skip to main content
10.1145/2037373.2037440acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Smart phone use by non-mobile business users

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 August 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

The rapid increase in smart phone capabilities has introduced new opportunities for mobile information access and computing. However, smart phone use may still be constrained by both device affordances and work environments. To understand how current business users employ smart phones and to identify opportunities for improving business smart phone use, we conducted two studies of actual and perceived performance of standard work tasks. Our studies involved 243 smart phone users from a large corporation. We intentionally chose users who primarily work with desktops and laptops, as these "non-mobile" users represent the largest population of business users. Our results go beyond the general intuition that smart phones are better for consuming than producing information: we provide concrete measurements that show how fast reading is on phones and how much slower and more effortful text entry is on phones than on computers. We also demonstrate that security mechanisms are a significant barrier to wider business smart phone use. We offer design suggestions to overcome these barriers.

References

  1. Cousins, C. and Varshney, U. Designing ubiquitous computing environments to support work life balance. Communications of the ACM 52, 5 (2009), 117--123. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Dearman, D. and Pierce, J. It's on my other computer!: computing with multiple devices. In Proc. CHI 2008, 767--776. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Enron Email Dataset. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~enron/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gentner, D., Grudin, J., Larochelle, S., Norman, D., & Rumelhart, D. A glossary of terms including a classification of typing errors. In Cognitive aspects of skilled typing, W. Cooper, Ed. Springer, NY, 39--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. James, C. and Reischel, K. Text input for mobile devices: Comparing model prediction to actual performance. In Proc. CHI 2001, 365--371. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Karlson, A., Meyers, B., Jacobs, A., John, P., and Kane, S. Working overtime: Patterns of smartphone and PC usage in the day of an information worker. Pervasive Computing (2009), 398--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Karlson, A., Iqbal, S., Meyers, B., Ramos, G., Lee, K., & Tang, J. Mobile taskflow in context: a screenshot study of smartphone usage. In Proc. CHI 2010, 2009--2018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kristensson, P. O. and Zhai, S. SHARK2: A large vocabulary shorthand writing system for pen-based computers. In Proc. UIST 2004, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kristoffersen, S. and Ljungberg, F. "Making place" to make IT work: empirical explorations of HCI for mobile CSCW. In Proc. GROUP 1999, 276--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Matthews, T., Pierce, J., & Tang, J. No smart phone is an island: the impact of places, situations, and other devices on smart phone use. IBM Research Report RJ10452, IBM (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. Crackberries: The social implications of ubiquitous wireless e-mail devices. In Designing Ubiquitous Information Environments: Socio-Technical Issues and Challenges, C. Sorensen et al., Eds. Springer, 337--343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mazmanian, M., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. Ubiquitous email: Individual experiences and organizational consequences of Blackberry use. Academy of Management (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Middleton, C. and Cukier, W. Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two perspectives on mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 3 (2006), 252--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Nielsen Online. Twitter's tweet smell of success (March 18, 2009). http://t.co/oPO4jGWGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., & Kuorelahti, J. Interaction in 4--second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proc. CHI 2005, 919--928. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Oulasvirta, A. and Sumari, L. Mobile kits and laptop trays: managing multiple devices in mobile information work. In Proc. CHI 2007, 1127--1136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Perry, M. and Brodie, J. Virtually connected, practically mobile. In Mobile Virtual Work: A New Paradigm, E. Andriesson and M. Vartiainen, Eds. Springer, 97--127.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Perry, M., O'Hara, K., Sellen, A., Brown, B., & Harper, R. Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 8, 4 (2001), 323--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Pierce, J. and Nichols, J. An infrastructure for extending applications' user experience across multiple personal devices. In Proc. UIST 2008, 101--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sadler, K., Robertson, T., Kan, M., & Hagen, P. Balancing work, life and other concerns: a study of mobile technology use by Australian freelancers. In Proc. NordiCHI 2006, 413--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sauro, J., and Dumas, J. Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In Proc. CHI 2009, 1599--1608. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Silicon Republic. In three years desktops will be irrelevant --- Google sales chief (March 3, 2010). http://t.co/5Vvr3msGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Sohn, T., Setler, V., Mori, K., Kaye, J., Horii, H., Battestini, A., Ballagas, R., Paretti, C., & Spasojevic, M. Addressing mobile information overload in the universal inbox through Lenses. In Proc. MobileHCI 2010, 361--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Wingfield, N. Time to leave the laptop behind. The Wall Street Journal (Feb 2009). http://on.wsj.com/4g9y5CGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhai, S. and Kristensson, P. O. Shorthand writing on stylus keyboard. In Proc. CHI 2003, 97--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Zhai, S., Kristensson, P. O., Gong, P., Greiner, M., Peng, S., Liu, L., & Dunnigan, A. Shapewriter on the iPhone: from the laboratory to the real world. In Proc. CHI 2009 Extended Abstracts, 2667--2670. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Smart phone use by non-mobile business users

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      MobileHCI '11: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
      August 2011
      781 pages
      ISBN:9781450305419
      DOI:10.1145/2037373

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 August 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader