Understanding the Relationship between User’s Subjective Feeling and the Degree of Side Curvature in Smartphone
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and Samples
2.2. Usage Patterns and Tasks
2.3. Subjective Evaluation
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Overall Demographic Results
3.2. Grip/Control Comfort
3.3. Stability
3.4. Front/Side Visibility
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xiong, J.; Muraki, S. An ergonomics study of thumb movements on smartphone touch screen. Ergonomics 2014, 57, 943–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Wang, H.-Z.; Gaskin, J.; Wang, L. The role of stress and motivation in problematic smartphone use among college students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C. Worldwide internet and mobile users: Emarketer’s updated estimates for 2015. eMarketer Tech. Rep. 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Vuori, T.O.; Huy, Q.N. Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Adm. Sci. Q. 2016, 61, 9–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pereira, A.; Miller, T.; Huang, Y.-M.; Odell, D.; Rempel, D. Holding a tablet computer with one hand: Effect of tablet design features on biomechanics and subjective usability among users with small hands. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 1363–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Kyung, G.; Lee, J.; Moon, S.K.; Park, K.J. Grasp and index finger reach zone during one-handed smartphone rear interaction: Effects of task type, phone width and hand length. Ergonomics 2016, 59, 1462–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, K.; Cho, J.; Freivalds, A. Effects of grip span in one-handed thumb interaction with a smartphone. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2016, 60, 1048–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, A.; Kanetkar, M. Determination of Most Preferred Mobile Phone Size Based on Hand Anthropometry and Mobile Handiness. In Advances in Theory and Practice of Computational Mechanics; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Singapore, 2017; Volume 65, pp. 195–204. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Y.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, Y.M.; Lee, J.; Kwon, S.; Sim, H.; Yun, M.H. The Effects of Curvature of Edge Screen on Subjective Feelings in Smartphone Usage. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2017, 61, 1269–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, C.; Hwang, W.; Salvendy, G. A survey of what customers want in a cell phone design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2007, 26, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, S.H.; Kwon, S.; Bahn, S.; Yun, M.H.; Yu, W. Effects of Grip Curvature and Hand Anthropometry for the Unimanual Operation of Touchscreen Handheld Devices. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2016, 26, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, S.; Bahn, S.; Ahn, S.H.; Lee, Y.; Yun, M.H. A study on the relationships among hand muscles and form factors of large-screen curved mobile devices. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016, 56, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, J.; Park, S.; Im, J.; Jeon, S.; Kyung, G. Effects of display curvature and hand length on smartphone usability. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2017, 61, 1054–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlson, A.K.; Bederson, B.B.; Contreras-Vidal, J.L. Understanding One-Handed Use of Mobile Devices. In Handbook of Research on User Interface Design and Evaluation for Mobile Technology; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2008; pp. 86–101. [Google Scholar]
- Le, H.V.; Bader, P.; Kosch, T.; Henze, N. Investigating Screen Shifting Techniques to Improve One-Handed Smartphone Usage. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction—NordiCHI ’16, Gothenburg Sweden, 23–27 October 2016; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Ou, B.; Ding, Q.; Yang, Y. Touch Behavior Analysis for Large Screen Smartphones. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2015, 59, 1433–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balakrishnan, V.; Yeow, P. Hand Anthropometry and SMS Satisfaction. J. Appl. Sci. 2008, 8, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.-C. The Relationship between Touchscreen Sizes of Smartphones and Hand Dimensions. In Applications of Evolutionary Computation; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 8011, pp. 643–650. [Google Scholar]
- Park, D.; Park, S.; Kim, W.; Rhiu, I.; Yun, M.H. A comparative study on subjective feeling of engine acceleration sound by automobile types. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 74, 102843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, S.; Park, S.; Park, D.; Kim, W.; Yun, M.H.; Park, D. A Study on Affective Dimensions to Engine Acceleration Sound Quality Using Acoustic Parameters. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, W.; Park, D.; Kim, Y.M.; Ryu, T.; Yun, M.H. Sound quality evaluation for vehicle door opening sound using psychoacoustic parameters. J. Eng. Res 2018, 6, 176–190. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, W.; Lee, Y.; Lee, J.H.; Shin, G.W.; Yun, M.H. A comparative study on designer and customer preference models of leather for vehicle. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 65, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eardley, R.; Roudaut, A.; Gill, S.; Thompson, S. Understanding Grip Shifts: How Form Factors Impact Hand Movements on Mobile Phones. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 4680–4691. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.C.; Cha, M.C.; Hwangbo, H.; Mo, S.; Ji, Y.G. Smartphone form factors: Effects of width and bottom bezel on touch performance, workload, and physical demand. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 67, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balakrishnan, V.; Yeow, H.P. Hand-size variations effect on mobile phone texting satisfaction. System 2007, 6, 8–10. [Google Scholar]
- Xiong, J.; Muraki, S. Effects of age, thumb length and screen size on thumb movement coverage on smartphone touchscreens. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016, 53, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Male (n = 20) | Female (n = 20) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Range | Mean | SD | Range | |
Age | 36.50 | 12.65 | 19–59 | 31.80 | 12.42 | 21–56 |
PSU | 31.15 | 14.78 | 6–60 | 26.32 | 10.62 | 3–48 |
HL | 18.39 | 0.85 | 16.82–20.00 | 17.08 | 9.81 | 15.45–19.40 |
Evaluation Factor | Question |
---|---|
Grip comfort | Did you feel comfortable to grip without physical fatigue? (1: completely uncomfortable, 4: neither uncomfortable nor comfortable, 7: completely comfortable) |
Control comfort | Did you feel comfortable to control without awkwardness? (1: completely uncomfortable, 4: neither uncomfortable nor comfortable, 7: completely comfortable) |
Stability | Did you feel a sense of stability without the worry of dropping? (1: completely unstable, 4: neither unstable nor stable, 7: completely stable) |
Front visibility | Was the icons and texts on the edge screen visible when you look at from the in front? (1: completely invisible, 4: neither invisible nor visible, 7: completely visible) |
Side visibility | Was the icons and texts on the edge screen visible when you look at from the side? (1: completely invisible, 4: neither invisible nor visible, 7: completely visible) |
Evaluation Factor | Samples & Using Pattern | N | min | Max | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grip Comfort | Sample 4R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.656 | 1.423 |
Sample 6R | 160 | 2 | 7 | 4.800 | 1.248 | |
Sample 8R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.906 | 1.302 | |
Sample 10R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.644 | 1.384 | |
Pattern (a) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.662 | 1.391 | |
Pattern (b) | 160 | 2 | 7 | 4.844 | 1.168 | |
Pattern (c) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.869 | 1.328 | |
Pattern (d) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.631 | 1.461 | |
Control Comfort | Sample 4R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.031 | 1.627 |
Sample 6R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.331 | 1.426 | |
Sample 8R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.725 | 1.436 | |
Sample 10R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.606 | 1.401 | |
Pattern (a) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.344 | 1.475 | |
Pattern (b) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.531 | 1.479 | |
Pattern (c) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.450 | 1.529 | |
Pattern (d) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.369 | 1.507 | |
Stability | Sample 4R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.906 | 1.354 |
Sample 6R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 5.000 | 1.234 | |
Sample 8R | 160 | 1 | 7 | 5.038 | 1.213 | |
Sample 10R | 160 | 2 | 7 | 4.806 | 1.306 | |
Pattern (a) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.900 | 1.275 | |
Pattern (b) | 160 | 2 | 7 | 4.975 | 1.197 | |
Pattern (c) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 5.144 | 1.202 | |
Pattern (d) | 160 | 1 | 7 | 4.731 | 1.404 | |
Front Visibility | Sample 4R | 40 | 1 | 7 | 3.600 | 1.446 |
Sample 6R | 40 | 3 | 7 | 4.375 | 1.254 | |
Sample 8R | 40 | 4 | 7 | 5.800 | 1.091 | |
Sample 10R | 40 | 3 | 7 | 6.050 | 1.037 | |
Side Visibility | Sample 4R | 40 | 1 | 7 | 4.900 | 1.411 |
Sample 6R | 40 | 1 | 7 | 5.125 | 1.381 | |
Sample 8R | 40 | 1 | 7 | 5.375 | 1.409 | |
Sample 10R | 40 | 1 | 7 | 5.400 | 1.446 |
Evaluation Factor | Source | Sum of Squares Type III | df | Mean Square | F | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grip Comfort | Gender | 3.525 | 1 | 3.525 | 0.418 | 0.522 | 0.011 |
Hand Type | 6.500 | 1 | 6.500 | 0.770 | 0.386 | 0.021 | |
Gender × Hand Type | 11.157 | 1 | 11.157 | 1.321 | 0.258 | 0.035 | |
Control Comfort | Gender | 0.000 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.995 | 0.000 |
Hand Type | 12.238 | 1 | 12.238 | 1.101 | 0.301 | 0.030 | |
Gender × Hand Type | 2.438 | 1 | 2.438 | 0.219 | 0.642 | 0.006 | |
Stability | Gender | 0.156 | 1 | 0.156 | 0.019 | 0.892 | 0.001 |
Hand Type | 0.306 | 1 | 0.306 | 0.036 | 0.850 | 0.001 | |
Gender × Hand Type | 6.602 | 1 | 6.602 | 0.785 | 0.382 | 0.021 | |
Front Visibility | Gender | 2.377 | 1 | 2.377 | 0.710 | 0.405 | 0.019 |
Hand Type | 8.327 | 1 | 8.327 | 2.488 | 0.123 | 0.065 | |
Gender × Hand Type | 0.077 | 1 | 0.077 | 0.023 | 0.881 | 0.001 | |
Side Visibility | Gender | 0.127 | 1 | 0.127 | 0.029 | 0.867 | 0.001 |
Hand Type | 3.452 | 1 | 3.452 | 0.779 | 0.383 | 0.021 | |
Gender × Hand Type | 0.827 | 1 | 0.827 | 0.187 | 0.668 | 0.005 |
Source | Sum of Squares Type III | df | Mean Square | F | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | 7.517 | 3 | 2.506 | 1.552 | 0.205 | 0.038 |
Error (Sample) | 188.920 | 117 | 1.615 | |||
Pattern | 7.142 | 3 | 2.381 | 0.931 | 0.428 | 0.023 |
Error (Pattern) | 299.295 | 117 | 2.558 | |||
Sample × Pattern | 20.914 | 9 | 2.324 | 2.666 | 0.005 | 0.064 |
Error (Sample × Pattern) | 305.898 | 351 | 0.872 |
Source | Sum of Squares Type | df | Mean Square | F | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | 4R | Between | 0.319 | 3 | 0.106 | 0.052 | 0.985 |
Within | 321.775 | 156 | 2.063 | ||||
Total | 322.094 | 159 | |||||
6R | Between | 2.150 | 3 | 0.717 | 0.455 | 0.714 | |
Within | 245.450 | 156 | 1.573 | ||||
Total | 247.600 | 159 | |||||
8R | Between | 2.469 | 3 | 0.823 | 0.481 | 0.696 | |
Within | 267.125 | 156 | 1.712 | ||||
Total | 269.594 | 159 | |||||
10R | Between | 23.119 | 3 | 7.706 | 4.269 | 0.006 | |
Within | 281.575 | 156 | 1.805 | ||||
Total | 304.694 | 159 | |||||
Pattern | (a) | Between | 2.675 | 3 | 0.892 | 0.456 | 0.713 |
Within | 305.100 | 156 | 1.956 | ||||
Total | 307.775 | 159 | |||||
(b) | Between | 5.319 | 3 | 1.773 | 1.306 | 0.275 | |
Within | 211.775 | 156 | 1.358 | ||||
Total | 217.094 | 159 | |||||
(c) | Between | 8.719 | 3 | 2.906 | 1.670 | 0.176 | |
Within | 271.525 | 156 | 1.741 | ||||
Total | 280.244 | 159 | |||||
(d) | Between | 11.719 | 3 | 3.906 | 1.861 | 0.139 | |
Within | 327.525 | 156 | 2.100 | ||||
Total | 339.244 | 159 |
Source | Sum of Squares Type III | df | Mean Square | F | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | 45.867 | 3 | 15.289 | 7.590 | 0.000 | 0.163 |
Error (Sample) | 235.695 | 117 | 2.014 | |||
Pattern | 3.467 | 3 | 1.156 | 0.426 | 0.734 | 0.011 |
Error (Pattern) | 317.095 | 117 | 2.710 | |||
Sample × Pattern | 42.239 | 9 | 4.693 | 4.526 | 0.000 | 0.104 |
Error (Sample × Pattern) | 363.948 | 351 | 1.037 |
Source | Sum of Squares Type | df | Mean Square | F | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | 4R | Between | 9.369 | 3 | 3.123 | 1.184 | 0.318 |
Within | 411.475 | 156 | 2.638 | ||||
Total | 420.844 | 159 | |||||
6R | Between | 4.469 | 3 | 1.490 | 0.729 | 0.536 | |
Within | 318.975 | 156 | 2.045 | ||||
Total | 323.444 | 159 | |||||
8R | Between | 6.750 | 3 | 2.250 | 1.093 | 0.354 | |
Within | 321.150 | 156 | 2.059 | ||||
Total | 327.900 | 159 | |||||
10R | Between | 25.119 | 3 | 8.373 | 4.550 | 0.004 | |
Within | 287.075 | 156 | 1.840 | ||||
Total | 312.194 | 159 | |||||
Pattern | (a) | Between | 6.919 | 3 | 2.306 | 1.061 | 0.368 |
Within | 339.175 | 156 | 2.174 | ||||
Total | 346.094 | 159 | |||||
(b) | Between | 31.969 | 3 | 10.656 | 5.263 | 0.002 | |
Within | 315.875 | 156 | 2.025 | ||||
Total | 347.844 | 159 | |||||
(c) | Between | 46.600 | 3 | 15.533 | 7.456 | 0.000 | |
Within | 325.000 | 156 | 2.083 | ||||
Total | 371.600 | 159 | |||||
(d) | Between | 2.619 | 3 | 0.873 | 0.380 | 0.768 | |
Within | 358.625 | 156 | 2.299 | ||||
Total | 361.244 | 159 |
Source | Sum of Squares Type III | df | Mean Square | F | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | 5.138 | 3 | 1.713 | 1.296 | 0.279 | 0.032 |
Error (Sample) | 154.613 | 117 | 1.321 | |||
Pattern | 14.063 | 3 | 4.688 | 2.307 | 0.080 | 0.056 |
Error (Pattern) | 237.688 | 117 | 2.032 | |||
Sample × Pattern | 16.250 | 9 | 1.806 | 2.071 | 0.031 | 0.050 |
Error (Sample × Pattern) | 306.000 | 351 | 0.872 |
Source | Sum of Squares Type | df | Mean Square | F | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | 4R | Between | 1.119 | 3 | 0.373 | 0.200 | 0.896 |
Within | 290.475 | 156 | 1.862 | ||||
Total | 291.594 | 159 | |||||
6R | Between | 1.250 | 3 | 0.417 | 0.270 | 0.847 | |
Within | 240.750 | 156 | 1.543 | ||||
Total | 242.000 | 159 | |||||
8R | Between | 4.025 | 3 | 1.342 | 0.911 | 0.437 | |
Within | 229.750 | 156 | 1.473 | ||||
Total | 233.775 | 159 | |||||
10R | Between | 23.919 | 3 | 7.973 | 5.034 | 0.002 | |
Within | 247.075 | 156 | 1.584 | ||||
Total | 270.994 | 159 | |||||
Pattern | (a) | Between | 5.950 | 3 | 1.983 | 1.226 | 0.302 |
Within | 252.450 | 156 | 1.618 | ||||
Total | 258.400 | 159 | |||||
(b) | Between | 4.100 | 3 | 1.367 | 0.953 | 0.417 | |
Within | 223.800 | 156 | 1.435 | ||||
Total | 227.900 | 159 | |||||
(c) | Between | 6.519 | 3 | 2.173 | 1.519 | 0.212 | |
Within | 223.175 | 156 | 1.431 | ||||
Total | 229.694 | 159 | |||||
(d) | Between | 4.819 | 3 | 1.606 | 0.812 | 0.489 | |
Within | 308.625 | 156 | 1.978 | ||||
Total | 313.444 | 159 |
Evaluation Factor | Source | Sum of Squares Type III | df | Mean Square | F | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Front Visibility | Sample | 163.419 | 3 | 54.473 | 62.281 | 0.000 | 0.615 |
Error (Sample) | 102.331 | 117 | 0.875 | ||||
Side Visibility | Sample | 6.650 | 3 | 2.217 | 1.772 | 0.156 | 0.043 |
Error (Sample) | 146.350 | 117 | 1.251 |
Evaluation Factor | Pattern | 4R | 6R | 8R | 10R | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
Grip Comfort | Pattern (a) | 4.700 | 1.572 | 4.700 | 1.265 | 4.800 | 1.305 | 4.450 | 1.431 |
Pattern (b) | 4.600 | 1.297 | 4.950 | 0.932 | 5.075 | 1.095 | 4.750 | 1.296 | |
Pattern (c) | 4.625 | 1.531 | 4.675 | 1.269 | 4.975 | 1.230 | 5.200 | 1.224 | |
Pattern (d) | 4.700 | 1.324 | 4.875 | 1.488 | 4.775 | 1.561 | 4.175 | 1.412 | |
Control Comfort | Pattern (a) | 4.175 | 1.662 | 4.250 | 1.410 | 4.700 | 1.471 | 4.250 | 1.335 |
Pattern (b) | 3.850 | 1.578 | 4.450 | 1.358 | 4.775 | 1.441 | 5.050 | 1.300 | |
Pattern (c) | 3.750 | 1.645 | 4.100 | 1.499 | 5.000 | 1.281 | 4.950 | 1.319 | |
Pattern (d) | 4.350 | 1.610 | 4.525 | 1.450 | 4.425 | 1.534 | 4.175 | 1.466 | |
Stability | Pattern (a) | 5.000 | 1.450 | 4.950 | 1.218 | 5.075 | 1.095 | 4.575 | 1.299 |
Pattern (b) | 4.900 | 1.277 | 5.150 | 1.075 | 5.100 | 1.194 | 4.750 | 1.235 | |
Pattern (c) | 4.950 | 1.377 | 4.975 | 1.143 | 5.200 | 1.091 | 5.450 | 1.154 | |
Pattern (d) | 4.775 | 1.349 | 4.925 | 1.492 | 4.775 | 1.441 | 4.450 | 1.339 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, Y.; Kim, W.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, Y.M.; Yun, M.H. Understanding the Relationship between User’s Subjective Feeling and the Degree of Side Curvature in Smartphone. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3320. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093320
Lee Y, Kim W, Lee JH, Kim YM, Yun MH. Understanding the Relationship between User’s Subjective Feeling and the Degree of Side Curvature in Smartphone. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(9):3320. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093320
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Yushin, Wonjoon Kim, Joong Hee Lee, Yong Min Kim, and Myung Hwan Yun. 2020. "Understanding the Relationship between User’s Subjective Feeling and the Degree of Side Curvature in Smartphone" Applied Sciences 10, no. 9: 3320. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093320
APA StyleLee, Y., Kim, W., Lee, J. H., Kim, Y. M., & Yun, M. H. (2020). Understanding the Relationship between User’s Subjective Feeling and the Degree of Side Curvature in Smartphone. Applied Sciences, 10(9), 3320. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093320