Abstract

Usability has been increasingly recognized as a significant quality dimension to determine the success of mobile applications. Due to its importance, a number of usability guidelines have been proposed to direct the design of usable applications. The guidelines are intended particularly for desktop and web-based applications. Mobile applications on the other hand are different in many ways from those applications due to the mobility nature of mobile devices. To date, the usability guidelines for mobile applications are very limited. They in fact are isolated, which makes usability evaluation for mobile devices more difficult. This study aims to address this issue by proposing a set of usability dimensions that should be considered for designing and evaluating mobile applications. The dimensions are illustrated as a model that considers four contextual factors: user, environment, technology and task/activity. The model was proposed based on the reviews of previous related studies, which were analyzed by using content analysis approach. Twenty-five dimensions were found from the analysis. The dimensions however were synthesized and prioritized based on their importance towards designing usable mobile applications. As a result, ten most important dimensions were outlined in the model. The model can be used by practitioners and researchers as a guideline to design usable mobile applications and further research can be conducted in the near future.

Keywords:

Empirical studies, evaluation, mobile applications, usability,

References

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.