User Studies on Mobile Internet Usage

• A series of user needs studies ran by Nokia Research Center
• Goal: Understand motivations and usage patterns for mobile browsing
• Method: Contextual Inquiry - semi-structured interviews of 5-9 users
  • Good method to find out tacit knowledge: motivations (why), habits (how)
  • Provides also info about topics that researchers did not foresee (what), unlike questionnaires
  • Good method to explore new cultures and new domain areas
• In total 43 interviews in 5 countries: Finland (12), USA (9), UK (7), Japan (7), China (8)
• We categorize China as a developing country, although rapidly developing
• China study conducted in Beijing 3/2006, the others 2/2004 - 11/2005

User Research Results 1

Commonalities and differences between the Beijing study and the other studies

• The main reason for getting online using a mobile device is e-mail. The majority of users use Webmail, they do not use the built-in e-mail client on the phone.
• Browsing is a secondary reason for getting online in all studies.
• Blogs and discussion forums were more popular with mobile device users in Beijing than in the other studies.
  • We are unsure whether this documents a trend or a regional difference.
• Without available PC, users spend more time for mobile browsing:
  • Some persons in Beijing used the browser for very long periods, even several hours.
  • In other studies, users postponed longer browsing sessions until getting to a PC.
• Cost control is the main issue for adoption of mobile Internet in all our studies:
  • Users do not understand how they are charged.
  • Users are afraid of high phone bills, sometimes based on bad experiences.
  • Users understand monthly flat fee charges, but cannot keep track of upper volume or time limits.
  • Users with flat fee make much more use of the mobile Internet than users who are charged based on the data volume or the time spent online.

User Research Results 2

Commonalities and differences between the Beijing study and the other studies (cont'd):

• The importance of a mobile phone for the whole family was emphasized.
  • Phone purchasing decision as big as car purchasing decision for us.
  • Old phones recycled within the family.
• Interviewees seam even less worried of security, even though phone viruses seem to be more common in Beijing than elsewhere.
• Hygiene was an issue: news rather from phone than from dirty public newspapers
• Not all users understand the difference between WAP and full Web
  • Users try to access the same URLs both on PC and on phone in all our studies.
  • Half of the interviewees in Beijing did have access to the full Web from their mobile device; the other half owned a device that supported WAP only.
  • Most WAP-only users commented that there was not enough WAP content.

Recommendations based on User Research Results 1

Give users understandable, full control of costs for mobile Internet usage, otherwise sustained and large scale adoption will not happen.

• Users learn about consumed volume only when it is too late: from their phone bill.
• Users struggle to understand volume-based charging. For instance, user likes to know how much clicking a link will cost them.
• Unlimited, affordable flat fees are the most suitable solution:
  • Users understand unlimited flat fees, but struggle with volume or time limits.
  • Unlimited flat fee gives full cost control, removes uncertainty over mobile Internet costs.
  • Means to stop abuse exist: E.g. An operator may temporarily slow down connection speed of an exceptionally heavy user.
  • Unlimited flat fees caused breakthrough for fixed-access Internet adoption.
• Up-to-the-minute charging information is the second best option:
  • User's current phone bill readily available from device UI.
  • Remaining volume / time quota of capped flat rate charging models clearly visible.

Recommendations based on User Research Results 2

Users should be given full Web access whenever feasible:

• Bridging the digital devide can only be achieved by one global Web, and universal access to it.
• Users do not understand the difference between WAP and full Web.
• Users expect any URL to work, also on their mobile device.
• Users complain about lack of WAP content. They want access to their very-special, favourit site. Full Web access is about giving access to the long tail.
• Nokia S60 Browser and other browsers show that full Web access from mobile devices is a reality and is usable.
  • Opera Mini demonstrates a solution for devices that can not provide full Web access by themselves.
  • We have not sean a sufficiently reliable (= usable) proxy-based transcoding solution.

Recommendations based on User Research Results 3

Developer strategies for enabling universal access to their site:

Why a separate 'mobile version' is generally a bad idea:

• One 'mobile version' is not enough due to diversity of mobile devices, diversity of access, networks as well as differing user preferences.
  Differences impacting Web design:
  • Display: Number of lines of readable text, space for images.
  • Mechanics: Means for interaction with content, such as navigation and data input.
  • Multi-radio access: various cellular, WLAN
  • User preference: cost, speed, quality of content, sought features / information
• Development and maintenance costs multiply.
• Issues with user who access from desktop and/or multiple devices.
• Risk of blocking access to features.
• All these are important issues that are independent of the question of mobile syntax vs. full syntax.

Recommendations based on User Research Results 4

Developer strategies for enabling universal access to their site (cont'd):

• Developers start to care when they see a lot of mobile users come to their site, usualy not any earlier.
• By giving users full access we avoid the chicken-egg problem: no content - no users interested - still no content.
• Let the user decide what content he/she likes to see. Do not lock out users. Use intelligent defaults. Memorize user preferences inbetween sessions. Examples:
  • Put bi-directional links when there are multiple versions of a site.
  • Allow users to enable/disable 'heavy' features.
• Make scalable content using CSS and where needed and supported dynamic HTML.
• Allow the need for mobile syntax fragment your site as little as possible.
• Test on PC by reducing the size of the browser window.
• Validate your content using W3C validators.

Recommendations based on User Research Results 5

The role of W3C for bringing Web to mobile users, globally, should be:

• The goal is not a Mobile Web - but bringing the Web also to mobile users.
  • This also means making the whole (existing) Web available to mobile users in emerging markets
• Web for mobile users can only be solved globally, but emmerging markets can help us to make the breakthrough. Lack of PCs is an opportunity.
• Listen to users.
• Mobile usability is the key concern.
• Mobile usability can only be achieved by content developer outreach, raising awareness.
• Aim for full Web technologies for the whole Web. Mobile specific syntax do not help usability. Mobile specific syntax too easily leads to fragmentation of the Web.
• Need to harmonize Web technology support across desktop and mobile browsers for ease of developing Web content and improved tools support.
• Lobby for improved tools support for creating scalable content and for multi-platform testing (including testing)