Icons in mobile phones: Comprehensibility differences between older and younger users
Abstract
Mobile phones have become a ubiquitous information and telecommunication terminal used by diverse age groups. Despite research findings that indicate the special needs and skills of senior citizens, contemporary handsets offer limited consideration for them. We investigated whether typical mobile phone icons are suitable for older users, as measured through unaided icon comprehension. For this purpose, we studied 38 users and evaluated 25 icons, which we captured from five different handsets. It was found that there are significant differences in icon comprehension performance between older and younger mobile phone users. We conclude that designers of mobile phone icons have to regard older user groups differently and we describe the qualities of icons suitable to each one of the age groups. Finally, we highlight the need for additional similar research in different ethnic and cultural groups.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The grid-based interface was significantly more efficient, and it was rated as more appealing and more comfortable by the users.
“The results showed that grid-based interface was significantly more efficient, and it was rated as more appealing and more comfortable by the users [46].”
From Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review (2017) · cites this paper as [46]
The list-based and grid-based layouts were very common on mobile devices.
“The two layouts were very common on mobile devices [46].”
From Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review (2017) · cites this paper as [46]
Older participants had more problems using mobile icons.
“The results of Gatsou et al. [65], Kim and Cho [76], and Koutsourelakis and Chorianopoulos [75] suggested that the older participants had more problems using mobile icons.”
From Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review (2017) · cites this paper as [75]
There were significant differences in icon recognition and interpretation performance of younger and older users.
“There were significant differences in icon recognition and interpretation performance of younger and older users.”
From Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review (2017) · cites this paper as [75]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review
Punchoojit, L., & Hongwarittorrn, N. (2017) · Advances in Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1155/2017/6787504 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Petrovčič, A., Taipale, S., Rogelj, A., & Dolničar, V. (2018) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1345142 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
- Authors
- Koutsourelakis, C., & Chorianopoulos, K.
- Venue
- Information Design Journal
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2010-06-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-35
- ISSN
- 0142-5471 (ISSN-L)
- 1569-979X
- OpenAlex
- W1997069926
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Design Journal (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Safety Warnings and Signage
- Keywords
- elderly users, age differences, usability, older adults, mobile phone design, user-centered design, age-friendly design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review