 and LG Viewty attractive in terms of their menu. The importance of the attractive menu. Is even more important in the larger screens, with bigger display space and more visible elements of the GUI elements like icons and tabs. Three out of four displays were based on the dark background limiting energy consumption. Handsets offered limited personalization capability, compared with the older keypad phones and Operating systems.

Figure 26 Graphical aid - Questions 9 & 10

Figure 25 D3 Questions 9,10 - results

p. 43/78


FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND RECCOMENDATIONS FINDINGS DERRIVED FROM THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH B View from the perspective of the Operating System C Academics D Users Does User care about User Interface ? How User sees GUI ? What is his attitude towards the UI ? How Graphical User Interface differentiation affects the User’s attitude and satisfaction ?

‘How’ and ‘if’ we can improve User’s satisfaction through standardizing the UI ? Will common GUI library improve customer satisfaction and increase service’s usage ?

Qualitative studies confirmed, that the GUI is on the forefront of the mobile phone User Experience, and is an internal part of all the mobile phone content service environments. GUI has to be functional. In brief, research concluded: The rapid growth of the mobile phone handset production and software development, has led to exponential diversification of the Graphical User Interface on the mobile phone devices. However, positive aspects of differentiation for Handset Manufacturers have been suppressed by the negative implications for the global User Base, as well as Content Developers. (reference)

A VIEW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONTENT DEVELOPERS F r a g m entation Mobile Phone Devices reached the level where it is possible to deliver similar user experience as the Personal Computers compelling user experiences and build profitable businesses? Is Unified GUI across platforms helping to deliver better products faster ? Is there a need for a open source GUI framework/software libraries ?

B OS/ HANDSET PRODUCERS B1. How Operating Systems and Network Operators are affecting diversification in the mobile phone GUI ? B2. What are the strategies and technologies of handset manufacturers and operating systems companies? iPhone sets out the standard, expected to be followed by the like of Google android and competitive Operating systems Data transmission infrastructure (3G, EDGE, WiFi) has enabled growth in the consumption of Digital Media, as well as inter devices. Advancement in the hardware department enabled software and content to be delivered as they are, without resource consuming porting process.

p. 44/78


Unified User Interface has a positive impact on the Content consumption (iPhone, istore) Emerging hardware platforms i.e. special interfaces, touchscreens, voice input, text input; Development of the unified platforms: content (software) platforms and User Interfaces - Contacts management (connection with facebook) - Technology: Touchscreens, - Mobile payments, local information, Search C-onnectivity and data synchronization with other devices and network services Visual style aspects of the mobile phone GUI; Mobile Phone Operating Systems, GUI developers and content developers perspectives.

C ACADEMICS C1. What are the current mobile phone Graphical User Interfaces and trends on the platform ? C2. What is the academic/analyst stance on the GUI Unification ? C3. What we can expect in terms of GUI designs for the mobile phone web and new roles ? Importance of Unified User Interface, known set of paradigms, open for unexpected use cases ‌. 1. iPhone sets out the standard, expected to be followed by the like of Google android and competitive Operating systems 2. The developing world is the new frontier for mobile user experience The developing world is the new frontier for mobile user experience. It is the industry's responsibility to deliver voice communication and internet connectivity to the disconnected in ways which are locally relevant, useable and costeffective. •

How can position add-on services alongside voice and SMS as a core service in the mind of the consumer? What is the best way to provide them with access to the widest choice of third party content, applications and services?

D USERS Price Awareness Preference from trend Learning Coherence

p. 45/78


FINDINGS FROM THE QUANTITATIVE // Focus on the User – Anthropological approach D1 users experience, satisfaction USERS DEMOGRAPHICS: EXPERIENCE, ATTITUDE, ADAPTABILITY Survey demographics were not disproportionate in terms of respondents’ gender and age. Majority of respondents represented the age of 18-25 (57%) and 25-60 (35%) respectively. 87% of the respondents owned 1 handset only. Handset ownership, in terms of the handsets’ brand, displayed majority handsets produced by Finnish producer, Nokia with 43% of the sample market share. 13% owned Sony-Ericsson, 9% LG. The samples remainder - 35% did not specify brand of their handset. The model, and respectively version of the OS and technical capabilities of the device were not specified. USERS’ EXPERIENCE 65 % of the respondents experienced phones for over 6 years, started to use phones before 2002. This means that respondents used at least several handsets: 3 mobiles (45%), 2 headphones (45%). However, 77% were confused by the differences in the mobile phone GUI on different devices. Among them however, 65% were puzzled at some stage with the transfer to another handset (presumably with different Operating system or GUI, Question 9). Only 9% stated that their present mobile is their first mobile phone. 3 out of 10 answerer experienced problems with their handset, however nature of the difficulty was not specified. Half did not read handset’s manual, prior to the first usage of their handset. 73% experimented with the unknown hardware/software features and nearly half of Users tried to customize their phone’s GUI. ( Survey did not explain the term ‘customization’ to respondents, however it was assumed, that it is known to the public, as the process of changing default settings of the Interface, like order of the icons in the menu, or change to the graphical them, whether in graphical them, or by replacing it with 3rd party content, like ringtones, or graphical images.) USER SATISFACTION User Satisfaction results have been assessed in 6 questions., where majority of the respondents were satisfied, both with the handsets and with the navigation systems (74% in both cases). Basic functions of the handsets, like sending text messages or browsing/finding desired media files using phone navigation, proved to be functional on all of the handsets. Efficiency however, did not apply to the Internet browsing experience, where only 26% satisfied with the speed required to access their homepage or search engine (study did not specify, whether Users were accustomed to accessing the internet). NB In the UK, major operators used to utilize extra button in the physical mobile phone interface to bind it with the branded, operators website. Since 2005 it has been main channel of third party content distribution, including news, mobile phone games, ringtones or multimedia downloads. The direct access to those websites as a default, earned them term ‘walled gardens’ as it proved to be great source of revenues for the Operators and limited partners. Since 2007 proliferation of robust data plans (offered by T-Mobile UK, Three Hutchinson-Whampoa UK and Vodafone UK) enabled users to access other websites and to download content from third parties, however browsing functionality remained

p. 46/78


below the level of expectations. This has been addressed, i.e. by Google Search Mobile application shortening access to the internet on Nokia Symbian Phones to merely 14 seconds. (Google, 2008-02)

D2 USERS EXPERIENCE, CONTENT SIMILARITIES People do not care about UI, but would prefer some sort of similarity, similitude, but they also like unconventional gadgets, NB. “21%: Households without children were considerably more confused by mobile video, with 21% frustrated by the complexity of services. This falls to an average of 12% for households where the kids are there to help out!” (Source: Bamboo Media Casting/Synovate) People have no problem adapting to the new UI., but Smoother UI enhances the usage of the services. Users have no problem adapting to the new UI. Reliable UI boost the usage of the data services. (photos, etc … ) Innovation plays a great role in luring the customers. So far, User satisfaction was of a little value for the Handset Producers and Network Operators, as it provided little material consequence. However, as the industry is becoming more intertwined, i.e. Nokia becoming ‘software Company’ the long-term User Satisfaction is becoming a paramount

i.e. that user is adapt in operating third party software, as well as, the Graphical User Interface is of a low importance. Perhaps the wealth of different interfaces on USER HANDSET RELATIONSHIP Questions 4, 5, 6, 7 aimed to examine User-Handset relationship through their attitude, experience, learnability, in a situation of regular swapping of handsets and consequently GUI environments. Question 7 delivered straight forward data, confirming belief of the Users, that phones do not vary significantly in their functionality, with 59% agreeing with ‘phones working the same way’ and over a half of respondents do not experience difficulties(Question 4) while operating handsets from different producers. Over half of the respondents agreed with the statement. To establish another important variable, belonging to ‘user group’, explaining whether User is adapt in learning new GUI environments and can operate device of a different GUI question. 5 was asked. Nearly 70% agreed to swapping mobile phone handset regularly, every 12, 18 months. This might be connected with the nature of UK’s mobile phone service contracts, offered for that time periods. This might also have an effect on the tech-savvy user, of which 54% agrees, that “it only takes days to learn, how to operate new handset”(Question 6). 14% strongly agrees with the statement, while less than 15% disagrees or have no opinion. is indicating established that, majority of the mobile phone users is having little or no trouble with switching the handsets (models or brand). Therefore User’s ‘ loyalty to given brand’ or User’s habit need further examination, especially for products designers and marketing specialists, to examine this valuable relationships further. USER SATISFACTION & GUI AWARENESS

p. 47/78


Positive relationship between the Phone User and the handset, resulted in support of the ‘Mobile Phones are easy to use’ statement, supported by 43% and strongly by 14%. This attitude was also confirmed by Question 3, in which 40% agreed and 9% agreed strongly. However 23% respondents did not have an opinion and 26% are dissatisfied.. ‘ease-of-use’ and User Satisfaction. However it is important to analyse results of other questions, barring that the respondents of this survey are content with their handsets, and consequently with their functionality. This requires more direct references to the User Interface, i.e. implemented in survey D3. Unknown levels of User awareness, limited survey time and significance of the survey setting – Apple Store, lead to indirect questions, through the following statements: Both questions assessing direct Users’ attitude and awareness of the GUI concepts. 49% respondents agree to liking graphical effects (animations, non-default colour themes etc...) with 37% which could not agree or did not fully understand the concept. Second question revealed surprising curiosity towards the innovation in the field of the GUI design. 47% strongly agreed, followed by 37% support of the statement. Direct data gathering, conditioned by the presence in the London flagship of iPhone producer –Apple. 63% percent strongly agreed, followed by 16% agreement and 19% left without taking a stand on the issue. CONTENT User reaching outside of the handset to acquire content from third party sources are more adapt to the user interface variations. This may lead to another conclusion, that adapt in operating third party GUI user, is more likely to browse the internet and possibly spend money online, using mobile phone. of the mobile phone User Experience.

p. 48/78


D3 USERS SENTIMENT, USERS PREFERENCE USER AWARENESS Overall, the Users are relatively content with functionality of their handsets. Despite the high satisfaction levels, users experience problems and often they are related with the inconsistent GUI. Users are curious and aware of the technology around them, enhancing social and professional activities. 47% respondents strongly agreed, with having a positive experience of mobile phones. (D3,Question 1) 50% respondents acknowledged also ‘ease of use of their mobile phone’ (D3, Question 2), however majority of users experienced problems with the phone. (D3, question 3) However nature of the problem, have not been specified, allowing problems like malfunctioning OS functions, problems with content or User actions and difficulties with the manipulating the GUI. Yet it also revealed degree of problems Users are having with Interaction and design of the mobile phones. This might be attributed to the survey taking place inside the Apple retail store, and its high-tech oriented, curious customers. Perhaps, the design and usability are values of equal importance to the technical capabilities, hidden inside and useless without a proper interface. usability are related with clarity and speed of task execution. This is best represented by the iPhone and its highly regarded GUI features. IPHONE iPhone, present on the market for over half a year (March 2008) has dominated the market. All aspects of the GUI are dominating older, less robust solutions. Users value iPhone for its features in the following order: touchscreen (54%), size of the display(27%) and overall concept of ‘design’, features, ‘GUI clarity’ and general ‘ease of use’ was chosen as the most important one, both by 33% of respondents. ‘Intuitive interface’ and ‘multitouch’, GUI results favouring design and integrity of the iPhone’s graphical User Interface. users preferred ‘iPhone stylised’ graphical theme on Nokia and Windows Mobile touchscreen handsets Characteristic default icon The importance of the attractive menu. Is even more important in the larger screens, with bigger display space and more visible elements of the GUI elements like icons and tabs. Three out of four displays were based on the dark background limiting energy consumption. Handsets offered limited personalization capability, compared with the older keypad phones and Operating systems. 40% of the respondents chose HTC Touch and 37% chose ‘iconic’ iPhone idle screen. Users did not find Neo 1973 and LG Viewty attractive in terms of their menu

p. 49/78


THE QNT RESEARCH CONFIRMED THE FOLLOWING: • close relation between mobile phone users and the ‘product feel’ of the handsets GUI • potential of the unified User Interface framework, both as a theoretical heuristics model/specification guidelines and as a open source software library, available freely to the content developers, to provide a unified and consistent environment for creation and delivery of the mobile phone content and services. • relation between Usability and increased consumption of the Internet and data, services. • cognitive demands of the mobile phone platform fragmentation, can be solved by implementation of the similar look and functionality of the User Interface. • confused Users, Users strive for similarities, rather than differentiation, or maybe a cycle ...

p. 50/78


EFFECTS User experience and satisfaction has not been measured yet, and therefore second part of that study is concerned about probing the Users. However, in 2007 we observe increasingly vibrant research in User experience related concepts, i.e. quantitative satisfaction research. The problems are discussed and debated both on the open forums, like annual User Experience conferences, non-profit organisations as well as commercial and academic research.

“There is a tidal wave of innovative content and services waiting to be unleashed, if we can build a business environment which enables new companies to make money from mobile.” (Pawlowski,2008)

This paper examined academic and commercial research industry dedicated to the improvement and implementation of the positive User Experience. Findings hopefully will help develop solutions improving User Experience and Satisfaction through all stages of the content production. There are many opportunities for innovation in automatic user interface adaption based on sensing the current environment (location, noise, time of day etc). These may also involve transparent device-to-device or device-to-server communication. •

Customization and interconnectivity with other services – ‘Web 2.0’ principles

Transformation of future business models, i.e. increased competition in cheaper handsets group.

Mobile functionality, i.e. payments herald the next generational shift

Mobile payment applications will lead the next major leap in wireless communications, when our interactions with machines start to outnumber our interactions with people. Using our mobile phones to pay for goods and services in the physical world requires an interaction model and user interface of breath-taking simplicity. Cash and credit cards represent a singularly impressive benchmark - only when we deliver unique benefit above and beyond these existing solutions will mobile payments explode. Cross platform deployment to Android, Java ME, Windows Mobile and Blackberry. Cross platform development is a solution for large software vendors (games, email clients, mapping, web browsers etc )

p. 51/78


RESOURCES [6000 WORDS] INDEX Application Programming Interface [API] 12 battery state 12 buttons 12 components 12 containers 12 Desktop UI 69

discovering content See content discovery External support 35 forms 12 Graphical User Interface 12 handset functionality 69 high-level UI 70 kernel 70

layout manager 13 notification 12 platform fragmentation 19 Proprietary Graphical User Interface 19 runtime 13 widget behaviour 13

p. 52/78


REFERENCES CORREPOSNDING RESEARCH PAPERS Sakwerda, Bart (2008-02 )User Survey http://issuu.com/echosowa/docs/2008-02_iphone_user_sentiment?mode=embed&documentId=0804282109551fc3716412d34dd7b77e29695c0ef608&layout=grey

CORPORATE INFORMATION Nokia (2008-02) Nokia Research & Development. Retrieved from http://research.nokia.com Access(2008) Palm OS Application Design Available from: < http://www.access-company.com/developers/documents/docs/ui/UI_Design.html > Digital Airwaves (2008) TWUIK Available from: < ttp://www.digitalairways.com/ > Google (2008) Google Android Google Mobile (2008-02) Google Mobile Blog Available from: < http://googlemobile.blogspot.com >

Windows Mobile 6 UI\ http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/windowsmobile/default.aspx Lack of UI specific department > Windows Mobile Shells Windows Mobile 6 - Point UI http://www.pointui.com/Home.aspx Windows Mobile 6 - SPB http://www.spbsoftwarehouse.com/products/mobileshell/?en Windows Mobile 5 & 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Microsoft Zumobi

Nokia (2008-02) Research Projects Available from: < http://research.nokia.com/research/index.html > Nokia (2004)Series 60 Developer Platform

Nokia (2008-02) Morph Available from: < http://www.nokia.com/A4852062 >

p. 53/78


Nokia Developer Community (2008) Available from: < http://forum.nokia.com > Nokia Research Centre (2008) research.nokia.com NTT Docomo (2008) The Future Society imaged by DoCoMo's R&D, Tokyo, Japan [Internet], http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/corporate/technology/future > NTT DoCoMo (2008-02) Research & Development

Tokyo, Japan

Available from: <

http://www.nttdocomo.com/rd/index.html

NTT DoCoMo Capital (2008-02) Research & Development Centres, Palo Alto, CA,USA <http://www.docomocapital.com/abo_rscdev.html#yrp > Small Surfaces (2008)Small Surfaces < http://www.smallsurfaces.com >

p. 54/78


Amal Sirisena (2002-11)Mobile Text Entry,Univeristy of Canterbury, NZ; Available from: < http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/research/reports/HonsReps/2002/hons_0201.pdf >. ChinaNews (2008-02-28) Fastap Keypad Technology Receives Chinese Certification, Hong Kong; Available from < http://www.chinatechnews.com/2008/02/28/6429-fastap-keypad-technology-receives-chinesecertification > Company: Zi Corp (2008-02 ) ezitext input methods; Internet, Available from: < http://www.zicorp.com/eZiText.htm > Eatoni Ergonomics (2008) Eatoni - Research, User Studies New York Available from: < http://www.eatoni.com/wiki/index.php/User_Studies > Google android(2008-01)Android – Implementing User Interface, Internet, Available from: < http://code.google.com/android/devel/implementing-ui.html > Human-Computer Interaction Lab (2002) An Evaluation of Mobile Phone Text Input Method, University of Canterbury, Christchurch NZ, Available from: < http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV7Butts.pdf > Little Spring Design (2008) Text Input on Mobile Devices, USA; Internet, Available from: < http:// > Mobile Europe.co.uk(2006-07-19)Fastap redefines the mobile keypad! Interview with CTO David Levy, and CEO Mark Connon; Internet, available from: < http://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/interview/1149/Fastap_redefines_the_mobile_keypad!.html > Mobile Marketing Magazine (2007-08-10)D90 Combines Fastap and eZiType,UK; Internet, available from: < http://www.mobilemarketingmagazine.co.uk/2007/08/d90-combines-fa.html > Motorola (2007) Motorola USA – Official website; Internet, Available from: < http://www.motorola.com > Nuance/Tegic (2008) Nuance T9 input – product website, USA; Internet, Available from: < http://www.nuance.com > Pavlovich, Andrey (2003-05) TEXT ENTRY ON 12-BUTTON KEYPADS: TECHNIQUES AND MODELS University of York, Canada; Available from: < http://www.cse.yorku.ca/~andriyp/papers/(2003)_MScThesis.pdf >. QCode Hong Kong (2008) Corporate Website -Qcode/Q9; Internet; available from: < http://www.qcode.com/eng/product/embed/embed.php3 > Research in Motion - Blackberry (2007) RIM Website, Canada Wordlogic (2008-02) Wordlogic Handheld Mohr-McClune E./ Current Analyssis “European Mobile Portals: And the Winner Is…” Available from: < http://www.currentanalysis.com/europe/2008/MobilePortals-Europe-PA.asp > Yankee Group (Zawel,A.Triendl.R et al)(2004-11) NTT DoCoMo’s experience with Flash Lite, Yankee Group, London, 2004

p. 55/78


CONFERENCE & ANALYSTS Informa Telecom & Media(2007-11)Mobile Usability & Application Design '07, Informa TM UK; Interenet; available from: < http://www.informa.com/marlin/30000001001/OPTION_VIEW/marketingid/20001602082/productid/20001602083 > Little Spring Design (2008-01) Design for Mobile 2008-09, Litlle Spring Design USA, Internet; Available from: < http://design4mobile.mobi > Mobile HCI(2007-12)Mobile HCI 2007, Univeristy of Singapore, Internet; available from: < http://www.mixedreality.nus.edu.sg/mobilehci2007/keynotetalks.html > PMN(2007-11)3rd MEX Conference 2008-05 agenda, PMN UK, Internet; available from: < http://www.pmn.co.uk/mex/agenda08.shtml > (Andreas Constantinou – Vision Mobile (2007-02) On-device portals: Sardines in a can, London; Internet Report’s sample available from: < http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2007/02/on-device-portals-sardines-in-a-can/ > Mace Michael – Rubicon Consulting (2008) Mobile Opportunity, CA, USA; Internet; available from

HCI HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION J Kjeldskov, C Graham (2 )Human-Computer Interaction With Mobile Devices and Services Shneiderman, Ben; Catherine Plaisant(2006)Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective H-CI,Adison-Wesley available from: < http://www.amazon.com/Designing-User-Interface-Human-ComputerInteraction/dp/0321197860/ref=sid_av_dp > (200)Interaction Design : Beyond HCI, Adison-Wesley Marti, Stefan (2002) How does the User Interface Design of Mobile Devices Influence the Social Impact of Mobile Communication? Available:

p. 56/78


MOBILE PHONE RELATED REFERENCES Ahonen T (2007-10) Old World, New World: How Communities, Culture, Connectivity, and Commerce are Changing How We Create Culture, Media, Education and Politics; Symbina Smartphone Show; London/UK Available: < http://www.symbiansmartphoneshow.com/newt/l/symbiansmartphoneshow > BBC Darren Waters (2008-02-27) Nokia morphs itself from within Availabel from: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7266187.stm > BBC News; Kelly, Spencer (2006-08-04) Searching for a mobile interface Available from: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/5244584.stm > Certec, Lund Uni, Sweden Certec Available from: < http://www.certec.lth.se/doc/asimplifieduserinterface > Cohrig Nancy, IDG (2007-11-16) Google and Sun may butt heads over Android Seattle, US Available by: < http://wireless.itworld.com/4269/071116googlesun/page_1.html > Hyunjin Cha1, Lidia Oshlyansky2 and Paul Cairns3 (2008)Mobile Phone Preferences and Values: The U.K. vs. Korea123UCLIC (University College London Interaction Centre) JD Power (2008-02) Sanyo Ranks Highest in Mobile Phone Handset Customer Satisfaction in Japan, Available from: < http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007309 > Kelly, Spencer (2008)Searching for a mobile interface Available from: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5244584.stm > Linuxfordevices.com (2008-03-04) Ubuntu founder predicts Linux dominance in devices Available from: < http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7473453983.html > Mark Shuttleworth /Ubuntu (2008-02) Linux Foundation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; podcast Available from: < http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/openvoices/mark-shuttleworth/ > Parker Andrew, FT.com (2008-02-27) New mobile players ring the changes, London Available from: < http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15428f4e-e561-11dc-9334-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 > The Register , Orlowski, A.(2003-12)Where is the perfect phone, San Francisco Available from: < http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/03/where_is_the_perfect_phone > The Register, Bill Ray (2007-10-03) Palm admits new OS 18 months away Available from: < http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/palm_os_delay/ > Wiereless Watch (2006-09-30) Available from: < http://www.wireless-watch.com/2006/09/30/mobile-user-interface-design-patterns/ > Windows for devices.com (2008-01-22)Microsoft to distribute "zooming user interface" with Windows Mobile Available from: < http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS2338697997.html > Christian Lindholm and Turkka Keinonen (2003-06-19) Mobile Usability: How Nokia Changed the Face of the Mobile Phone;McGraw-Hill Professional; 1 edition

p. 57/78


Available from: < http://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Usability-NokiaChangedPhone/dp/0071385142/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196549270&sr=8-3 > Fierce Media (2008-02-21) Five User Interface Advances to Watch in 2008 Available from: < http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/special-reports/five-user-interface-advances-watch2008?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal > H Kiljander (2004) Evolution and Usability of Mobile Phone Interaction Style available from: <http://lib.hut.fi/Diss/2004/isbn9512273209/isbn9512273209.pdf > Immersion Corporation (2007) HAPTICS:Improving the Mobile User Available from: Experience through Touch (2008) Available from: < http://static.fiercemarkets.com/public/ads/immersion/haptics_improving-mobile-ue-throughtouch.pdf > Lindholm , Christian;Keinonen, Turkka (2003-09) Mobile Usability: How Nokia Changed the Face of the Mobile Phone by (Paperback -) Available from: < http://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Usability-NokiaChangedPhone/dp/0071385142/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196549270&sr=8-3 > little spring design (2008-01) Mobile UI design resources, patterns, devices, and so forth. Available from: < http://patterns.littlespringsdesign.com/~newlsdpatterns/index.php/Main_Page > Love, Steve (2005-10) Understanding Mobile Human-Computer Interaction Available from:< http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Human-Computer-Interaction-InformationSystems/dp/0750663529/ref=pd_sim_b_title_5 > Matt Jones and Gary Marsden (2006-02-10) Mobile Interaction Design; Wiley Available from: < http://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Interaction-Design-Matt-Jones/dp/bookcitations/0470090898/ref=sid_dp_av?ie=UTF8&citeType=citing#citing > P Ketola, M RĂśykkee ( )The three facets of usability in mobile handsets; CHI 2001 Workshop: Mobile Communications: Understanding â&#x20AC;Ś, 2001 - cs.colorado.edu Available from: < http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/659698.html > Pawlowski, Marek (MEX/PMN)(2008-03-03) Defining the mobile user experience Entertainment Magazine Available from: < http://www.mobile-ent.biz/features/57/A-defining-experience >

Intent Media - Mobile

Scott Weiss(2002-07)Handheld Usability; Wiley; 1st edition Available from: < http://www.amazon.com/Handheld-Usability-Scott-Weiss/dp/0470844469/ref=pd_sim_b_title_4 >

p. 58/78


USABILITY, GUI, USABILITY TESTING Doug Overton of WDSGlobal (2006-07-17) ‘No Fault Found’ returns cost the mobile industry $4.5 billion per year Available from: < http://www.wdsglobal.com/news/whitepapers/20060717/20060717.asp > Dong-Han Ham 1 , Jeongyun Heo 2 , Peter Fossick, 3 , William Wong 1 , Sanghyun Park 2 , Chiwon Song 2 , Mike Bradley Conceptual framework and models for identifying and organizing usability impact factors of mobile … MC R&D Centre, Seoul, Korea; Middlesex University, Bramley Road, London, UK Available from: < http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1228221 > Dong-Han Ham, Jeongyun Heo , Peter Fossick, William Wong, Sanghyun Park, Chiwon Song and Mike Bradley (2007) Model-Based Approaches to Quantifying the Usability of Mobile Phones,Springer, Berlin Dong-Han Ham, Jeongyun Heo, Peter Fossick, William Wong, Sanghyun Park, Chiwon Song, Mike Bradley (2007) Model-Based Approaches to Quantifying the Usability of Mobile Phones Internet, available from: < http://www.springerlink.com/content/6499v1167230311n/ > //emails: d.ham@mdx.ac.uk, jy_heo@lge.com; p.fossick@mdx.ac.uk; w.wong@mdx.ac.uk, sanghyun@lge.com, chiwon@lge.com, m.d.bradley@mdx.ac.uk J.D. Power Asia 2007-12 Japan Mobile Telephone Handset Customer Satisfaction Study, JD power Analysts Available from: < http://www.jdpower.co.jp/press/pdf2007/2007JapanMobileHandset_E.pdf > Heo, Jeongyun , Peter Fossick, William Wong et.al (2007)Conceptual framework and models for identifying and organizing usability impact factors of mobile phones Available from: < http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1228221 > Kwahka, Jiyoung; Hanb, Sung H. 2002-05 A methodology for evaluating the usability of audiovisual consumer electronic products Available from: < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1W-46F46X55&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid =10&md5=70dd91e580cdd30cf5f314ef14699a70 > van Biljon, Judith Arnolidne (2006-11) A Model for representing the motivational and cultural factors that influence mobile phone usage variety Available from: < http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-09062007-131207/unrestricted/thesis.pdf > Lee, Sun Kyong (2006-10-05) Evaluator Effect in Usability Testing, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany Online, Available from: < http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p93063_index.html > Miranda G. Capra (2006-03) Usability Problem Description and the Evaluator Effect in Usability Testing vtech Available from: <http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-03222006-201913/unrestricted/MCapra_dissertation.pdf Ronggang Zhou (200x) How to Quantify User Experience: Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model Based on Summative Usability Testing, Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China Available from: < http://www.springerlink.com/content/v1r914m8q7p68884/ >

p. 59/78


Ryu, Young Sam; Tonya L. Smith-Jackson 2005-07 Development of Usability Questionnaire Items for Mobile Products and Content Validity Availabel from: < http://uweb.txstate.edu/~yr12/Papers/HCII2005_Submission_Items_Final.pdf > Ryu, Young Sam (2005) Development of Usability Questionnaires for Electronic Mobile Products and Decision Making Method Available from: < http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08212005-234205/ > Swallow, D.,Mark Blythe, Peter Wright (200x ) Grounding experience: relating theory and method to evaluate the user experience of smartphones; University of York, England Available from: < http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1124666.1124679 > Ting Zhang (2006) Developing Instrument for Handset Usability Evaluation: A Survey Study available from: < http://www.springerlink.com/content/k1765059j248214q/ > Weiss, Scott (200x) Usable Products; Usable Products â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Publications Available from: < http://usableproducts.com/publications/index.shtml > Weiss, Scott / Usable Products; Usable Products â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Services Available from: < http://usableproducts.com/experience/index.shtml > Weiss, Scott (2008) Usable Products Ltd. / Scott Weiss's private Blog; Internet, Available from: < http://www.handheldusability.com/blog/stats/ > Mobile phone UI London (2007-12-04) Mobile Usability & Application Design - Event Guide; Informa Telecoms Available from: < http://www.informatm.com/marlin/30000001001/MARKT_EFFORT/marketingid/20001602082 > van Biljon, Judith Arnolidne (2006-11)Model representing the motivational, cultural factors that influence mobile phone usage Available from: < http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-09062007-131207/unrestricted/thesis.pdf > Marti, Stefan (2002)How does the user interface design of mobile devices influence the social impact of mobile communication?, MIT Media Lab, USA, Internet Available from: < http://web.media.mit.edu/~stefanm/generals/mainpaper_social_impact.2002.02.18.pdf >

p. 60/78


APPENDIX A - TRENDS IN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOBILE PHONE USER INTERFACE TWUIK CASE STUDY

"TWUIK’s cross-platform capabilities bridge the gap between different makes and models of handsets, making it possible for wireless operators and handset OEMs to enrich service offerings, maximizes expressiveness, and creates a customized, branded user experience that is uniform across all devices. This in turn simplifies the user experience, enables easy discovery of content & services, encourages consumption, promotes brand identity, and creates service/device differentiation. By providing rich and visually appealing UI and more compelling mobile consumer experience, TWUIK™ dramatically boosts the consumption and stickiness of mobile content and applications."

ACRODEA

KALEIDO

Thanks to Kaleido (by digital Airways), innovative mobile phones have already been introduced to the market in record Image 2 Kaleido GUI by Digital airways time. Kaleido is a user interface solution that enables the creation and implementation of customized mobile experiences ‘quickly and cost effectively’( ) It allows handset producers and Network Operators to pre-integrate Kaleido on their platform ,to reduce their customers' development period. Kaleido powers millions of devices worldwide, and it includes ‘Kaleido Animator’, which facilitates the creation of animated backgrounds, moving objects (buttons, indicators…), splash screens, wizards (help, notification of events), dynamic menus, transition between contexts (sliding, fading in and out, torsion…), management of layers (alpha blending), etc. Kaleido's architecture makes it easy to allow for partial or complete over-the-air (OTA) reconfiguration of the user experience. Digital Airways and Red Bend, a leading specialist of Over-The-Air[OTA] solutions, have partnered to integrate Red Bend’s Mobile Handset Update solution, with Kaleido for wireless operators and manufacturers to create OTA-customizable UI solutions. Benefits of that, include: •

reduced costs - Kaleido significantly reduces the cost of creating and updating the UI in various ways. With Kaleido, phones become more generic, and significant changes can be made to the UI without changing code.

Shorter time to market - What used to take weeks of C programming is now done by a few drag & drop actions in minutes with Kaleido. Kaleido includes generic UI functions such as event management, screen transitions, lists, graphic display, etc. that reduce the need for programming.

p. 61/78


â&#x20AC;˘

Increased flexibility - With Kaleido, vendors quickly and easily adapt their phones for specific market requirements (operators' UI, branded phones, niche segments, etc.)

â&#x20AC;˘

Easy integration of third party components - Thanks to Kaleido's specific plug-in architecture, third party components such as browsers, MMS, vector graphic engines, 3D, video, predictive text engines, etc. can be added to a platform with reduced engineering time.

p. 62/78


COMMUNICATION WITH SPECIALISTS – UNIFIED GUI (2008-02) 2/4 Topic 2 out of 4 sent to over 40 professional authors, researchers and developers with 20% response rate “Dear Sir / Madame, I am currently in the process of preparing my BA dissertation and I would be extremely grateful, if I could request some information of interest to my research. I am writing Pilot study about feasibility of the 'Unified User Interface' for the Mobile Phone Devices. The study takes into account three perspectives: User, Content Developer and handset Producers/OS vendors. I would be most grateful if you would take the time to answer some brief questions. 1. From the perspective of the Users and Independent Content Developers, is there a need to introduce shared, unified library ( 'design patterns') of the Graphical User Interface for the new hardware features, like touch-screens and what implications it has on the handset's functionality ? 2. In your opinion, what is the direction, followed by major handset producers in terms of: - device hardware features (touch-screens) - Content Developers (Community) and - device Graphical User Interface ? Do you agree that, unifying GUI would and therefore won't be a priority for handset producers (Will 'commoditize the handset' ) ? 3. What is the most practical method of implementing consistent GUI on the mobile phone device: UI design library (open source) , public guidelines, …? Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, Bart Sakwerda, b.sakwerda1@lcc.arts.ac.uk BA Digital Media Production, London College of Communication“

p. 63/78


APPENDIX B - DESKTOP UIS Another solution based on Mobile Phone Operating System/ Application Content layer are Internet/Content Discovery Platforms from Google Mobile, Opera Mobile, Nokia (Content Discoverer, MOSH), Access Netfront Dynamic Menu and yahoo! Mobile. Desktop UI products are fundamentally different to ODPs (On Device Portals ). Desktop UIs (DUI) are technically complex (hint: handsets are not designed to have their home screen replaced) Feature-wise, Desktop UIs are about discovering content, not browsing or selling it. DUIs can also be used to discover common handset functionality (e.g. type R-I-N-G-T from a Qix-like application and you have the options for changing the ringtone or buying a new one. Same applies to Bluetooth,etc…). “Abaxia’s Mobile portal, Celltick’s LiveScreen and Zi’s Qix are the incumbent desktop UI products, helping the user (and the operator) discover handset features and operator services from the idle screen. But as of the last 3GSM (3GSM Barcelona, 2008-01), you can add several more products to this list: Abaxia and Tegic separately announced solutions for finding content and features from the home screen through(similar to T9 text input) predictive matching.Then you have Korean IntroMobile’s IntroPad, Vocel, Aditon (a PA Consulting spinoff that shows adds on your mobile) and of course FlashHome, the reincarnation of FlashCast with home screen replacement features. You can naturally add the usual suspects to this list - ODP players who also provide home screen replacement features i.e. Cibenix, SurfKitchen, uiOne, MobiComp, et al).“ Naturally, manufacturers are not staying out of the game; Nokia has Active Idle, Motorola has Screen 3 and Sony Ericsson is rumoured to be baking it’s own Screen 3 variant." (A. Constantinou–Vision Mobile, 2008-02) “Last and certainly not least, Desktop UIs are about controlling the most valuable real-estate that ever has and ever will exist on mobile handsets. It’s the primary shelf space (advertisers call it ‘inventory’) that content providers, are keen to get their hands on. Inventory is the reason, why Google valued YouTube at such levels.”

p. 64/78


APPENDIX C - CONTENT DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS “Today there are tens of different tools technologies for opening up handset software to developers and generally those who want to customize the handset GUI in some shape or form. These range from skins designers, to games developers, to operators who want to create a ’signature’ look & feel spanning the entire user interface. I would argue that application environments include not only Java, as well as environments for creating skins, desktop UIs (a.k.a. idle screens) and core applications (dialler, menu system, email, messaging applications, etc which are entirely different to downloadable applications). Contrary to popular understanding, openness is not an exclusive privilege of open operating systems….” (Andreas Constantinou, VisionMobile.com, 2007) There are several development platforms, which provide language and UI/ GUI libraries to create applications on the mobile phone devices. The most popular are Sun’s Java Micro edition with market ; Symbian (language: C++) has the rich UI library and support of major Smartphone developer in the world Nokia. (Nokia, 2007) Microsoft with its Windows Mobile is well placed in the Enterprise Market with its Windows Mobile and Windows Vista Mobile products on handheld PCs. (Windows Mobile, 2007) Each of them provides varying levels of access to Operating System’s kernel (kernel explanation), providing different level of visual consistency and performance for the third party software, as well as, native applications. The high-level UI classes allow application developers to access some of the common components on the devices Growing number of applications released on the expanding mobile handset base, across different mobile phone Operating Systems, However, mentioned libraries seem to target most common development platform – Sun’s Java Micro edition. JME has the biggest number of implementations worldwide ….you to create simple forms and lists with components Given that some J2ME implementations and some non-J2ME mobile Java runtimes lack threads, and many phones lack multitasking, this will make writing sophisticated apps for Android far easier. C predates Java. Where Java attempts to enable the developer to "write once and run anywhere", C took a different approach of "write once and compile everywhere". Both the Symbian and Microsoft platforms support a native 'C' run time enabling existing applications to be quickly moved between platforms.

p. 65/78


SYMBIAN OS GUI There is also a large volume of 'User Interface (UI) Code'. For the most part actual user interfaces are maintained by third parties. However the base classes and substructure are contained within the Symbian OS. This component is known as UIKON. The Symbian OS also contains the graphics, text layout, and font rendering libraries. All Symbian applications are built up from three classes defined by the Application Architecture: an application class, a document class, and an application user interface class. These classes create the fundamental application behaviour. The remaining required functions, the application view, data model, and data interface, are created independently and interact solely through their APIs with the other classes. UIQ and S60 both extend this approach, in two different ways. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Having used several s60 phones I feel that although the phones have got faster and equipped with more memory etc, the user interface hasn't kept pace with these developments. Furthermore bear in mind the guts of Symbian stretch way back to the Psion series 5 and it's Epoc 32 OS. It is some seriously old technology. I recently saw a demo of the touch screen version of Nokia's series 60 OS, and it was shockingly bad. They have literally just added a touch screen the existing UI, no attention appears to have been paid to how to better optimize the interface for touch. Having tried the iPhone on several occasions, it is incredible how from purely a UI perspective, the other handset makers have dropped the ball. Ultimately I loved the design of the UI so much I bought an iPod Touch. The best thing the iPhone will do is to force the other mobile companies to refocus their attention on good UI design. Judging by the demos of the next generation of Windows Mobile, Microsoft have been paying attention.â&#x20AC;? Giovani Coia

p. 66/78


JAVA MICRO EDITION GUI Java platform, Micro edition (JME), develop by Sun Corporation, provides a robust, flexible environment for applications running on mobile and other embedded devices—mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), TV set-top boxes, and printers. Java ME includes flexible user interfaces, robust security, built-in network protocols, and support for networked and offline applications that can be downloaded dynamically. Applications based on Java ME are portable across many devices, yet leverage each device's native capabilities. The Java ME technology is based on three elements; - a configuration provides the most basic set of libraries and virtual machine capabilities for a broad range of devices, - a profile is a set of APIs that support a narrower range of devices, and - an optional package is a set of technology-specific APIs. The central abstraction of the MIDP UI API is a canvas class, which is an object that encapsulates device-specific graphics rendering user input. Only one screen can be visible at a time, and the user can traverse only through the items on that screen. The main reason for the screen-based design is that mobile information devices have different display and keypad solutions. If an application has to be aware of component layout, scrolling, and focus traversal it compromises portability. Screens that encapsulate a complex user interface component that involves a List or TextBox component. The structure of these screens is predefined, and the application cannot add other components to these screens. Generic screens that use a Form component. The application can add text, images, and a simple set of related UI components to the form. Screens used within the context of the low-level API, such as a subclass of the Canvas class. The Display class is the display manager that is instantiated for each active MIDlet and provides methods to retrieve information about the device's display capabilities. A screen is made visible by calling the Display.setCurrent() method.” Sun’s Java Mobile Edition – Java Virtual Machine Developers not satisfied with the GUI libraries, available as a basic API to let you code once and let J2ME handle the layout for each device leaves your code very disconnected from what’s actually happening on the screen (won’t load, or runs terribly slowly, or looks awful, or simply doesn’t do the things that the API) Lack of control of the user interface: hardware details such as how many buttons you have, whether there’s a stylus, etc. differ from phone to phone developer experience is quite disappointing, and as a result, the user experience is also quite disappointing. (sorts of trade-offs) “In the high-level API, Screen is the base class for screen displays and has four subclasses - Alert, Form, List, and TextBox. Other than a title and a ticker (a string that continuously scrolls across a part of the screen), which are available to all Screen subclasses, List and TextBox each provide only a single visual element on the screen - that is, the structures of List and TextBox are fixed and other components can't be added to them. List displays a list of choices, with each choice consisting of a string and an optional image. TextBox displays and allows the entry and editing of text. The Alert class supports the display of both a string and an image. Form can contain and display any mix of Item objects - one or more ChoiceGroup (containing radio buttons and check boxes), DateField, Gauge, ImageItem, StringItem, and/or TextField objects. The high-level API targets applications for which portability is essential and relegates look and feel issues to the platforms that the application is deployed on. One price of this portability is that you have minimal control over layout and display attributes such as text fonts and colour. In addition, with the high-level API, you can't intercept key events and therefore can't provide contextual filtering of data input.”

p. 67/78


ADOBE’S FLASH LITE Adobe Flash Lite has been present on the cell phones since 2001.One of the widest implementation is Japanese NTT DoCoMo’s imode, on device content portal platform in FOMA phones, which serve over 70 million Japanese users, with highest internet usage and content consumption levels in the world. (NTT Docomo i-mode, 2006) In 2005 the SDK, part of the Flash 8 has been released for the developers worldwide. Since then, sophisticated information services using Flash Lite have characterized the first wave of innovation. However, Flash Lite extends readily to the critical task of developing dynamic, highly customizable user interfaces. With an animated graphic user interface, complex search operations can be simplified, eliminating the need to navigate through a series of hierarchical text menus. Animated graphics can help navigate through maps or complex graphical representations of data and information that are unwieldy on a standard 2.4-inch display. (Adobe, 2008) A well-known example is the weather forecasting application that uses an animated graphical user interface to select the target area. In earlier versions of the service, users had to navigate through multiple levels of text menus. The data for the service continued to be displayed in unremarkable standard text. This stands in stark contrast to the appeal and ease of use offered by the smooth Flash animation of the improved user interface.” (Yankee Group, 2004) In the case of complex information services on a small (i.e. 320x200 pixels) display, animated user interfaces enhance user service quality and experience. As mobile phones morph into indispensable and ubiquitous appliances, the user interface will become an increasingly important differentiator. “We expect that the work of the Open Mobile Terminal Platform alliance in Western Europe will seek standardization at the applications layer with a view toward concentrating differentiation at the user interface. The concept of the highly utilitarian, differentiated user interface extends well beyond the mobile terminal. Flash Lite can be used in a number of devices, including digital cameras, car navigation systems and set-top boxes. Graphic and animated user interfaces with low-response latency can be used in every device that has a graphic display, including office machinery such as copy machines. In addition, providers can easily implement Flash as a GUI layer on embedded operating systems.” (Yankee Group, 2004) “Equally important, Flash and Flash Lite help customers develop sophisticated GUIs for embedded applications in a much more straightforward fashion than currently available alternatives. As a technology that was originally developed for designers (rather than software engineers), Flash Lite also offers important advantages over Java virtual machine technology. Notably, using Flash or Flash Lite, designers can develop the user interface by themselves and need not rely upon engineers for the implementation. Consequently, companies will be able to streamline the development process and reduce development time for GUIs. Eventually, this will help companies develop better and more attractive products in less time.” (Yankee Group, 2004) Adobe’s Flash Lite has been rejected by Apple, as an option for iPhone’s Safari Browser ( )

p. 68/78


However, the strength of Adobe’s platform lays in its interface building capabilities and in the multimedia streaming capabilities. With its popular SDK – Adobe Creative Suite software – we might expect, that Unified GUI would found a compliant ground for its implementation.

MICROSOFT’S SILVERLIGHT Microsoft, well known desktop Operating System company, is rapidly expanding in the areas of the internet and mobile. It’s mobile phone Operating System is described in this paper from the angle of the GUI and opportunities for developers to use that platform. To serve application developers and content producers, and to compete with runtime environments form competition, namely Sun and Adobe, Microsoft introduced in 2007 platform called Silverlight. Silverlight provides a ‘retained mode graphics system’, which integrates multimedia content and interactivity into a single runtime. It is being designed to work in concert with (XAML) open data format and is scriptable with JavaScript. This can be use to mark/tag the graphics (both vector and bitmaps). Textual content created with Silverlight would be more searchable and index able than that created with Flash as it is not compiled, but represented as text (XAML). Silverlight also includes classes for data access over XML-based format to control the cross-domain resource access policy. It can be used by site administrators to control which resources a Silverlight application can access. In addition, Silverlight also supports the Adobe Flash cross domain policy file format, which accommodates mainly in the online streaming content, however usage of open vector graphic standard SVG has not yet been supported (Microsoft Silverlight, 2008-02) Among Handset Producers supporting Windows Mobile, only Nokia is implementing this platform on their Symbian OS based handsets supporting other platforms, like Sun’s Java Micro edition, Adobe Flash Lite. Such wide support can enable users to enjoy vast spectrum of content, however this strategy can lead to further format confusion, which may benefit rapidly growing unified iPhone platform, which neither supports Java ME, nor does it support Adobe’s Flash. ( ) “Nokia’s software strategy is based on cross-platform development environments, enabling the creation of rich applications across the Nokia device range. Nokia aims to support market leading and content rich internet application environments and to embrace and encourage open innovation. By working with Microsoft, we are creating terrific opportunities and additional choices for the development community, S60 licensees and the industry as a whole,” (Lee Williams, Senior Vice President in Nokia’s Devices )

p. 69/78


APPENDIX D - MAJOR HANDSET PRODUCERS Currently, technical features in the design of mobile phone’s User Interface are being realized by many competing manufacturers globally, thus efficient and simple interaction platform is of a great importance to all the parties involved. One of the reasons might be the fact, that consistent and simple GUI may have a decisive feature in the “new markets”. In 2008, fast growing economies of countries like India and China, with hug potential customer base, value price and ‘ease of use’ . (reference) Resourceful Graphical User Interface, may also prove to be driving the usage of telecom services. In the last quarter of 2007 we have witnessed rapid growth of the mobile internet, which certainly will dominate telecom corporations efforts to shift weight form the traditional sources of income (voice, messaging, handset sales) to revenues from the ‘data plans’.(reference) Therefore, under-researched functions of Graphical User Interface on the mobile phone devices may have great commercial and social potential for the research studies and further, practical implementation. Market of handsets is divided into three categories by the capabilities/price criteria: low-end phones, under 50 U$D mid range handsets, 50-100 U$D smartphones, 100+ U$D Global handset sales rose 16 per cent in 2007, to 1.2bn devices, but Gartner estimates the market will grow by 10 per cent in 2008. Currently, the major smartphone producers, as follows in the order of sales: Nokia (NYSE:NOK), Research in Motion (NASDAQ:RIMM) and since last year Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL ) In terms of innovation: FOMA Apple Google Android With production facilities placed in China, it is a matter of time, when we will see cheaper 'alternatives' flooding the market ... With smartphones as a spearhead, of the telecom industry HTC ZTE Mobile Phone market dominated by few producers, established in electronics and telecommunication industries for over a decade, including: Nokia (NYSE:NOK),Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, LG Electronics, Motorola, Panasonic… Decline in Pocket PC i.e. PALM (NASDAQ:PALM) acquired by Japanese software company ACCESS, The commercial research & development of the User Interface Major handset producers could be classified by: - the volume of the handsets worldwide, - their R&D expenditure head counts or patents implementation, - support for the developers (if offered solution is open for external development)

p. 70/78


INNOVATIVE HANDSET PRODUCERS (WORLDWIDE) Complex industry, interrelationships between handset producer interact as a ... intermediary between hardware companies i.e. graphical electronic chipsets, displays, etc ...

NOKIA Nokia is known, to provide excellent support for the developers. Since it’s created its Developer Network Portal - forum.nokia.com in early 2002, after releasing its first Sun’s Java enabled telephone, it allowed third party developers to run software on the new platform. However, behind developer community, there is also a vibrant ‘Nokia Research Centre’. Nokia's continuous high investment in R&D, including User Interaction place it. “As of April 1, 2007, Nokia had R&D centres in 11 countries and employed 14,500 people in research and development, representing approximately 32% of Nokia’s total workforce. “R&D expenses totaled EUR 3,9 billion in 2006, representing 9,5% of Nokia’s net sales in 2006, compared to 11.2% of net sales in 2005 and 12.9% of net sales in 2004” (Nokia, 2008) Nokia Research Centre supports product development units to master key technologies and their evolution, short-term (few years ahead), as well as, ‘challenges the present’ in product development long-term. “NRC stands for open innovation for human mobility systems of the fused physical and digital world Our mission is to explore and develop technologies that will be available in the marketplace in five to ten years - not just novelties, but technologies that will see mass market demand from consumers and enterprises.” (research.nokia.com, From the vast array of projects, there is a couple of particular importance in the field of User Interface, including Nokia There are also two new programs, which have been introduced at the beginning of 2008. (One can assume that these new projects are being developed in a response to emerging new interfaces on the mobile platform.) Both latest projects:

Future User Interfaces and Interaction Solutions Innovative User Interfaces and User Experience

p. 71/78


NTT DOCOMO AND FOMA PARTNERS NTT DoCoMo has a long history of and deep commitment to the research and development of mobile communication technologies. NTT DoCoMo is not only Japan's premier mobile communications company, but also an influential force in advancing mobile communications technology on a global scale. NTT DoCoMo's third-generation (3G) FOMA (Freedom Of Mobile multimedia Access) service, based on W-CDMA, not only provides voice transmission quality on a par with fixed-line communications, it also supports diverse multimedia content. Major handset producers include Sony-Ericsson, Fujitsu, Panasonic, Sharp and NEC.

Worldwide Developer Centre network, UI Development NTT DoCoMo has four R&D sites around the world: headquarter in Yokosuka (Japan), US Laboratory in Palo Alto (California, USA), European Labs in Munich (Germany) and Chinese Labs in Shanghai (China). The Future Society imaged by DoCoMo's R&D - the society that all things are connected with network and people can access information at any time and any place. Information will be spread among our lives as the life infrastructure, just like air that is invisible but indispensable. We recommend that you view the Future Society imaged by DoCoMo's R&D in order to realize more affluent and comfortable life. Features: •

support for limo Androcea

Foma 904i, Sensors, accelerometers

Payment

p. 72/78


APPENDIX E - MOBILE PHONE, GUI - DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATION Mobile phones can be divided into three main categories according to the capabilities and price criteria: a) basic phones, (price: ~1-20 GBP) b) low feature phones, (price: ~20-100 GBP c) feature rich phones: (price: ~100+ GBP) -non-smartphone, - smartphone A) While basic phones are generally inexpensive handsets that offer voice and basic data services, B) low feature phones offer sufficient additional features to encourage basic phone users to seek these devices when they are looking for a new handset. C) Feature rich phones generally offer a combination of several advanced features in one device. Due to the increasing complexity of building these handsets, they were divided into two parts: non-Smartphone and Smartphone. C1) Non-smartphones are generally powered by proprietary Operating Systems and topped by advanced User Interfaces and application platforms. (i.e. iPhone) C2) Feature rich smartphones are also powered by proprietary OS, but can be extended by third party software Environments, i.e. Nokia’ S60, Microsoft’s Windows Mobile Graphical User Interface in this research papers has been defined, as an abstract layer of a programmable interactive elements of the Operating System and applications. GUI is dependent on the Operating System and Software Platform runtime environment, in which given GUI is deployed. This typically adhere, to a unified design specification, including aesthetics and possibly an application framework to lend a sense of overall cohesion both for the program's designer and its users. Content Developers can access GUI of the a) Operating Systems, b) Software Platform or c) Content’s proprietary GUI libraries through Application Programming Interface [API]. API provide abstract code, that specifies an interface - software libraries organized as a tree of widgets, some of them supporting interaction with the user (labels, buttons, check box, ...), others being containers that group the other widgets (windows, panels). Components, like buttons, forms etc) available to the Content Developers and destined to deliver rich experience to the Users, are often hierarchically (tree) structured under containers, i.e.. windows, panels grouping other elements button, alert boxes, checkboxes or animations i.e. easing. The content of the UI API tree, and the properties of the widgets, can often be modified at runtime (widgets can be added or removed from the tree). User Interface layer accommodates device capabilities of the device i.e. data input mechanisms, output screen, and device state. In case of the mobile phone, this could be represented by the battery state, network connection etc… Figure 27 Mobile Phone Abstraction Layer

Although GUI APIs are structured, free and unified, their physical look and functionality is often suppressed by the proprietary GUI build on top of the embedded platform or differences in particular runtimes, i.e. Java applications build using same MIDP 2.0 GUI. (Sun, 2007) API identifiers often relate to specific platform features and are designed to use specific programming language i.e. Sun’s Java Micro Edition UI classes is accessible through Java CLDC API, similarly Symbian OS and its GUI libraries accessible using both Java and C++, Apple iPhone UI API etc... The UI API toolkit handles the user events, as for example when clicking on a button. The action following the detection of the event is not the responsibility of the toolkit, but of the application. For example, if the user selects a file in a ‘file p. 73/78


dialog containerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, the widget behaviour and the detection of the user event are managed by the widget toolkit, but the actual action to perform on the file after selection must be performed by the application. UI API toolkits must have a means to position the widgets in their containers. The simplest way to define their positions is by defining their absolute (on the screen) or relative (to the parent) position in pixels or common distance units, but it is also often possible to lay out the elements by setting their relative positions without using distance units (i.e. Content Development tools - â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;layout managerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;).Also, the look and feel of the widgets can be hardcoded in the toolkit, but some widget toolkit APIs decouple the look and feel from the definition of the widgets, allowing the developer to define them at the initialisation of the application or even at runtime (see pluggable look and feel). (Ballard, B., 2006)

p. 74/78


APPENDIX F - ACADEMIC AND ANALYST RESEARCH USER INTERFACE STUDIES Academic research in the area of mobile phone user is mostly concentrated on Human-Computer Interaction departments in the technical Universities around the world. Close ties with the industry prove to be the best way to earn revenues and to supply commercial institutions with data and research. Nokia Research – University of Helsinki, Finland; Nokia Research – University of Cambridge, UK; NTT DoCoMo Research & Development – Tokyo University, Japan; LG Electronics Research – Seoul University, South Korea; Google – Stanford University, USA… These relationships delivered series of artefacts and studies. “While Researchers and developers are steadily increasing the scope of applications for mobile devices, framework for thinking about the range of actions may be helpful. Whether the application is financial-, medical-, or travel-related the following five pairs of actions should be considered: (1) monitor dynamic information sources and then alert when appropriate; (2) gather information from many sources and the spread out information to many destinations; (3) participate in a group and relate to individuals; (4) locate services or items that are not visible (for example, the nearest gas station) and identify objects that are seen (for example , the name of a person or flower); and (5) capture information from local resources and share your information with future users.” (Schneiderman, 2006)

MOBILE USER INTERFACE/INTERACTION CONFERENCES There are few conferences dedicated to mobile phone User Interface or user experience related industry. In 2007 there have been two major events in London: British Information Companies - Informa TM PLC organized 'Mobile Usability & Application Design ' in December 2007 and MNF Ltd organized ‘MEX Mobile User Experience conference’ in May 2007. User experience related issues rarely had been exposed on the annual conferences are like Symbian Smartphone show or GSM World Expo. Great opportunities to network and to fulfil commercial make Handset producers , developers and other related parties also to discus the matters of UI and exhibit their latest products on number of Content and Technology events, i.e. annual 3GSM Barcelona, Symbian World etc. The new opportunities for software/UI product companies is signalled by creation of yet another industry conference. London based company PMN, is organizing conference 'Mobile User Experience' in May 2008 in London.

p. 75/78


PMN’S MOBILE USER EXPERIENCE 2008 (UPDATED 2008-05) MEX is the two day strategy forum for the leading minds in mobile telecoms. This year’s event took place London Euston on 27th and 28th May 2008. The Mobile User Experience Conference session addressed the fragmentation in the following questions:

FRAGMENTATION IS THE ENEMY OF INNOVATION • • •

0.25%: Users of Nokia's mobile browser account for 0.25% of all web pages viewed globally, compared with 0.06% for the iPhone. Blackberry accounts for 0.02% and Sony Ericsson 0.01%. However, in the US market specifically the iPhone is the clear leader, account | (Source: StatCounter) 200,000: 200,000 developers had registered for the iPhone SDK at the end of its fiscal Q2 2008 | (Source: Apple) ~40%: About 40% of page views recorded by US mobile publisher Crisp Wireless came from 'off-deck' browsing in February 2008 | (Source: Crisp Wireless)

“The structure of the mobile industry is killing application developers. There is a tidal wave of innovative content and services waiting to be unleashed if we can build a business environment which enables new companies to make money from mobile.

INTELLIGENT CONTACT LISTS ARE THE FUTURE CANTERS OF THE USER INTERFACE Presence and IP-based messaging change the dynamics of mobile communication. “The natural focal point for next generation user interfaces is an intelligent, presence-enabled contact list. Enhancing the information and services which can be shared through people-centric networks is the best way to encourage usage of voice, messaging and data.” What combination of handset design, mobile services and customer support would represent your ideal user experience? “I break this into three distinct, but highly inter-related components. Firstly, the phone must be what Telstra refers to as “walk out working” - that is, it works first time, as expected, without any manual intervention. Secondly I, as the customer, intuitively understand everything I can do with the device and the network services that add value to my life. Thirdly, the device and network services understand my life priorities and needs - in other words my experience is one of seamlessly available, contextually relevant, value adding interactions with people, events and information that make my life easier, more enjoyable and more fluid than if I was managing my life with a fixed phone, pen and paper.” Cyrus Allen, Director of Customer Experience, Telstra

“Like everyone else, I use a number of different tools to communicate with people: IM, SMS, voice, email, social networking sites and others. On each occasion I consider my context and the context of the person I am communicating with and make decisions based around that. I am a member of LinkedIn for business networking, but Facebook for social interaction. These are not exclusive nor should they be. They are examples of different communities. This human behaviour will not change, so the challenge within the mobile environment is first to make it as easy as possible for people to access their communities from one place within the mobile phone, and secondly to make it as simple as possible for people to communicate within and between communities. When you have PC access, it is simple to move from one application to another. I can message in MSN, move to Facebook, check my emails and video conference with a buddy at the touch of a button.” (Allen Scott, General Manager, NeuStar)

p. 76/78


JoEllen Kames, Manager for User Experience Planning, Motorola “However, in the mobile environment, the user cannot toggle between applications so easily. The unique nature of the mobile environment requires different solutions. Just as mobile TV needs to be filmed in a different way for a mobile audience so the mobile social networking experience will need to be different too.”

USABILITY TRENDS ACROSS THE MOBILE INDUSTRY Responding to Usability Trends Across the Mobile Industry -Usability driven open standards -Live open standards based solutions - case studies -Advantages and challenges with using open standards. (Samuel Sweet,2007-12 Vice President, Ikivo, Europe) -Balancing user experience and usability with device segmentation and purpose -The evolution of UI creation, understanding a user’s mission to explore, by finding identity and context -Getting into devices, mobile usability as a driver for handset hardware evolution (Fredrik Ademar,2007-12, Chief Technical Officer, TAT)

PATTERN-BASED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT FOR GREATER USABILITY The Z8: Taking a More Agile, Pattern-Based Approach to Development for Greater Usability Examining the development decisions and processes in creating the first motorola smartphone -The principals for pattern-based UE - user interface as a manifestation of sets of repeating patterns -Approaching multi-interaction points -Achieving a lighter touch in specification - lessening the load of complicated style guides(Matthew Menz, Head of Interaction, Motorola, USA)

ACHIEVING TRUE "OUT OF THE BOX" USABILITY Achieving True "Out of the Box" Usability Dr. Pekka Ketola, Senior User Experience Manager, Multimedia Computers, Nokia, Finland Current status & case studies: Where are we now with out-of-box experiences? Standards, guidelines & accessibility - Is there an easier way? Future possibilities for advanced set-up of mobile handsets Best practice procedures which may easily be integrated into your device strategy

SHARED STRATEGIES FOR APPLICATION AND PLATFORM PARTNERS How Shared Strategies for Application and Platform Partners Can Take One Platform to a Variety of Great Experiences Mikko-Pekka Hanski, Head of Research and Consulting, Co-Founder, Idean, Finland Designing platform strategy from the user experience perspective - key tools for joined up thinking Create guidelines for the platform partners to create seamless user experience Dealing with platform variation

p. 77/78


Creating user experience "hooks" to the platform, enabling the experience to be tailored to different primary functionalities Case study - evolving the s60 platform to enterprise, then music

p. 78/78


2008-07 BA Dissertation - Unified GUI for Mobile Phones and PC sync suites