It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Increasingly, users are performing more sophisticated types of tasks, like information search, across computing platforms including desktops/laptops, tablets, and smartphones. While much research has been done to improve efficiency for each of these devices in the area of information search, few investigations have taken a pragmatic approach to determining the real efficiency costs across current state of the art devices and searching paradigms (typically browser based). The study examined comparative task execution times for searching tasks under three different conditions: varying screen sizes (desktop, tablet, smartphone), varying interaction devices (mouse & keyboard and touchscreen), and varying types of search (Within Document, Known Item, and Exploratory).
In addition, the impact of pagination technique (scrolling versus paging) on Within Document searching and the impact of using a generic website versus a mobile website for Known Item searching on a smartphone were investigated. The aim was to inform current practice on user efficiency across these variables and future design in improving efficiency on the small screen device. A within subjects (n=29) design was used comparing task execution times across three devices: a desktop, a tablet (iPad) and a smartphone (iPod).
Final results suggest that the typical user should expect to spend about 38% more time completing a Within Document task on the mobile device than they would at the desktop or on the tablet. On average, a user spent 203% more time completing a Known Item task on the mobile device than they did at the desktop (125% more than on the tablet) and about 35% more time on the tablet than the desktop. For the Known Item task, at least 38% of the extra time spent using the mobile device using a generic website is due to latency. For the Exploratory task, users found that the poor support for browser based tabs (multiple open windows) on the mobile and tablet made the search process more cumbersome. In general, user perception, in terms of task load and usability, aligned well with actual task execution times across the three devices and under the varying conditions.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer