Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computer Standards & Interfaces

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /cs i

An investigation on Ribbon interface design guidelines for people withless computer literacy

Ali Darejeh a,⁎, Dalbir Singh b

a School of Computer Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysiab School of Computer Science, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, National University of Malaysia, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

⁎ Corresponding author at: Unit 17-12, APT Parkview, NLumpur, Malaysia.Tel.: +60 177776807.

E-mail addresses: alidarejeh@msn.com (A. Darejeh), dURL: http://www.alidarejeh.com (A. Darejeh).

0920-5489/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2014.01.006

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 July 2013Received in revised form 30 December 2013Accepted 10 January 2014Available online 21 January 2014

Keywords:Ribbon interfaceAmateur and novice usersSoftware usability

In the recent years, there is an intense competition between software development companies to design betterinterfaces. In this marketing rat race, Ribbon interface came to make software user interface easier. After the in-troduction of Ribbon by Microsoft, it was widely used by various software development companies. Ribbon is areplacement for menus and toolbars and it tends to organize tools in tabs based on their similarities. AlthoughRibbon interface has many advantages, previous researches have shown that there are serious usability issuesthat hinder usage of Ribbon interfaces for users with less computer literacy. In order to solve Ribbon interfacesusability issues, this study tried to introduce Ribbon interface design guidelines by focusing on the issues relatedto users with less computer literacy. In this study two separate sets of moderated (in-person) usability testingwere used. The first set evaluated the usability issues of an experimental Ribbon interface software in terms ofboth visual and cognitive issues. The second setwas used to evaluate the Ribbon interface prototype thatwas de-signed based on the discovered usability issues in the first usability test. In order to ensure the validity of the data,the researchers tried to triangulate the data collection process by collecting data from different sources, namely,quantitativemeasurement of participants' performance, direct observation, and interview. Based on the compar-ison of the usability tests results which points out the factors that have led to participants' performance improve-ment in the prototype version, a number of guidelines are extracted for Ribbon interfaces. These guidelines areapplicable toMicrosoft Office, Microsoft SharePoint andmost of the software that can be developedwith Ribboninterface. Putting these guidelines into action, self-learningwould be promoted and learning issues of users withless computer literacy would be decreased.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Software development companies need to release a new version oftheir products periodically to ensure their survivability. However,whether there are any significant differences between the features ofthe newer version in comparison with the previous version. It can besaid that inmany software themost significant differences are in the in-terface rather than in features and user interface has an important rolein softwaremarketability. One of the best examples that could illustratethe influence of user interface on the product marketability is reflectedon Microsoft (MS) Windows and Microsoft Office. Smith [1], comparedMicrosoft Office 2010 with its prior version and found no significantdifference in their abilities and tools. In addition, Grabham's [2] studyon Windows 7 with Windows 8 showed the same results. It can besaid that designing user interface is one of the most important aspectsin software marketability.

Introduction of Ribbon by Microsoft in Office 2007 caused a signifi-cant change in user interface design. After the introduction of Ribbon,

O5Cangkat Perak, 50250, Kuala

albir@ftsm.ukm.my (D. Singh).

ghts reserved.

soon it became widely used by other software development companiessuch as Autodesk and Teach Smith. Ribbon interface is a replacementfor menus and toolbars. In this kind of interface, tools are organized intabs based on their similarities and only one menu, namely Applicationbutton, exists to present functions such as “New”, “Open”, “Save”,“Print” and “Options” [3]. MS Office and MS SharePoint are two widelyused examples of Ribbon interface software. Fig. 1 shows elements ofRibbon interface.

Using Ribbon in software user interface has many advantages suchas making the software interface organized by categorizing commandsand tools in fixed-width tabs that just occupy a narrow strip of softwareworking area. Another advantage is that it can shrink similar tools auto-matically based on the screen size. Furthermore, Ribbon interface showsminimum number of tabs at any given time since it has three differenttypes of tab. These three types of tabs are a) core tabs that are alwaysdisplayed, b) contextual tabs, which are displayed only when a particu-lar object is selected and c) modal tabs that are displayed with a partic-ular temporary mode [3]. Despite all the benefits of Ribbon, there arestill research issues pertaining to the usage of Ribbons. Issues such asthe existence of too many core tabs in every view [4] and organizationof tools in the tabs that are not based on a specific structure [5]. Theseissues can cause difficulties for users with less computer literacy.

Fig. 1. Elements of Ribbon interface.

809A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

These users are people in different ages who do not have computerbackground information.

Since the new version ofmany useful software such asMSOffice andAutoCAD is developed with the use of Ribbon interface, the researchersdecided to conduct this study with the purpose of introducing user in-terface design guidelines for Ribbon interfaces. This will increase soft-ware usability and users learning ability by focusing on the issuesrelated to users with less computer literacy in different ages.

2. A review on the related literature

2.1. Research issues pertaining to Ribbon interface design

In Microsoft Developer Network [3] some guidelines are presentedto increase usability of Ribbon interfaces. These guidelines cover topicssuch as: a) kinds of software that can be developed with the use ofRibbon interface b) the correct way of grouping the commands andtools in tabs, c) categorizing commands in application button andd) naming tabs and commands. Although developers use these guide-lines in Ribbon interface design, there are still usability issues withRibbon interface that current guidelines cannot solve. According toKeizer [6] after the release of Office 2010, enterprise IT professionalsstill think the Ribbon interface is confusing and in contrast withMicrosoft's claim about solving its training issues, it still has usability is-sues. Wildam [5], as a software developer, believes that organization oftools in software tabs with Ribbon interface is not based on a specificrule. Kyd [4] found that since there are many tabs in every softwareand users have to learn all of them; they will never truly know theRibbon structure and the place of tools. In line with Kyd, Tabrizi [7]mentioned that learning Ribbon interface seemed to be difficult fornew users and also professional ones, since they had to memorize thehierarchy of tab names, group names and the commands. Furthermore,shrinking of Ribbon based on screen size and hiding some tools canmake users confused.

According to the mentioned researches, Ribbon interface structureneeds fundamental changes to become usable for all users especiallyusers with less computer literacy. The changes that decrease numbersof tabs and arrange tools in tabs in a more logical way.

2.2. User interface design techniques for users with less computer literacy

Users with less computer literacy are large group of users who donot have any computer background information and working experi-encewith computer or other digital devices. This lack of computer back-ground information can occur because of users' age, their life style ortheir mental and physical disorders. This kind of users cannot use com-puter easily and someof themget disappointed to use computer in theirdaily life. Therefore, finding their needs and designing software basedon their background knowledge and preferences can help them over-come their lack of computer knowledge anduse computer normally. Ac-cording to Madiah and Hisham [8] to ensure that software can be usedeasily, it is important to know the user's preferences for user interfacedesign. In the field of user interface design for users with less computerliteracy many researches were done especially on elders and children.

Reviewing these researches can help in discovering techniques thatcan be used in Ribbon interface design.

2.2.1. User interface design techniques for elder peopleElder people cannot adapt themselves to every user interface design

since they do not have any computer background from their childhoodand young era, therefore, we should not expect them to learn softwarelike young people with computer background [9,10]. Furthermore,in elder ages some human abilities decrease such as “Cognition (Atten-tion, Memory), Motivation (Attitudes, Beliefs, Fears, Anxiety), Physical(Movement, Balance, Locomotion, Joints), and Perception (Vision andAudition)” [11,12]. These problems can hinder elder from learningand using the new technologies. According to Holzinger et al. [13] andMukasa et al. [14] perfect software will not be accepted by elderly ifit does not adapt to their abilities and needs. Ziefle and Bay [15] showedthat elderly performance can be the same as younger users when usingapplications with low complexity. Furthermore, Demiris et al. (2004)mentioned that there is no evidence that elder people resist new tech-nologies and do not like to use them. An appropriate software interfacecan encourage them to take advantage of computers more (cited inGoodman and Lundell [16]).

In order to help elder people overcome their problems and use com-puter software easily, many guidelines are proposed for interface de-signers. Holzinger et al. [10], Holzinger et al. [17], Holzinger et al. [13],Melenhorst et al. [18], Hsu [19] and Mynatt et al. [20] suggested thatfinding elders' mental model and designing interface based on their re-quirements, preferences and thought can increase software acceptance,usability and decrease frustration. For designing based on elders'mentalmodel, designers should put focus on users' communication methods,symbology and physical aspects of design such as size, manipulability,simplicity and clarity (Holzinger1 et al. [10]). Based on Holzinger et al.[11] to overcome elders' cognitive and memorization problems reduc-ing the number of distracting components and consistency between in-terface elements is required. Consistency is defined as avoiding to usedifferent words, situations and actions (Sambasivan and Jackson [21]).Furthermore, Holzinger et al. [11] suggested that using easy layoutand large elements can help elders overcome the physical problemsand use the software easily.

According toDickinson et al. [22] software can offermany benefits tothe elderly people, however, it is impossible without an easy interface.He suggested that for increasing the tendency of elder users to use com-puters, our interfaces should have characteristics such as “simplifiedinterface, reduced clutter on the screen, reduction of terminology,clear and simple navigation paths, and a particular type of help”. Sayagoand Blat [23] approved Dickinson et al. [22] by suggesting designingtechniques such as easy layout, using large font, proper icons and de-scriptive texts. Schröder and Ziefle [24] mentioned that using propericons in interface can solve age-related issues for elderly. Icons shouldbe designed based on familiar context and should be visually simpleto be easily understood by both younger and older users. Based onWirtz et al. [12] elder users needmore descriptive texts to identify soft-ware components and correct mistakes. Furthermore, we should avoidusing computer terminology, however, if terminology is needed to beused, the terms should be explained [10]. Stickel et al. [25] indicatedthat the degree of software esthetic has direct influence on software

810 A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

usability and user satisfaction. Software esthetic can be increased by de-creasing visual complexity which is defined as the amount of elementsand the diversity of these elements.

2.2.2. User interface design techniques for childrenChildren, like adults, have tendency to use computer to perform

their works [26]. However, an appropriate user interface design is need-ed to satisfy computer needs of children. Since children's cognition, at-tention and reasoning capabilities are limited to understand thecomplex concepts and logical thinking abilities are not fully developed;therefore, we should not design complex user interfaces for them [26].According to Khanum and Trivedi [27] testing usability of applicationswhich are developed for children ismore challenging than the other ap-plications. Since in usability test for children, it is important to considertheir psychological and behavioral aspects, therefore, selected usabilityevaluationmethod should let the children to express emotion, thoughts,and opinions during usability test. It can be concluded that involvingchildren in interface design including analysis, design and evaluationphases can increase software usability significantly [27,28,29,30].

There are many techniques in order to design usable interface forchildren. Grammenos et al. [31] conducted a research on designinguser interface for children. The study approved the following claimsby previous researchers: It is necessary to a) use highly visual menusand icons for children to understand the software since young childrencannot read (Wilson, 1988 cited in Grammenos et al. [31]), b) “create anopen learning systemwhich can be adapted to children preferences andcultural background” (Jonassen et al., 1993 cited in Grammenos et al.[31]), c) create interactive user interface by using animation, soundand message boxes (Norman 1988; Cooper, 1995 cited in Grammenoset al. [31]), d) create an environment which has many guidelines andcan control their input to prevent errors and e) design software in away that it does not need combination keys of mouse and keyboard.Wook and Salim [32],Wook et al. [33] andWook and Salim [34] indicat-ed that interface layout and terminologies should adapt to childrenabilities, otherwise they will get confused to work with software. Fur-thermore, designing easy interface and using elements such as avatarand 3D objects are practical solutions to increase children learnability[35]. Nielsen [36] indicates that children a) like animation and sound,b) prefer to see texts with 14 point font size, c) do not like to readtext, and d) like to try many options. In line with Nielsen, Nam [37]gave some suggestions for designing user interface for children. Heputs emphasis on a) reducing the amount of text, replacing it with asimple picture, icon or voice, b) reducing the number of components,and c) putting some brief tutorial for each tool.

2.3. User interface design techniques and Ribbon interface optimization

Reviewing the literature showed that to design interface for userwith less computer literacy, it is important to consider their backgroundknowledge, preferences and limitation including mental and physical.In order to help this kind of users to overcome their limitation and usecomputer normally, there are six major design techniques that user in-terface designers should take into account: a) reduce software complex-ity by reducing the number of features available at any given time,b) design an easy layout such that it does not need investigation forfinding tools, c) avoid using computer terms and using names thatare familiar to all of users, d) use enough descriptive texts to informusers about software features especially for elderly users, e) use appro-priate graphical objects such as avatar or icons for increasing softwareattraction especially for children, and f) use large components, iconsand fonts. Based on the literature, since the mentioned techniquescan solve the software usability issues for users with less computer lit-eracy, considering them in Ribbon interface design may enable us to in-crease the usability of these kinds of software for this group of users.Furthermore, the literature showed that by involving users in interfacedesign process including analysis, design and evaluation phases, we

can adapt Ribbon interfaces to users' abilities and increase usabilitysignificantly.

3. Research approach

In this study two separate sets of moderated (in-person) usabilitytesting were used. Moderate usability testingmethods are the methodsthat are performed face to face [38]. The first set evaluated the usabilityissues of experimental Ribbon interface software in terms of both visualand cognitive issues. The second set was used to evaluate the proposedRibbon interface thatwas designed based on the discovered usability is-sues in the first usability test. In order to ensure the validity of the data,the researchers tried to triangulate the data collection process bycollecting data from different sources, namely, quantitative measure-ment of participants' performance, direct observation, and interview.

In the start of thefirst usability test,MSOutlook2010was selected asexperimental software for data collection and seven taskswere assignedto ten participants. The purpose of the tasks was to recognize MS Out-look usability issues. The performance of each participant in performingthe tasks was measured and written in separate forms. Furthermore, inorder to collect participants' problems and design suggestions, directobservation and Interview were utilized. Based on the participants'major problemswith the original interface and their suggestions, a pro-posed user interface was designed for MS Outlook as a prototype. Thesecond usability test which was similar to the first usability test wasperformed to validate the prototype and measure participants' im-provement. Based on the design solutions which could improve partic-ipants' performance, the design guidelines for Ribbon interfaces wereextracted. Fig. 2 shows the methodology of conducting this study.

Themethodology of the study tried to cover the conceptsmentionedin ISO9241-11 (1998) [39]. According to ISO9241-11 (1998) usability is“the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achievespecified goals with ‘effectiveness’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘satisfaction’ in aspecified context of use”. In the present study, “interface effectiveness”is measured by the percentage of participants who could completeeach task, “interface efficiency” is measured by time duration and num-ber of steps for each task, and the interview part measures the partici-pants' satisfaction from the interface.

3.1. Usability testing 1

This usability test contains five steps that are described below.

3.1.1. Experimental software selectionThe researchers intended to select software which participants can

understand its usage, to understand the meaning of the tasks that willbe assigned to them. Among the Ribbon interface software that weredeveloped by Microsoft, working with MS Outlook, MS Word and MSPowerPoint does not need to know any scientific concept. For examplein order to work with MS Excel, users should know concept of spread-sheet and should be familiar with calculation formulas. Therefore, MSOutlook 2010 was selected as experimental software, since every com-puter user is familiarwith email concept andMSOutlook coversmost ofMS Word and MS PowerPoint features in “new email”.

3.1.2. Participants selectionThe participants of the study were ten students with less computer

literacy, who were chosen from among 50 students of MAX English In-stitute in Kuala Lumpurwith the use of a validated computer skill place-ment test adopted from Singh and Dyer [40]. The selected participantshad the same characteristics such as: a) they did not have a good com-puter background knowledge, b) they do not work with computer a lot,c) they are not familiar with any professional software or programminglanguages, d) they are not good with MS Office and e) it is the first timethat they see MS Outlook. Participants' ages can be seen in Table 1.

MS Outlook was selected as an experimental

software

Ten Participants with less computer literacy were

selected

Participants were taught MS Outlook

Ribbon structure

Seven tasks were assigned to

participants in MS Outlook

Researcher measured participants' performance,

observed them and interviewed them

Based on the participants problems and suggestions a new interface prototype was

designed

The same participants were

used

Participants were taught proposed MS

Outlook interface structure

The same tasks were assigned to

participants in the proposed version

Researcher measured Participants' performance, observed the

participants and interviewed them

Participants improvement were

compared in the proposed version in comparison with the

original version

Based on the factors that improved participants'

performance, interface design guidelines were suggested

Fig. 2.Methodology of conducting the study.

811A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

Although according toNielsen [41], Sauro [42] and Richards [43] car-rying out a usability test is reliable with only five participants, the re-searchers decided to select twice the number to increase the reliabilityand validity of the study.

3.1.3. MS Outlook training classSince the researchers wanted to measure how easy MS Outlook in-

terface is for the participants to find and remember tools just by know-ing the structure, they took part in an MS Outlook introductory classwhich took 45 min. This class was held, because the participants didnot have any experience with MS Outlook. Therefore, they could nothave fulfilled any of the tasks unless they were taught the structure. Inthe class, it was tried to give the participants an overview ofMS OutlookRibbon and Application Menu structure.

3.1.4. Tasks assigned to participantsIn order to evaluate MS Outlook interface effectiveness and efficien-

cy, seven tasks were assigned to participants. The tasks are chosen in away that canmake participants workwith different parts ofMS Outlookcompletely. These tasks are: a) create a new email and print it (the abil-ity of using FileMenu), b) create a new email, draw a table in its content(the ability of remembering the place of tools in the tabs, beginner),c) create a new meeting, add a column chart into its content and addvalue label to its columns (the ability of remembering the place oftools in the tabs, advanced), d) create a new task and set a follow upfor it (the ability of recognizing commands), e) create a new folder inMS Outlook and set a rule for emails with a specific characteristic tomove to this folder automatically (the ability of recognizing sequenceof commands in different tabs), f) create a new signature for using itfrequently (the ability of using “MS Outlook Option”) and g) use MSOutlook “Help” to convert your email text to a table (the ability ofadapting help to tools).

Table 1Participants' ages.

Group name Selected user ages

Children 9.12Teenager 15.18Young 25.33Middle age 40.51Elderly 60.67

3.1.5. Data collectionIn the process of data collection, for each participant, an evaluation

form containing three parts was filled by the researchers. The first partwas filled by quantitative data about tasks fulfillment, duration andnumber of clicks. The second part was filled based on researchers' directobservation about participant problems with the Ribbon structure. Thethird part had three questions that were asked from the participantsas an interview. The first and second interview questions were aboutparticipants'main problemswith the current interface and their sugges-tions for designing a new interface. The third question asked them ifthey can learn MS Outlook completely with just learning the structure.

3.2. Usability testing 2

In the second section of the study an interface prototype was de-signed for MS Outlook and the second usability test similar to the firstusability test was conducted to evaluate the prototype.

3.2.1. Designing the prototypeAccording to the participants' major learning problems and their de-

sign suggestions that were collected from observations and, interviews,a proposed user interface prototypewas designed forMS Outlook. Sincethe researchers wanted to create a dynamic prototype, IndigoRoseAutoPlay Media Studio 8 was used. In the first step of the design, re-searchers created a list of all MS Outlook tools and commands. In thesecond step commands that belong on core tabs, contextual tabs andModal tabs were listed. In the third step, the new tabs were createdand were named. Finally, researchers organized the related tools andcommands in groups and named them. Furthermore, in the design pro-cess, researchers considered general user interface design principlesand Microsoft Ribbon interface design guidelines.

3.2.2. ParticipantsSince the researchers wanted to compare the improvement of the

participants, the same participants as the first usability test were used.In order to get reliable results from the participants' time interval be-tween two sets of usability test was more than 2 months. This was tominimize what participants remember from class which was held be-fore the first usability test. Furthermore, the proposed interface struc-ture was completely different from the MS Outlook original interface.Therefore, even if participants could remember the place of tools fromthe first usability test, they could not use that information in the pro-posed version.

Table 3Average number of steps for each task in MS Outlook original version.

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7

8.5 11.3 14.7 5.5 13 15.2 16.2

812 A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

3.2.3. Teaching the prototype to the participantsAfter designing the proposed interface prototype, the proposed

structure of MS Outlook was taught to the participants. Class dura-tion was about 15 min and the only concepts that were taught tothe participants were the proposed structure of Ribbon and Applica-tion Menu.

3.2.4. Assigning tasks to the participantsIn order to evaluate MS Outlook proposed interface effectiveness

and efficiency, seven tasks similar to the tasks in the first usability testwere assigned to the participants.

3.2.5. Data collectionSimilar to participants' evaluation in the first usability test, an evalu-

ation form containing three parts was filled by the researchers. The firstpart was filled by quantitative data about participants' performance inperforming the tasks. The results of this measurement were used toevaluate the improvement of the participants in comparison with theMS Outlook original version. The second part was filled based on the re-searchers' direct observation about participants' problemswith the pro-posed Ribbon structure. The third part had five questions that wereasked from the participants as an interview. The first three questionswere similar to the interview questions of the first usability test and,fourth and fifth questions evaluated participants' preferences in usingproposed interface instead of the original version.

3.2.6. Extracting Ribbon interface design guidelinesThe results of MS Outlook original interface evaluation form andMS

Outlook proposed interface evaluation formwere compared tomeasurethe improvement of the participants. Ribbon interface design guidelineswere extracted, based on the factors which increased participants'learnability and satisfaction in the proposed interface in comparisonwith the original version. These factors were the results of researchers'observations during participants performing the tasks and interviewingwith them.

4. Results and the proposed interface characteristics

As explained in the process of data collection, data was collectedby quantitative measurement of performing tasks and qualitativeapproaches, namely, direct observation and interview withparticipants.

4.1. Results of MS Outlook original interface

4.1.1. Quantitative measurement of tasks performanceThe results of quantitative measurement of participants' tasks per-

formance are presented in the following tables. Table 2 shows percent-age of participants who could complete each task, Table 3 shows theaverage number of steps taken for each task and the average time dura-tion spent on each task is presented in Table 4. The results for each par-ticipant are presented in Appendix A.

4.1.2. Tasks performance analysisHere you can see a brief analysis of participants' behavior during

performing each task.

Task 1. Finding File Menu and print item was easy for most of partici-pants. The different colors of File Menu from the tabs helped partici-pants to find it easily.

Table 2Percentage of participants who could complete each task in MS Outlook original version.

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7

70% 70% 20% 100% 0% 0% 30%

Task 2. Creating new Email was easy for most of the participants, sincenew email button was the first button in the first tab of MS Outlook.However, in order to draw a table they searched all the tabs and ittook time for them.

Task 3. Finding “NewMeeting”was not as easy as “New Email” for theparticipants, since it was under “New Item” combo-box. In drawing achart, four of the participants could find Chart tool since they happenedto see it in “Insert” tab during performing task one. However, three ofthe participants searched all the tabs to find the Chart tool and mostof them could not work with chart contextual tabs and add label tochart.

Task 4. Finding “New Task”, was not as difficult as “New Meeting”,since some of the participants saw that in task two. Furthermore, inorder to set follow up for the new task all of them could perform it,since it was in the first tab of New Task.

Task 5. Performing this taskwas difficult for all of the participants. Theycould not guess which tabs are related to this task. Although some ofthem could perform a part of the task (creating a new folder), none ofthem could completely perform the task.

Task 6. Although researchers taught the place of Options and its struc-ture to participants, none of them could complete the task. Some ofthem found the Option and Signature item, but they could not create anew signature.

Task 7. All the participants could run “Help” but some of them couldnot find the correct result. Furthermore, for those who could find thecorrect result, it was difficult to read the text and simultaneously per-form the task. Consequently, just 30% of the participants couldcompletely perform the task.

4.1.3. Participants similar problemsBased on the direct observation and interview with participants, re-

searchers concluded that the most significant problems participantsface in performing the tasks are as the following:

• They could not keep in mind the place of tools in the tabs and theywere forced to read tools names from begging to the end of each tab.

• Participants were not satisfied with MS Outlook “Help” system. Thedifficulties that they had fall into threemajor issues. The first problemwas that they did not know which word or sentence they shouldsearch for. Secondly, some of the participants could not find thecorrect result from among the list of results. The third problem was,some of them could not adapt “Help” text to practical work. Thename of some tabs and tools were not clear for them. For examplethe tabs such as Insert, format text and tools such as Smart Art andHyperlink.

• They said, MS Outlook working area is very crowded and confusesthem when they want to find a specific tool. The part that they hadthe most problems was Outlook home screen. Furthermore, numberof tabs, especially after adding an object, made them confused andthey could not edit the object.

Table 4Average time duration for each task in MS Outlook original version.

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7

81.84 100.56 164.91 43.02 180 180 174.56

813A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

• They could not determine that they have to select the text to activatesome tools. For example some of them found the place of “convert totable” but they could not activate it.

• They did not pay attention to tools tooltips and just tried toworkwiththe tools by trial and error (especially younger participants).

4.1.4. Interviews resultsBased on the interviews there are some similar suggestions from the

participants of the studywhich they believed can solve their learning is-sues with the current interface. These suggestions are:

• Improving MS Outlook appearance and icons.• Removing useless tools and unnecessary tabs and showing only theuseful tabs at a given time.

• A better arrangement and naming of tools in tabs.• Devising a visual step-by-step instruction while users are workingwith each tool.

In order to answer the last question of the interview about partici-pants ability to learn MS Outlook with the mere knowledge of its struc-ture, except one of the participants (age=33, female), the rest believedthat they cannot work with MS Outlook completely just with a shortclass or learning the structure.

4.2. Proposed interface prototype

According to the mentioned participants' problems and design sug-gestions collected from observations and interviews, a proposed userinterface prototype was designed for MS Outlook. The changes thatare made on MS Outlook original interface can be categorized in twomain groups.

1. The changes that are made on File Menu.2. The changes that are made on Ribbon.

4.2.1. Proposed structure of the File MenuIn the original File Menu, just a few commands such as Open, Print,

Help and Option existed. Researchers used FileMenu in amore efficientway with using it as a master menu which includes main MS Outlookcommands and tools. The name of the File Menu was changed to theMenu and tools were categorized in it with a specific categorization.Two different Menus were designed, the first one (Home Menu) wasused to handle main MS Outlook features such as creating and viewingemails,meetings, contacts, tasks and the second one (New Email Menu)was used to handle the tools of new email such as chart, signature, at-tachment, table, etc. This proposedMenu structure has five advantages:

1. Controlling the number of tabs shown at the same time: As men-tioned in the observation results, number of tabs confused partici-pants in finding tools. Therefore, in the new Menu, all the tools thatcould be used for creating new tasks or objects, such as new emailand graphical objects, are removed from the tabs and are put intothe Menu. These changes have two benefits:a. The tools of certain tabs, such as “Insert” are moved into the

Menu, so some tabs are removed and they decreased in number.b. The only thing that has remained in the tabs is editing commands.

Therefore, the Menu plays the role of a controller and by clickingon each tool in the Menu only the related contextual tabs areshown. It can be said that core tabs are replaced with contextualtabs.

2. Simultaneous help to facilitate learning process: In order to solve theparticipants' problems with the classic Help system, a new help sys-tem was created. In Menu, commands and tools have a descriptivetext and a step-by-step visual instruction with an easy English text.Therefore, users will no more click on an incorrect tool or commandand they will not get confused about how to work with tools.

Furthermore, users do not need to search the content of “Help” forgetting instruction.

3. Using avatars andmoremeaningful icons: In order to increase partic-ipants' attention, especially children, to the main features of the MSOutlook, researchers replaced classic icons with descriptive iconsand used avatars to present MS Outlook main features.

4. Dynamic message boxes: Since the participants could not under-stand the way of activating the tools that are deactivated, in the pro-posedMenu there is no deactivated tools or commands.When a userneeds to use a tool that just works with selected text, a message boxappears and asks the user if he/she had selected the text. After theuser clicks onNO themessage box takes him/her to the email contentand after selecting text it automatically takes user back to the Menu.

5. Replaces tools and commands names with descriptive sentences:Since the participants could not understand the function of sometools from their names, researchers replaced tools names with thedescription of their functions. Furthermore, they added subtitlesthat describe tools function in detail.

6. Categorizations of tools: The categorizations of tools and commandsin the Menus are based on their similarities and their usage. For ex-ample all the Email commands are placed in the “Emails” categoryor all the graphical tools are placed in the “Insert graphical objects”category. It can be said that each category in the Menu plays therole of a group in the classic Ribbon structure but with a better orga-nization of tools and commands. Fig. 3 shows the proposed “HomeMenu” structure and Fig. 4 shows the proposed “New Email Menu”structure.

4.2.2. Ribbon proposed structureIn order to facilitate working with Ribbon structure five changes

were made as the following:

1. Decreasing the number of tabs that are shown to users at any giventime: The number of tabs shown at the same time is decreased forpreventing participants from getting confused and for increasingtheir speed in finding tools. In the proposed prototype, the numberof core and contextual tabs shown at the same time is between oneand five but in the original version, it is between five and ten tabs.As explained before, all the tools for creating new tasks or objectsput into the Menu. Therefore, the number of commands in the tabswas decreased and researchers could combine the tabs. For example,the tools of Insert tabweremoved into theMenu and the rest of toolsare combined with the Text tab. Another example is the tools ofviewing emails. As it can be seen in Fig. 5, the related tools thatwere distributed in four tabs are combined into two tabs with anew arrangement and the rest are put into the Menu.

2. Better naming for tabs and tools: One of the major problems of theparticipants was their lack of computer background which led tothe fact that they were not familiar with some computer terms andthey could not recognize the nameof tabs and they searched in an in-correct tab for a specific tool. Therefore, researchers replaced thename of some tabs and tools, which seemed unfamiliar to partici-pants with familiar names and put label for all the tabs' commandseven famous ones. As it can be seen in Fig. 6 the name of some com-mands changed and all of them have labels.

3. Changing tools arrangement in tabs: Another major participants'problem was that they were forced to read all the tools names frombeginning to the end of tabs. This problem was solved by arrangingtools in the tabs from more useful to less useful. It means that thetools that user would need more frequently are put in the left sideand the tools that user will need less often are put in the right sideof the tab. For example as it can be seen in Fig. 7 when a user insertsa picture, the first thing is adjusting size, therefore, in format picturetab the tools related to picture size are put at the begging of left sideof the tab.

Fig. 3. Home Menu in the proposed interface.

Fig. 4. New Email Menu in the proposed interface.

814 A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

Fig. 5. Sample of tab combination.

815A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

4. Newgrouping of tools: In order to help the participants find tools andcommands easily, grouping of most of the tools and commands intabswas changed andnewgroupswere created. One of the examplesof new grouping is on the first tab of the new email. In this tab thetools related to changing text color was distributed in Basic Textand Clipboard groups. A new groupwith the name of “Text Coloring”was created and these tools aremoved in this group. Fig. 8 shows thecomparison between the original and the proposed grouping.

5. Changing the place of tools of different tabs with each other: One ofthe difficulties that participants faced was that they could not recog-nize the correct place of tools in tabs and they searched for a specifictool in an incorrect tab. This problemwas solved bymoving tools be-tween tabs based on their relation. For example for drawing a tabletwo tabs were engaged, the first one (Layout) handles the structureand text of the table and the second tab (Design) handles the appear-ance of the table. Researchers created two new tabs with the namesof “Structure” and “Table Text”. As it is shown in Fig. 9 all the toolsthat are related to layout and appearance of the table are arranged

Fig. 6. Sample of com

in Structure tab and the tools that are related to table text are ar-ranged in Table Text tab.

4.3. Results of MS Outlook proposed version evaluation form

Similar to the participants' evaluation in the first usability test, anevaluation form was filled by the researchers.

4.3.1. Quantitative measurement of tasks performanceThe results of quantitative measurement of performing tasks are

presented in the following tables. Table 5 shows percentage of partici-pants who could complete each task in MS Outlook proposed version,Table 6 shows average number of steps for each task and Table 7shows the average time duration for each task.

4.3.2. Tasks performing analysisParticipants' performance in fulfilling the tasks improved signifi-

cantly. It can be said since the methodology of performing all the tasks

mand naming.

Fig. 7. Sample of new arrangement of commands.

816 A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

was the same, the only reason that participants could not perform someof the tasks was their inability to understand the Menu Help.

4.3.3. Participants similar problemsBased on the researchers' direct observation and interviews most of

participants did not have any serious problemwith the proposed inter-face. However, a few number of them had problems in the followingitems:

• They thought “Help” text is so much and some of them could not un-derstand the meaning of Help text.

• They had problem in finding tools in crowded tabs.

4.3.4. Interview resultsBased on the participants' interviews their suggestions are as the

following:

• Add more detail to the “Help” text.• Put a search-box in theMenuwhich is able to find the tools by typingthe name of the tools.

• Replace the “Help” text with an animated instruction.

In order to answer the question about the participants who feel thatthe process of performing tasks is easier than the original version, 90% ofparticipants gave a positive answer and the same percentage of themsaid that they prefer to use the proposed interface instead of the originalversion. Furthermore, in order to answer the last question about work-ing with MS Outlook just by knowing the structure, 60% of the partici-pants, thought that it could work with the proposed interface just byknowing the structure without the need to participate in any trainingclass.

Fig. 8. Sample of new gro

4.4. Participants' improvement in the proposed interface in comparisonwith the original interface

The following figures show participants' improvement in task com-pletion, duration andnumber of step they took in the proposed interfacein comparison with the original version. As it can be seen from Fig. 10,in the original version participants could not fulfill the tasks whosetools and commands were not in the first tabs or they needed to workwith contextual tabs. However, in the proposed version most of partic-ipants could successfully complete difficult tasks. As it can be seen, all ofthem could perform tasks 1, 2, 4 and 6. In addition, 80% of them couldperform task 3 and 70% of them could perform tasks 5 and 7.

As it can be seen in Fig. 11, the time duration of performing all thetasks in the proposed version decreased significantly. It can be saidthat the time duration of performing tasks in the proposed interface ishalf the original interface.

As it can be seen in Fig. 12, the number of steps of performing all thetasks in the proposed version decreased. They did not decrease signifi-cantly but it shows that the proposed interface is optimized. We cansay that the proposed interface is an optimized interface since, it en-abled participants to fulfill the tasks that they could perform in the orig-inal version without increasing number of steps.

These statistics showed that suggested user interface improved self-learning and helped participants in different areas:

1. Enabled participants to do the tasks that they could not do in theoriginal version.

2. Increased the speed of participants in completing the given tasks.3. Decreased the number of steps that participants went through for

performing their tasks.

uping of commands.

Fig. 9. Sample of changing the place of tools between tabs.

817A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

4.5. Extracted user interface design guidelines

Observation and interview results showed that the problems thatparticipants faced in the original interface were solved with the follow-ing solutions:

1. Misunderstanding the usage of tools' and tabs was solved by:

1.1. Changing difficult names of tools and tabs with easy names.1.2. Labeling all the tools and commands.1.3. Putting descriptive icons and avatars for introducing tools in the

Menu.2. Confusion for finding the tools and losing in the software was re-

duced by:2.1. Controlling the number of tabs that are shown at the same time

by the Menu.2.2. Arranging tools in the tabs according to their usage, from less

useful to useful.2.3. Creating the same method for working with different com-

mands with the use of Menu.3. Problemwith using Outlook “Help” and forgetting the usage of tools

was solved by simultaneous instruction in the Menu.4. Problem with tools and commands that are activated only when a

block of text is selected was solved by dynamic message boxes.

Based on the above-mentioned solutions that improved partici-pants' performance, seven Ribbon interface design guidelines were

Table 5Percentage of participants who could complete each task inMS Outlook proposed version.

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7

100% 100% 80% 100% 70% 100% 70%

extracted for users with less computer literacy. These guidelines are asthe following:

(1) Decrease the number of core tabs that are shown to users at oneview to maximum three tabs:

In order to achieve this purpose, designers should put themain toolsof the software in a menu and just use tabs for putting editing toolsrelated to themain tools. Itmeans use contextual tabs instead of coretabs.

(2) Arrange tools in tabs according to their sequence of usage:

Put and categorize tools in tabs based on their priority and the stepsthat users normally take for using the tools. It means the tools whichare frequently needed and those which are especially needed at thefirst steps of work should be put in the left side of the tab and thosetools which are needed less often should be put in its right side.

(3) Create a common place for running different commands of thesoftware:

Create a menu or other innovative way for handling software toolsfrom a central point.

(4) Put a simultaneous help system, without need to search the soft-ware “Help”:

Create a help system that introduces the usage of each tool to usersvisually and shows the instruction of workingwith tools before user

Table 6Average number of steps for each task in MS Outlook proposed version.

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7

4.4 6.3 12.3 4.6 9.4 10.8 11

Table 7Average time duration for each task in MS Outlook proposed version.

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7

27.61 33.82 80.67 15.85 96.04 41.77 95.01

406080

100120140160180200

Dur

atio

n/Se

cond

Proposed

Original

Task1 Task2 Task3 Task4 Task5 Task6 Task7

Fig. 11. Average time duration of task performance in proposed interface and originalversion.

818 A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

clicks on them. In order to enhance simultaneous help system, thebest way is adding instruction to every tool in the menu.

(5) Labeling all the commands and avoiding to use computer termsfor naming tools and tabs:

When software is designed for users with less computer literacy allthe commands and tools need labels, even the tools and commandsthat are known for normal users. Furthermore, since most of ama-teur users are not familiar with computer terms and sometimesthey misunderstand the meaning of tools' name, designers shouldtry to use words that are familiar for all groups of people. The bestway is using descriptive sentences instead of one-word names.

(6) Use descriptive icons and avatars for introducing tools to users:

Put descriptive icons for tools so that every user can understand themeaning of them without the need to read the tools' names. This isespecially vital for children. Furthermore, using avatar or iconswith different styles is suggested for increasing the attention ofusers to main functions of software in the Menu.

(7) Avoid using deactivated tools or commands:

Since when users with less computer literacy face a deactivated tool,they cannot understand how to activate it, the best way is keeping allthe tools activated and putting dynamic message boxes to help theuser. For example in the case that users should select the text to acti-vate a tool, these kinds ofmessage boxes can take the user to the text.

These guidelines are in line with the usability guidelines that are in-troduced by researchers such as Holzinger et al. [10], Holzinger et al.[17], Holzinger et al. [13], Melenhorst et al. [18], Hsu [19], Mynattet al. [20], Sayago and Blat [23], Dickinson et al. [22], Schröder and Ziefle[24], Wirtz et al. [12], Stickel et al. [25], Hourcade et al. [28], Theng et al.[29], Kaplan et al. [30], Khanum and Trivedi [27], Grammenos et al. [31],Wook and Salim [32], Wook et al. [33], Wook and Salim [34], ZhigangFang et al. [35] and Nam [37].

Furthermore, the research showed that there are some differencesbetween the needs of users with less computer literacy and MSDN [3]Ribbon interface design guidelines:

• The currentmethod of showing tools and commands tooltip is not ap-propriate for users with less computer literacy. Since the tooltips arejust shownwhen users hold themouse on them, users will not pay at-tention to them and most of the time they cannot see tooltips. Fur-thermore, the tooltips' texts are not enough for the novice users andthey cannot understand the usage of tools completely.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Task1 Task2 Task3 Task4 Task5 Task6 Task7

Succ

ess

Rat

e

Proposed

Original

Fig. 10. The percentage of tasks completed in the proposed version in comparisonwith theoriginal version.

• In contrast with Microsoft guideline that says famous commands donot need label, when software is designed for users with less comput-er literacy all the commands and tools need label, even the tools andcommands that are known for common users.

• AlthoughMicrosoft has suggested to put the tools groups that are im-portant in themiddle of the tabs, for users with less computer literacythe best way is arranging tools groups based on their usage and fromleft to right.

• Although Microsoft claimed that working with maximum seven coretabs is easy for users, thiswas not true for userswith less computer lit-eracy. For this group of users not more than three core tabs should beused.

• The regular tabs names are not understandable for users with lesscomputer literacy.

4.6. Contributions of the proposed guidelines

The proposed guidelines can help software producer companies es-peciallyMicrosoft to have a frameworkwhich guides them on how theycan increase the usability of Ribbon interface software for users withless computer literacy. Furthermore, they are applicable toMicrosoft Of-fice, Microsoft SharePoint, organizational software such as accountingand most of the software whose tools can be categorized in a menubased on a hierarchy. Putting these guidelines in action, self-learningwould be promoted and learning issues of users with less computer lit-eracy would decrease. In another word, it is possible to enhance self-learning for softwarewhose nature lets designer to put itsmain featuresin one menu with hierarchy structure and simultaneous Help.

In addition, as the potential contribution, using the proposed Menustructure can facilitate reading the software structure for screen readerand it therefore, can help visual impaired users. According to Giraud elal. [44], Baguma and Lubega [45] and Leuthold et al. [46] to make thesoftware readable by screen readers, it should have text map for pre-senting features. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposedmenu is a text map and can be read easily by screen readers.

02468

1012141618

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7

Step

s

Proposed

Original

Fig. 12.Average number of steps taken for each task in the proposed interface and originalversion.

Table 3The number of steps participants went through to do each task in the original version incomparison with the proposed version (P: participant, O: original, P: proposed).

Tasks P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10

Task 1 (O) 13 12 10 9 6 5 9 6 8 7Task 1 (P) 6 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5Task 2 (O) 15 14 11 10 12 13 11 9 10 8Task 2 (P) 7 8 6 5 7 5 8 6 6 5Task 3 (O) 25 21 14 14 11 15 10 8 16 13Task 3 (P) 12 16 13 15 9 11 7 12 13 15Task 4 (O) 8 6 5 8 5 7 4 5 4 3Task 4 (P) 5 5 4 3 4 3 6 5 6 5Task 5 (O) 17 14 10 21 16 12 9 15 8 8Task 5 (P) 14 8 5 9 5 7 15 10 9 12Task 6 (O) 20 16 12 19 21 14 17 12 10 11Task 6 (P) 14 12 12 8 9 8 11 9 12 13Task 7 (O) 18 15 13 20 22 19 14 11 18 12Task 7 (P) 14 11 15 10 9 9 9 12 10 11

819A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

5. Conclusions

In this study the researchers tried to increase the satisfaction level ofRibbon interface users with discovering usability problems of userswith less computer literacy, and solving their problems with proposinga novel user interface framework for Ribbon interface software. Themain phases of this research were: a) discovering the problems thatusers with less computer literacy face working with Ribbon interfacessoftware, b) formulating a new user interface framework for MS Out-look, c) developing a prototype and validating it, and d) proposingguidelines for Ribbon interfaces based on the factors that increasedusers' performance as the contribution of the study. The main contribu-tion of the study is seven guidelines which could be used in designinguser interface of Ribbon interface software for users with less computerliteracy. These guidelines can help software producer companies, suchas Microsoft, to have a framework which guides them in designing us-able software for users who are not good in computer.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Ms. Sara Mashayekhfor all her constructive ideas and Dr. Dalbir Singh for supervising mymaster's thesis which led to this article.

Appendix A

Table 1Tasks completion in the proposed interface in comparison with the original version(P: participant, O: original, P: proposed).

Tasks P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10

Task 1 (O) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NoTask 1 (P) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTask 2 (O) No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NoTask 2 (P) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTask 3 (O) No No No No Yes Yes No No No NoTask 3 (P) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No YesTask 4 (O) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTask 4 (P) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTask 5 (O) No No No No No No No No No NoTask 5 (P) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes NoTask 6 (O) No No No No No No No No No NoTask 6 (P) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTask 7 (O) No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes NoTask 7 (P) No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Table 2Duration of performing each task in the proposed interface in comparison with theoriginal version (P: participant, O: original, P: proposed).

Tasks P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10

Task 1 (O) 180 40.6 60.1 35.9 25.1 29.6 34.5 52.6 180 180Task 1 (P) 30.1 33.6 25.2 28.8 18.6 22.7 17.5 26.3 37.4 35.9Task 2 (O) 180 180 70.5 101.2 61.7 41.5 44.2 80.3 66.2 180Task 2 (P) 45.6 39.7 30.3 33.1 28.8 16.2 24.2 36.5 32 51.8Task 3 (O) 180 180 180 180 120.8 88.3 180 180 180 180Task 3 (P) 80.2 180 70.6 36.1 39.4 41.4 44.1 59.7 180 75.2Task 4 (O) 40.3 35.7 48.2 33.1 32.7 28.1 38.4 49.9 48.7 75.1Task 4 (P) 20.6 17.2 21.9 13.8 15.5 12.7 11.9 16.7 13.1 15.1Task 5 (O) 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180Task 5 (P) 180 90.7 50.7 36.9 46.1 40.2 180 60.7 95.1 180Task 6 (O) 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180Task 6 (P) 48.1 36.3 41.8 33.3 40.2 38.9 36.4 46.7 45.1 50.9Task 7 (O) 180 180 180 180 180 160.6 180 155 170 180Task 7 (P) 180 65.8 180 55.7 46.1 43.9 51.1 68.4 79.1 180

In order to show those participants who could not do each task in ta-bles and charts, the researchers used number 180 as an indicator. Thereason was that the longest task duration for participants was 170 sec-onds and all of the participants who could not fulfill the task got disap-pointed in less than 180 seconds of effort. Furthermore, number 180 isthe nearest number to 170 that is recognizable from 170 on the chartsand does not affect the readability of the charts.

References

[1] M. Smith, Office 2010 — Is It Any Better Than Office 2007, http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/office-2010-office-2007 2010 (20 Dec 2012).

[2] D. Grabham, Windows 8 vs Windows 7: 8 Ways It's Different, 2012. http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-8-vs-windows-7-8-ways-its-different-1025285 (20 Dec 2012).

[3] MSDN, Ribbons, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/cc872782.aspx#concepts 2012 (30 May 2012).

[4] C. Kyd, Excel 2007's RibbonHurts Productivity, Survey Shows, http://www.exceluser.com/explore/surveys/ribbon/ribbon-survey-results.htm 2009 (12 Jun 2012).

[5] M. Wildam, Why I hate ribbons, http://it-tactics.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-i-hate-ribbons.html 2008 (12 Jun 2012).

[6] G. Keizer, IT pros still spooked byOffice's ribbon interface, http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9194398/IT_pros_still_spooked_by_Office_s_ribbon_interface 2010 (15Dec 2012).

[7] K.F. Tabrizi, Diagrammatic documentation for ribbon computing in Microsoft Office,Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology 17 (1) (2013).

[8] M. Madiah, S. Hisham, User-interface design: a case study of partially sightedchildren in Malaysia, 2010 International Conference on User Science Engineering,IEEE, 2010, pp. 168–173.

[9] B. Xie, Older Adults, Computers, and the Internet: Future Directions, Polytechnic In-stitute, USA, 2003.

[10] A. Holzinger, et al., Informatics as Semiotics Engineering: Lessons Learned From De-sign, Development and Evaluation of Ambient Assisted Living Applications for Elder-ly People, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer, 2011, pp. 183–192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21666-4_21.

[11] A. Holzinger, G. Searle, A. Nischelwitzer, On Some Aspects of Improving MobileApplications for the Elderly, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 923–932,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_103.

[12] S. Wirtz, E.M. Jakobs, M. Ziefle, Age-specific Usability Issues of Software Interfaces,Aachen University, Germany, 2009.

[13] A. Holzinger, et al., Investigating Usability Metrics for the Design and Developmentof Applications for the Elderly, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 98–105,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_13.

[14] K.S. Mukasa, A. Holzinger, A.I. Karshmer, Intelligent User Interfaces for AmbientAssisted Living (IUI4AAL 2008), Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, 2008, p. 128.

[15] M. Ziefle, S. Bay, Howolder adultsmeet complexity: aging effects on the usability of dif-ferent mobile phones, Behaviour and Information Technology 24 (5) (2005) 375–389.

[16] J. Goodman, J. Lundell, HCI and the older population, Interacting with Computers 17(6) (2005) 613–620.

[17] A. Holzinger, G. Searle, M. Wernbacher, The effect of previous exposure to technol-ogy on acceptance and its importance in usability and accessibility engineering, Uni-versal Access in the Information Society 10 (3) (2010) 245–260.

[18] A.S. Melenhorst, W.A. Rogers, D.G. Bouwhuis, Older adults' motivated choice fortechnological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity, Psychology andAging 21 (1) (2006) 190–195.

[19] Y.C. Hsu, The effects of metaphors on novice and expert learners' performance andmental-model development, Interacting with Computers 18 (4) (2006) 770–792.

[20] E.D. Mynatt, A.S. Melenhorst, A.D. Fisk, W.A. Rogers, Aware technologies for aging inplace: understanding user needs and attitudes, Ieee Pervasive Computing 3 (2)(2004) 36–41.

820 A. Darejeh, D. Singh / Computer Standards & Interfaces 36 (2014) 808–820

[21] N. Sambasivan, M.M. Jackson, Designing Pervasive Brain–Computer Interfaces,Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 267–272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76805-0_22.

[22] A. Dickinson, A.F. Newella, M.J. Smithb, R.L. Hillc, Introducing the Internet to theover-60s: developing an email system for older novice computer users, Interactingwith Computers 17 (6) (2005) 621–642.

[23] S. Sayago, J. Blat, Telling the story of older people — mailing: an ethnographicalstudy, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68 (1) (2010) 105–120.

[24] S. Schröder, M. Ziefle, Effects of Icon Concreteness and Complexity on Seman-tic Transparency: Younger vs. Older Users, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008,pp. 90–97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_12.

[25] C. Stickel, M. Ebner, A. Holzinger, The XAOS Metric — Understanding Visual Com-plexity as Measure of Usability, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 278–290,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16607-5_18.

[26] P. Markopoulos, M. Bekker, On the assessment of usability testing methods for chil-dren, Interacting with Computers 15 (2) (2003) 227–243.

[27] M.A. Khanum, M.C. Trivedi, Take care: a study on usability evaluation methods forchildren, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science 3 (2)(2012) 101–105.

[28] J.P. Hourcade, et al., The International Children's Digital Library: viewing digitalbooks online, Interacting With Computers 15 (2) (2003) 151–167.

[29] Yin Leng Theng, et al., Children as Design Partners and Testers for a Children's DigitalLibrary, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 249–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45268-0_23.

[30] N. Kaplan, et al., Supporting Sociable Literacy in the International Children's DigitalLibrary, ACM, Maryland, USA, 2004.

[31] D. Grammenos, A. Paramythis, C. Stephanidis, Designing the User Interface of an Inter-active Software Environment for Children, Institute of Computer Science, Greece, 2001.

[32] T.S.M.T. Wook, Siti Salwa Salim, A Conceptual Design for Children's WebOPACInterface: Graphic Design Issues, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 785–791,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73354-6_86.

[33] T.S.M.T. Wook, et al., Framework of Visual Interface for Children's Digital Library,2011 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, 2011,pp. 17–20.

[34] T.S.M.T. Wook, Siti Salwa Salim, Guideline for the Graphic Design of Web Applica-tion for Children's Interface, 11(6), 2013, pp. 3130–3133.

[35] Zhigang Fang, Weibin Luo, Jie Xu, A structure for children-oriented human comput-er interaction, Advanced Computational Intelligence (IWACI), 2011 Fourth Interna-tional Workshop on Advanced Computational Intelligence, 2011, pp. 205–208.

[36] J. Nielsen, Children's Websites: Usability Issues in Designing for Kids, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/children.html 2010 (10 Jun 2012).

[37] H. Nam, Designing User Experiences for Children, http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2010/05/designing-user-experiences-for-children.php 2010 (10 Jun 2012).

[38] C.M. Barnum, Usability Testing Essentials: Ready, Set … Test, Elsevier, USA, 2010.[39] ISO TC 159/SC 4/WG 5, ISO 9241-11:1998, ergonomic requirements for office work

with visual display terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on Usability, American Na-tional Standards Institute, USA, 2007.

[40] H. Singh, J.L. Dyer, The Computer Backgrounds of Soldiers in Army Units: FY01,Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, USA, 2002.

[41] J. Nielsen, Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html 2000 (2012/2/15).

[42] J. Sauro, How Many Users Do People Actually Test, http://www.measuringusability.com/blog/actual-users.php 2010 (2012/6/6).

[43] P. Richards, Usability Testing — How Many Users Should You Test, http://diga2230.blogspot.com/2011/06/usability-testing-how-many-users-should.html 2011 (20Dec 2012).

[44] S. Giraud, T. Colombi, A. Russo, P. Thérouanne, Accessibility of rich Internet applica-tions for blind people: a study to identify the main problems and solutions, CHItalyProceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian Chapter International Conference onComputer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity, 2011, pp. 163–166.

[45] R. Baguma, J.T. Lubega, A web design framework for improved accessibility for peo-ple with disabilities (WDFAD), W4A '08 Proceedings of the 2008 InternationalCross-disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), 2008, pp. 134–140.

[46] S. Leuthold, J.A. Bargas-Avila, K. Opwis, Beyondweb content accessibility guidelines:design of enhanced text user interfaces for blind internet users, International Journalof Human-Computer Studies 66 (4) (2008) 257–270.

Ali Darejeh is PhD Candidate and researcher. His Researcharea isHuman computer interaction (HCI) especially user in-terface design for users with less computer literacy such aschildren, elders and users with physical or mental disorders.He has been working as an IT expert in the past 8 years.

Dr. Dalbir Singh received the degree in Computer Sciencefrom the Universiti Sains Malaysia, in 2002. He receivedthe Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from the UniversityMalaya in 2009. Currently, he is a senior lecturer at NationalUniversity ofMalaysia. His research interest includesHumanFactor in Information System.