Usability messaging platforms in a mobile phone environment

Usability Analysis of Instant Messaging Platforms in a Mobile Phone Environment using Heuristics EvaluationByMuhammad Muaz NaeemA thesis submitted to the Department of CS&IT.University of Sargodha – PakistanIn partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MS (Computer Science) Session 2014-16Supervisor Mr. Abid Rafiq Assistant Professor, Department of CS&ITUniversity of SargodhaSubmission Date: Final ApprovalThis thesis Named Usability analysis of instant messaging platforms in a mobile phone environment using heuristics evaluation.By Muhammad Muaz NaeemMSCS-F14-LC-002Has been approved for the Department of CS & IT, University of Sargodha Supervisor: ______________________________________________ Name:Abid Rafiq, Assistant Professor Department of CS&IT, University of Sargodha Chairman: ______________________________________________ Name: DECLARATIONI hereby declare that I have produced the work in this thesis, during the scheduled period of study.

I also declare that I have not taken any material from any source except referred to wherever due that amount of plagiarism is within acceptable range. If a violation of HEC rules on research has occurred in this thesis, I shall be liable to punishable action under the plagiarism rules of the HEC. Date: Signature of the student: ___________Muhammad Muaz NaeemMSCS-F14-LC-002 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my beloved parents who always helped me in study.

I also dedicate to my teachers, who have taught me and guided me throughout my academic life. I also dedicate to my friends, who helped and motivate me in whole session of MS. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciativeness to my Supervisor Mr. Abid Rafiq (Asst. Professor, Department of CS & IT) for the continuous support in my MS study and research, for his patience, inspiration, and enormous knowledge. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank Chairman Department of CS & IT.

Muhammad Muaz Naeem MSCS-F14-LC-002 ABSTRACTToday, Mobile phone has become popular to everybody. It is playing an important role in social and political interaction. The fast evolution and acceptance of mobile phones, the chance of developing an application and user interface are also increasing. Most of the applications are complex and sophisticated user interface.

It’s necessary to take the usability test of mobile applications. In this case usability guidelines provide valuable information to designer to improve interaction with the system.There are several methods to determine the usability level of interactive system, but heuristic assessment is one of the strategies most broadly used to evaluate UIs. The main objective of this study is to identify usability problems in design of instant messaging applications. To accomplish this work, we used the approach of usability evaluation using a heuristic evaluation.

We selected the different android instant messaging apps to conduct this study. These apps include Imo, Facebook Messenger, Kik, Nimbuzz, WeChat and Soma. Then we designed a questionnaire on Nielsen’s method and take feedback from a large group of users.

After getting the feedback we applied chi-square test on data. It gave the true picture of presenting approach by providing statistical results. We present the proposed model that will help us to improve the application interface according to user needs and preferences. Table of Contents TOC o “1-3” h z u LIST OF TABLES PAGEREF _Toc503437987 h xiiiCHAPTER 1 PAGEREF _Toc503437988 h 1INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc503437989 h 11.1 Motivation PAGEREF _Toc503437990 h 11.2 Aims and Objectives PAGEREF _Toc503437991 h 21.3 Mobile Phone Applications PAGEREF _Toc503437992 h 21.

3.1 Imo PAGEREF _Toc503437993 h 21.3.

2 Facebook Messenger PAGEREF _Toc503437994 h 31.3.3 Kik Messenger PAGEREF _Toc503437995 h 41.

3.4 Nimbuzz PAGEREF _Toc503437996 h 51.3.5 WeChat PAGEREF _Toc503437997 h 51.3.

6 SOMA PAGEREF _Toc503437998 h 61.4 Research Challenges PAGEREF _Toc503437999 h 71.4.

1 Challenge in Conducting Survey PAGEREF _Toc503438000 h 71.4.2 Poor Connection PAGEREF _Toc503438001 h 71.4.3 Lack of Resources PAGEREF _Toc503438002 h 71.5 Usability Evaluation Methods PAGEREF _Toc503438003 h 81.

5.1 Formative Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438004 h 81.5.

2 Summative Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438005 h 81.6 Overview PAGEREF _Toc503438006 h 8CHAPTER 2 PAGEREF _Toc503438007 h 10Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc503438008 h 102.1 Usability PAGEREF _Toc503438009 h 102.1.1 Learnability PAGEREF _Toc503438010 h 102.1.2 Efficiency PAGEREF _Toc503438011 h 112.

1.3 Memorability PAGEREF _Toc503438012 h 112.1.4 Errors PAGEREF _Toc503438013 h 112.1.5 Satisfaction PAGEREF _Toc503438014 h 112.2 Usability Evaluation Methods PAGEREF _Toc503438015 h 122.

2.1 Formative Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438016 h 132.2.2 Summative Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438017 h 132.3 Methods Used in Formative Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438018 h 142.3.1 Heuristic Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438019 h 142.

3.2 Cognitive Walkthrough PAGEREF _Toc503438020 h 152.3.3 Pluralistic Usability Walkthrough PAGEREF _Toc503438021 h 162.3.4 Thinking-Aloud Testing PAGEREF _Toc503438024 h 162.4 Methods Used in Summative Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438026 h 172.

4.1 Questionnaires PAGEREF _Toc503438027 h 172.5 Usability Evaluating Model PAGEREF _Toc503438028 h 202.5.1 User-based Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438029 h 202.5.2 Expert-based Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438030 h 212.

5.3 Model-based Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc503438031 h 212.5.3.

1 GOMS Model PAGEREF _Toc503438032 h 212.5.3.1.1 KLM PAGEREF _Toc503438033 h 222.5.

3.1.2 CMN – GOMS PAGEREF _Toc503438034 h 232.5.3.1.

3 NGOMSL PAGEREF _Toc503438035 h 242.5.3.1.4 CPM – GOMS PAGEREF _Toc503438036 h 242.5.

3.2 Task Network Model PAGEREF _Toc503438037 h 242.5.3.

3 Cognitive Architecture Model PAGEREF _Toc503438038 h 25CHAPTER 3 PAGEREF _Toc503438039 h 26Research Methodology PAGEREF _Toc503438040 h 263.1 Types of research: PAGEREF _Toc503438041 h 263.1.1 Qualitative Research PAGEREF _Toc503438042 h 263.1.1.1 Advantages PAGEREF _Toc503438043 h 263.

1.1.2 Disadvantages PAGEREF _Toc503438044 h 273.1.

2 Quantitative Research: PAGEREF _Toc503438045 h 273.1.2.1 Advantages PAGEREF _Toc503438046 h 273.1.2.2 Disadvantages PAGEREF _Toc503438047 h 273.

1.3 Applied Research PAGEREF _Toc503438048 h 273.1.4 Basic Research PAGEREF _Toc503438049 h 283.

1.5 Correlational Research PAGEREF _Toc503438050 h 283.1.6 Descriptive Research PAGEREF _Toc503438051 h 283.1.7 Ethnographic Research PAGEREF _Toc503438052 h 283.1.

8 Experimental Research PAGEREF _Toc503438053 h 283.1.9 Exploratory Research PAGEREF _Toc503438054 h 283.1.

10 Grounded Theory Research PAGEREF _Toc503438055 h 293.1.11 Historical Research PAGEREF _Toc503438056 h 293.2 Proposed Methodology PAGEREF _Toc503438057 h 293.2.

1 Application Selection PAGEREF _Toc503438058 h 303.2.2 Designing Questionnaires PAGEREF _Toc503438059 h 313.2.3 Data Collection PAGEREF _Toc503438060 h 313.2.

4 Data Representation PAGEREF _Toc503438061 h 313.2.5 Statistical Analysis PAGEREF _Toc503438062 h 313.2.6 Proposed interface PAGEREF _Toc503438063 h 31Chapter 4 PAGEREF _Toc503438064 h 32Results and Discussions PAGEREF _Toc503438065 h 324.1 Which application you use yourself?334.2 Is the application is complex to use?354.

3 Is application designed for all ages of users?374.4 Is the application support both voice and video calls?394.5 It was simle to dial an audio or video calls?414.6 Does it tell about the status of audio or video calls?434.

7 Is the application support multiple video chats?454.8 Does the dial or disconnect button is visible for audio or video calls?474.9 Is the video quality is good for calls?494.10 Does noise disturb the quality of video calls?514.11 Is the video call support both front and back camera?534.12 Does the camera support full screen?554.

13 Are various video settings being available on video call screen?574.14 Should video call support a pause option?594.15 Should application support video messages?614.16 Does the application adjust video settings, auto or manual?634.

17 Does the application support video calls with slow internet speed?654.18 Is the tasks can be performed in a straight forward manner?674.19 Is error messages are show in the form of in text and sounds?694.20 Does the application take time to recover in error situation?714.21 Are the functions in the application were well integrated?734.22 Is the navigation of the app reached the task?754.

23 Is application response in error situation?774.24 Can user send any file during audio or video calls?794.25 Does it tell about the status of messages?814.26 Is edit option is available after sending the message?834.27 Does the application allow to delete the message?854.28 Is icons are used in appropriate way?874.29 Does each window have the same color combination?894.

30 I can use it successfully every time?914.31 I easily remember how to use it?934.32 I like using the interface of this application?954.33 Is the application was easy to use?974.34 overall, I am satisfied with this application ?994.

35 Gender percentage1014.36 Can Heuristic Evaluation make applications more user-friendly? PAGEREF _Toc503438066 h 1024.37 Is the heuristic evaluation method can be easily deployable during the product development stage? PAGEREF _Toc503438067 h 102Chapter 5 PAGEREF _Toc503438068 h 104Proposed Framework PAGEREF _Toc503438069 h 1045.1 General Factor PAGEREF _Toc503438070 h 1055.1.

1 Project Planning PAGEREF _Toc503438071 h 1055.1.2 Important aspects of the system PAGEREF _Toc503438072 h 1055.

1.3 Evaluation procedure PAGEREF _Toc503438073 h 1055.1.

4 Evaluation Settings PAGEREF _Toc503438074 h 1055.1.5 The Participant PAGEREF _Toc503438075 h 1055.2 Evaluation Process PAGEREF _Toc503438076 h 1055.

3 Result Generation PAGEREF _Toc503438077 h 1055.4 Make Suggestion after Results PAGEREF _Toc503438078 h 106CHAPTER 6 PAGEREF _Toc503438079 h 107Conclusion and Future work PAGEREF _Toc503438080 h 107References PAGEREF _Toc503438081 h 109LIST OF FIGURES TOC h z c “Figure” Figure 1 Imo logo3Figure 2 Facebook messenger3Figure 3 Kik messenger4Figure 4 Nimbuzz logo5Figure 5 Wechat logo6Figure 6 Soma messenger6Figure 7 Components of usability12Figure 8 Evaluation methods13Figure 9 GOMS models & their relationships22Figure 10 Block diagram30Figure 11 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to use yourself34Figure 12 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to complex to use36Figure 13 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to design of all ages38Figure 14 multiple bar chart of apps with respect to support calls40Figure 15 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to dial calls42Figure 16 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to status of calls44Figure 17 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to multiple video chats46Figure 18 multiple bar chart of apps with respect to button is visible48Figure 19 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to quality of calls50Figure 20 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to noise disturb calls52Figure 21 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to support camera PAGEREF _Toc396674893 h 54Figure 22 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to camera full screen PAGEREF _Toc396674894 h 56Figure 23 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to settings on screen58Figure 24 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to pause option60Figure 25 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to video message62Figure 26 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to video settings64Figure 27 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to slow internet speed66Figure 28 multiple bar charts of apps with respect tasks performed68Figure 29 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to error message show70Figure 30 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to recover in error72Figure 31 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to functions integrated74Figure 32 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to navigation of app76Figure 33 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to response in error78Figure 34 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to send file80Figure 35 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to status of message82Figure 36 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to edit option84Figure 37 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to delete the message86Figure 38 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to icons used88Figure 39 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to window color combination90Figure 40 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to use it successfully92Figure 41 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to remember to use94Figure 42 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to interface of the app96Figure 43 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to easy to use98Figure 44 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to overall satisfied100Figure 45 multiple bar chart of gender with respect to males and females101Figure 46 Proposed framework104 LIST OF TABLES TOC h z c “Table” Table 1 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures33Table 2 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures35Table 3 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures37Table 4 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures39Table 5 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures41Table 6 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures43Table 7 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures45Table 8 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures47Table 9 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures49Table 10 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures51Table 11 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures53Table 12 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures55Table 13 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures57Table 14 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures59Table 15 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures61Table 16 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures63Table 17 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures65Table 18 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures67Table 19 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures69Table 20 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures71Table 21 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures73Table 22 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures75Table 23 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures77Table 24 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures79Table 25 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures81Table 26 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures83Table 27 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures85Table 28 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures87Table 29 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures89Table 30 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures91Table 31 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures93Table 32 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures95Table 33 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures97Table 34 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric Measures99Table 35 gender percentage101LIST OF ABREVATIONSADDIEAnalysis Design Development Implementation EvaluationJava MEJava Micro EditionSOMASimple Optimized Messaging AppAS/NZSAustralian / New Zealand StandardHEHeuristic EvaluationTDMTailored Design MethodologyUIUser InterfaceISOInternational Standard OrganizationIECInternational Electro-technical CommissionGOMSGoals operators methods and selection rules methodKLMKey Stroke Level ModelCMN GOMSCard Moran Newell GOMSNGOMSLNatural GOMS LanguageCPM GOMSCritical Path Method GOMSPERT Program Evaluation Review TechniqueHCIHuman Computer InteractionSEMSummative Evaluation MethodFEMFormative Evaluation MethodAPPSApplicationsSPSSStatistical Package for the Social SciencesCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 MotivationOver the last few years, cell phones are playing a very important role in our daily lives. Technology is growing faster and faster as time passes, it is hard to envision our life without a cell phone as most of our work is done using cell phones.Market increasingly calls for better mobile applications, but most of them are becoming more complex and sophisticated user interface.

While dealing with the applications, a high degree of usability is desired in the user interface. Usability is mainly concerned to provide valuable information to the designer to improve interaction with the system. But user experience takes a whole association with products and in addition the considerations, feeling and recognitions that outcome from that collaboration 1.

So we need usability evaluations to improve the interface for making application easy and friendly. There are many strategies to determine the usability level of interactive system, but heuristic evaluation is one of the techniques most broadly used to evaluate UIs. Usability evaluation assesses and provide the convenience of a function and how strong they empower user to play out their assignments proficiently 2. Usability guidelines, standard and ethic to guide and help developers in designing and developing the interface for their applications 3. The author in 4 has presented the usability evaluation methods.

They defined various usability evaluation strategies have been created and can be defined into three types: usability testing, inquiry and inspection. Heuristic evaluation is an inspection method in light of assessment over real time framework or model led by specialists 5. The term “specialists” referred to the user. He exhibits a few points of interest over different systems, its operation is quick and it is appropriate for every life cycle of software development stage and does not require previous planning 6. The fundamental inspiration driving this study is to recognize and enhances the ease of use of the UI of mobile device instant messaging applications. User assessment is important to upgrade the user interface and distinguish issues in the applications.

For instance, if we create a mobile application that have unpredictable, tangled and sophisticated user interface, user will never try to utilize it. That’s why through usability evaluation, we can identify problems and make a better interface that users can enjoy much more.1.2 Aims and ObjectivesToday, Mobile phone has turned out to be prevalent for everyone. It is assuming an imperative part in social and political communication. The quick advancement and appropriation of cell phones, the chance of developing an application and UI are additionally expanding. Most of the applications are complex and sophisticated user interface.

It’s necessary to take the usability test of mobile applications. In this case usability guidelines provide valuable information to designer to improve interaction with the interface of the system.The aim of this thesis is to find out the usability problems within the user interface design of instant messaging applications. In order to achieve the objectives of this work, we used the approach of usability evaluation using a heuristic evaluation. Through this technique we enhance the usability of applications, create user friendly apps, develop new interface and proposed solutions to enhance the usability frame work.

1.3 Mobile Phone ApplicationsFor the purpose of this study, we have considered six applications for usability evaluation. These applications are commonly used for mobile communication. Each application is described below in detail.1.3.

1 ImoIt is an instant messenger named as “Imo”. It is a free application used for texting, audio and video calls. In April 2007, Imo was started in Palo Alto 7.

The first version of Imo was web based that provide online messaging. Ralph and Georges Harik developed the imo software 7.Figure 1 Imo logo In 2010, it spread to the operating systems of iPhone and android and then later to blackberry and iPad. Imo offers unlimited free text messaging and best app for video calling and voice chatting.1.3.2 Facebook MessengerFacebook messenger is a software that provide free texting and calls. It is incorporated with online Facebook’s different functions and based on the protocol MQTT 8. In FB you can send free messages and make audio and video calls. This app was launched on August 2011. Facebook announced in April 2004, that if a user want to use the messaging function they required to download the separate messenger app 9. Figure 2 Facebook messenger Facebook messenger introduced group video calling with maximum number of 50 call participants in April 201610. Facebook offers unlimited free text messaging and best app for video calling and voice chatting.1.3.3 Kik MessengerKik software provides free texting and calls. Developed by Canadian organization that is accessible free of cost on different platform of mobile phones 14. Kik was setup in 2009, some students from the University of Waterloo in Canada 14. It was released on October 2010 15. One million users register within 15 days of release 16. Figure 3 Kik messengerIn 2015, Kik presented new user features including in-chat browser that allows users to chat in full-screen on the same browser. They can also share the content from the web. A new feature that provides users to send previously recorded videos. 17. It is also famous for group video calls.1.3.4 NimbuzzIt is a texting application running on different smartphones, tablets and personal computers. Developed by MSM Global Holdings Limited with the number of 150 million users 18. This application provides users to make free calls, messaging, social games, and file sharing on their mobile device. It provides low call rates to most countries 19. In 2014, they express 210,000 new registrations per day 20. Figure 4 Nimbuzz logoNimbuzz is accessible in different platform of phones. It is only an IM app that is accessible from java based mobile phones and they represent 25% of users 212223. It has an N-World portal that provides different applications, games and gifts to be purchased 2425. 1.3.5 WeChatWeChat is a Chinese messaging application developed by tencent that empowers its users to stay in contact with everyone. The first version of this app was released in 2011 and in 2017 it was one of the most famous app over 938 million active users 2627. It provides text and voice messaging, video conferencing, games, sharing of different photographs and files 28.Figure 5 Wechat logoIt offers many features such WeChat payment services, and WeChat mini program.1.3.6 SOMAIt is a texting application running on different smartphones, tablets and personal computers. It is also called “Simple Optimized Messaging App” 32. The first version of this app was released in July 2015 and within 30 days of its release its grew 10 million users 2930.Figure 6 Soma messengerThe app is available in 34 languages and some services are free of charge 31.Soma app provides different features that gives emoticons, sharing of pictures, voice messages, user location and in addition create group chats, group video calls and conference calls.1.4 Research ChallengesResearch is not an easy task. Researchers likewise find diverse difficulties and issues during their research work. We have also faced many challenges. These challenges are briefly explained.1.4.1 Challenge in Conducting SurveyConducting survey from the end users is additionally a major test and wonder. The absence of time to complete a survey.Selecting the appropriate technique for the survey.It is very hard to design Questionnaire format.After this filling of questionnaires to the proper persons, then getting back from them was also very difficult task.1.4.2 Poor ConnectionIf you can’t access the website or can’t install the application you might have a bad internet connection. This is the main problem for the users. Because of the low bandwidth mobile application can’t work. 1.4.3 Lack of ResourcesThere are no reasonable assets for accomplishment of research work, but there are some missing facilities that are given below:Specific labs are not available for researchSlow and unreliable network connectionLack of interest from usersUnawareness of android apps1.5 Usability Evaluation MethodsEvaluation is the process of examining a program to identifying problems. Usability evaluation is the process to determine the usability problems and improve the design of the product. Evaluations are normally divided into two categories: Formative EvaluationSummative Evaluation1.5.1 Formative EvaluationIn formative evaluation, it has served to make a better design and identifying the problems in the activities that is in progress. This evaluation is used any phase of the ADDIE process. Formative evaluations are basically done to immediately improve the design of the product and refine the development specifications. Heuristic evaluation is a widely used inspection method to find the problems related to designs of user interface, cognitive walk-through is used for task analysis, indicates the arrangement or actions that is required by a user to achieve a task, pluralistic usability walk-through, thinking-aloud testing and user interface inspections are some methods that can be used for formative evaluation.1.5.2 Summative EvaluationIn SE the appraisal of the program toward finish of the activities or at the end of an operating cycle. Questionnaires, Surveys, Interviews, Observation and Testing are a few methods that can be used for summative evaluation. Usability evaluation methods is briefly explained in chapter 2. 1.6 OverviewThe outline of the thesis is as per the following. In chapter 2, we discuss the usability in detail. After this we have explained the usability valuation methods and techniques in detail. In these techniques, our emphasis is on heuristic evaluation. After this we have to explain the methods of conducting surveys for this purpose, we have to use questionnaires techniques. This technique is explained in detail. Furthermore, chapter 3 is relates to research methodology. First of all we discussed about the methodology and types of methodology. We explained the Fundamental or Basic Research and Applied Research. After this the Quantitative or Qualitative research is explained in detail. Our focus is on quantitative research. We also explained the reason for selecting this technique. At the end proposed methodology is explained that have been shown using diagrams.CHAPTER 2Literature ReviewUsability evaluation provides the ease of function to be used and how strong they empower user to play out their errands effectively 11. Usability procedure, present rules and principles to guide that help developers in designing and developing the interface for their applications 12. Usability testing for developing mobile applications has placed demands in HCI (Human Computer Interaction). So before usability testing, we will discuss the term usability in detail.2.1 UsabilityUsability is the key to create a user friendly product. Usability procedure, present rules and principles to guide that help developers in designing and developing the interface for their applications 13. The term usability describes as “the capability of a output of a product to be comprehended, learned, worked and be attractive to clients or user when used to accomplish certain objectives with effectiveness and proficiency in particular situations” 33. But basic definitions of usability that is proposed by the ISO/IEC 9241: “the degree to which an item can be utilized by determined users to accomplish indicated objectives with effectiveness, proficiency, and satisfaction in a predetermined context of use” 34. The phrase product describes as any software application, website or any device used by the user. The important aspect of usability is to make a successful product and it indicate you, the users feedback to various product through usability testing. The main objective of usability testing is to give comment during the life cycle of software development process to make sure that the product will be easy to use and gives information to the users. The five main components of usability are:2.1.1 Learnability It is defined as a product can easily understand by the users & easy to learn. There are some systems that are hard to learn, but with the high level of learnability, users can naturally figure out how to use a product without preparing manuals. Learnability is important because less training is required and person can use the product easily.2.1.2 EfficiencyWhen the user uses the product, how fast an experienced user can complete the tasks? Experience is defined as numbers of hours spent using the product. 2.1.3 MemorabilityWhen the user stops using the product for a long period of time and return back to the product, how easily a user can complete the task. It is very important to create an interface that is easily remembered to use it effectively in future visits.2.1.4 ErrorsWhen using the product, it is a great chance to make a few errors by the user. The error is defined as a fault in a system that produces an incorrect result or does not accomplish the desired goal. Sometime user can mean a wrong action that produce the error and these errors are corrected by the end-user in a short period of time. Different errors have different priorities. How they can recover from these errors easily? 2.1.5 SatisfactionHow users feel after using the product? Is user like the product that is easy to use?The AS/NZS 4216 Standard, an imitation of the ISO 9126, describes attributes of usability, which is described as “an arrangement of properties that bear on the exertion required for utilize, and on the individual evaluation of such use, by a expressed or implied set of users” 3536. Krug argues that usability is “not rocket surgery.” Usability is “ensuring that something works great: that a person of average capacity and experience can utilize the thing – whether it’s an internet site, a fighter jet, or a rotating door – for its expected reason without getting hopelessly frustrated.” 37.Jakob Nielsen and Ben Shneiderman describe the approvability, and distinguished between the usability and utility of the framework. They have recognized five key characteristics. These common attributes are: learnability, efficiency, memorability and satisfaction. Such characteristics are generally utilized for usability objective setting and benchmarking of a framework throughout a development lifecycle. Usability specialists use different assessment techniques to figure out usability based on these five usability properties 3839.Brian Shackel was one of the primary specialists to propose a wide definition of usability. He expresses that usability is “a system’s capacity in human functional terms to be utilized effortlessly and adequately by the predetermined scope of users, given determined preparing and support, to fulfill a predefined range of understanding, within the predefined scope of environmental situations”. He also depicts two key usability characteristics, namely ease of use and effectiveness 40.E.Folmer and J.Bosch say that most usability issues don’t rely upon on the interface however on functionality 41.Figure 7 Components of usability2.2 Usability Evaluation Methods Evaluation is the process of examining a program to identifying problems. Usability evaluation is the process to determine the usability problems and improve the design of the product. Evaluations are normally divided into two categories: Formative EvaluationSummative Evaluation2.2.1 Formative EvaluationIn formative evaluation it is help to make a better design and identifying the problems in the activities that is in progress. This evaluation is used any phase of the ADDIE process. Formative evaluations are basically done to immediately improve the design of the product and refine the development specifications. Heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough, pluralistic usability walkthrough, thinking-aloud testing and user interface inspections are some methods that can be used for formative evaluation.2.2.2 Summative EvaluationIn summative evaluation the assessment of the program at the end of the activities or at the end of an operating cycle. Questionnaires, Surveys, Interviews, Observation and Testing are some methods that can be used for summative evaluation.Figure 8 Evaluation methods2.3 Methods Used in Formative EvaluationFormative evaluation methods described below in detail. 2.3.1 Heuristic EvaluationIs a method for finding the usability of software, initially created by Nielsen and Molich and later refined by Nielsen 43 44. It is also called the ‘inspection’ method. UE helps to recognizes usability issues in the user interface (UI) design. HE method is easy to implement. It is hard for a person to perceive the usability issues in an interface. Therefore, it is possible to improve the effectiveness of the technique by including different evaluators applying set of guidelines called heuristics as they review a given application. The heuristics as published in Nielsen’s book Usability Engineering are as follows 42.2-.3.1.1 Visibility of system statusThe framework should informed users about what is happening, through suitable input inside sensible time.2.3.1.2 Match between system and the real worldThe framework should speak the user’s language, with combination of words, expressions and ideas well known to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. 2.3.1.3 User control and freedomUsers frequently pick framework functions by mistake and will require an obviously marked “crisis exit” to leave the undesirable state without going through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.2.3.1.4 Consistency and standardsUsers should not need to wonder whether distinctive words, activities or circumstances mean the similar thing. 2.3.1.5 Error preventionEven better than good error messages is a cautious plan which keeps an issue from happening in any case. Either kill blunder inclined conditions or check for them and present clients with an affirmation choice before they focus on the activity.2.3.1.6 Recognition rather than recallMinimize the memory load of the user’s by making icons, moving things, and visible options. The user should not need to recall the information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions of the framework should be visible or easily understandable.2.3.1.7 Flexibility and efficiency of useMake the system flexible that the user can easily understand the system and learn the system with efficiency without any help of expert person.2.3.1.8 Aesthetic and minimalist designDialogues should not contain data which is unessential or frequently required. Every additional unit of data in a dialogue competes with the pertinent units of data and diminishes their relative deceivability.2.3.1.9 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errorsError messages should be communicated in simple language, also show the issues, and recommend an answer.2.3.1.10 Help and documentationDespite the fact that it is better if the framework can be utilized without documentation, it might be important to give help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to find, concentrated on the user’s work, list solid steps to be done, and not be too large.2.3.2 Cognitive WalkthroughThe method was created in the mid-nineties by Wharton, et al., and achieved a huge usability crowd when it was published as a chapter in Jakob Nielsen’s original book on “Usability Inspection Methods.” The Wharton, et al. technique required making four questions at each step, along with extensive documentation of the analysis 47. This method is utilized to discover the issues in the system and make the system user friendly that new users can easily accomplish their tasks. It utilizes an all the more expressly basic essential technique to reproduce a problem solving process through the dialogue, checking the user’s objectives and memory content can be required to provoke the following right activity 45 46. The main focus is to understand the system learnability and defined the sequence of steps required by the user to complete the task.2.3.3 Pluralistic Usability WalkthroughAlso known as participatory Design Review, User-Centered Walkthrough, Storyboarding, Table-Topping, or Group Walkthrough. This usability inspection method where a group of stakeholders is brought together to review the design to identify the usability problems or giving feedback related to the design. Bias gives five defining characteristics of the pluralistic usability walkthrough 48. The method incorporated three types of members in the same walkthrough session. System designers, users and usability experts. The framework is given with hardcopy panels and these panels are displayed in the same sequence as they would show up in the framework. All members play the part of a user. The members write down the movements they would make to perform the given tasks. The group discusses reached to the solutions. The administrator first show a right answer. Then the users describe their solutions, and only after that, do the designers and usability experts offer their opinionsAccording to Bias, the pluralistic usability walkthrough technique gives solid information on a specific user interface panel in similar way as traditional usability testing.2.3.4 Thinking-Aloud Testing In this method you ask test participants to think out loud as they are performing some task. Users are freely requested to specific their feelings or thoughts and whatever theyare looking through the user interface.To run a thinking aloud usability study, you have to do just three things.Recruit the users.Give them some tasks to perform.Let the users do the talking.This method is particularly useful for deciding users’ desires and recognizing what parts of a system are confusing.2.4 Methods Used in Summative Evaluation Summative evaluation methods described below in detail.2.4.1 QuestionnairesIn the questionnaires you can get the data from a large number of people. Questionnaires are the best way to improve the product interface design. The survey is the alternative for questionnaire. Surveys refer to the broad range of methods to collect information from a group of people. 2.4.1.1 Types of QuestionnairesThere are four types of questionnaires. These are described in detail on the evaluation tool box website 68.2.4.1.1.1 Post-activity QuestionnairesPost-activity questionnaires incorporates a restricted range of questions that ask members to rate the effectiveness of assorted aspects of the activity. 2.4.1.1.2 Pre-then-post QuestionnairesQuestionnaires can be given to members prior and then afterward an intervention (pre and post) keeping in mind the end goal to think about their behaviors, practices, and household fitting and appliances. 2.4.1.1.3 Post-project QuestionnairesPost-project questionnaires by and large comprise of a set group of questions that ask members to self-provide details regarding the progressions they have undertaken or undergone as a result of participating in a project.2.4.1.1.4 Group Administered QuestionnairesA specimen of respondents is united and made a request to react to an organized succession of questions. Traditionally, questionnaires were managed in bunch settings for comfort. The specialist or researcher could give the questionnaire to those who were available and be genuinely certain that there would be a high reaction rate. In case the respondents were ambiguous about the question they could request for clarification and there were regularly authoritative settings where it was relatively simple to gather the group in a company or business, for instance.2.4.2 SurveysSurvey is the way to measurement the system. Survey research refers to “any estimation strategies that include asking questions of respondents” 49. Surveys can be divided into two general classes, the questionnaire and the interview. Questionnaires are basic tool having list of questions for collecting the information from the respondent. Interviews are finished by the interviewer in view of the respondent. Need and resource appraisals are important tools that can be utilized to establish the framework for a new program or to rebuild an established one 5152. A common question type utilized inside surveys is a Likert scale item developed by Rensis Likert, an American instructor and hierarchical analyst. Likert scales precise a member with a statement and they react by indicating their level of agreement to a statement which is then transposed to a number to facilitate the estimation and analytics process. Respondents have the capacity to give insight into existing programs, giving a background of those efforts 51. It is significantly something other than questions on a bit of paper. Build up a strategy for designing surveys that promotes several key features necessary for producing both quality and amount in responses 50. Propose to as the Tailored-Design Methodology (TDM), this approach is based around three basic concepts: survey procedure construction, error reduction, and positive social exchange 50.2.4.3 InterviewIs a kind of private meetings between people where questions are inquire and answers are given. The person who asks the question is called interviewer and the other person who responds is called interviewee. According to Thill and Bovee, “An interview is planed discussion with a particular reason including at least two or more people” 53. There are many kind of interviews that an association can organize. It depends on the objectives of taking the interview. 2.4.3.1 Personal InterviewPersonal interviews include selection of the employees. 2.4.3.2 Evaluation InterviewThe interviews which happen annually to check the improvement of the interviewer are called the evaluation interviews. 2.4.3.3 Structured InterviewStructured interviews have a bias to take after formal procedures, the interviewer follows a foreordained plan or questions.2.4.3.4 Unstructured InterviewAt the point when the interview does not take after the formal standards or procedures. It is called an unstructured interview. 2.4.3.5 Telephone InterviewInterviews that enable a researcher to collect the information rapidly. Most part of the real general conclusion surveys that are reported were based on phone interviews.2.4.4 Observation It is the process of watching something. The observer is the person who watches things carefully and gather the data or identify the mistake. In science, it is essential to mention objective facts with a specific end goal to disprove hypotheses using the scientific method, the step of hypothesizing, predicting, testing and closing in light of one’s perceptions. The scientific strategic requires perceptions of nature to plan and test hypotheses 54. It consists of these steps 55 56.Asking a question concerning a natural phenomenonMaking perceptions of the phenomenonHypothesizing a clarification for the phenomenonPredicting ; observable outcomes of the hypothesis that have not yet been exploredTesting the hypothesis’ predictions by an investigation, observational study, field study, or simulationForming a conclusion from information gathered in the test, or making a reexamined/new hypothesis and repeating the processWriting out a description of the strategy for perception and the outcomes or conclusions reachedReview of the outcomes with peers with experience researching the similar phenomenonOne issue experienced all through scientific fields is that the perception may influence the procedure being watched, bringing about an unexpected result in the event that the procedure was unobserved. It’s called the inspect or observer effect.2.5 Usability Evaluating ModelThere are three usability evaluation models.User-based EvaluationExpert-based EvaluationModel-based Evaluation2.5.1 User-based EvaluationIn user-based evaluation sets of task are given to the user to perform. When the user completes these tasks their speed of execution may be recorded and take data in the form of likes and dislikes through a survey or interview or asked user to describe their experience by using the system, issues can be recognized and again design advice can be determined. Lewis has demonstrated that the element size estimate is to great extent reliant on the type of errors one look to recognize and their relative probability of occurrence. Whereas 3 users may distinguish numerous issues in a new application or system 57.2.5.2 Expert-based EvaluationIn the expert-based method HCI expert inspects the system and identify the usability problems. There are two common evaluation methods are Heuristic evaluation and Cognitive Walkthrough 44. Both methods provide evaluators an organized technique for looking at and reporting problems with an interface 58.2.5.3 Model-based EvaluationIt is the process of predicting the usability measures and user performance with an interface by performing certain tasks. The most widely model-based approach to deal with usability is the GOMS model 59.Other two models are Task network model and cognitive architecture model.2.5.3.1 GOMS ModelThe GOMS model was initially proposed by Moran, Card and Newell in 1983. This technique is used to foresee the user experience in the complex and unpredictable situation while operating a system. The authors define GOMS model as “an arrangement of Goals, an arrangement of Operators, an arrangement of Methods for accomplishing the objectives, and an arrangement of Selection rules for picking among competing methods for goals” 60. In simple words, this model is used to observe the human behaviors in complex situations. This method is used by software designers because of the quantitative and qualitative forecasts of how user will utilize a proposed system. According to the GOMS Model person’s behavior is seen as far as four segments.Goals: what the person means to achieveOperators: are activities that are performed to achieve the objective.Methods: are arrangements of operators that achieve the objective.Selection: personal rules, used to depict when a user would choose a specific method over the others.Figure 9 GOMS models & their relationships 60There are four different GOMS modelsKLMCMN – GOMSNGOMSLCPM – GOMS2.5.3.1.1 KLMThe Keystroke-Level Model is the first and the simplest GOMS technique that is proposed in 1980 by Stuart Card, Thomas P. Moran and Allen Newell 61. It is used to foresee the user performance with completing the task using the system interface. KLM predicts to what extent it will take a specialist member to finish a task without any errors using an interactive computer system 61.This method is used to predict the task time to complete the task. KLM’s execution part is described below in four physical-motor operators: K keystroking/ key pressingP pointing with a mouse to a targetH homing the hand on the keyboardD drawing a line segment on a gridThe nature of the KLM analysis depends highly on the presumptions of the modeler. A few suspicions that may be considered in the making of a KLM are:The user is proficient in the territory and the system being analyzed. The user will start with her hands on the keyboard. The user is not interrupted during the tasks. The user knows about the hardware. The user’s system has basically instantaneous response time (or you will include a “Wait” operator). The user is a good typist and subsequently will take 0.12 seconds to press a key. This model is unsuited to investigating more abstract undertakings such as EDIT-MANUSCRIPT, which include conditionals and decomposition into sub objectives 69.2.5.3.1.2 CMN – GOMSCMN-GOMS is the original GOMS model proposed by Card, Moran and Newell in 1983. CMN-GOMS builds on KLM-GOMS by adding sub goals and selection rules 59. This model forecast the series of the operator and task time.According to Card et al. CMN-GOMS technique tries not to portray with an explicit “how to” guide, but their representation of nine models at various levels of detail illustrates a breadth-first expansion of an objective hierarchy until wanted the precise detail is achieved. Card et al. report brings about which such models anticipated operator sequences and execution times for text-editing tasks, operating system tasks, and the routine aspects of computer-aided VLSI layout 596162.CMN-GOMS is definitely not difficult to compose yet but the nonappearance of an explicit description of the strategy representation and mechanisms associated with the task execution implies that CMN-GOMS models are generally vague and unspecified compared with the following two GOMS techniques 63.2.5.3.1.3 NGOMSLThis technique was developed by David Kieras in 1988 63.This method is used to learn execution time that users can learn and implement tasks with the system. This is the structured natural language that is used to present the methods and selection rules. NGOMSL technique present cognitive theory known as cognitive complexity theory or CCT which display that GOMS does not have a solid premise in cognitive psychology. This cognitive theory allows NGOMSL to consolidate inward operators for example managing working memory data or defining up sub objectives. Because of this, NGOMSL can also be utilized to evaluate the time required to learn how to achieve tasks 64.2.5.3.1.4 CPM – GOMSCPM-GOMS was developed in 1988 by Bonnie John, a former student of Allen Newell 65. It is an emphasis on parallel activities and task is represented in a schedule diagram or chart. CPM-GOMS is also known as Critical-Path-Method GOMS. John and Gray construct CPM-GOMS models that expert start with a CMN-GOMS model of a work with operators at a level to such an extent that they are primarily perceptual READ-SCREEN, LISTEN-TOCUSTOMER or motor ENTER-COMMAND, GREET-CUSTOMER. These operators are then communicated as objectives and actualized with strategies of MHP-level operators. They created layout of the combo of MHP-level cognitive, perceptual and motor operators that actualize a wide range of activities-level goals under different task conditions 64.2.5.3.2 Task Network ModelAndrew stated that task execution is displayed in terms of a PERT chart-like network of processes. Each procedure begins when its essential procedures have been finished, and has an assumed distribution of completion times. This basic model can be increased with arbitrary computations to decide the completion time, and what its representative or numeric inputs and outputs 66.2.5.3.3 Cognitive Architecture ModelJulie A. Jacko stated that the systems comprise of an arrangements of hypothetical interacting perceptual, cognitive, and motor components through to be available in the human, and whose properties are depend on empirical and theoretical outcomes from scientific research in psychology and allied fields. Tasks are demonstrated basically by programming the cognitive component according to a task analysis, and afterward performance expectations are obtained by running the simulation using selected scenarios to produce the input events in the task. Because these systems are deliberate attempts to represent a theory of human psychological functions, they have a tendency to be rather complex, and are fundamentally utilized in essential research projects, there has been exceptionally experience in utilizing them in real design settings 67.CHAPTER 3Research MethodologyResearch is an intelligent and deliberate path for gathering helpful data on a specific theme. It is an approach to explore and discover the arrangements towards logical and social issues through target and precise investigation. A few research zones are dynamic, arduous and efficient to find, clear up realities, and overhaul certainties, occasions, practices and hypotheses.Researchers arrange their examination by detailing and characterizing an exploration issue. This causes them center the exploratory procedure with the goal that they can make inferences mirroring this present reality in the most ideal way.Research methodology is a science of studying how the research is to be carried out. Basically it contains information about procedures, methods and tools that used to extract, describe and predict the information 70.3.1 Types of research:On a more extensive viewpoint, all researches can be classified into two groups.Qualitative ResearchQuantitative Research3.1.1 Qualitative ResearchQualitative Research is essentially exploratory research. It is utilized to pick up a comprehension of hidden reasons, conclusions, and inspirations. It gives bits of knowledge into the issue or creates thoughts or theories for potential quantitative research. This research cannot be described in digits or numbers, it examines the why & how of decision making not just what, where and when.3.1.1.1 AdvantagesThere are some advantages of this research that is they produce rich, point by point information that leave the members’ viewpoints in place and give various settings to understanding the wonder under investigation. Data collection is easy because of its less restriction. Along these lines, subjective research can be utilized to distinctively show wonders or to lead cross-case comparisons and analysis of individuals or groups.3.1.1.2 DisadvantagesIt is more difficult to determine the validity and reliability of data. A user should have command on language which he/she want to use. There is more subjectivity involved in analyzing the data.3.1.2 Quantitative Research:Quantitative Research is utilized to measure the issue by method for producing numerical information or information that can be changed into usable insights. It is utilized to evaluate mentalities, assessments, practices, and other defined variables and generalize results from a larger sample population. Quantitative information gathering strategies are considerably more organized than Qualitative information accumulation techniques. Data collection methods include surveys, interviews, online polls and systematic observations.3.1.2.1 AdvantagesAllows the researcher to measure ; analyses data. Hypothesis can be examined in the form of statistics.3.1.2.2 DisadvantagesThe context of the examination or study is disregarded. This exploration does not include natural setting or discussion of the group. An extensive piece of the populace must be examined for adequate information accumulation.3.1.3 Applied ResearchApplied research is a methodology that tries to solve practical problems. Applied research belongs to experimental works, case studies and inter-disciplinary that is used to find solutions to everyday problems and develop innovative technologies. This research usually start by recognizing an issues that exists in the reality and after that conduct research in order to identify a solution.3.1.4 Basic ResearchAlso called pure research or fundamental research. This research is to improve the theories and gain our scientific knowledge base. Improved prediction and understanding of certain phenomena or behavior but does not seek to solve or treat these problems. It concentrates on disproving or supporting theories that clarify observed phenomena. 3.1.5 Correlational ResearchIn general, a correlational study is a quantitative method of research in which two factors and assesses the statistical relationship between them with little or then again no push to control extraneous variables 71.  Any 2 quantitative variables from a similar gathering of members can be correlated as long as you have numerical scores on these variables from the same participants 72.3.1.6 Descriptive ResearchAlso known as statistical research. Is a kind of research which includes watching and define the conduct of a subject without affecting it in any capacity. This method is use to obtain a general overview of the subject that discovering new meaning and describing what exists.3.1.7 Ethnographic ResearchIt is the study of people and cultures. It is intended to investigate social wonders where the specialist watches society from the perspective of the subject of the examination. Data collection is done through interviews, surveys and observation.3.1.8 Experimental ResearchIn this research the researcher keep up control over all factors that may influence the result of an experiment. In doing this, the specialist endeavors to decide or foresee what may happen. Steps involved in conducting an experimental study. Identify and define the problem. Formulate hypotheses conclude their on arrangements. Develop an exploratory design that represents all the components, conditions, and relations of the consequences.3.1.9 Exploratory ResearchThis research means directed for an issue that has not been obviously characterized. It decides the best research plan, information gathering technique and determination of subjects. Exploratory research design does not aim to provide decision making by themselves but they can merely explores the research topic with varying levels of depth.3.1.10 Grounded Theory ResearchThis approach is used to find problems that exist in substantive area and concern about to resolve these problems.3.1.11 Historical ResearchHistorical research empowers you to investigate and clarify the implications, stages and attributes of a wonder or process at a specific purpose of time previously. Researcher are keen on revealing occasions that happened previously. Our work is based on qualitative approach because we have to check the usability of different applications. For this purpose we have to collect data from large number of users and apply statistical analysis through SPSS. We have also provided solution which can be implemented in future. In Chapter 1, the methodology which we used in our research is already presented and discussed. Our research is applied in nature and we have used qualitative methods in it. It involves data collection, questionnaires, and data representation. After transformation of simple data into SPSS, we have to apply statistical analysis (e.g. Chi-square) test for our exploratory work. After this, we will check the usability and effectiveness of different mobile apps. Furthermore, we evaluate the results of Chi-Square test stated above and these are presented in next chapter. 3.2 Proposed MethodologyThis section is describing the way we adopted to carry out this research work. As for as this research concern is:Figure 10 Block diagram We used qualitative analysis method in which the data is collected via questionnaires. Then hypothesis is developed to verify presented approach. This hypothesis is tested through statistical analysis and results are exposed using in form of tables and graphs.3.2.1 Application SelectionFirst of all we selected the different android apps to conduct this study. We select those application we have also observe which apps are very popular in these days. After this we have select five applications for checking the usability of those apps. These apps include Imo, Facebook Messenger, Kik, Nimbuzz, WeChat and Soma3.2.2 Designing QuestionnairesFor the validation of presented approach we have design questionnaires. These are about features of different apps. Designed Questionnaire consists of 34 questions. Each question had five options (1 To 5) to be select as a response. 1 is used for low priority and 5 for highest priority.3.2.3 Data CollectionData collection is necessary requirement to represent the validity of our approach. For this purpose Questionnaires were distributed among different users that use android apps. For recording quality data questionnaires were distributed to those users that belong to different institute, university, and organization. 3.2.4 Data RepresentationCollected data should be in structured form different software’s are used for representation of data. The purpose of this task is to present the collected data in a way that can be analyzed easily. We have entered all data in SPSS by followed the rules of this software that is called prototyping. 3.2.5 Statistical AnalysisStatistical Analysis of recorded data was made using SPSS 17.0 Version. By using SPSS chi-Square test applied on data. It gave the true picture of presented approach by providing statistical results. 3.2.6 Proposed interfaceNew interface is purposed after getting the statistical result.Chapter 4Results and DiscussionsA Hypothesis is a proposed clarification of the event of some predetermined gathering as a beginning stage of advance examination. It depicts clarify or predicts the normal outcome or result of the research. Also shows the kind of research outline and study process. The hypothesis has many types, but the simplest hypothesis is one in which there is a relationship exists between two variables, one is called dependent variable and the other is called independent variable. The null hypothesis is one in which there is no significant difference between specified data. It is denoted by H0. The alternative hypothesis is one in which sample perceptions are impacted by some non-random cause. It is denoted by H1 or Ha. In our research we State the null and alternative hypothesis that is being tested.Null hypothesis (H0): All apps are associated. Alternative hypothesis (H1): All apps are not associated If the p-value is less than ? where ? = 0.05, we rejected our null hypothesis and consequently accepted alternative hypothesis. Our focus on chi-square value and symmetric measures. In symmetric measures table the contingency coefficients used to show the strength and the relationship between two variables. It is denoted by C. The value range between 0 to 1. If the value is closer to 0 its means low association and if the value is closer to 1 its means strong association between two variables relationship.4.1 Which application you use yourself?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 1 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 11 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to use yourselfThe multiple bar chart shows that 16 people about Imo say disagree, 7 say neutral, 33 say is agree and 5 say strongly agree or 24 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 2 say neutral, 35 say is agree or 23 people about Kik say disagree, 8 say neutral, 30 say agree or about Nimbuzz 1 say strongly disagree, 27 say disagree, 3 say neutral, 30 say agree and none say strongly agree or about Wechat none say strongly disagree, 24 say disagree, 2 say neutral, 35 say agree or 22 people about Soma say disagree, 13 say neutral, 26 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and use yourself so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and use yourself. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about use yourself also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.350 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.2 Is the application is complex to use?Table 2 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 12 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to complex to useThe multiple bar chart shows that 27 people about Imo say disagree, 29 say neutral, 5 say agree or 22 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 28 say neutral, 11 say is agree or 33 people about Kik say disagree, 13 say neutral, 15 say agree or about Nimbuzz 27 say disagree, 15 say neutral, 19 say agree and none say strongly agree or about Wechat none say strongly disagree, 31 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 13 say agree or 33 people about Soma say disagree, 23 say neutral, 5 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and complex to use so the results depicts that (0.002 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and use yourself. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about complex to use also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.267 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.3 Is application design for all ages of users?Table 3 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 13 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to design of all agesThe multiple bar chart shows that 21 people about Imo say disagree, 18 say neutral, 22 say agree and none say strongly agree or 27 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 18 say neutral, 16 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, 34 say agree or about Nimbuzz 16 say disagree, 12 say neutral, 33 say agree or about Wechat none say strongly disagree, 16 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 28 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 28 say neutral, 17 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and design for all ages so the results depicts that (0.002 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and design for all ages. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about design for all ages also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.268 which means there is low association between relationships.4.4 Is the application support both voice and video calls?Table 4 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 14 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to support callsThe multiple bar chart shows that 6 people about Imo say disagree, 17 say neutral, 33 say agree and 5 say strongly agree or 6 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 23 say neutral, 32 say is agree or none people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, 50 say agree or about Nimbuzz 6 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 44 say agree or about Wechat none say disagree, 17 say neutral, 44 say agree or none people about Soma say disagree, 22 say neutral, 39 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and support calls so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and support calls. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about support calls also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.367 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.5 It was simple to dial an audio or video calls?Table 5 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 15 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to dial callsThe multiple bar chart shows that 11 people about Imo say disagree, 17 say neutral, 27 say agree and 6 say strongly agree or 11 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 17 say neutral, 33 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 16 say neutral, 29 say agree or about Nimbuzz 11 say disagree, 16 say neutral, 34 say agree or about Wechat 26 say disagree, 12 say neutral, 23 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 17 say neutral, 28 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and dial calls so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and dial calls. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about dial calls also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.332 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.6 Does it tell about the status of audio or video calls?Table 6 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 16 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to status of callsThe multiple bar chart shows that 10 people about Imo say disagree, 12 say neutral, 39 say agree and none say strongly agree or 28 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, none say neutral, 33 say is agree or 11 people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, 39 say agree or about Nimbuzz 11 say disagree, 0 say neutral, 50 say agree or about Wechat 22 say disagree, 6 say neutral, 33 say agree or 23 people about Soma say disagree, 0 say neutral, 38 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and status of calls so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and status of calls. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about status of calls also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.363 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.7 Is the application support multiple video chats?Table 7 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 17 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to multiple video chatsThe multiple bar chart shows that 28 people about Imo say disagree, 17 say neutral, 16 say agree and none say strongly agree or 38 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 17 say neutral, 6 say is agree or 50 people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, none say agree or about Nimbuzz 50 say disagree, 5 say neutral, 6 say agree or about Wechat 28 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 16 say agree or 35 people about Soma say disagree, 10 say neutral, 16 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and multiple video chats so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and multiple video chats. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about multiple video chats also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.337 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.8 Does the dial or disconnect button is visible for audio or video calls?Table 8 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 18 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to button is visibleThe multiple bar chart shows that 16 people about Imo say disagree, 6 say neutral, 39 say agree and none say strongly agree or 28 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 6 say neutral, 27 say is agree or 22 people about Kik say disagree, 5 say neutral, 34 say agree or about Nimbuzz 21 say disagree, 0 say neutral, 40 say agree or about Wechat 5 say disagree, 12 say neutral, 44 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 6 say neutral, 39 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and button is visible so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and button is visible. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about button is visible also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.291 which means there is low association between relationships.4.9 Is the video quality is good for calls?Table 9 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 19 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to quality of callsThe multiple bar chart shows that 29 people about Imo say disagree, 21 say neutral, 11 say agree and none say strongly agree or 17 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 16 say neutral, 28 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 27 say neutral, 18 say agree or about Nimbuzz 23 say disagree, 23 say neutral, 15 say agree or about Wechat 17 say disagree, 16 say neutral, 28 say agree or 23 people about Soma say disagree, 12 say neutral, 26 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and quality of calls so the results depicts that (0.003 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and quality of calls. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about quality of calls also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.261 which means there is low association between relationships.4.10 Does noise disturb the quality of video calls?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 10 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 20 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to noise disturb callsThe multiple bar chart shows that none people about Imo say disagree, 5 say neutral, 56 say agree and none say strongly agree or none people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 5 say neutral, 56 say is agree or none people about Kik say disagree, 10 say neutral, 51 say agree or about Nimbuzz none say disagree, 11 say neutral, 50 say agree or about Wechat 5 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 45 say agree or none people about Soma say disagree, 5 say neutral, 56 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and noise disturb calls so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and noise disturb calls. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about noise disturb calls also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.288 which means there is low association between relationships.4.11 Is the video call support both front and back camera?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 11 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 21 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to support cameraThe multiple bar chart shows that 22 people about Imo say disagree, 11 say neutral, 28 say agree and none say strongly agree or 22 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, none say neutral, 39 say is agree or 11 people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, 39 say agree or about Nimbuzz 10 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 40 say agree or about Wechat 11 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 39 say agree or 11 people about Soma say disagree, 16 say neutral, 34 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and support camera so the results depicts that (0.001 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and support camera. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about support camera also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.270 which means there is low association between relationships.4.12 Does the camera support full screen?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 12 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 22 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to camera full screenThe multiple bar chart shows that 28 people about Imo say disagree, 16 say neutral, 11 say agree and 6 say strongly agree or 16 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 11 say neutral, 34 say is agree or 28 people about Kik say disagree, 22 say neutral, 11 say agree or about Nimbuzz 17 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 33 say agree or about Wechat 16 say disagree, 12 say neutral, 28 say agree and 5 say strongly agree or 17 people about Soma say disagree, 18 say neutral, 26 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and camera full screen so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and camera full screen. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about camera full screen also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.376 which means there is strong association between relationships.4.13 Are various video settings being available on video call screen?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 13 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 23 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to settings on screenThe multiple bar chart shows that 22 people about Imo say disagree, 5 say neutral, 34 say agree and none say strongly agree or 27 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 11 say neutral, 23 say is agree or 21 people about Kik say disagree, 12 say neutral, 28 say agree or about Nimbuzz 21 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 29 say agree or about Wechat 22 say disagree, 5 say neutral, 28 say agree and 6 say strongly agree or 32 people about Soma say disagree, none say neutral, 29 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and settings on screen so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and settings on screen. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about settings on screen also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.352 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.14 Should Video call support a pause option?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 14 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 24 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to pause optionThe multiple bar chart shows that 16 people about Imo say disagree, 16 say neutral, 29 say agree and none say strongly agree or 22 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 16 say neutral, 23 say is agree or 21 people about Kik say disagree, 17 say neutral, 23 say agree or about Nimbuzz 22 say disagree, 10 say neutral, 29 say agree or about Wechat 15 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 35 say agree or 26 people about Soma say disagree, 12 say neutral, 23 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and pause option so the results depicts that (0.288 > 0.05), there is association between apps and pause option. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about pause option not changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.178 which means there is low association between relationships.4.15 Should application support video messages?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 15 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 25 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to video messageThe multiple bar chart shows that 28 people about Imo say disagree, 10 say neutral, 23 say agree and none say strongly agree or 22 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 16 say neutral, 23 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, 34 say agree or about Nimbuzz 16 say disagree, 16 say neutral, 29 say agree or about Wechat 16 say disagree, 16 say neutral, 29 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 22 say neutral, 23 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and video message so the results depicts that (0.082 > 0.05), there is association between apps and video message. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about video message not changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.209 which means there is low association between relationships.4.16 Does the application adjust video settings, auto or manual?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 16 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 26 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to video settingsThe multiple bar chart shows that 23 people about Imo say disagree, 17 say neutral, 21 say agree and none say strongly agree or 23 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 28 say neutral, 10 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 17 say neutral, 28 say agree or about Nimbuzz 16 say disagree, 16 say neutral, 29 say agree or about Wechat 40 say disagree, 10 say neutral, 11 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 33 say neutral, 12 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and video settings so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and video settings. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about video settings also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.370 which means there is strong association between relationships.4.17 Does the application support video calls with slow internet speed?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 17 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 27 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to slow internet speedThe multiple bar chart shows that 30 people about Imo say disagree, 20 say neutral, 11 say agree and none say strongly agree or 23 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 27 say neutral, 11 say is agree or 27 people about Kik say disagree, 23 say neutral, 11 say agree or about Nimbuzz 34 say disagree, 22 say neutral, 5 say agree or about Wechat 38 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 6 say agree or 22 people about Soma say disagree, 28 say neutral, 11 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and slow internet speed so the results depicts that (0.131 > 0.05), there is association between apps and slow internet speed. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about slow internet speed not changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.199 which means there is low association between relationships.4.18 Is the tasks can be performed in a straight forward manner?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 18 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 28 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to tasks performedThe multiple bar chart shows that 16 people about Imo say disagree, 22 say neutral, 23 say agree and none say strongly agree or 16 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 12 say neutral, 33 say is agree or 10 people about Kik say disagree, 16 say neutral, 35 say agree or about Nimbuzz 16 say disagree, 16 say neutral, 5 say agree or about Wechat 12 say disagree, 20 say neutral, 29 say agree or 10 people about Soma say disagree, 29 say neutral, 22 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and tasks performed so the results depicts that (0.066 > 0.05), there is association between apps and tasks performed. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about tasks performed not changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.213 which means there is low association between relationships.4.19 Is error messages are show in the form of in text and sounds?Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 19 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 29 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to error message showThe multiple bar chart shows that 23 people about Imo say disagree, 16 say neutral, 22 say agree and none say strongly agree or 29 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 10 say neutral, 22 say is agree or 27 people about Kik say disagree, 34 say neutral, none say agree or about Nimbuzz 33 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 11 say agree or about Wechat 29 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 15 say agree or 23 people about Soma say disagree, 17 say neutral, 21 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and error message show so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and error message show. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about error message show also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.331 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.20 Does the application take time to recover in error situation?Table 20 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 30 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to recover in errorThe multiple bar chart shows that 15 people about Imo say disagree, 34 say neutral, 12 say agree and none say strongly agree or 16 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 33 say neutral, 12 say is agree or 32 people about Kik say disagree, 29 say neutral, none say agree or about Nimbuzz 21 say disagree, 34 say neutral, 6 say agree or about Wechat 21 say disagree, 34 say neutral, 6 say agree or 22 people about Soma say disagree, 22 say neutral, 17 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and recover in error so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and recover in error. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about recover in error also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.287 which means there is low association between relationships.4.21 Are the functions in the application were well integrated?Table 2 SEQ Table * ARABIC 1 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 31 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to functions integratedThe multiple bar chart shows that 16 people about Imo say disagree, 6 say neutral, 39 say agree and none say strongly agree or 22 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 18 say neutral, 21 say is agree or 17 people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, 33 say agree or about Nimbuzz 11 say disagree, 6 say neutral, 44 say agree or about Wechat 10 say disagree, 6 say neutral, 45 say agree or 29 people about Soma say disagree, 11 say neutral, 21 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and functions integrated so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and functions integrated. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about functions integrated also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.326 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.22 Is the navigation of the app reached the task?Table 22 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 32 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to navigation of appThe multiple bar chart shows that 5 people about Imo say disagree, 12 say neutral, 44 say agree and none say strongly agree or 10 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 6 say neutral, 45 say is agree or 5 people about Kik say disagree, 10 say neutral, 46 say agree or about Nimbuzz none say disagree, 20 say neutral, 41 say agree or about Wechat 6 say disagree, 21 say neutral, 34 say agree or 5 people about Soma say disagree, 22 say neutral, 34 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and navigation of app so the results depicts that (0.002 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and navigation of app. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about navigation of app also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.268 which means there is low association between relationships.4.23 Is application response in error situation?Table 23 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 33 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to response in errorThe multiple bar chart shows that 17 people about Imo say disagree, 22 say neutral, 22 say agree and none say strongly agree or 17 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 26 say neutral, 18 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 34 say neutral, 11 say agree or about Nimbuzz 10 say disagree, 28 say neutral, 23 say agree or about Wechat 16 say disagree, 24 say neutral, 21 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 16 say neutral, 29 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and response in error so the results depicts that (0.052 > 0.05), there is association between apps and response in error. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about response in error not changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.217 which means there is low association between relationships.4.24 Can user send any file during audio or video calls?Table 24 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 34 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to send fileThe multiple bar chart shows that 33 people about Imo say disagree, 17 say neutral, 11 say agree and none say strongly agree or 33 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 23 say neutral, 5 say is agree or 40 people about Kik say disagree, 16 say neutral, 5 say agree or about Nimbuzz 35 say disagree, 26 say neutral, none say agree or about Wechat 45 say disagree, 16 say neutral, none say agree or 29 people about Soma say disagree, 32 say neutral, none say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and send file so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and send file. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about send file also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.322 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.25 Does it tell about the status of messages?Table 25 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 35 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to status of messageThe multiple bar chart shows that 21 people about Imo say disagree, 11 say neutral, 29 say agree and none say strongly agree or 27 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 17 say neutral, 17 say is agree or 17 people about Kik say disagree, 5 say neutral, 39 say agree or about Nimbuzz 17 say disagree, 22 say neutral, 22 say agree or about Wechat 10 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 40 say agree or 21 people about Soma say disagree, 17 say neutral, 23 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and status of message so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and status of message. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about status of message also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.304 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.26 Is edit option is available after sending the message?Table 26 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 36 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to edit optionThe multiple bar chart shows that 6 people about Imo say strongly disagree, 27 say disagree 17 say neutral, 11 say agree and none say strongly agree or 6 people about Facebook Messenger say strongly disagree, 27 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 17 say is agree or 6 people about Kik say strongly disagree, 29 say disagree, 15 say neutral, 11 say agree or about Nimbuzz 6 say strongly disagree, 23 say disagree, 21 say neutral, 11 say agree or about Wechat 6 say strongly disagree, 22 say disagree, 22 say neutral, 11 say agree or 6 people about Soma say strongly disagree, 18 say disagree, 26 say neutral, 11 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and edit option so the results depicts that (0.548 > 0.05), there is association between apps and edit option. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about edit option not changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.190 which means there is low association between relationships.4.27 Does the application allow to delete the message?Table 27 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 37 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to delete the messageThe multiple bar chart shows that 6 people about Imo say disagree, 16 say neutral, 39 say agree and none say strongly agree or 11 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 11 say neutral, 39 say is agree or 10 people about Kik say disagree, 11 say neutral, 34 say agree, 6 strongly agree or about Nimbuzz 5 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 33 say agree, 6 strongly agree or about Wechat 11 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 27 say agree, 6 strongly agree or 5 people about Soma say disagree, 22 say neutral, 28 say agree, 6 strongly agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and delete the message so the results depicts that (0.028 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and delete the message. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about delete the message also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.262 which means there is low association between relationships.4.28 Is icons are used in appropriate way?Table 28 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 38 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to icons usedThe multiple bar chart shows that 33 people about Imo say disagree, 5 say neutral, 23 say agree and none say strongly agree or 34 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 16 say neutral, 11 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 39 say neutral, 6 say agree or about Nimbuzz 16 say disagree, 28 say neutral, 17 say agree or about Wechat 23 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 21 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 29 say neutral, 16 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and icons used in appropriate way so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and icons used in appropriate way. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about icons used in appropriate way also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.378 which means there is strong association between relationships.4.29 Does each window have the same color combination?Table 29 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 39 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to window color combinationThe multiple bar chart shows that 27 people about Imo say disagree, 5 say neutral, 29 say agree and none say strongly agree or 27 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 23 say neutral, 11 say is agree or 23 people about Kik say disagree, 28 say neutral, 10 say agree or about Nimbuzz 18 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 26 say agree or about Wechat none say disagree, 22 say neutral, 39 say agree or 22 people about Soma say disagree, 28 say neutral, 11 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and window color combination so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and window color combination. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about window color combination also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.422 which means there is strong association between relationships.4.30 I can use it successfully every time?Table 30 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 40 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to use it successfullyThe multiple bar chart shows that 28 people about Imo say disagree, 2 say neutral, 31 say agree and none say strongly agree or 28 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 6 say neutral, 27 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 17 say neutral, 28 say agree or about Nimbuzz 22 say disagree, 5 say neutral, 34 say agree or about Wechat 17 say disagree, 6 say neutral, 38 say agree or 15 people about Soma say disagree, 30 say neutral, 16 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and use it successfully so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and use it successfully. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about use it successfully also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.399 which means there is strong association between relationships.4.31 I easily remember how to use it?Table 31 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 41 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to remember to useThe multiple bar chart shows that 11 people about Imo say disagree, 5 say neutral, 45 say agree and none say strongly agree or 6 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 27 say neutral, 28 say is agree or 17 people about Kik say disagree, 22 say neutral, 22 say agree or about Nimbuzz 21 say disagree, 22 say neutral, 18 say agree or about Wechat 16 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 28 say agree or 22 people about Soma say disagree, 12 say neutral, 27 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and remember to use so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and remember to use. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about remember to use also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.332 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.32 I like using the interface of this application?Table 32 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 42 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to interface of the appThe multiple bar chart shows that 28 people about Imo say disagree, 11 say neutral, 22 say agree and none say strongly agree or 28 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 6 say neutral, 27 say is agree or 27 people about Kik say disagree, 12 say neutral, 22 say agree or about Nimbuzz 27 say disagree, 6 say neutral, 28 say agree or about Wechat 37 say disagree, 6 say neutral, 18 say agree or 16 people about Soma say disagree, 6 say neutral, 39 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and interface of the app so the results depicts that (0.008 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and interface of the app. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about interface of the app also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.247 which means there is modest association between relationships.4.33 Is the application was easy to use?Table 33 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 43 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to easy to useThe multiple bar chart shows that 32 people about Imo say disagree, 6 say neutral, 23 say agree and none say strongly agree or 17 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 22 say neutral, 22 say is agree or 6 people about Kik say disagree, 17 say neutral, 38 say agree or about Nimbuzz 22 say disagree, 17 say neutral, 22 say agree or about Wechat 16 say disagree, 35 say neutral, 10 say agree or 22 people about Soma say disagree, 17 say neutral, 22 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and easy to use so the results depicts that (0.000 < 0.05), there is no association between apps and easy to use. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about easy to use also changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.376 which means there is strong association between relationships.4.34 Overall, I am satisfied with this application?Table 34 with Chi-Square Test & Symmetric MeasuresFigure 44 multiple bar charts of apps with respect to overall satisfied The multiple bar chart shows that 21 people about Imo say disagree, 7 say neutral, 33 say agree and none say strongly agree or 23 people about Facebook Messenger say disagree, 8 say neutral, 30 say is agree or 16 people about Kik say disagree, 12 say neutral, 33 say agree or about Nimbuzz 21 say disagree, 13 say neutral, 27 say agree or about Wechat 26 say disagree, 11 say neutral, 23 say agree, 1 say strongly agree or 18 people about Soma say disagree, 19 say neutral, 24 say agree.Chi-Square test is applied to check the association between apps and overall satisfied so the results depicts that (0.204 > 0.05), there is association between apps and overall satisfied. Generally means with the change of apps the responses about overall satisfied not changed.In contingency coefficient the value is 0.223 which means there is low association between relationships.4.35 Gender PercentageTable 35 gender PercentageFigure 45 multiple bar charts shows the frequency of genderThe multiple bar charts shows that 49.2 % are females or 50.8 % are males who have filled the questionnaires.4.36 Can Heuristic Evaluation make applications more user-friendly?In a heuristic evaluation led by Jakob Nielsen comes out showed different evaluators recognized different numbers and types of usability problems. In this manner, it is highly suggested that different evaluators are utilized in a heuristic evaluation to ensure the most possible identification rate so these usability issues can be solved before the final design is produced. Heuristics can enable the evaluators to concentrate on specific issues. Heuristics can help identify usability problems in designs with individual components and how they impact the overall user experience. It can give some quick and reasonable feedback to designers. You can obtain feedback early in the design process. You can utilize it together with other usability testing methodologies.4.37 Is the heuristic evaluation method can be easily deployable during the product development stage?As we discuss early about the evaluations are normally divided into two categories. Formative Evaluation & Summative Evaluation. But there are three stages of product development. Product before and after development. Product during development. The Summative usability evaluation methods (SEMs) are used before and after product development. These methods are used to assess overall quality of a finished interface and the Formative evaluation methods (FEMs) are used during product development. These methods help in improving interface design. We can easily apply the heuristic evaluation method in these stages for the improvement of the interface. After getting the result we analyzed that most of the people like the interface of Imo, facebook messenger and wechat application. Most of the people says that it easy to dial audio and video calls and its shows the status of incoming and outgoing calls. Message window style of apps should also ease so that the opinion of peoples also changed by changing the application. People like the video quality of facebook messenger and wechat, but they are also agreeing with that the noise that disturbed the video calls.Most of the application does not support video calls with slow internet speed. Most of the people face difficulties regarding audio and video calls settings. They want hold option in video calls and waiting for the new feature in the form of video message. In imo we found the problem that is when you type the message it will show to the sending user without sending the message. User also faced the problem in all apps that is voice gets repeated sometimes during the call. People like the feature of multiple video chats in soma, wechat and imo. Highly responsive behaviors of applications are also necessary. Mostly people like features that are visible on the main page they want quick response. They never bother to find different options inside sub features. They liked that functions are well integrated and they easily remember to use it. Despite the fact that methodological investigation, we need to enhance an interface of application that introduced in proposed procedure.Chapter 5Proposed Framework The aim of the proposed framework is to evaluate the application interface and help us to improve the application interface according to user needs and preferences. This framework is divided into four phases.General FactorEvaluation Process Result GenerationMake Suggestion after ResultsFigure 46 Proposed frameworkThese phases are describe below in detail.5.1 General FactorFirst step is to select the assessment method that can be applied for the evaluation of the usability of interfaces. At that point user characterizes them as per an arrangement of highlights features. For the purpose of understanding, we recognize basically five principle highlights. 5.1.1 Project PlanningIn project planning the project goals should be identified and make a plan to carry out the usability evaluation.5.1.2 Important aspects of the systemIt helps system assessment by deciding the essential parts of a system. Which describe the main functionality of the system that is mandatory to evaluate.5.1.3 Evaluation procedureWhich techniques are most suited to evaluate the features.5.1.4 Evaluation SettingsCheck the user performance in the form of age, gender and experience. Also check that which devices are used to run the system and the stage of the development process.5.1.5 The ParticipantWho is engaged with the assessment procedure. Is the evaluator is expert or novice.5.2 Evaluation Process After getting the information in phase 1 the next step is the evaluation process. In this phase, user needs for quality his/her level of fulfillment with the proposed class of techniques through a survey. The questionnaire is designed to evaluate the system. User rating depends on 5 points with the scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree.5.3 Result GenerationThis is the third stage in which we analyze the data. Low rating implies low framework, ease of use while high evaluating recommends a higher level of framework ease of use. The sum of all appraisals gives a single usability score of the framework. 5.4 Make Suggestion after ResultsThis is the last phase in which some suggestion is given for future developments and improvements of the system after the findings from the evaluation of the system’s weaknesses. This Propose framework help us to identify usability problems and improves the user interface. CHAPTER 6Conclusion and Future workThe design of a UI is the central point that decides the user experience and the user’s choice on whether to continue utilizing a specific product or plentiful it. In this way, there has been a very substantial research exertion done in the UI plan and assessment territory. This research covers the different evaluation techniques used to evaluate the user interface design to improve the UI. In this research, we checked the usability of various android applications. Usability is used to check how much an application is simple being used. We observed that people are emphatically concurred with that interface, which is anything but difficult to utilize.There are some points that we have extracted such as: People want a new function of video message just like a voice message they send to each other.Most of the applications do not support multiple video chats.In soma app the person is not available on the internet and when you call this person, it can’t display any message that he is not available.The user wants a hold option during video calls. User can not send their data during call they want to introduce this feature to send their data during the call.Any individual who has saved your telephone number and is utilizing a similar application can download your profile picture. It is anything but not difficult to get one’s number nowadays, so this option should discard.The aim of the proposed framework is to evaluate the application interface and help us to improve the application interface according to user needs and preferences. In future we can automate this proposed framework that reduces the time and provide better interaction with the system to enhance the application interface as per user needs and inclinations.References1 Wang, Jianfeng, and Sylvain Senecal. “Measuring perceived website usability.” Journal of Internet Commerce 6.4 (2007): 97-112.2Leavitt, Michael O., and Ben Shneiderman. “Research-based web design & usability guidelines.” US Department of Health and Human Services (2006).3Albert, William, and Thomas Tullis. Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Newnes, 2013.4Albert, William, Thomas Tullis, and Donna Tedesco. Beyond the usability lab: Conducting large-scale online user experience studies. Morgan Kaufmann, 2009.5Yáñez Gómez, Rosa, Daniel Cascado Caballero, and José-Luis Sevillano. “Heuristic evaluation on mobile interfaces: A new checklist.” The Scientific World Journal 2014 (2014).6Nielsen, Jakob, and Rolf Molich. “Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2013.7TruTower. (2017, May 15).  Retrieved  from http://www. trutower.com/imo 8 Zhang, Lucy (August 12, 2011). “Building Facebook Messenger”. Facebook Engineering. Facebook. Retrieved March 24, 2017.9″Chat Heads come to Facebook Messenger for Android”. The Verge. Vox Media. April 12, 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2017.10 Statt, Nick (December 19, 2016). “Facebook Messenger now lets you video chat with up to 50 people”. The Verge. Vox Media. Retrieved March 25, 2017.11Wang, Jianfeng, and Sylvain Senecal. “Measuring perceived website usability.” Journal of Internet Commerce 6.4 (2007): 97-112.12Leavitt, Michael O., and Ben Shneiderman. “Research-based web design & usability guidelines.” US Department of Health and Human Services (2006).13M. O. Leavitt and B. Shneiderman, “Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines,” Washington: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 2006.14 Kik. (2017, May 17).  Retrieved  from http://www. kik.com/about/15  “Kik Messenger Gets off to a Good Start After October Relaunch”. ThirdAge. November 4, 2010. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved December 17, 2010.16 Motorola il iDEN. “Kik Messenger app blows past 1 million users”. Intomobile.com. Retrieved December 17, 2010.17″Kik Codes launch on Kik Messenger, making it easier to connect with people | TruTower”. TruTower. Retrieved 2015-12-17.18 “Nimbuzz reaches 150 million users”. Telecompaper.com. 15 March 2013. Retrieved 6 June 2013.19 thenextweb. (20 May 2017) Retrieved from https://thenextweb.com/in/2013/10/22/nimbuzz-launches-low-cost-international-calling-in-india-aiming-to-disrupt-a-1-5-billion-industry/#.tnw_BqcnS95Y20 Russell, Jon (24 April 2014). “Nimbuzz targets Skype with deal to pre-install its app on LG devices, with 100 minutes of free calls”. TheNextWeb. Retrieved 30 September 2016.21 Butcher, Mike (15 March 2013). “Nimbuzz Hits 150M Emerging Market Users, Puts The Heat on Facebook in Asia”. TechCrunch. Retrieved 3 July 2013.22 Kanal, Nishtha (16 March 2013). “Nimbuzz reaches 150 million worldwide user mark”. Tech2. Retrieved 3 July 2013.23  “Nimbuzz Planning to Join Asia Chat App Wars”. Tech in Asia. 17 December 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2013.24 Wee, Willis (31 May 2013). “Nimbuzz Dominates India and Middle East”. Tech in Asia. Retrieved 3 June 2013.25 “Nimbuzz Support”. Nimbuzz. Retrieved 3 June 2013.26 “Tencent reports 58% profit surge on strong Q1 driven by WeChat and gaming”. TechNode. 18 May 2017.27 It’s time for messaging apps to quit the bullshit numbers and tell us how many users are active. techinasia.com. January 23, 2014. Steven Millward.28 How China Is Changing Your Internet – The New York Times on YouTube Published on Aug 9, 201629″SOMA Messenger: Free Calling, Messaging App Launches on Mobile”. Adweek. Brandy Shaul. Retrieved 27 September 2015.30 “Saudi Arabia goes wild for new messaging app SOMA”. alarabiya.net. Nicolla Hewitt. Retrieved 27 September 2015.31 “SOMA Messenger recently launched for mobile”. Brus Media. Retrieved 2015-12-24.32″Soma – the world’s fastest messenger – Start4app”. Start4app (in Polish). Retrieved 2015-12-24.33Hornbæk, K. and L.E. Lai-Choong 2007. Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures. ACM, pp: 617-626. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).2002. ISO 9241-11, ISO 9126.34ISO/IEC. 2000. ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices. Tech. rep. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. 35AS/NZS_4216 (1994). Information technology—Software product evaluation—Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use. Homebush NSW 2140 Australia, Wellington 6001 New Zealand, Australian/New Zealand Standard.36Bruno, Vince, and Ghassan Al-Qaimari. “Usability attributes: An initial step toward effective user-centred development.” (2004).37Krug, S. (2000). Don’t make me think! : A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. Indianapolis, Ind., Que.38Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston, Academic Press.39Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer-interaction. Reading, Mass, Addison Wesley Longman.40Shackel, B. (1981). The concept of usability. Proceedings of IBM Software and Information Usability Symposium, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA, IBM Corporation.41E.Folmer and J.Bosch. “Architecting for Usability: A Survey,” Journal of Systems and Software, Issue 70-1, January 2004, pp. 61-78.42  Nielsen, Jakob (1994). Usability Engineering. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 115–148. ISBN 0-12-518406-9.43R. Molich, and J. Nielsen, ” Improving a human-computer dialogue,” Communications of the ACM 33: 3 (March, 1990), 338-348. 44J. Nielsen, Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25-62). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.45Polsom P., Lewis, C., Rieman, J., and Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory-based evahtation of user interfaces. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 36,5, 741–773. 46Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C,, and Poison, P. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R. L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley ; Sons, New York, 105–140.47C. Wharton et al. “The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner’s guide” in J. Nielsen ; R. Mack “Usability Inspection Methods” pp. 105-140.48BIAS, R. (1994): The pluralistic usability walkthrough: Coordinated empathies. In Usability inspection methods. NIELSEN, J. and MACK, R.L. (eds.). New York, Wiley. pp. 63-76.49Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Survey research. In Research Methods Knowledge Base.50Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, ; L. M. Christian. (2014). Internet, mail, phone, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.51Mertens, D. M., ; A. T. Wilson. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York: Guilford Press.52Rossi, P. H., M. W. Lipsey, ; H. E. Freeman. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.53John V. Thill, Courtland L. Bovee (2016). Excellence in Business Communication. Pearson.54 Kosso, Peter (2011). A Summary of Scientific Method. Springer. p. 9. ISBN 9400716133.55Mendez, Carl Cedrick L.; Heller, H. Craig; Berenbaum, May (2009). Life: The Science of Biology, 9th Ed. USA: Macmillan. pp. 13–14. ISBN 1429219629.56Shipman, James; Wilson, Jerry D.; Todd, Aaron (2009). Introduction to Physical Science, 12th Ed. Cengage Learning. p. 4. ISBN 0538731877.57Lewis, J (1994) Sample sizes for usability studies: additional considerations. Human Factors, 36(2) 368-378.58Wharton, C. Rieman, J.. Lewis, C. and Polson, P. (1994) The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A Practitioner’s Guide. In J. Nielsen and R. Mack (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods (New York: Wiley) 105-140.59Card, S., Moran, T. and Newell, A. (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. (Hillsdale NJ: LEA.)60Card, Stuart; Thomas P. Moran; Allen Newell (1983). The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-89859-859-1.61Card, Stuart; Thomas P. Moran; Allen Newell (1980). The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.1145/358886.358895. ISBN 0-13-444910-X.62John, Bonnie E., and David E. Kieras. “The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: Comparison and contrast.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 3.4 (1996): 320-351.63Kieras, David (1988). “Towards a practical GOMS model methodology for user interface design”. In Martin Helander. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. pp. 135–157. ISBN 0-444-88673-7.64Kieras, D. E. “GOMS Modeling of User Interfaces using NGOMSL.” In Proceeding of CHI 199465Gray, Wayne D.; John,Bonnie E.; Atwood, Michael E. (1992). “The Precis of Project Ernestine or an overview of a validation of GOMS”. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. doi:10.1145/142750.142821. ISBN 0897915135.66Sears, Andrew, and Julie A. Jacko, eds. Human-computer interaction: Development process. CRC Press, 2009.67Sears, Andrew, and Julie A. Jacko, eds. Human-computer interaction: Development process. CRC Press, 2009 a.68″Evaluationtoolbox”. (3 June 2017). Retrieved from http://evaluationtoolbox.net.au/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=154 69″GMOS”. (7 June 2017). Retrieved from https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2002/ cmsc838s/ tichi/ printer/ goms.html.70S . Rajasekar, P. Philominathan and V. Chinnathambi. “Research methodology.” arXiv preprint physics/0601009 (2006). 71″Opentext”. (20 Aug 2017). Retrieved from https://www.opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter /correlational-research72″Capilanou”. (27 Oct 2017). Retrieved from https://www.capilanou.ca/psychology/student-resources/research-guidelines/Correlational-Research-Guidelines/