Cited by 102Technology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface DesignSafety Warnings and Signage

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Age-related differences in the initial usability of mobile device icons

Leung, Rock, McGrenere, Joanna, Graf, Peter·2011·Behaviour & Information Technology

Abstract

Mobile devices offer much potential to support older adults (age 65+). However, older adults have been relatively slow to adopt mobile devices. Although much ongoing HCI research has examined usability problems to address this issue, little work has looked at whether existing graphical icons are harder to use for this population compared with younger adults. We conducted a qualitative exploratory study and a follow-up experimental study to determine which icon characteristics help initial icon usability for older adults. We found that our older participants did have more problems using existing mobile device icons, but that particular icon characteristics – semantically close meaning (i.e. natural, close link between depicted objects and associated function), familiar, labelled and concrete (i.e. those depicting real-world objects) – improved icon usability for them. We discuss how these findings can help icon designers to create mobile device icons that are more suited to the abilities and technology experience of older adults.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01449290903171308

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Benson C., 2005, Designing effective icons [online]
  2. Benton A. L., 1978, Multilingual aphasia examination manual
  3. Goodman J., 2004, HCI and the older population, workshop at the HCI 2004, 13
  4. 2009, Gus! Pocket Communicator [online]
  5. 2009, Lingraphica product overview [online]
  6. Marmor M. F., 1998, Aging & Vision News [online]
  7. Moor K. A., 2004, A comparative study of elderly, younger, and chronically ill novice PDA users
  8. 2006, Media literacy audit: report on media literacy amongst older people
  9. 1999, Design guidelines: Application graphics [online]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Leung, R., McGrenere, J., & Graf, P.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Leung, Rock
Venue
Behaviour & Information Technology
Published
2011-09
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
629-642
ISSN
  • 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-3001
OpenAlex
W2011111325
Cited by
102
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Safety Warnings and Signage
Keywords
older adults, age differences, icon design, semantic meaning, familiarity, technology adoption, user interface 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