jçÄáäÉ=_êç~ÇÄ~åÇW=

aÉëáÖåI=^ééäáÅ~íáçåëI=~åÇ=rëÉê=bñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=

=

=

EjçÄáäÉë=_êÉáíÄ~åÇ=Ó=dÉëí~äíìåÖI=^åïÉåÇìåÖÉå=ìåÇ=

kìíòÉêÉêÑ~ÜêìåÖÉåF=

=

=

oÉéçêí=íç=íÜÉ=ÖçîÉêåãÉåí=çÑ=píóêá~I=^ìëíêá~I=

aÉéíK=çÑ=pÅáÉåÅÉ=~åÇ=oÉëÉ~êÅÜ=

mêçàÉâíÄÉêáÅÜí=~å=ÇÉå=wìâìåÑíëÑçåÇë=ÇÉë=i~åÇÉë=píÉáÉêã~êâ=

=

=

mêçàÉâí=kêK=QMUM=

=

=

^ìíçêÉå=ìåÇ=mêçàÉâíÇìêÅÜÑΩÜêÉåÇÉW=

aêK=éÜáäK=e~àç=dêÉáÑ=

aaêKáå=l~å~=jáíêÉ~=

áå=wìë~ããÉå~êÄÉáí=ãáí=Éîçä~êáë=êÉëÉ~êÅÜ=ä~ÄI=dê~ò=

=

=

fåíÉêìåáîÉêëáí®êÉë=cçêëÅÜìåÖëòÉåíêìã=ÑΩê=qÉÅÜåáâI=^êÄÉáí=ìåÇ=hìäíìê=EfcwF=

pÅÜä∏ÖÉäÖ~ëëÉ=O==UMNM=dê~ò==^ìëíêá~=

qW=HQPJPNSJVNPVMVJM==cW=HQPJPNSJUNMOTQ==ïïïKáÑòKíìÖê~òK~í=

q~ÄäÉ=çÑ=`çåíÉåíë

1 Outline ...............................................................................................................5 2 German Summary..............................................................................................7 3 Background ......................................................................................................13 4 Mapping the Research Field ............................................................................17

4.1 Social Studies of Mobile Communication...............................................17 4.1.1 Diffusion...........................................................................................18 4.1.2 Adoption...........................................................................................19 4.1.3 Domestication ..................................................................................21

4.2 Situating our Study ..................................................................................23 5 Defining Uses and Designs..............................................................................25

5.1 Open Paths ...............................................................................................25 5.2 Usability Research ....................................................................................26 5.3 Usability and Functionality .....................................................................28 5.4 Kinds of Machines....................................................................................31

6 Survey Description and Findings ....................................................................35 6.1 Design of the study ..................................................................................35

6.1.1 Sample and Data collection .............................................................35 6.1.2 The Research Instrument .................................................................35

6.2 General Patterns of 3G Adoption ............................................................37 6.2.1 Attitudes towards Technology in General .......................................38 6.2.2 Reasons for Non-Adoption...............................................................38 6.2.3 Dissemination of Devices vs. Adoption of Functions .....................39 6.2.4 Opinions about Non-Adoption........................................................40

6.3 Perceptions of Design Norms ..................................................................41 6.3.1 The General Ranking of Design Norms ...........................................42 6.3.2 Clusters of Users and their Preferences............................................43 6.3.3 Correlations between Cluster Membership and Adoption .............44 6.3.4 Objective Usage vs. Subjective Experience ......................................46

6.4 Summary of Results..................................................................................47 7 Conclusion.......................................................................................................49 References ................................................................................................................51

Appendix .................................................................................................................55

Outline 5

N= lìíäáåÉ=This report summarises the results of the project Mobile Broadband – Design, Appli-

cations, and User Experience, funded by the provincial government of Styria, Aus-tria, Dept. of Science and Research. The report contains a description of the back-ground of our study (chapter 3), a survey of the research field (chapter 4), a dis-cussion of the theoretical premises of our study (chapter 5), followed by a presen-tation of the empirical work and its findings (chapter 6), being concluded by a short discussion of the results (chapter 7). The empirical analysis is based on the results of an Austria-wide online survey (n=632) on the usage of 3G and GSM mobile telephony that was developed by evolaris research lab, Graz, Austria, to-gether with the authors. Additional graphs, tables and statistical analyses are in-cluded in an Appendix, which also includes as section on Styria (A.36). A German summary is provided in chapter 2. Budgetary documentation of the project will be supplied in a separate document.

German Summary 7

O= dÉêã~å=pìãã~êó=Ähnlich wie in den letzten Jahren im Home-Computing-Bereich entwickeln sich Mobiltelefone zu Stationen für Multimedia-Konsum und -kommunikation. Ne-ben den bereits etablierten Musik,- Kamera-, Organizer- und Spiel-Funktionen finden nunmehr webbasierte Anwendungen wie Internet, E-Mail, ortsbezogene Dienste und interaktives, mobiles Fernsehen Einzug in die Mobiltelefonie. Aber auch klassische Büroanwendungen wie Textverarbeitung, Tabellenkalkulation und Bildschirmpräsentation gehören zunehmend zum Funktionsumfang von Mobiltelefonen der „Dritten Generation“ (kurz 3G), also Mobiltelefonen, die auf den UMTS-Mobilfunkstandard mit seinen breitbandorientierten Datenübertra-gungsraten ausgelegt sind.

Ein Blick auf Nutzungsstatistiken zeigt jedoch etwas Eigentümliches: Wäh-rend der Anteil von breitbandfähigen Mobiltelefonen (Smartphones, PDA-Phones etc.) am Gesamtmobilfunkmarkt europaweit stark steigt, bleibt die Nutzung ge-nau derjenigen Dienste, welche durch die hinzugewonnene Bandbreite und die neuen Funktionen erst alltagstauglich (oder gar erst möglich) werden, hinter die-sen Steigerungsraten zurück. Den Hauptumsatz für die europäischen Mobilfunk-anbieter generieren im Bereich der Datendienste (anders als etwa in Japan) nach wie vor die bereits in der Mobiltelefonie der Zweiten Generation (GSM) etablier-ten SMS (Textnachrichten) und MMS (Multimedia-Nachrichten) (Briegleb 2008; Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH 2007).

Sucht man nach Gründen für diese Diskrepanz, liegt es nahe, den teils noch unreifen Entwicklungsstand der Technologien als Ursache zu identifizieren. Auch die Organisation der Angebote mag eine Rolle spielen – von uneinheitlichen Netzstandards über Probleme bei der Netzabdeckung, hohe Preise und intranspa-rente Tarifstrukturen bis hin zur Komplexität des verwendeten technischen Vo-kabulars. Wiederum andere Gründe für die unerfüllten Erwartungen an die Nut-zung mobiler Breitbandanwendungen können darin bestehen, dass die Techno-logien insgesamt an den Nutzerinteressen vorbei entwickelt werden. Hier stehen Konzepte und Design der Anwendungen im Mittelpunkt der Kritik.

Auf seiner eigenen Suche nach möglichen Gründen für die Diskrepanzen zwischen den Angeboten der 3G-Telefonie und deren Nutzung hat sich der For-schungsbereich IKT des IFZ auf die Perspektive der NutzerInnen konzentriert. Gemeinsam mit evolaris research lab, Graz, wurde eine Online-Umfrage entwickelt und im September 2007 von evolaris durchgeführt, in der 632 österreichische MobilfunknutzerInnen, davon (repräsentative) 18% 3G-NutzerInnen, Auskunft über ihr Nutzungsverhalten und ihre Erwartungen an das mobile Breitband gege-ben haben.

In unserer Studie wurde nicht nur danach gefragt, welche Dienste tatsäch-lich mit welcher Intensität genutzt werden, sondern auch nach grundsätzlichen Orientierungen, die das Nutzungsverhalten beeinflussen: Wie aufgeschlossen ste-hen die NutzerInnen neuen Funktionen und Diensten gegenüber? Welche davon

8 Chapter 2

nutzen sie wirklich? Steht bei der Entscheidung hierüber die einfache Handha-bung der Funktionen und Dienste an erster Stelle oder deren funktionale Leis-tungsfähigkeit – oder aber die Möglichkeit zur eigenständigen Konfiguration und Anpassung an die persönlichen Bedürfnisse?

Diese Fragen gewinnen insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussio-nen über das richtige und angemessene Design mobiler digitaler Endgeräte an Gewicht. Hier wird der Personal Computer gerne als zweifelhaftes Vorbild zitiert: Seine funktionale Vielfalt und Anpassungsfähigkeit an die unterschiedlichsten Nutzungszwecke werde um den Preis erkauft, in der Handhabung anspruchsvoll zu sein und somit einiges an Verständnisleistung und Frustrationstoleranz von seinen NutzerInnen zu verlangen (Norman 1998). Dieses Problem verschärfe sich, wenn man versucht, eine große Vielfalt an Funktionen in ein kleines und von Display, Speicherkapazität und Eingabemöglichkeiten begrenztes Endgerät zu integrieren, so daß man letztlich mit einem digitalen Analogon eines Schweizer Taschenmessers umzugehen habe, das zwar zahlreiche Funktionen anbietet, aber keine davon umfassend beherrscht (Satyanarayanan 2005).

Eine Alternative hierzu könnte darin bestehen, die Endgeräte und ihre Be-triebssysteme in Weiterentwicklung der Prinzipien des Personal Computers so zu gestalten, dass sie auf einer einfachen und wenig spezialisierten Basis das Hinzu-laden und Konfigurieren der nutzerseitig gewünschten Funktionen erlauben (ebd.). Auf diese Weise könnte das für die Entwicklung des Computers überhaupt grundlegende Konzept der „Universalmaschine“ bewahrt werden, die, richtig programmiert, konfiguriert und gehandhabt, beliebig komplexe Aufgaben zu er-füllen in der Lage ist (Turing 1936).

Eine ganz anders gelagerte Alternative wird mit dem Konzept der „informa-tion appliance“ (Bergman 2000; Norman 1998) ins Spiel gebracht. Hiermit sind Geräte gemeint, die zwar nur eine oder einige wenige spezialisierte Funktionen auszuführen in der Lage sind, aber ihren NutzerInnen durch ihre (möglichst selbsttätige) Vernetzung untereinander in der Gesamtheit genau die gewünschten Funktionen bieten, ohne ihnen die Mühen der Konfiguration und Anpassung abzuverlangen – aber auch ohne sie ihnen anzubieten. Auf diesem Wege soll die subjektive Nutzungserfahrung (user experience) befördert werden, allerdings um den Preis der Möglichkeiten zur Kontrolle der Funktionen durch die NutzerIn-nen.

Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Diskussionen erklärt sich möglicherweise zum einen die Unklarheit der Richtung, in welche sich die Entwicklung und Gestal-tung der mobilen Breitbandtelefonie insgesamt bewegt: Haben wir es mit Telefo-nen zu tun, die mit zusätzlichen, wenig spezialisierten Funktionen angereichert werden, oder mit der Vollendung des Personal Computers in seiner Miniaturform – oder aber mit Vorformen spezialisierter, vernetzter, selbstkonfigurierender mobi-ler Endgeräte? Es ist keineswegs ausgemacht, in welche Richtung die „Schlie-ßung“ (closure; vgl. zu diesem Konzept (Pinch and Bijker 1987) dieser Entwick-lung erfolgen wird, das heißt welche möglichen Entwicklungsrichtungen zuguns-

German Summary 9

ten einer letztlich einheitlich und zielgerichtet wirkenden Fortschrittsgeschichte abgeschnitten werden. Zum anderen spiegelt sich diese Unabgeschlossenheit auch in den Erwartungen und Vorannahmen wider, welche die NutzerInnen an die mobile Breitbandtelefonie richten. Eines der signifikantesten Resultate unse-rer Studie lag in dem Ausmaß an Unkenntnis des Konzepts des mobilen Breit-bands als solchem unter den befragten GSM-NutzerInnen (43%).

Aber auch unter den NutzerInnen, die um die neuen Funktionen wissen und sie verfügbar haben, zeichnet sich ein auf aufschlussreiche Weise uneinheit-liches Bild ab: Einerseits zeigt sich, dass das mobile Breitband den Zustand der „Domestizierung“ bereits erreich hat (vgl. zu diesem Konzept Silverstone and Haddon 1996), es also, so wie der Personal Computer in den 1980ern und das In-ternet in den späten 1990ern, in das Alltagsleben einer breiten Schicht von Nut-zerInnen integriert ist: Bereits 50% aller 3G-NutzerInnen geben an, ihr Gerät so-wohl geschäftlich als auch privat zu nutzen. Andererseits zeigt sich, dass die Nut-zungsgrade der einzelnen Funktionen stark divergieren: Während der Einsatz von Internet und E-Mail sowohl bei GSM- als auch bei 3G-NutzerInnen eher mäßig ausfällt und die erstere Gruppe ortsbezogene Dienste, Musikdownloads und Of-fice-Anwendungen selbst dann fast überhaupt nicht nutzt, wenn diese Funktio-nen bereits verfügbar sind (jeweils 5% und weniger), findet sich für genau diese Funktionen bei 3G-NutzerInnen ein markant höherer, aber immer noch ver-gleichsweise bescheidener Durchsetzungsgrad (zwischen 15% und 31%). Dies kann als Hinweis darauf gelten, dass diese Funktionen, neben dem komplett 3G-spezifischen mobilen Fernsehen, das größte Potential aufweisen, sich als 'Allein-stellungsmerkmale' der Mobiltelefonie der Dritten Generation zu etablieren.

Die markantesten Unterschiede in den Erwartungen und Wahrnehmungen der NutzerInnen zeigen sich jedoch nicht so sehr in den Nutzungsgraden der an-gebotenen Funktionen, sondern vor allem in ihren allgemeinen Einstellungen dazu, was ein Mobiltelefon für sie tun können sollte. Wir haben für unsere Studie in Anlehnung an die oben erläuterte Diskussion drei Designkonzepte identifiziert und getestet, welche von ihnen bei wem den größten Anklang finden. Insgesamt wurde diese von uns vorgenommene Dreiteilung, obwohl sie nicht explizit ge-macht wurde und die entsprechenden Fragen zufallsverteilt gestellt wurden, von den Befragten gut erkannt: Es ließen sich entlang der Unterscheidung zwischen den Präferenzen für (A) funktionale Vielseitigkeit, Integration und Allgemeinheit, für (B) Spezialisierung, „Plug-and-Play“-Eigenschaften und Einfachheit der Bedie-nung sowie für (C) Anpassungsfähigkeit, Gestaltungs- und Kontrollmöglichkei-ten, die in einem Koordinatenkreuz der Eigenschaften von Nutzbarkeit (von ma-ximaler Einfachheit α- zu maximaler Kontrolle α+) und Funktionalität (von ma-ximaler Spezialisierung β- zu maximaler Vielseitigkeit β+) angeordnet wurden, drei Cluster von NutzerInnen identifizieren:

(α+/β+) NutzerInnen, die vielseitige Funktionen ebenso schätzen wie die Mög-

lichkeit zu deren Kontrolle und Konfiguration (28% der Befragten);

10 Chapter 2

(α-/β+) NutzerInnen, die zwar vielseitige Funktionen wünschen, ohne aber viel Mühe in Kontrolle und Konfiguration investieren zu wollen (28% der Be-fragten);

(α-/β0) NutzerInnen, die vor allem Einfachheit der Bedienung wünschen, ohne besondere weitere Präferenzen bezüglich Spezialisierung oder Kontrolle zu haben (44 % der Befragten).

Aus der Verteilung der genannten Cluster auf GSM- vs. 3G-NutzerInnen ergibt sich ein aufschlussreiches Bild: Das Bedürfnis nach Vielseitigkeit gepaart mit Kon-trolle (α+/β+) findet sich ganz mehrheitlich bei 3G-NutzerInnen (51%), während sich die Nachfrage nach Vielseitigkeit ohne Verlangen nach Kontrollmöglichkei-ten (α-/β+) recht gleichmäßig auf beide Gruppen verteilt (zu je 28%) und der Be-darf an Einfachheit (α-/β0) am stärksten von GSM-NutzerInnen artikuliert wird (zu 48%).

Das Bedürfnis, der verwendeten Technologie „unter die Haube schauen“ zu können, wird von mehr als einem Drittel aller MobilfunknutzerInnen sowie von einer deutlichen Mehrheit der 3G-NutzerInnen artikuliert. Letztere können vor dem Hintergrund ihrer höheren Technikaffinität, also ihrer Neigung, neue Tech-nologien bald nach Einführung auszuprobieren, gleichsam als 'Avantgarde' gel-ten. Allerdings kann für die verbleibende Mehrheit der GSM-NutzerInnen die Betonung der Einfachheit der Bedienung den Umstieg auf die neue Technologie erleichtern, wenngleich Probleme der Bedienbarkeit offenbar nicht die oft vermu-tete Hauptrolle in der zögerlichen Akzeptanz der mobilen Breitbandtechnologien spielen: Zum einen gibt die Mehrheit sowohl der 3G- als auch der GSM-NutzerInnen an, mit den Funktionen ihrer Geräte hinreichend vertraut zu sein. Zum anderen genießt, in Übereinstimmung mit der wegweisenden Studie Davis (1989), für alle NutzerInnen der wahrgenommene Nutzen einer Funktion Vor-rang vor der Leichtigkeit ihrer Nutzung – auch wenn letzterer Faktor für die Mit-glieder der Cluster (α-/β+) und (α-/β0) mehr Gewicht hat als für Mitglieder von (α+/β+).

Es kann jedoch auch erwartet werden, dass das Nutzungsverhalten derer, die das mobile Breitband bereits jetzt nutzen, die Anwendungen der Zukunft prä-gen wird. Dies gilt auch und gerade vor dem Hintergrund der Beobachtung, dass, selbst wenn die von einer neuen Technologie angebotenen Möglichkeiten häufig ein Motiv für deren Anschaffung liefern, das tatsächliche Nutzungsverhalten sich nur langsam in neue Bahnen hineinbewegt. Auch hochgerüstete Mobiltelefone mit vielfältigen Funktionen werden in erster Linie noch als Mobiltelefone wahr-genommen. Diese Beobachtung in Sugai (2007) deckt sich mit den von uns fest-gestellten Unterschieden zwischen den Erwartungen an die Mobiltelefonie der Dritten Generation und der tatsächlichen Nutzung ihrer Funktionen.

Dieses ausdifferenzierte Bild von unterschiedlichen Interessen, Kenntnissen und Erwartungen der NutzerInnen, deren Praxis der Nutzung überdies von den eigenen Einstellungen abweichen kann, legt nahe, dass sich die Schließung eines

German Summary 11

technologischen Designs und seine Nutzungsmuster nicht vorausplanen und vorherbestimmen lassen. Zumal sich in unserer Studie kein Cluster identifizieren lässt, das auf das Konzept der information appliances (in seiner Kombination von Einfachheit und Spezialisierung) passt, und zumal sich das von ihm implizierte monolithische Bild der NutzerInnen als technisch generell uninteressierte Kon-sumentInnen nicht bestätigen lässt, erscheint folgende Schlussfolgerung berech-tigt: Die besten Erfolgschancen haben solche Gestaltungskonzepte, die den Nut-zerInnen einerseits dort Freiheit bei der Anpassung und Ausgestaltung der Funk-tionen lassen, wo diese es wünschen, und die ihnen andererseits dort einen ein-fachen Zugang ermöglichen, wo dies erforderlich ist.

Background 13

P= _~ÅâÖêçìåÇ=In recent years, a development has taken place within mobile telephony that partly parallels the developments in home computing: Mobile phones have in-creasingly become tools for multimedia communication, information, and enter-tainment, approaching the goal of convergence from the side of communication. Apart from the now widely established music, camera, organiser and gaming functions, web-based applications such as internet, email, location-based services and mobile television have entered the realm of mobile telephony, apparently both following and reinforcing a demand for mobile access to communication and data services anytime, anywhere.

Not only have GSM-based mobile phones, that is, mobile phones using digital transmission technologies, rapidly improved and changed, accomplishing various different tasks such as conversation, information, orientation, localisa-tion, agenda, mobile business, entertainment, etc. The Third Generation of mo-bile telephony (3G), allowing mobile devices to utilise significantly higher data transmission rates, directly aims at further enhancing and diversifying data ser-vices. The provision and use of such services requires that the design of mobile phones itself develops into new directions. To some extent, 3G mobile phones have been endowed with functions that have been specific to PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants) and Personal Computers so far, such as word processing, spreadsheets, presentation design, advanced organiser functions etc. Another fo-cus of design is the integration of multimedia functions such as mobile TV and download and organisation of music files. A third direction is the integration of navigation and location based functions.

This fairly wide variety of functions is integrated in different devices with different emphasis, and along different conceptual lines. Third Generation mo-bile phones are also being termed as “smartphones”, sometimes defined as hybrid devices which “are predominantly communication devices, with additional com-putational power built in” (Beale 2005, p. 35). Vague definitions like this one reflect the multiplicity of possible directions into which the design of 3G mobile telephony may evolve – concerning both devices and services (see sections 5.1 and 5.4 below).

Looking at recent market developments, the diffusion of 3G mobile phone technologies has been continuously increasing in Europe throughout the last few years. At present, the average penetration rate in Europe is 12%. Austria, at 16%, ranges slightly above average (Mobile Communications No. 447, June 2007), and, according to our own survey, within Austria, Styria ranks 5th at 17% (see Appen-dix A.36, pp.90-97). The ratio of 3G-compatible to 2G SIM cards activated in Aus-tria is quickly shifting in favour of the former (Rundfunk und Telekom Regu-lierungs-GmbH 2007). Already in 2008, 3G telephone sales figures will be twice as

14 Chapter 3

high as those for GSM phones, and a penetration rate of 95% is expected for 2010 by some experts (Mobile Communications No. 447, June 2007).

However, while these figures suggest that 3G mobile telephony will be dominant within a few years, and while providers are hopeful that mobile broad-band devices and applications will define the future of telecommunications, ena-bling maximum flexibility and mobility by way of integrating as many functions as possible into one small, handy, and universal device, observations on real-world usage suggest that the actual usage of the functions provided lags behind those expectations, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Recent market studies suggest that, considering the European market, there is a significant discrepancy between the rapidly growing sales figures of 3G mobile phones and the actual usage of those functions (Polis 2005; Grünberg 2005; see also Fortunati 2006; Wajcman et al. 2007), and the findings of our study appear to corroborate this observation. In its majority, the turnover for mobile telecommunications provid-ers from mobile data services is still generated by the well-established text (SMS) and multi-media (MMS) messaging services, not by the more advanced services that are now offered (Briegleb 2008; Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH 2007).

In search of possible causes of this discrepancy, a variety of factors may be held responsible: – Firstly, the technology itself may not yet have reached a mature state where

services function in a satisfactory matter. – Secondly, the organisation of the data services in question may be inade-

quate. This may include incoherent standards, inadequate business models, high costs, intransparent pricing, and complexity of the technical vocabulary used in marketing.

– A third factor may be that services and devices, although being properly functional and aptly organised, are designed in a way that does not fit users’ expectations and usage habits.

While there is some initial plausibility to all of these factors, a quick look at the pioneer market for the mobile broadband shows that their validity is somewhat differential: Japan has a penetration rate of 48% for 3G mobile telephony (in 2007, according to the Japanese Telecommunications Carriers Association 2007), and South Korea 40% (in 2005, according to Informa – Global Mobile 12/No.10, June 2005). Services are well developed, and widely accepted. To many Japanese, a 3G mobile telephone is their only personal computing device in private use, as home computing is not very widespread. It does thus not seem that the technol-ogy itself is in a state of insufficient development. However, the organisation of services is quite different from the European model – which may partly explain the comparative success of the mobile broadband in Japan, and which also puts limits on comparison: Content providers are in a much stronger position than in

Background 15

Europe, as they act independently from network providers. Instead of being used as a kind of leverage for selling devices and contracts, content is offered as an independent service by more or less independent providers, who have to be more sensitive to consumers’ demand in order to prevail. Moreover, pricing for data services is different, as flat rates are rather common instead of charges for limited data volumes. Last but not least, the variety of differently designed devices and services is considerably wider than in Europe (where the most popular Japanese 3G service, iMode, was introduced in 2002, with relative success), so that users apparently do have more of a choice.

In spite of the cultural differences that make a simple transfer of concepts unfeasible, the Japanese example may serve as an incentive to providers to recon-sider their service and pricing policies. Even if comparability is limited, general indications can be provided towards broadening the scope of provided services, and towards different pricing.

Due to budgetary constraints, we could not further analyse this aspect. In-stead, we focused on the third factor, which is also concerned with users’ inter-ests and attitudes, but with less of a marketing perspective: the design of devices and applications. We thus investigated into mobile users’ expectations, attitudes and practices towards the use of 3G mobile telephony functions that may, in conjunction with the provision of adequate services and contents, contribute to an explanation of the gap between the dissemination of devices and the usage of functions and services. We will present the details of our study after a survey of the scholarly literature in the field of “users and ICTs” in the social sciences, and situating our approach within that field.

Research Field 17

Q= j~ééáåÖ=íÜÉ=oÉëÉ~êÅÜ=cáÉäÇ=Since the late 1990s, mobile telephony has received increasing attention from the social studies of science and technology – in the broad, interdisciplinary sense. While some studies have addressed the social practices behind the development, design and marketing of mobile telephony that remain elusive to those narratives of technological development which claim that there is an inherent, autonomous logic to it, the majority of scholarly work has focused on the social preconditions and effects of the diffusion and use of that technology (e.g. (Haddon 2004): Not only have new styles and modes of communication emerged, there are entire sets of new cultural practices that have developed, as well as the kind and dynamics of communicative behaviour in public have changed. Accordingly, the adoption and domestication, the uses and gratifications of mobile technology have re-ceived much attention, giving rise to entire strands of research. However, as some scholars admonish, not much attention has been paid to the design of mobile telephony devices and services (Fortunati 2006). For the most part, design issues have been the subject of usability studies, which only addresses one of the main aspects of design, and which is a research field fairly different from the social studies of science and technology. The concepts of usability and usability re-search will be discussed in section 5.2 and 5.3.

QKN= pçÅá~ä=píìÇáÉë=çÑ=jçÄáäÉ=`çããìåáÅ~íáçå=

In Pedersen and Ling (2003), a useful conceptual mapping of the field of research in user aspects of ICTs is introduced, with particular focus on the mobile inter-net. Users' relationships to the technologies they use can be studied with differ-ent aims in mind: – Firstly, empirical research may either seek to accurately describe the way in

which users adopt a technology, or it may try to explain why certain people choose to use or not to use it, or how, and to what purpose, they do so.

– Under either aspect, secondly, users' adoption of a technology may be de-scribed, or explained, on an aggregate level, that is, with perspective on popu-lations and groups, or it may be addressed on the level of individuals, and the interactions between them.

– Thirdly, users’ adoption of a technology may be viewed either in search of the causes responsible for certain adoption patterns, or in order to identify the effects of adoption.

Different strands of research address different combinations of those aims: For example, what is christened “diffusion research” in Pedersen and Ling's review article is concerned with causes of a technology’s diffusion on an aggregate level, whereas “domestication research” addresses consequences of use on both indi-vidual and aggregate levels. “Adoption research” and, as a variety thereof, “uses

18 Chapter 5

and gratifications research” are again occupied with analysing the micro-level, and with explaining the causes behind adoption patterns, or with thoroughly describing those patterns. Those different strands should however not be seen as mutually exclusive, but only as putting different emphases on closely interrelated phenomena within the same overarching research programme.

QKNKN= aáÑÑìëáçå=

“Diffusion” is a term that, at least in the given context, may lead to the assump-tion that it amounts to the increasing dissemination of an artefact – which could be readily grasped by sales statistics. However, if one goes back to the classical definition of the term in Rogers (2003), diffusion in the context of technological innovation refers to the alteration of an entire social system by way of actors mu-tually communicating new ideas, these new ideas, that is, innovations, helping to fulfil hitherto unresolved tasks in social interaction (p.5-6). Given this defini-tion, diffusion proper should be distinguished from mere dissemination of a technology. For matters of clarity, we will use this distinction throughout the text.

Thus, diffusion research means to address the social change brought about by the communication of some new idea or concept, which, in some cases, is accompanied by the introduction and dissemination of some new artefact or ser-vice – whereas the creation of a new artefact, in itself, does not yet constitute an innovation. The questions are: In which ways do actors’ modes of behaviour change? Why do some actors accept some innovation, while others do not? What can be done now that could not be accomplished before, and what are pos-sible new tasks and problems that are posed by that change? When one asks who the users of a technology are, the poorly quantifiable implications of becoming, or not becoming, a user should be kept in mind, even if the general approach is predominantly quantitative.

As early as in 2001, in a study based on data from the research project “ICT Uses in Everyday Life”, Mante-Meijer and Ling (2001) tried to answer questions on the probability of successful diffusion and adoption of mobile broadband ser-vices in Europe. Starting from contemporary adoption and diffusion patterns, they inquired into factors influencing use and non-use of mobile telephony and mobile Internet. An interesting finding was that mobile phone users were at that time not self-evidently also Internet users. However, Internet users were often also mobile phone users. They tended to be higher educated, more active and “sophisticated” than ‘plain’ mobile users (Mante-Meijer and Ling 2001, p.6).

The observation that early adopters, also called “lead users”, occupy a par-ticular role is emphasised by many authors, most prominently by Rogers (2003), p. 283-285) who introduced the distinction between “early adopters, “early” and “late majority” and “laggards” in order to categorise different actors in terms of

Research Field 19

their behaviour towards innovations: While early adopters tend to operate as lo-cal facilitators, or “change agents”, in the diffusion of an innovation, the early majority is likely to follow an innovation process with “deliberate willingness”, but without taking the risk of being the first ones (who may find themselves in-vesting in a failure), whereas the late majority waits until some pressure has amounted on them to follow suit, and the so-called laggards being the most con-servative group, tending to be not ignorant, but “suspicious of innovations and of change agents” (ibid.).

That there is no automatism that would make early adopters’ attitudes and practices sufficient for widespread diffusion of an innovation has been pointed out, for example, by Silverstone and Haddon (1996, p.57) and Mallard (2005, p.46): They are the first users to be in contact with a new technology or service, so both the concept and the artefact have to appeal to them first, but at the same time early adopters’ attitudes and practices do not represent those of the later users, as the preferences of the latter are different from those of the former (who are found to be more technically-minded, more individualistic etc.). Thus, the possibilities for generalising from the adoption of a technology by early adopters are limited, as their mode of adoption may or may not be taken over by the early or late majorities, on whom the diffusion of a technological innovation ulti-mately depends.

A more recent Delphi study (Lehmann, Kuhn, and Lehner 2004) revealed a great deal of confusion and uncertainty among experts concerning the future shape of 3G users and 3G applications. As the most likely early adopters of the Third Generation of mobile telephony, teenagers were identified, as they are in-clined to utilise multimedia functions for communication and entertainment, as well as to adopt a playful stance towards the technology for its own sake. How-ever, this very group was not seen in the position to pay for the, still rather ex-pensive, services (ibid., pp. 1, 7). Instead, the typical 3G user profile was sketched as follows: male, 25-40 years, belonging to professional/business executive strata, using B2E (business to employee) functions that utilise WLAN or other available broadband networks.1

QKNKO= ^Ççéíáçå=

In studies about diffusion, individual beliefs and desires are abstracted from, be-ing examined mostly on an aggregate level. The motivations and attitudes of us-ers are certainly of importance when it comes to trying out explanations for pat-terns of diffusion, but they are not, as the actual motivations and beliefs of indi-viduals interacting with other people, institutions etc., the core subject of investi-gation. In contrast, adoption research, and similarly domestication research, ad-dress concrete individual beliefs and desires in the first place, seeking to embed

1 See also Tee (2005).

20 Chapter 5

them in the context of the social structures surrounding the subjects, such as the market, the family or the workplace, or in the context of their culture. This en-deavour may be characterised as a “social history of adoption and usage”:

“In social histories […], telecommunications consumers are characterised not only

through demographic categories, but also through their relationship to the indus-

tries and institutions that comprise telecommunications markets. The relationship

is described as one where industry organisations structure a market wherein indi-

viduals, in the context of the social groups and organisations of which they are a

part, both consume in intended ways but also develop their own uses. […] Key to

these social histories is the fact that the consumer is an individual who appropri-

ates telecommunications technologies in ways that fit with their membership of

social groups, life stages and everyday activities of sociability.” (Green et al. 2001,

p.147).

Thus, the question of “who are the users” may be answered in different terms than demographically identifying types of individuals. Silverstone and Haddon (1996) remark that “users are not just technical users”, that is, they are not to be seen as isolated individuals whose only (relevant) interaction is with an interface or an application. There are multiple modes and manners of using an artefact. To capture these, as an alternative concept to the “user”, the “consumer” is intro-duced – an individual acting within a market context, as a buyer of commodities, as well as within the context of effects of his or her usage behaviour among his or her peers, colleagues, family etc., in which different, and often contradicting ra-tionales are at work: Artefacts are sold, and thus placed, “within a complex cul-tural space in which consumers in their various rational and irrational ways make decisions about the appropriateness of inappropriateness of a new product to their own circumstances” (ibid., p.52). Here, the more qualitative stance of adop-tion research becomes visible, and finds its proper place.

The modes of adoption of a technological innovation that lie behind ap-parently similar patterns of diffusion may also vary across different cultures or subcultures. As Katz and Aakhus (2002) programmatically put it, the purpose is to elucidate the “culturally specific reception and adoption of the mobile phone, as well as the relationship between national values and communication behaviors involving the mobile phone” (p.12). Some of the studies included in their vol-ume Perpetual Contact, Private talk, Public Performance exemplify this perspective, such as Kim’s research on the socio-cultural factors in explaining the meteoric rise of the mobile phone in Korea; Robbins and Turner’s research on political and cultural reasons why the USA lags so far behind Europe and the Pacific Rim coun-tries in terms of penetration in usage; or Mante’s study on similarities between Dutch and US mobile users. Moreover, particular attention has been paid by

Research Field 21

scholars to the adoption of mobile telephony by teenagers, belonging to first generation of “mobile natives”, that is, people that have been raised after the advent of that technology (see Section 4.1.3 below). Besides its plain communica-tion functions, mobile phones are adopted for different kinds and degrees of ex-pressive and emotional purposes by this user group, setting their mode of adop-tion apart from the other major distinguished group of mobile users, namely business executives, to whom other values, from efficient organisation of work to social prestige, are behind their adoption of mobile telephony. This observation may even hold after the transition to Third Generation mobile telephony, as it starts to become available to young users.

Last but not least, the different modes of adoption by different users amount to acts of innovation in themselves, in giving new meanings and new purposes to technologies initially designed towards other purposes. As these ac-tivities, when aggregated, may ultimately not only influence the further diffusion and adoption of a technology, but also feed back into design processes, the users engaging in suchlike activities are to be viewed as innovators themselves (Haddon et al. 2005).

QKNKP= açãÉëíáÅ~íáçå=

Directing one’s attention from the causes of diffusion, and the probably diverg-ing reasons that motivate different users to adopt a technology, to the effects of diffusion and adoption, the domestication of the technology takes centre stage (Haddon 2004): How are artefacts and their uses integrated into daily life so as to fit into usual and common practices? How are these practices altered in effect?

As such, domestication is a fundamentally conservative process, as consumers look

to incorporate new technologies into the patterns of their everyday lives in such a

way as to maintain both the structure of their lives and their control of that struc-

ture. (Silverstone and Haddon 1996, p.60)

Instead of what is often called an “impact”, there is an interaction to be found between some technology on one hand and, on the other hand, the individual preferences and the norms and practices that pertain to the areas of market and culture in which these are embedded.

Examples of domestication studies in the field of mobile telephony include inquiries into the consequences of mobile telephony for the planning of cities (Townsend 2000); the relation between the high penetration rate of mobile te-lephony in Finland and the emergence of an unusually “voluble” speech culture (Puro 2002); the importance of the symbolic and social dimensions of the tele-phone, concerning the technology in relation to the body (Fortunati 2002); or the effects of so-called micro- and hyper-coordination of daily activities (Ling and Haddon 2001; Ling and Yttri 2002). The concepts of micro-coordination of daily

22 Chapter 5

mobility – as an instrumental activity –and hyper-coordination – as an expressive function of mobile telephony – were introduced by Ling and Yttri (2002). While micro-coordination was found to be common for two-career parents, with their need for negotiating work and family duties, for teenagers an expressive use of the device has been adopted in addition to the instrumental use, bearing testi-mony to their desire for access to peers and separation from their parents.

The domestication of mobile telephony by teenagers has been the subject of various other studies, including Kasesniemi and Rautiainen (2002) and Oksman and Rautiainen (2002) on Finnish adolescents, and of Weilenmann and Larsson (2000) on Swedish teenagers. Kasesniemi and Rautiainen (2002) focused on how teens use the SMS service, concluding that the service was innovatively used by teens to perform distributed, collaborative relational work. One surprising fram-ing effect of mobile telephony usage was highlighted by De Gournay (2002) (2002). She claimed that, “although the mobile phone may not be a technologi-cal innovation as such, it does offer a format that enables users to transgress codes of human interaction and to redefine, or at least individually to renegoti-ate, the collective norms governing social and emotional relationships (courtesy, reciprocity, publicity/confidentiality of interaction” (p.195). Nafus and Tracy (2002) focused on the social construction of personhood through mobile phone consumption, claiming that “the English strongly associate the mobile phone with the perpetual invention of the individuality” (p.206).

It has to be noted here that domestication does not simply and exclusively mean “bringing a technology into the home”. What happens at the workplace also counts (Haddon et al. 2005, p.4.). The observation that new technologies, especially information and communication technologies, are often first intro-duced in contexts of work, and then gradually enter the private sphere (Green et al. 2001; Bakalis, Abeln, and Mante-Meijer 1997), should not lead to the assump-tion that domestication is only achieved when the technology in question has become a commodity of private life. In fact, many of the newer ICTs, and the mobile phone in particular, have lead to an increasing blurring of the boundaries between work and private spheres. More precisely, Green et al. (2001) emphasise that many users have acquired their mobile phones through work roles, but also use them in private life out of affective, community and social motivations (p.147). A recent study of Wajcman et al. (2007) on mobile telephony and work/life balance finds that most respondents would not say that usage of the mobile phone is intrusive to their private life, but it clearly states that usage does not exclusively belong to either sphere, even if the context of acquisition belongs to one of them. On the contrary, mobile phones are often used as a means of coordinating one’s professional and private activities (see above).

Mobile users are thus conceptualised as individuals who utilise technology strategically, for a number of different – but integrated – professional and per-

Research Field 23

sonal purposes, in a number of different social environments and relationships. Because consumers’ uses of the technology change with context, in some senses they are “several people in the one [sic!] body” (Green et al. 2001, p.148).

On a more critical side, the widespread use of ICTs, together with general globalisation tendencies, has also been held responsible for the processes of disso-lution of boundaries not only between working and private life (locally and tem-porally), but also between countries and regions, and between time zones (Mante 2002). One of the consequences is, in her opinion, that a “sense of location, and a sense of the home base, is becoming lost” (p.18). Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005) argue for a “paradoxical nature” of mobile technologies, as these are found to both empower and enslave their users, to increase their freedom and make them more dependent, to fulfil needs and create new ones, to give the user new com-petences while making him or her experience new limits to their competences, to mix public and private spaces, etc.

QKO= páíì~íáåÖ=çìê=píìÇó=

We have been trying to map the research field within the social studies of tech-nology that is concerned with the diffusion, adoption, and domestication of mo-bile telephony. If we were to locate our own study on this conceptual map, we would place it among “diffusion research” in a first step. We are seeking to give a description of patterns of adoption vs. non-adoption on a quantitative basis, that is, on an aggregate level, with a perspective towards explanations as to what may be facilitators and obstacles to further diffusion that reside within the preferences of the users and non-users. If the diffusion of some innovation depends on the communication and spread of new ideas and concepts, the identification of dif-ferent understandings, and possible limits to understanding, current among the population of actual and possible users will be of utmost interest – much more than the dissemination of artefacts. This focus on behaviours and attitudes on an aggregate level notwithstanding, several of the findings from other areas we have referred to above will be important to an interpretation of the data we have col-lected and analysed: – The diffusion patterns of 3G telephony do not provide a sufficient basis for

inferring to the individual reasons for adoption. Even behind seemingly ho-mogeneous groups in terms of diffusion, there may be a wide variety of rea-sons to be found for adopting the technology, and of purposes to which it is put.

– The role of early adopters, or lead users, needs to be properly interpreted. While generalisations from their adoption patterns, and their possible moti-vations, evidently should be taken with a pinch of salt, their usage behaviour may still contribute to shifting the path of development into a certain direc-tion – or perhaps more than one, if different lead user groups emerge.

24 Chapter 5

– It would be premature to assume that uses of the mobile broadband are al-ways instrumental, being targeted at a pre-defined purpose pertaining to the individual user. Different, and sometimes even competing rationales may be at work behind the adoption of different functions of one device, and even of one function under different circumstances. These rationales may be idiosyn-cratic or interactive, instrumental or emotional, pragmatic or playful.

– If functions hitherto typical of other technologies and media are imple-mented in 3G phones, such as Internet or television, they may ultimately be used in different ways, under different circumstances, towards different pur-poses, by different users. Mobile Internet and mobile television, for example, may not simply turn out to be Internet and television on a mobile phone, which has significant implications on development and design.

– While the success of 3G technology seems to depend on convergence and integration of a broad variety of functions in one device, and while the usage of these functions depends both on their perceived usefulness and on their ease of use (see section 5.3 below), usage contexts diverge significantly be-tween different users, or between the same users in different situations. Thus, usefulness and ease of use may have to be provided for in different fashions across different contexts.

These conclusions from our above survey may jointly serve as a caveat against generalisations that might appear forthright if one considers the data alone. As our study was a quantitative one that could not capture all possible variables, the above considerations may only help us to a few answers, but will be helpful in asking the right questions for further research.

Uses and Designs 25

R= aÉÑáåáåÖ=rëÉë=~åÇ=aÉëáÖåë=In a certain way, the observable divergence in possible and actual uses of 3G mo-bile telephony, the heterogeneity within the populations of possible and actual users, and, not least, the openness of the general direction(s) into which this technology may further evolve, is reflected on the level of technology design.

One of the main questions for the social studies of science and technology is whether a state of “closure”, that is, the fixation of a certain path of develop-ment and the abandonment of initially equiprobable alternatives, is mainly achieved on the level of social interaction, or whether it follows a developmental logic inherent to the technology itself (Pinch and Bijker 1987). The latter view has been considered the received view for a long time, being critically referred to as “technological determinism”, and being the critical point of reference for the social studies of technology.

Against this received view, processes of negotiation, institutional structures, the exertion of power, and the contingencies of social and political networking were brought to the fore as factors in the “social construction” or “social shap-ing” of technology (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999). If one presumes that those latter factors, rather than being the exclusive determinants of technological de-velopment – which would amount to some kind of social determinism –, interact with the logic of technology design, the state of affairs in which we find 3G mo-bile technology will be a useful testbed for observing that interaction at work. Thus, attention has to be paid to the design of the technology in question, too. More precisely, our aim is to look at technology design from the perspective of the social sciences, with the users’ perceptions of, and expectations towards, that design in focus.

RKN= léÉå=m~íÜë=

One striking observation about the current state of technology in Third Genera-tion mobile telephony is that there is a significant lack of definition as to what actually are the characteristic features of a 3G telephone. This observation holds both on the level of discussion in the literature and on the level of design con-cepts.

Mobile phones that offer high-speed data transmission and implement functions that are enabled by it are often called “smartphones”. On some ac-counts, a smartphone simply is a mobile phone with additional features that ex-ploit the increased data transmission rates provided by 3G networks (Beale 2005, p. 1). However, one will easily find mobile telephones on the market that, al-though being equipped with some 3G functions, are neither advertised nor sold as smartphones, but, for example, as multimedia phones, music phones, or TV phones.

26 Chapter 5

Stricter definitions of the concept of the smartphone do not rely on the va-riety and kind of features implemented, but include the necessary condition that a phone shall have an open operating system platform that makes it programma-ble and allows third party software to be installed and operated (Best 2006), cit-ing David Wood of Symbian). On a different approach, a smartphone is defined by the target user group envisioned by its designers and manufacturers: business executives who have a demand for refined organiser and messaging functions integrated alongside with office applications (ibid.).

These competing definitions are, to some extent at least, reflected in our study, inasmuch as we, firstly, detected different kinds of user expectations to-wards the functionality of 3G mobile phones, and inasmuch as we could, sec-ondly, identify three strands of design concepts towards 3G mobile telephony. Both the design strands and users’ expectations can be systematised along the concepts of usability and functionality. After introducing these concepts and their context in sections 5.2 and 5.3, we will discuss the different designs strands in section 5.4, to match them against users’ attitudes and expectations in the dis-cussion of our empirical study in chapter 6.

RKO= rë~Äáäáíó=oÉëÉ~êÅÜ=

In design and engineering, user aspects of technology are addressed from a fairly different angle than within the social studies of science and technology. While the latter are concerned with the social preconditions and consequences of tech-nologies in general, the former are concerned with the interaction between hu-mans and machines, and in particular with the aspects of technology design that account for a successful interaction. Accordingly, usability research mostly be-longs to the field of human factors in engineering and design.

Technology design should here be understood as two different, but interre-lated things: – Firstly, the general functional layout of a device, application or service are a

matter of design considerations. What is a machine meant to do in which overall fashion? How is its functionality defined?

– Secondly (and often only at a later stage of development), design endeavours into the shaping of the interfaces, or, more generally, the elements of a de-vice or application through which the user interacts with it. How is it meant to be used? How is its usability addressed?

Somewhat sandwiched between the design considerations at either end of the scale, engineering is endowed with providing the technical path from intended function to de-facto usage. In this context, the task of usability research may be best described as the inquiry into how to connect these elements of a technology so as to enable users to make the best use of the functions provided by a device or service, and the interfaces through which they are mediated.

Uses and Designs 27

It may be argued whether usability should be perceived as a property of the system taken by itself, or as a quality of the interaction between system and user, thus shifting the focus towards the particular contexts, predispositions, and envi-ronments of use. As Shackel (1991) programmatically put it: “Designers must see the user as the centre of the computer system instead of as a mere peripheral” (p.21).2 While the former position shows a closer proximity to engineering prac-tice proper, the latter position has gained much credit since the 1990s, not least for the fact that the contexts of usage of computers, starting from a comparably uniform workplace setting, have diversified significantly, generating not only a wider variety of devices and applications, but also many different locales and modes of interaction. As this fact is particularly pertinent to the mobile tech-nologies in question, we adopted this latter position as a point of departure for our study.

In a first approximation, the term “usability” refers to the property of a sys-tem of being capable of being used towards its given purpose – as would fit the word’s etymology. It addresses the properties of the system in relation to the us-age conditions around the system that allow the user, given his or her level of technical expertise, and given his or her specific purposes, to actually use the functions offered by that system. In the case of computing devices, usability par-ticularly matters for issues of interface design: How are the functions of the sys-tem made known and displayed to the user? What conditions would impede or facilitate perception and use of those functions?

However, in the analysis of this issue, a variety of different definitions and interpretations emerge: Usability may refer to the effectiveness and efficiency with which a system can be used – the traditional definition which is partly pre-served in ISO and IEEE standards –, or to the usefulness of a system as perceived by the users, in conjunction with their degree of confidence and satisfaction in using it, jointly accounting for the system’s acceptance by users (Davis 1989), or even to the quality of the users’ subjective experience as such (Thomas and Macredie 2002; McNamara and Kirakowski 2005). Thus, usability may be a cate-gory allowing for quantifiable measurements (what are the costs of error detec-tion and correction, and of learning commands and procedures required for proper usage of a system?), or it may be a domain of statistical generalisations over users’ subjective behaviours towards a model of acceptance of some tech-nology, or it may be a category exclusively reserved for the non-quantifiable, in-trinsic and essentially subjective aspects of using a technology (do users feel safe and comfortable when using a system?) – or it may be a mixture of either of these approaches (Gould 1988; Nielsen 1993).

It cannot be our purpose here to provide the correct definition of usability. In fact, there may not even be one definition that fits all purposes. Broadly speak- 2 See also the distinction between “quality of use” and “quality of experience” in

McNamara and Kirakowski (2005).

28 Chapter 5

ing, the choice is a matter of one’s interests (research or other), and of the kind of systems in question:

(I) Effectiveness and efficiency are criteria that are operable in the in-vestigation of work environments, and usability would best be de-fined in these terms when looking at work-oriented applications, viewed from the perspective of optimising procedures towards given tasks.

(II) Subjective well-being, on the other hand, becomes an issue if one takes the entire work situation into account, seeking to improve it beyond the level of task fulfilment, namely towards task definition. The aim is to empower users to define not only how to do their work, but also what they can do.3

(III) If attention is focused on consumer oriented applications, where us-age moves beyond work environments, so that measurable, stan-dardised criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and work satisfaction are not applicable, the aspect of “user experience”, becomes a key topic in designing and evaluating applications from the perspective of the manufacturers and service providers.

As the objects of our study are consumer-oriented devices and applications, and the adoption thereof by users, interpretation (III) seems to be closest to our re-search interest, but especially in our case in question, the definition of tasks by users referred to in interpretation (II), although to a significant extent occurring outside of work contexts, may not be ignored.

RKP= rë~Äáäáíó=~åÇ=cìåÅíáçå~äáíó=

In the debates about the concept of usability, it is often juxtaposed to the con-cept of functionality. Functionality refers to a set of functions offered by, or asso-ciated with, a technological system – capabilities it has, as mapped onto the pur-poses to which it should be used. Plainly and simply, a functional system is one that has the capacity of serving a certain set of purposes. In the case of comput-ing devices, functionality is a matter of the tasks that can be fulfilled with a cer-tain program, or with a certain configuration of software and hardware, and of how they can be fulfilled.

Functionality and usability are mostly seen as two aspects of any user-oriented technology that, although being different aspects, both have to be prop-erly accounted for in design processes (Goodwin 1987; Davis 1989; Shackel 1991; McNamara and Kirakowski 2005). The questions are, firstly, whether these as-pects imply trade-offs in design practice, or whether they need to be interpreted

3 This was one of the main motives behind the Participatory Design movement of

the 1980s (Bjerknes, Ehn, and Kyng 1987).

Uses and Designs 29

as complementary and mutually supporting.4 Depending on the answer to this question, it may be asked, secondly, whether usability and functionality are on equal footing, or whether one of them may have, generally or under certain cir-cumstances, preference over the other.

A systematic approach to this question that starts from the subjective per-ceptions of users, casting usability and functionality in a slightly different con-ceptual framework, has been undertaken by Davis (1989), who introduced a re-fined formal model of technology acceptance (called TAM). Davis introduced the notions of “perceived usefulness” and “perceived ease of use” as key variables to his model:

Perceived usefulness is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a

particular system would enhance his or her job performance.” […]

Perceived ease of use […] refers to “the degree to which a person believes that using a

particular system would be free of effort.” (Davis 1989, p.320, emphasis by author)

Perceived ease of use matches a more traditional definition of usability, as in in-terpretation (I) above. Perceived usefulness amounts to the mapping of users’ perceived needs for a system to perform a certain function onto the set of func-tions provided by that system, that is, its functionality. Davis developed and validated two scales with high degrees of reliability for these specific variables and examined their relation to user acceptance. His main findings were that, concerning the issue of usage vs. non-usage, the effect of ease of use is mediated by usefulness (p.332), and that the relation between usefulness and usage thus appears stronger than the relation between ease of use and usage:

[…] users are driven to adopt an application primarily because of the functions it

performs for them, and secondarily for how easy or hard it is to get the system to

perform those functions. For instance, users are often willing to cope with some

difficulty of use in a system that provides critically needed functionality. Although

difficulty of use can discourage adoption of an otherwise useful system, no amount

of ease of use can compensate for a system that does not perform a useful function.

[…]

From a causal perspective, the regression results suggest that ease of use may be an

antecedent to usefulness, rather than a parallel, direct determinant of usage. The

significant pairwise correlation between ease of use and usage all but vanishes

when usefulness is controlled for. (Davis 1989, p.333f)

4 Goodwin (1987) strongly argues for complementarity, as do McNamara and Kira-

kowski (2005), who further differentiate the user related aspects into usability proper and user experience, while Jordan (2002) favours a hierarchical view.

30 Chapter 5

Thus, while it is obvious that even a maximally usable application is unlikely to be adopted if there is no perceived use for it, there appears to be a willingness to invest some effort, that is, to accept deficits in perceived ease of use, if the func-tion provided promises to be highly useful.

It may seem that these findings only hold for work-related applications – where the user often is not free to choose which tasks shall be fulfilled, whether or not the means towards them are easy to use or not. At least it may seem plau-sible to assume that, compared to work-related contexts, for consumer-oriented devices and applications, usability or ease of use is a more prominent factor than the possibility of fulfilling either very specific or a wide variety of tasks with the functions provided. Nonetheless, the presence of useful functions has to be given in order for a system to be used in the first place.

In order to assess the validity of this assumption about the variable balances between usability and functionality, we would like to introduce a twofold dis-tinction between different norms in design, which may be crossed so as to form coordinates of a graph:

(α) maximum control ↔ maximum ease of use; (β) maximum functional versatility ↔ maximum functional specialisation.

ã~ñáãìã=Åçåíêçä= α

Hâ

ã~ñáãìã=

ëéÉÅá~äáë~íáçå=β

Já

β

Hâ ã~ñáãìã=

îÉêë~íáäáíó=

αJá

ã~ñáãìã=É~ëÉ=çÑ=ìëÉ=

q~ÄäÉ=NW=`ççêÇáå~íÉë=çÑ=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíó=~åÇ=ìë~Äáäáíó=

These distinctions are meant to be gradual rather than strictly disjunctive. Con-sistently following either of these norms may, but need not imply deficiencies with regard to the norm at the other end of each scale: More control over the functionality of a device often implies more parameters to set, more commands

Uses and Designs 31

to enter, and thus less ease of use. Conversely, ease of use is often achieved at the cost of fewer control and configuration options. In analogous fashion, more functional versatility often implies less performance for each function, and vice versa.

One could now combine the “usability” scale (α) with the “functionality” scale (β) to see how they may match. While the norm of ease of use will go with both functional versatility and functional specialisation, the norm of control will be more sensibly connected with functional versatility, as the latter creates a stronger need for control options compared to a device with only one or a few functions, which will normally be easier kept in view by the user, even without special provisions. The challenges to design are posed, in different ways, by the remaining three combinations.

RKQ= háåÇë=çÑ=j~ÅÜáåÉë=

What degree of control or versatility, and what combination thereof, is chosen, both in design and in use, of course depends on what kind of machine for what kind of purpose designers and users have in mind. Looking back at the origins of computer technology, the concept of the “universal machine” was the guiding principle behind the development of computing as such. A universal machine is a machine that can be made to meet any variety of tasks in information process-ing. Although the concept itself, as developed by Turing (1936), was highly ab-stract, and not intended to deliver a blueprint for real-world machines, it exerted a strong influence on computer science and the science-led development of com-puter technology. Computers were meant to be, in principle, an indefinitely flexible match to the cognitive and intellectual versatility of people, augmenting their memory, their calculating capacities, and their orientation among available information in any direction desired. The hardware-software distinction may be cited as the technical incarnation of this principle: To change the task the ma-chine was to fulfil, one did not have to re-wire it, but (ideally) only to input se-mantically and syntactically correct instructions.

Unlike computers, telephones were, and presumably still are, not meant to be universal machines. Although their purposes have changed over time – losing their once prominent role as a medium of broadcasting messages and music, in-stead becoming the privileged medium of interpersonal communication over distances –, these purposes always remained of limited scope. Second Generation mobile phones were immensely successful as more versatile telephones, offering text messaging and organiser functions, and effectively becoming portable com-munication centres for individuals. Yet still universality was not the aim. Now that mobile phones have become, at least to some extent, to certain groups, in certain cultures, the “first truly personal computer” (Jarvenpaa and Lang 2005), things seem less clear: Are those devices meant to be further enhanced, more ver-

32 Chapter 5

satile telephones, yet without any further aspirations, or are they meant to con-verge towards the “universal machine” paradigm?

In order to sort out these questions, we tentatively identified three design concepts regarding our case in question, 3G mobile phones. Such a device could be:

(A) a mobile telephone with some extra, mostly multimedia functions that

take advantage of the available bandwidth: internet applications, mobile television, music, games. The design focuses on the integration of a broad variety of functions, not on their specialisation, and it focuses on usefulness and convenient access under the conditions of mobility and limited size. Under the rubric of the “Swiss army knife”, this design con-cept is critically reflected upon by Satyanarayanan (2005).

(B) a new and unique kind of mobile communication device with a very specialised and intuitively accessible interface, and with a specific selec-tion of functions that are tailored to the mobile user’s needs (e.g. loca-tion based services, navigation, mobile entertainment). These devices, being less versatile but more adapted to specific needs, can be subsumed under the “information appliance” design concept, as introduced by Norman (1998) and Bergman (2000).

(C) a form of wallet-scale mobile computer, centred around organiser and of-fice functions; the design logic and configuration options of the Personal Computer’s interface and applications are retained where possible and adapted to new usage contexts. Here, for the sake of versatility, the norm of functionality is put first; the user is meant to select and configure the desired functions by him- or herself.

This preliminary classification is not meant to map onto given design concepts in a clear-cut and unequivocal fashion, but it may help to identify different currents in design practice that, at the given stage, all seem viable (see section 5.1 above). Whether these tentatively identifiable directions will mature into properly de-fined standard designs, and whether or not one of them will prevail over the oth-ers, is less than clear at the current stage.

Still, one seemingly common characteristic of mobile broadband devices is that they borrow much of the symbolic code and layout of the PC's graphical user interface (desktop metaphor, windows, icons, menus), in order to give them a recognisable face. Even key features of the functional architecture of PCs are retained in smartphones and their kin – while, at the same time, the latter are no match to the functional versatility and power of PCs. Their limitations owe, at least partly, to technical constraints, such as storage capacity, battery power and size and quality of displays. The problem for design lies in the selection of a strat-

Uses and Designs 33

egy for coping with these limitations: One could either accept them, and still seek to keep the system as usable as possible (as in A); or try to overcome them by adapting the “universal machine” concept of the Personal Computer to the new circumstances (as in C); or one could seek to abandon the paradigm of the Per-sonal Computer altogether and try something new (as in B).

The information appliance design concept is based on the assumption that the Personal Computer does not provide a useful model for contemporary mobile communication and computing (Norman 1998; Bergman 2000). Personal Com-puters require considerable attention and a certain degree of knowledge for proper usage, as well as they require the adaptation of the user's behaviour to their operational routines and limitations – which they possess, it is claimed, pre-cisely because they provide “excess functionality” (Norman 1998, p. 60 and ch. 4), as the flip side of the coin of universality.

The idea of the universal machine is being replaced by a concept of net-worked, small, single-purpose, or limited-purpose machines: “An information appliance is designed to perform a specific activity, such as music, photography, or writing. A distinguishing feature of information appliances is the ability to share information among themselves.” (ibid., p.53) Additional tasks ask for addi-tional devices, all of which are supposed to communicate among themselves without first requiring tedious installation and configuration procedures. In this fashion, information appliances, it is promised, should not only be maximally usable, but pleasurable, and functionally self-evident to average consumers, who are the customers primarily envisioned, with highly individualised uses that shall not require any kind of formal training.

The acknowledged cost is that the devices’ functions are fixed, and ex-pressly limited: They may not allow for extensions and upgrades, and signifi-cantly fall behind Personal Computers in terms of configuration options (modify-ing the operating system, installing additional applications, (re)-programming source code). Generally speaking, options for the user to ‘look under the bonnet’ of the device are largely absent. While, under the “Swiss army knife” approach (A), these limitations appear as an inevitable sacrifice, they are turned into some kind of virtue for information appliances. However, whether trading in control and configuration options for ease of use, as in (A) and (B), will provide the key to success for the mobile broadband is an open question, which we will address now from an empirical perspective.

Survey Descriptions and Findings 35

S= pìêîÉó=aÉëÅêáéíáçå=~åÇ=cáåÇáåÖë=

SKN= aÉëáÖå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëíìÇó=

On the basis of the preceding discussion of the diffusion, adoption and domesti-cation of mobile technology, and of the diverging directions and design norms in the development thereof, the guiding questions of our empirical study can be articulated as follows:

(i) What are the patterns of dissemination of 3G mobile devices along demographic lines, and among different types of users?

(ii) What are the patterns of the adoption of functions typical for 3G mobile telephony among different types of users?

(iii) Where and how do the patterns of dissemination under (i) and of adoption under (ii) diverge?

(iv) What is the role of perceptions of the design norms of functional-ity and usability in the usage/non-usage of 3G phones and their functions?

After a description of the study and its findings, we will proceed to a discussion of the results along these guiding questions. Tables and graphs with data and analyses will be referenced as (A.nn) in the text, and are to be found in the Ap-pendix to this report (pp.55-97).

SKNKN= p~ãéäÉ=~åÇ=a~í~=ÅçääÉÅíáçå=

An Austria-wide online survey on the usage of 3G technology was developed by evolaris research lab, Graz, Austria, together with the authors. It was conducted by evolaris from September 3rd through 5th, 2007. The sample comprises of 632 re-spondents, being representative for the population of Austrian Internet users. 3G users comprised an 18% (n=115) sub-sample, which roughly accords with recent market statistics (15.8% in Austria for 2006, according to Mobile Communica-tions 450, 24 July 2007).

Addresses were provided by Opinions Online Panelservice (formerly arco, http://www.panelservice.at) from their Online-Access-Pool. Persons of age 14 years and older were invited via email to answer the questionnaire through ac-cessing a secured website whose link was included in the email. The responses were weighted along criteria of gender, age, and region. Table 2 on p.36 displays the characteristics of the sample in terms of age and gender.

SKNKO= qÜÉ=oÉëÉ~êÅÜ=fåëíêìãÉåí==

The questionnaire was designed so as to be answered within 5 to 10 minutes. The use of technical vocabulary specific to the technology in question (“3G”, “UMTS”, “location based services”, “DVB-H” etc.) has been avoided wherever

36 Chapter 6

possible. Respondents entered their replies via checkboxes. No text entry fields were used. Data were collected anonymously. ^ÖÉLdÉåÇÉê= j~äÉ= cÉã~äÉ= íçí~ä=

NQJNV=óÉ~êë= TISB= SIQB= NQB=

OMJOV=óÉ~êë= NPIMB= NNIMB= OQB=

PMJPV=óÉ~êë= NPIRB= NNIRB= ORB=

QMJQV=óÉ~êë= NMIPB= UITB= NVB=

RMJRV=óÉ~êë= TIMB= SIMB= NPB=

SM=óÉ~êë=~åÇ=~ÄçîÉ= PIOB= OIUB= SB=

qçí~ä= RQB= QSB= NMMB=

q~ÄäÉ=OW=^ÖÉ=~åÇ=ÖÉåÇÉê=ëíêìÅíìêÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ë~ãéäÉ=

The first partfirst partfirst partfirst part of the questionnaire contains questions about the usage/non-usage of 3G technology. First, respondents were asked whether they use a smartphone or PDA phone. We did not differentiate between these types of devices, and we did not ask respondents to classify the mobile phone they own in any more re-fined fashion. In case of a negative reply respondents were directed to a question about the reasons behind their non-adoption, with the possible replies being “no need”, “too expensive”, and “I don’t know smart- or PDA phones”. In case of a positive reply to the first question respondents were asked to which purpose they use their 3G phone: work-related, private, or both.

Next, all respondents were asked to align themselves with one of the four general types of adopters established in the literature by Rogers (2003), that is, early adopters, early and late majority and laggards (see above, p.19). We used a pre-codified question about the respondents’ perceived adoption behaviour vis-à-vis the emergence of new technologies. This question operationalises the concept of technology mindedness, and its answer variants run from: “I usually try new tech-nologies as soon as they are introduced” to “I am sceptical about new technolo-gies and tend to reject them”.

In the second partsecond partsecond partsecond part of the questionnaire, we looked for possible explanations for the adoption and non-adoption of 3G functions that reside within the prefer-ences of individual users by testing various design concepts, and the underlying notions of functionality and usability. Respondents were asked to indicate their preferences for specific qualities they would expect from a mobile phone, with-out reference to the distinction between GSM and 3G telephony, but with focus both on advanced, multimedia or web-based functions in general. Conceptually, the questions were posed so as to match the functionality/usability coordinates (α/β) introduced in Table 1, p.30 above. As these criteria are differentially distrib-uted over the design concepts (A-C) introduced in section 5.4, we allocated three questions, each addressing and emphasising issues in usability and functionality in different ways, to each concept. The concepts were however not explicated in

Survey Descriptions and Findings 37

the questionnaire, and the questions posed in random order, with multiple re-plies possible.

In the fourth pfourth pfourth pfourth partartartart of the questionnaire, we inquired into the respondents’ usage intensity and experience with different mobile phone applications, both GSM and 3G. First we asked respondents to assess the frequency with which they use various functions on a 3-point scale from “very often” to “never”, adding as a fourth variant “function not available”. This measurement of the ‘objective’ ex-perience was followed by an assessment of a ‘subjective’ quality of experience by means of an ordinal 6-point scale, running from “I acquired my device only a short time ago, and therefore do not have sufficient experience” to “I am well acquainted with most functions, and I find them easy to use”.

The last topical question tried to capture opinions of both users and non-users of 3G mobile telephony as to the possible reasons for many people not to use all the functions implemented in their devices. Multiple replies were possible. Ignorance of the functional scope of devices and lack of usability were among the possible answers, but also cost and perceived lack of need.

The questionnaire concludes with a set of sociosociosociosocio----demographic questionsdemographic questionsdemographic questionsdemographic questions, in-cluding gender, age, education, occupation, province of residence, and size of municipality of residence.

SKO= dÉåÉê~ä=m~ííÉêåë=çÑ=Pd=^Ççéíáçå=

The most general finding about the demographical structure of users vs. non-users of 3G mobile telephony seems little surprising, at least if we consider dis-semination of devices only: Compared to GSM users, typical 3G users appear to be more likely to be male, higher educated, self-employed or in leading positions, and seem to be more inclined to try new technologies as soon as they are intro-duced, that is, to be early adopters.5

Half of the 3G users used their devices both in private and in work contexts, which may indicate that mobile broadband technology has already passed its first “childhood” term of appropriation as an exclusive “work tool”, in analogy to the history of First and Second Generations of mobile technology, and has reached a stage of domestication where it is used to serve both in private and work con-texts, and often to coordinate them, even if the initial acquisition was for profes-sional purposes (A.4).

5 The crosstabs between the usage variable and the main socio-demographic variables

revealed significant interactions between gender, education, occupation and lead-ing/independent professional position (coded as dummy) and the usage of smart-phones (Table A.2).

38 Chapter 6

SKOKN= ^ííáíìÇÉë=íçï~êÇë=qÉÅÜåçäçÖó=áå=dÉåÉê~ä=

The general attitude towards the appropriation of new technologies – “technol-ogy mindedness” – is useful in order to establish the proportion and importance of early adopters, or lead users of new technologies. By and large, users and non-users of 3G mobile telephony significantly differed on this issue. Our analysis of the data6 shows that 3G users were significantly more likely to try new technolo-gies as soon as they have been introduced (58% 3G users compared to 12,4% GSM users); young users appeared to be particularly enthusiastic early adopters. Conversely, GSM users tended towards prudence, preferring to wait until a tech-nology has been widely adopted by others, and thus provided sufficient usage experience to base one’s own decision upon (45,3% GSM users compared to 12,0% 3G users). However, neither group displayed outright technology aversion (A.13, A.14).

SKOKO= oÉ~ëçåë=Ñçê=kçåJ^Ççéíáçå=

In a second step, we investigated into common barriers to the adoption of 3G mobile telephony in general. We asked the non-user sub-sample directly for what reason they prefer not to upgrade. Many of the non-users (41%) stated that they simply saw no need for the 3G-specific applications offered, and ignorance of the concept was admitted by even more non-users (43%), while the “cost” argument was openly given only by 19% (A.3). A significant degree of ignorance about 3G mobile technology as such could be recognized from these answers. The appar-ently imprecise understanding of the entire concept represents a key factor that may influence the other given reasons.

When inquiring into whether usability issues play a role in the non-adoption of 3G telephony, we compared GSM and 3G users’ opinions about pos-sible reasons for non-usage of mobile functionality (A.34, A.35; see also section 6.2.4 below), finding no significant correlation between being a GSM user and a perceived apprehension of difficulties in usage. In fact, at least given the technol-ogy currently used by each group respectively, the majority of both GSM and 3G users felt confident about mastering most or all functions of their devices (A.17). These two observations lead us to the conclusion that usability issues, although certainly deserving due attention, do not seem to pose the most pressing problem to either group – but especially not to 3G users (A.18). 3G users, despite any al-leged over-complexity and excess functionality of their devices, seemed to be more confident than the other users (71% vs. 51%), while only very few users from either group admitted that they found use of their device (2% vs. 3%), or certain functions and applications thereof (3% vs. 7%), difficult.

6 Pearson Chi-square 126, 92 Significance 2-tailed 0.00.

Survey Descriptions and Findings 39

SKOKP= aáëëÉãáå~íáçå=çÑ=aÉîáÅÉë=îëK=^Ççéíáçå=çÑ=cìåÅíáçåë=

In order to get a firmer grasp of patterns of adoption vs. non-adoption, we in-quired into the usage of 3G functions where they are available – which it is, to some extent, firstly, in advanced GSM phones and, secondly, in mobile phones that use 3G transmission technology, yet are not being sold as smartphones, but as somewhat enhanced standard mobile phones (for the distribution of the avail-ability of functions, see A.20). As we explicitly, and only, asked for smart-phone/PDA phone ownership in the opening question, we consider ourselves justified to assume that owners of these ‘intermediary’ devices in most cases would file themselves under non-users of the former. This kind of definitional uncertainty as to whether one uses a 3G phone or not appears unavoidable, and it may even be counted as symptomatic of the still under-defined state of the technology design in question.

Our primary finding with regard to the adoption of 3G functions was, in accordance with other studies, that their usage lags behind the dissemination of devices. We asked respondents to assess their frequency of usage of various func-tions typical for 3G telephony (A.19). These functions appear to be used only to a limited extent even by many 3G users (A.21). Frequent use of more than 33% is only stated for those functions that are already well established in the GSM realm: voice telephony, SMS and MMS, photo and video, and organiser and PIM (Personal Information Manager) functions – all of whom, however, are signifi-cantly more intensely used by 3G users than by GSM users. By the latter, the newly available mobile email, office applications, mobile TV and navigation/ lo-cation based services, if available at all (with 31% to 57% for non-availability), are used only to a marginal extent. The exceptions are mobile Internet, which is used by 41%, and frequently used by 7%, and music functions (25% and 5% re-spectively, see A.22).

Back to the 3G users, mobile Internet and mobile email are somewhat estab-lished (at 74% and 68% for usage in general), but not more than one third of all 3G users use these functions frequently (28% and 33% respectively). The least used applications, however, are particularly those which are promoted as paving the way for 3G phones and their kin (A.23): Music downloads are used by 41% of the 3G users, and frequently used by only 15%, while never being used by a 58% majority. Navigation and location based services are used by 41% of the 3G users, and frequently so by 20%, but remain completely unused by 32%, and are not available to 28%. Mobile TV ranks last with a usage of 34%, with a mere 7% for frequent use and 43% for non-use (which amounts to a higher rate than among GSM users!), and 23% for non-availability.

What are the reasons behind this hesitant adoption of 3G functions? One could assume that, for functions that rely on the provision of content, such as mobile internet, music downloads, location based services or mobile TV, the problem has to be located with that content. However, at least for web services

40 Chapter 6

and music downloads, this does not seem to hold, as the former remain the most-used applications besides telephony proper and SMS, while for either of them the supply of content is comparable to their ‘non-mobile’ counterpart. One may argue that a lack of mobility-specific content should be held responsible, so that sameness of content actually is part of the problem, at least concerning the mobile Internet. We cannot answer this question on the basis of our data, but location based services are an interesting case in question. They show the most significant divergence in adoption between 3G and GSM users, and there is much potential for the development of mobility-specific content that could contribute to increased adoption. Given, firstly, the example of the advanced development of the mobile broadband in Japan, with its wide and successful variety of location based services (Billich 2007), and given, secondly, that these services, unlike mo-bile Internet, music download etc., are specifically tailored to mobile use, these services have some promise of becoming the mark of distinction of 3G mobile telephony. It thus appears plausible to assume that mobile Internet, too, could benefit from adaptations to issues of mobility.

SKOKQ= léáåáçåë=~Äçìí=kçåJ^Ççéíáçå=

In order to probe deeper into possible reasons for-non-adoption, an indirect pre-coded question, “Why do you think that people don’t use the full range of func-tions available in their mobile phone?” attempted to detect reasons for the non-usage of mobile phone functions. The question did not mention any specific (kinds of) functions, so that, firstly, 3G users might indirectly refer to their rea-sons for the non-adoption of available functions, and, secondly, GSM users could indirectly refer to their reasons for not upgrading to 3G.

It turned out that the cost of mobile broadband services is still represented as a key factor particularly in GSM users’ reluctance to upgrade – although only 19% of all GSM users give cost as a reason for their reluctance to upgrade (A.35). Usability issues, that is, perceived operational complexity and unsuitability of functions for mobile use (display too small, keypad not easy to handle etc.), al-though still frequently chosen (slightly below 50%), remain the possible explana-tions for non-use of mobile phone functions that are ranked lowest by GSM us-ers. More importance was given to the possible lack of information about the full functionality of the mobile phones used, and to the possibility that not all of the available functions are needed in daily life.

For 3G users, among the reasons given cost issues take the lead (at 72%), 20 percentage points ahead of ignorance of the available functions (at 52%), with all other reasons following closely (A.34). While the assessment of usability-related arguments is fairly similar, a more notable divergence in opinion between 3G and GSM users lies in the formers’ lower esteem for the possibility that users may simply not need the functions in question (45% vs. 53%). Still, the difference

Survey Descriptions and Findings 41

does not appear significant enough to warrant an interpretation in terms of a vastly divergent perspective on (other people’s and one’s own) possible reasons for the non-usage of certain functions.

ã~ñáãìã=Åçåíêçä= α

Hâ

=

=

åL~=

=

=

=

=

=

E`F=

ã~ñáãìã=

ëéÉÅá~äáë~íáçå=β

Já

=

=

E_F=

=

=

=

=

=

E^F=

βHâ

ã~ñáãìã=

ëéÉÅá~äáë~íáçå=

αJá

ã~ñáãìã=É~ëÉ=çÑ=ìëÉ=

q~ÄäÉ=PW=j~ééáåÖ=çÑ=ÇÉëáÖå=ÅçåÅÉéíë=çå=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíóLìë~Äáäáíó=ÅççêÇáå~íÉë=

SKP= mÉêÅÉéíáçåë=çÑ=aÉëáÖå=kçêãë=

The most significant differences in the expectations and perceptions between 3G and GSM users have been identified in their attitudes and opinions towards de-sign norms, that is, towards what a mobile device should do for them. In our study, we have focused on the relationship between different design concepts and actual adoption of available functions along the coordinates of usability and functionality. The design concepts (A-C)7 introduced in section 5.4 may be

7 To recapitulate the design concepts:

(A) Swiss army knife: The design focuses on the integration of a broad variety of functions, not on their specialisation. Important are usefulness and convenient ac-cess under the conditions of mobility and limited size. (B) Information appliance: a new and unique kind of mobile communication device with a very specialised and intuitively accessible interface, and with a specific selec-tion of functions that are tailored to the mobile user’s needs (e.g. location based services, navigation, mobile entertainment). (C) Wallet computer: the design logic and configuration options of the personal computer’s interface and applications are retained where possible and adapted to new usage contexts. Here, for the sake of versatility, the norm of functionality is put first; the user is meant to select (and probably download) and configure the de-sired functions by him- or herself.

42 Chapter 6

mapped onto the functionality/usability coordinates (α/β) as shown in Table 3 above (compare Table 1, p.30 above). As no concept matching the maximum control/maximum specialisation pair could be identified, and as this combina-tion would appear less coherent as a design concept in the first place (for expla-nation see p.31), we left this option out.

Respondents were asked what qualities they expect from a mobile phone. The qualities inquired were:

(A1) versatility – the availability of many different functions in one device; (A2) integration – the availability of functions that prove useful in a variety

of practical contexts; (A3) generality – emphasis on a wide functional scope, even at the cost of

lower performance for each function; (B1) convenience – the availability of plug-and-play functionality, at the

cost of configuration options; (B2) ease of use – the availability of simple usage routines, at the cost of

functional versatility; (B3) specialisation – the excellence in a certain set of specific functions, at

the cost of generality; (C1) control – the availability of elaborated configuration options, at the

cost of having to invest some effort; (C2) customisation – the possibility of obtaining functions tailored to the

user’s needs; (C3) participation – the presence of options for contributing to the design

of new functions. The responses were ranked, resulting in the distribution of answers for 3G and GSM users displayed in Table 4 on the following page.

SKPKN= qÜÉ=dÉåÉê~ä=o~åâáåÖ=çÑ=aÉëáÖå=kçêãë=

Looking at the distribution of responses, versatility, integration, control, and cus-tomisation emerged as the most important values for 3G users, while not being of overwhelming importance to GSM users, who valued ease of use the highest, followed by versatility and customisation (A.5-A.7).

Many statistically significant differences between the assessments of 3G and GSM users can be highlighted. A higher percentage of 3G users than of GSM users mentioned integration of functions, the possibility to configure and control the functions oneself, specialization and user involvement in design (participation) among the qualities expected. On the other side, a higher percentage of GSM users, in comparison to 3G users, had a particular preference for ease of use and convenience. Functional versatility and the possibility of customisation ranked second (43%) and third (38%) among their preferences, and thus were also im-portant to GSM users, but not to the same extent as to 3G users. Moreover, non-

Survey Descriptions and Findings 43

usage of 3G phones did correlate with a comparably low interest in integration, specialisation, control and participation.

rëÉêë=çÑ=Pd=éÜçåÉë=ENNRF= rëÉêë=çÑ=dpj=éÜçåÉë=ERNSF=qóéÉ= nì~äáíáÉë=

`çìåí= B=çÑ=ãÉåJíáçåë=

`çìåí= B=çÑ=ãÉåJíáçåë=

^= sÉêë~íáäáíóGG= TR= SRB= OOQ= QPB=

^= fåíÉÖê~íáçåGG= RU= RNB= NQO= OUB=

`= `çåíêçäGG= SS= RTB= NSO= PNB=

`= `ìëíçãáë~íáçåG= RP= QSB= NVQ= PUB=

_= péÉÅá~äáë~íáçåGG== QS= QMB= VS= NVB=

`= m~êíáÅáé~íáçåGG= QQ= PUB= NNQ= OOB=

_= b~ëÉ=çÑ=ìëÉGG= OT= OPB= OTP= RPB=

^= dÉåÉê~äáíó= NT= NRB= RT= NNB=

_= `çåîÉåáÉåÅÉGG= Q= PB= UQ= NSB=kçíÉëW=G=c=páÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=EOJí~áäÉÇF=Y=MKMRX=GG=`êçëëí~ÄëW=c=páÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=EOJí~áäÉÇF=Y=MKMN=

q~ÄäÉ=QW=qÜÉ=éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉë=Ñçê=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåí=ÇÉëáÖå=åçêãë=

SKPKO= `äìëíÉêë=çÑ=rëÉêë=~åÇ=íÜÉáê=mêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉë=

Among all respondents, clusters of users could be identified whose preferences map onto the usability/functionality coordinates (α/β), and thus on variations of the three types (A-C) introduced above (A.8). Although this mapping is not per-fect, the concepts were largely recognised by the respondents (at 21% to 24% exclusive matches for each concept), and where combinations of those concepts were picked, these proved to be instructive. The resulting clusters were:

(α+/β+) users with a preference for controllable functionalitycontrollable functionalitycontrollable functionalitycontrollable functionality, that is, with a preference for the integration of many versatile functions, accompanied by means of control, customisation and participation (28% of all respon-dents); this preference matches closest with type (C) (see A.9).

(α-/β+) users with a preference for convenient functionalityconvenient functionalityconvenient functionalityconvenient functionality, that is, with a preference for the integration of a wide variety of useful functions, yet without much need for control and customisation options (28% of all re-spondents); this preference matches closest with type (A) (see A.10).

(α-/β0) users with a desire for simplicitysimplicitysimplicitysimplicity, that is, with a strong preference for ease of use, with no particular other desires for either versatility or spe-cialisation (44% of all respondents); this preference partly matches with type (B), however without its inherent aspect of specialisation (see A.11).

The distribution of these types among the 3G/GSM user sub-samples was mark-edly differential (A.12): Type (α+/β+) mainly comprised of 3G users (51% vs. 24% among GSM users), while type (α-/β+) appeared quite evenly distributed (28%

44 Chapter 6

each), and type (α-/β0) was characteristic of GSM users (at 48%, vs. 22% among 3G users).

More than half of the 3G users were thus members of the (α+/β+) cluster. If we look at the demographic profiles of the users in their mapping on the differ-ent clusters, GSM users among cluster (α+/β+) tended to be male, higher edu-cated, and professionally higher-ranking than GSM users among the members of cluster (α-/β0).

8 Above all, they were also more technically minded, that is, they were more willing and prepared to invest time and effort into exploring different functions. Thus, a willingness, and even a perceived need, to ‘look under the bonnet’ of the technology can be identified among this group (A.15, A.16).9

SKPKP= `çêêÉä~íáçåë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=`äìëíÉê=jÉãÄÉêëÜáé=~åÇ=^Ççéíáçå=

The key question to our analysis and interpretation is whether there is a relation-ship to be found between the preferences for certain design approaches and the frequency of usage of certain functions. If it can be shown that the membership in the clusters that we identified along the coordinates of functionality and us-ability, given their partial mapping on design concepts, correlates with the degree of de-facto usage, this would be a step towards an explanation of the discrepancy between dissemination (of devices) and adoption (of functions) in the realm of Third Generation mobile telephony.

To answer this question, we have focused on the interaction between clus-ter membership (indicating the preference for controllable functionality, conven-ient functionality and simplicity) and the usage frequency of particular mobile broadband applications. We selected for our analysis only users who mentioned available functions, because we have been interested in their intentional usage, unrestrained by the factual lack of functions.

It turned out that GSM users who were found to never or only infrequently use functions typical of 3G (mobile Internet, mobile email, photo and video, or-ganiser and PIM, office applications, music functions, mobile TV, navigation and location based services) tended to be members of the cluster (α-/β0) (A.33). More precisely, the differences among the frequency of usage variables in terms of clus-ter membership were significant for all applications except voice telephony, which implicates that the large share of GSM users primarily interested in sim-plicity is not only indifferent towards 3G functionality, but has already not been

8 For 3G users, the difference between the two clusters was not significant, given that

3G users in general tend to be male, higher educated, and professionally higher-ranking than GSM users in general anyway.

9 More surprising was the finding that professional users are not more likely to be located in the (A+/C+) cluster than elsewhere. This observation somewhat contrasts with the findings in Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005); Juntumaa and Tuunainen (2006).

Survey Descriptions and Findings 45

taking advantage of those functions in GSM phones which go beyond voice te-lephony.

Put differently, those users who would not even utilise the limited range of Second Generation functions are not very likely to utilise the broader range of 3G functions when upgrading – if they do so at all. The observation that a signifi-cantly smaller share of 3G users than of GSM users can be located in the (α-/β0) cluster makes the assumption probable that the 46% of GSM users from this clus-ter are not very much motivated to upgrade to 3G. Potential upgraders are more likely to be found among the other clusters (α+/β+) and (α-/β+).

On the other side, within the 3G sub-sample of all respondents, the fre-quency of usage of specific functions like sending photos and videos, music or-ganiser/PIM functions varied only slightly with cluster membership of users (A.28-A.30). 3G users who frequently use photo and video functions tend to be members of the (α+/β+) cluster, while those who frequently use organiser/PIM functions are more likely to be members of the (α-/β+) cluster than of other clus-ters. Concerning the (α-/β0) cluster, the converse is true for the usage of these functions: 3G users who rarely use these functions show a slight tendency to-wards being members of the (α-/β0) cluster. Frequency of usage of…

Pearson Chi-square Degrees of freedom Significance (2Significance (2Significance (2Significance (2----tailed)tailed)tailed)tailed)

SMS/MMS 9.877* 6 0,043 Organiser 15.058* 6 0,020 Photo/VideoPhoto/VideoPhoto/VideoPhoto/Video 17.355* 6 0,008

Note * Caution due to lower numbers in several cells!

q~ÄäÉ=RW=cêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=ìë~ÖÉLÅäìëíÉê=EPd=ìëÉêë=kZNNRF=

In conclusion, for GSM users, the degree of usage of certain functions appears to bear a stronger correlation to the orientation towards design norms than for 3G users: – The membership of GSM users in the simplicity cluster (α-/β0) interacted with

the frequency of usage of SMS, mobile Internet, mobile E-mail, photo/video, organiser/PIM, Music, Mobile TV, and LBS functions in the sense that these users tend to use these functions less frequently than users from other clus-ters.

– For 3G users, there were comparatively few interactions with all of the cluster variables, which may mean that, after technology appropriation, the actual usage behaviour is governed by other criteria than design norms, that is, the question of what a mobile phone should do (which is, after acquisition, more or less a fait accompli).

It appears that the most significant correlation obtains between membership in the (α-/β0) cluster and the infrequent and non-usage of available 3G functions

46 Chapter 6

across the 3G and GSM user groups (A.30, A.33). Simplicity in itself does not ap-pear to be a value that would attract new users to the Third Generation of mobile technology. Functional versatility, in different incarnations, might appear more promising, but, again, just by itself, it is not sufficient to lure users into actually using the variety of functions that are available.

SKPKQ= lÄàÉÅíáîÉ=rë~ÖÉ=îëK=pìÄàÉÅíáîÉ=bñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=

But even among the other clusters, a notable divergence remains between avail-ability and usage of functions. In fact, we could observe that even the majority of those 3G users who assert that they know, and know how to use, most of their devices’ functions, do not use many of the functions that are specific for 3G technology (A.24, A.25). Thus, the ‘objective’ usage patterns diverge from the ‘subjective’ user experience. The usage of those functions, and the awareness of their presence, do not co-vary with their availability (A.26, A.27). Instead, they co-vary – partly –, as we have shown above, with the users being or not being technically minded, that is, with their willingness to explore new functions.10

An approach towards an explanation for the apparent discrepancy between objective usage and subjective experience is proposed by (Sugai 2007). He argues for an inertia of pre-existing usage habits: Even if the motivation to upgrade to a 3G phone owes to the device’s capabilities and their new possible uses, de-facto usage behaviour largely continues along ‘traditional’ lines. A mobile telephone with advanced functions is still being perceived as a mobile telephone in the first place. New uses find their proper place only slowly, when the device begins to be perceived as something else – in this case, as something more than a telephone. As what it will be perceived remains an open issue that is only to be settled by the users and their adoption behaviours. This theory is supported by our above ob-servation that de-facto usage behaviour does correlate with self-ascribed prefer-ences for certain qualities of mobile phones among 3G users only to a limited extent (p.45).

Given firstly, that members of the (α+/β+) cluster who are 3G users still use their mobile phones functional capacities to a higher degree than other 3G users, given secondly that this discrepancy between the clusters is much more signifi-cant among GSM users, and given thirdly that (α+/β+) members’ explicit prefer-ences may facilitate a higher degree of adoption, members of this cluster are the most likely ones to adopt the functions in question, which implies that a prefer-ence for both versatility and control facilitates the adoption of advanced func-tions. Still, this conclusion has to be taken with some caution, as this criterion,

10 Spearman's rho correlations between the 3G users frequency of mobile Internet and

technology mindedness (0.366, Sig. 2-tailed 0.000), mobile email (0.270, Sig. 2-tailed 0.003), mobile TV (0.253, Sig. 2-tailed 0.015), Navigation/Location based ser-vices (0.230, Sig. 2-tailed 0.033).

Survey Descriptions and Findings 47

for largely covarying with a high degree of technology mindedness, applies to early adopters, from whose attitudes and behaviours one should not generalise too easily.

On the other hand, with the (α-/β0) cluster, we also have identified a large group of users who, although not being outright technology sceptics, may be deemed laggards with regard to the adoption of 3G functions. The most likely space for spreading the word of the Third Generation seems to lie in between those two groups, that is, by and large, among the members of the (α-/β+) cluster with their preference for both versatility and ease of use, predestining them to form the early majority of 3G adopters.

SKQ= pìãã~êó=çÑ=oÉëìäíë=

To return to the guiding questions of our study, the answers that we are able to give on the basis of our findings may be summarised as follows:

(i) The patterns of dissemination of 3G mobile devices follow the demographic lines of gender, age, education, and profession, in that 3G users are found to be young, male, educated and in leading professional positions. More interestingly, distinctive types of users could be located in three clusters across all mobile users: controllable functionality, convenient functionality, and simplicity. With regard to the diffusion of 3G technology, the first of these clusters consti-tutes the group of early adopters, while the last encompasses the laggards.

(ii) The patterns of adoption of advanced mobile functions vary to a larger extent among GSM users than among 3G users. Although de-facto adoption by the latter significantly lags behind their self-perception, adoption rates are higher and more evenly distributed across the three user clusters. It can be concluded that a large group of GSM users belonging to the simplicity cluster is not receptive to the advances in 3G technology, while there is significant potential for the second cluster to become the early majority.

(iii) Adoption of 3G functions mostly seems to be a matter of perceived usefulness of the functions provided. However, it seems, many of the possible uses still wait to be recognised by the users: Even 3G users still perceive their devices as mobile phones in the first place, although their advanced functional capacities may have worked as an incentive to purchase them. Usability issues do not appear to be a salient causal factor in the slow adoption of 3G functions.

(iv) There are different perceptions of the design norms of functionality and usability among the three clusters, with a significant minority of all users showing a preference for functionality, comprising the first cluster, and the majority of 3G users. Although usability may

48 Chapter 6

be a facilitator in the adoption of 3G functions among the second cluster, it will not be sufficient on its own, and it is not likely to break the ground for members of the third cluster.

Conclusion 49

T= `çåÅäìëáçå=At the beginning of the presentation of our research project, we identified two factors that may jointly contribute to the diffusion of Third Generation mobile telephony: firstly, the content of the services provided and, secondly, the design of devices and applications. Within the limits of our study, we focused on the factor of design. Investigating into its interaction with the factor of content would be a rewarding topic of further research.

In terms of design aspects, a differentiated picture emerged that allows us to draw a twofold conclusion: Firstly, there may be more than one design suitable to facilitate further diffusion of 3G technology, and secondly, the issue of the rela-tionship between usability and functionality is likely to play different roles in each of those designs.

Given that there has no official or de-facto standard been established for 3G telephones, and given that the preferences we identified among the two appar-ently relevant clusters differ in their esteem of the value of usability, there may not be only one design of the 3G telephone that finally emerges. It seems reason-able to assume that different design concepts, with different emphases on func-tionality and usability, will be employed in order to cater for either user group. The possibility of later convergence notwithstanding, those concepts may ulti-mately evolve into different directions, giving rise to fairly different devices used by different users for different purposes.

How these designs will look, and whether and which one may prevail over the others, cannot be determined in advance. However, some cues can be given at this stage: Apparently, design concept (B), the information appliance, in its conjunction of simplicity and specialisation, cannot be properly mapped onto any of the clusters we identified. This design concept puts a strong emphasis on pre-configured solutions and automatic networking as the key to adoption, im-plying a rather monolithic image of its projected users as consumers that gener-ally are not interested in the inner workings of technology. This concept could not be found to resonate with our respondents. Trying to predict, and prescribe, what users are to do with an application or device, is not likely to be met with success anyway, as their practice of adoption is often found to turn these applica-tions and devices to very different tasks and purposes. Approaches that are in one way or another more open seem to be recommended, as they may provide more space for the definition of tasks by users – if these designs manage to meet their main preferences in the first place.

The members of the clusters of convenient functionality (α-/β+) and controlla-ble functionality (α+/β+) endorse functional versatility, while their willingness to invest effort into exploring the functions of their devices diverges. While ease of use may facilitate the adoption of 3G functions by a wider clientele, an exclusive

50 Chapter 7

focus on this issue might not be helpful. The finding that ease of use may facili-tate adoption, while only perceived usefulness may generate it (Davis 1989, see discussion in section 5.3 above), seems to hold in the field of consumer-oriented applications, too.

There is a significant minority of one third of all GSM users, and a clear ma-jority of 3G users who express a need for “looking under the bonnet” of the technology used, that is, a preference for control and configuration options. These users are willing to invest some effort into using these options if that effort is rewarded with more powerful and better-adapted functions. More than one quarter of each group is less eager to do so, but still endorses functional versatil-ity. To meet these diverging preferences, one could either choose to produce dif-ferent designs for each target group identified, or to implement designs that cater for both sets of preferences at once.

In addition, findings from a study presented in Fortunati (2006) suggest that a “lower degree of design”, allowing for a more open platform structure adaptable to different uses, may facilitate adoption of 3G services. In fact, there is a noticeable current in present-day mobile technology that explicitly follows this lead, such as the OpenMoko project that explicitly aims at an open-source based development of both 3G devices, operating systems and applications (http://www.openmoko.com). This does not imply that all users should become developers themselves, but that they can, and otherwise will be provided with a functionally versatile but usable device.

Although this latter project moves beyond what we introduced as technol-ogy mindedness, our suggestion towards openness in design follows this lead in presuming that those design concepts will have the best chances of success that retain one key idea from the realm of personal computing: Even if Alan Turing’s concept of the “universal machine” cannot be simply transposed to the design of mobile telephony, the very notion that users may adapt, configure and perhaps even design the functions they desire if they wish, if complemented with the possibility of accessing a given set of functions with ease whenever required, has a distinctive appeal. It may make the mobile telephone of future generations, to quote Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005) again, the “first truly personal computer”.

References 51

oÉÑÉêÉåÅÉë=

Bakalis, S., M. Abeln, and E. Mante-Meijer. 1997. The Adoption and Use of Mobile Te-lephony in Europe. In: Communications on the Move: The Experience of Mobile Te-lephony in the 1990s. COST 248 Report. Editor Leslie Haddon. Farsta: European Commission.

Beale, Russell. 2005. Supporting Social Interaction with Smart Phones. Pervasive Comput-ing 4, no. 2: 35-41.

Bergman, Eric E., editor. 2000. Information Appliances and Beyond. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman.

Best, Jo. 2006. What is a smart phone? Good Question... http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39156391,00.htm [accessed 20 February 2008].

Billich, Christopher. 2007. Mobile Japan 2007. Wien: Mobile Marketing Association.

Bjerknes, Gro, Pelle Ehn, and Morten Kyng, editors. 1987. Computers and Democracy. A Scandinavian Challenge. Aldershot: Avebury.

Briegleb, Volker. 2008. Zahl der Mobilfunk-Anschlüsse wächst langsamer. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/print/86643 [accessed 20 February 2008].

Davis, Fred D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, no. 3: 319-40.

De Gournay, Chantal. 2002. Pretence of intimacy in France. In: Perpetual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Editors J. E. Katz, and M. Aakhus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 193-205.

Fortunati, Leopoldina. 2002. Italy: Stereotypes, True and False. In: Perpetual Contact. Mo-bile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Editors J. E. Katz, and M. Aak-hus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42-62.

———. 2006. Understanding Mobile Phone Design. In: The Social Construction and Usage of Communication Technologies: European and Asian Experiences. Editor Raul Pertier-ra. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Goodwin, Nancy C. 1987. Functionality and Usability. Communications of the ACM 30, no. 3: 229-33.

Gould, John D. 1988. How to Design Usable Systems. In: Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Editor Martin M. Helander. North Holland: Elsevier, 757-89.

Green, Nicola, R. H. R. Harper, G. Murtagh, and G. Cooper. 2001. Configuring the Mobile User: Sociological and Industry Views. Personal and Uniquitous Computing 5: 146-56.

52 References

Grünberg, Frank F. 2005. Bewegung durch Breitband. http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/63099 [accessed 20 February 2008].

Haddon, Leslie. 2004. Information and Communication Technologies in Everyday Life. A Concise Introduction and Research Guide. Oxford/New York: Berg.

Haddon, Leslie, Enid Mante, Bartolomeo Sapio, Kari-Hans Kommonen, Leopoldina For-tunati, and Annevi Kant, editors. 2005. Everyday Innovators: Researching the Role of Users in Shaping ICTs. Dordrecht: Springer.

Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., and Karl R. Lang. 2005. Managing the Paradoxes of Mobile Technol-ogy. Information Systems Management 22, no. 4: 7-23.

Jordan, Patrick W. 2002. Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors. London: Taylor & Francis.

Juntumaa, Miira, and Virpi Kristina Tuunainen. 2006. PIM Applications: An Explorative Study on Benefits and Barriers. 19th Bled eConference. Bled.

Kasesniemi, E., and P. Rautiainen. 2002. Mobile culture of children and teenagers in Finland. In: Perpetual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Perform-ance. Editors J. E. Katz, and M. Aakhus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 170-192.

Katz, James E., and Mark A. Aakhus, editors. 2002. Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communi-cation, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lehmann, Hans, Jürgen Kuhn, and Franz Lehner. 2004. The Future of Mobile Technol-ogy: Findings from a European Delphi Study. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii Inter-national Conference on System Sciences2004. IEEE.

Ling, R., and B. Yttri. 2002. Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In: Perpet-ual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Editors J. E. Katz, and M. Aakhus, 139-69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ling, Richard, and Lesile Haddon. 2001. Mobile telephony, mobility and the coordina-tion of everyday life. Machines that Become Us Conference. New York .

MacKenzie, Donald, and Judy Wajcman, editors. 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Mallard, Alexandre. 2005. Following the Emergence of Unpredictable Uses? New Stakes and Tasks for a Social Scientific Understanding of ICT Uses. In: Everyday Innova-tors: Researching the role of users in shaping ICTs. Editors Leslie Haddon et al. Dordrecht: Springer, 39-54.

Mante, Enid. 2002. The Netherlands and the USA compared. In: Perpetual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Editors J. E. Katz, and M. Aakhus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 110-125.

References 53

Mante-Meijer, Enid, and Richard Ling. 2001. The adoption and use of ICT services in Europe. Potential acceptance of mobile broadband services. Working paper P903. EURESCOM.

McNamara, Niamh, and Jurek Kirakowski. 2005. Defining Usability: Quality of Use or Quality of Experience? IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. New York, 200-203.

Nafus, D., and K. Tracy. 2002. Mobile consumption and concepts of personhood. In: Per-petual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Editors J. E. Katz, and M. Aakhus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 206-21.

Nielsen, Jakob. 1993. Usability Engineering. London: Academic Press.

Norman, Donald A. 1998. The Invisible Computer. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Oksman, V., and P. Rautiainen. 2002. “Perhaps It Is a Body Part”. How the Mobile Phone Became an Organic Part of the Everyday Lives of Children and Adolescents. A Case Study of Finland. In: Machines That Become Us: The Social Context of Personal Communication Technology. Editor J. E. Katz. New Brunswick: Transaction Publish-ers.

Pedersen, Per E., and Rich Ling. 2003. Modifying adoption research for mobile internet service adoption: Cross-disciplinary interactions. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii Conference on System Sciences. New York: IEEE Computer Society.

Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Editors Wiebe E. Bi-jker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 17-50.

Polis. 2005. Polis aktuell (8/2005): Nutzung von Handy-Zusatzangeboten.

Puro, J. 2002. Finland: a mobile culture. In: Perpetual Contact. Mobile Communication, Pri-vate Talk, Public Performance. Editors J. E. Katz, and M. Aakhus. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 19-29.

Rogers, Everett M. 2003. The Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.

Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH. 2007. RTR Telekom Monitor 4. Quartal 2007, RTR, Vienna.

Satyanarayanan, Mahdev. 2005. Swiss Army Knife or Wallet? IEEE Pervasive Computing 4, no. 2: 2-3.

Shackel, Brian. 1991. Usability: Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation. In: Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Editors Brian Shackel and Simon Richardson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21-37.

Silverstone, Roger, and Leslie Haddon. 1996. Design and Domestication of Information and Communication Technologies: Technical Change and Everyday Life. In: Communication by Design. Editors R. Mansell and R. Silverstone. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 44-74.

54 References

Sugai, Philip. 2007. Exploring the Impact of Handset Upgrade on Mobile Content and Service Usage. International Journal of Mobile Communications 5, no. 3: 281-99.

Tee, Richard. 2005. Different directions in the mobile internet- Analysing mobile internet services in Japan and Europe. In: Mobile World: Past, Present and Future. Editors L. Hamill and A. Lasen. Heidelberg: Springer, 143-60.

Thomas, Peter, and Robert D. Macredie. 2002. Introduction to the New Usability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 9: 69-73.

Townsend, M. A. 2000. ife in the Real-Time City: Mobile Telephones and Urban Metabo-lism. Journal of Urban Technology 7, no. 2: 86-104.

Turing, Alan. 1936. On Computable Numbers, With an Application to the Entscheidung-sproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2 42: 230-265.

Wajcman, Judy, Michael Bittman, Paul Jones, Lynne Johnstone, and Jude Brown. 2007. The Impact of the Mobile Phone on Work/Life Balance. Canberra: Australian National University.

Weilenmann, A., and C. Larsson. 2000. On Doing ‘Being Teenager’. Applying Eth-nomethodology to the Analysis of Young People’s Use of Mobile Phones. In: Pro-ceedings of IRIS 23. Editors U. Snis, et al. Uddevalla: Laboratorium for Interaction Technology, University of Trollhättan.

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 55

^ééÉåÇáñW=q~ÄäÉëI=dê~éÜëI=~åÇ=pí~íáëíáÅ~ä=^å~äóëÉë=

^KN= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=íÉäÉéÜçåó=

no

yes

100806040200

% of answers to the question

82

18

Do you use a smartphone?

Base 632 respondents (115 3G phone users, 516 GSM phone users)

56 Appendix

^KO= aÉãçÖê~éÜáÅ~ä=î~êá~ÄäÉë=áåíÉê~ÅíáåÖ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=PdW=`ÜáJpèì~êÉ=íÉëíë=

= qóéáÅ~ä=Pd=

ìëÉêë=~êÉÁ=`ÜáJpèì~êÉ== aÉÖêÉÉë=çÑ=

ÑêÉÉÇçã=páÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=EOJí~áäÉÇF=

dÉåÇÉêGG= j~äÉ= RMKTP= N= MKMM=bÇìÅ~íáçåG= eáÖÜÉê=ÉÇìJ

Å~íÉÇ==VKMV= P= MIMP=EO=ÅÉääë=Ü~îÉ=ÉñJ

éÉÅíÉÇ=Åçìåíë=äÉëë=íÜÉå=RF=

lÅÅìé~íáçåGG= j~å~ÖáåÖ=çê=áåÇÉéÉåÇÉåí=éêçÑÉëëáçåë=

OVKQO== U= MIMM=EP=ÅÉääë=Ü~îÉ=ÉñJéÉÅíÉÇ=Åçìåíë=äÉëë=íÜ~å=RF=

eáÖÜÉê=éêçÑÉëëáçå~ä=éçëáíáçåGG=

vÉë= NTKPM== N= MKMM=

^ÖÉG= vçìåÖÉê= UKTU== R= MKMO=

kçíÉëW=

GG== qÜÉ=íïçJëáÇÉÇ=~ëóãéíçíáÅ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÜáJëèì~êÉ=ëí~íáëíáÅ=áë=ëã~ääÉê=íÜ~å=

MKMNI= ëç= íÜÉ= ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë= çÑ= Éëíáã~íáçåë= ~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ= íç= ìë~ÖÉLåçåJìë~ÖÉ= çÑ= Pd=

éÜçåÉë=~êÉ=åçí=ÇìÉ=íç=ÅÜ~åÅÉ=î~êá~íáçåK=

G== qÜÉ=íïçJëáÇÉÇ=~ëóãéíçíáÅ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÜáJëèì~êÉ=ëí~íáëíáÅ=áë=ëã~ääÉê=íÜ~å=

MKMRI= ëç= íÜÉ= ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë= çÑ= Éëíáã~íáçåë= ~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ= íç= ìë~ÖÉLåçåJìë~ÖÉ= çÑ= Pd=

éÜçåÉë=~êÉ=åçí=ÇìÉ=íç=ÅÜ~åÅÉ=î~êá~íáçåK=

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 57

^KP= oÉ~ëçåë=Ñçê=åçí=ìéÖê~ÇáåÖ=íç=Pd=ÖáîÉå=Äó=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=

_~ëÉ=RNS=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

G== qÜÉ=Öê~éÜ=Çáëéä~óë=íÜÉ=B=çÑ=CóÉëÒ=ãÉåíáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉí=çÑ=ÇáÅÜçíçãáÅ=EóÉëLåçF=

î~êá~ÄäÉë=

I don't know smartphones/PDA phones

No need

Too expensive

50403020100

% of mentions

43

19

41

58 Appendix

^KQ= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=éÜçåÉë=áå=éêçÑÉëëáçå~äLéêáî~íÉ=~êÉ~ë=

_~ëÉ=NNR=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

Both professionally and privately

Only privately

Only professionally

6050403020100

% of answers to the question

53

33

14

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 59

^KR= nì~äáíáÉë=ÉñéÉÅíÉÇ=Äó=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=Ñêçã=íÜÉáê=ãçÄáäÉ=ÇÉîáÅÉG=

G== qÜÉ=Öê~éÜ=Çáëéä~óë=íÜÉ=B=çÑ=łóÉëC=ãÉåíáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉí=çÑ=ÇáÅÜçíçãáÅ=EóÉëLåçF=

î~êá~ÄäÉë=

Versatility

Control

Integration

Customisation

Specialisation

Participation

Ease of Use

Generality

Convenience

6040200

% of mentions

38

46

57

40

23

3

15

51

65

3G phone users (Base 115)

60 Appendix

^KS= nì~äáíáÉë=ÉñéÉÅíÉÇ=Äó=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=Ñêçã=íÜÉáê=ãçÄáäÉ=ÇÉîáÅÉG=

* The graph displays the % of “yes” mentions for the set of dichotomic (yes/no) variables

Ease of Use

Versatility

Customisation

Control

Integration

Participation

Specialisation

Convenience

Generality

6050403020100

% of mentions

22

38

31

19

53

16

11

27

43

GSM phone users (Base 516)

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 61

^KT= `çãé~êáëçåë=çÑ=íÜÉ=~ëëÉëëãÉåíë=çÑ=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=~Äçìí=èì~äáíáÉë=ÉñéÉÅíÉÇ=Ñêçã=~=ãçÄáäÉ=ÇÉîáÅÉ=

=

EaáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=~êÉ=ÜáÖÜäáÖÜíÉÇ=ïáíÜ=GG=áå=íÜÉ=í~ÄäÉF=

=

= `ÜáJëèì~êÉ= aÉÖêÉÉë=çÑ=ÑêÉÉJÇçã=

páÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=EOJí~áäÉÇF=Ó=cáëÜÉêÛë=Éñ~Åí=íÉëí=

sÉêë~íáäáíó=GG= NTKVQ== N= MKMM=fåíÉÖê~íáçåGG= ONKTS= N= MKMM=`çåîÉåáÉåÅÉGG= NNKUM=Ev~íÉë=ÅçêJ

êÉÅíáçåF=N= MKMM=

b~ëÉ=çÑ=ìëÉGG= POKSS= N= MKMM=péÉÅá~äáò~íáçåGG= OQKSU= N= MKMM=`çåíêçäGG= OTKTM= N= MKMM=m~êíáÅáé~íáçåGG= NPKNM= N= MKMM=dÉåÉê~äáíó= NKOV= N= MKOS=`ìëíçãáò~íáçå= OKSR= N= MKNN=

GG qÜÉ=íïçJëáÇÉÇ=~ëóãéíçíáÅ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÜáJëèì~êÉ=ëí~íáëíáÅ=áë=ëã~ääÉê=íÜ~å=MKMNI=ëç=

íÜÉ=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=çÑ=Éëíáã~íáçåë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=ìë~ÖÉLåçåJìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=éÜçåÉë=~êÉ=åçí=ÇìÉ=

íç=ÅÜ~åÅÉ=î~êá~íáçå=

62 Appendix

^KU= `äìëíÉêáåÖ=çÑ=~ää=êÉëéçåÇÉåíë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=íÜÉ=èì~äáíáÉë=ÉñéÉÅíÉÇ=Ñêçã=~=ãçÄáäÉ=éÜçåÉ=

=

EjÉíÜçÇW=eáÉê~êÅÜáÅ~ä=ÅäìëíÉêL=t~êÇF=

=

=

aáëíêáÄìíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅäìëíÉê=Å~íÉÖçêáÉë=

=

= cêÉèìÉåÅó= mÉêÅÉåí= s~äáÇ=mÉêÅÉåí=`ìãìä~íáîÉ=mÉêÅÉåí=

EαHLβHF=Åçåíêçää~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíó= NUM= OUIR= OUIR= OUIR=

EαJLβHF=ÅçåîÉåáÉåí=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíó= NTT= OUIN= OUIN= RSIR=

EαHLβMF=ëáãéäáÅáíó= OTR= QPIR= QPIR= NMMIM=

qçí~ä= SPO= NMMIM= NMMIM= ==

simplicity

convenient functionality

controllable functionality

50403020100

% of clusters

43

28

28

Clustering of all respondents. Base 632

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 63

^KV= `äìëíÉê=EαHLβHFW=`çåíêçää~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíóG=

=

EαHLβHF= ÅçãéêáëÉë=çÑ=ìëÉêë=ïáíÜ=~=éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=Ñçê=Åçåíêçää~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíóI=

íÜ~í= áëI= ïáíÜ= ~= éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ= Ñçê= íÜÉ= áåíÉÖê~íáçå= çÑ=ã~åó= îÉêë~íáäÉ= ÑìåÅíáçåëI= ~ÅJ

Åçãé~åáÉÇ=Äó=ãÉ~åë=çÑ=Åìëíçãáë~íáçåI=ÅçåíêçäI=~åÇ=é~êíáÅáé~íáçå=EOUB=çÑ=íçí~ä=

ë~ãéäÉ= Ó=NUM= êÉëéçåÇÉåíëFK= qÜáë=éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=ã~íÅÜÉë= ÅäçëÉëí=ïáíÜ=ÇÉëáÖå= íóéÉ=

E`FI=éKPOÑK=

G== qÜÉ=Öê~éÜ=Çáëéä~óë=íÜÉ=B=çÑ=CóÉëÒ=ãÉåíáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉí=çÑ=ÇáÅÜçíçãáÅ=EóÉëLåçF=

î~êá~ÄäÉë=

Customisation

Versatility

Control

Integration

Participation

Specialisation

Generality

Ease of Use

Convenience

806040200

% of mentions

44

74

68

31

4

1

17

55

68

Base 180 members of the cluster controllable functionality

64 Appendix

^KNM= `äìëíÉê=EαJLβHFW=`çåîÉåáÉåí=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíóG=

=

EαJLβHF== ÅçãéêáëÉë=çÑ=ìëÉêë=ïáíÜ=~=éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ= Ñçê=ÅçåîÉåáÉåí= ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíóI=

íÜ~í=áëI=ïáíÜ=~=éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=Ñçê=îÉêë~íáäáíó=~åÇ=áåíÉÖê~íáçå=çÑ=~=ïáÇÉ=î~êáÉíó=çÑ=ìëÉJ

Ñìä=ÑìåÅíáçåëI=óÉí=ïáíÜçìí=~=åÉÉÇ=Ñçê=Åçåíêçä=~åÇ=Åìëíçãáë~íáçå=çéíáçåë=EOUB=çÑ=

íçí~ä= ë~ãéäÉÓ= NTT= êÉëéçåÇÉåíëFK= qÜáë= éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=ã~íÅÜÉë= ÅäçëÉëí= ïáíÜ= ÇÉëáÖå=

íóéÉ=E^FI=éKPOÑ=

G== qÜÉ=Öê~éÜ=Çáëéä~óë=íÜÉ=B=çÑ=łóÉëC=ãÉåíáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉí=çÑ=ÇáÅÜçíçãáÅ=EóÉëLåçF=

î~êá~ÄäÉë==

Versatility

Integration

Ease of Use

Specialisation

Generality

Control

Participation

Customisation

Convenience

6040200

% of mentions

6

2

17

30

35

2

23

41

67

Base 177 members of the cluster convenient functionality

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 65

^KNN= `äìëíÉê=EαJLβMFW=páãéäáÅáíóG=

EαJLβMF== ÅçãéêáëÉë=çÑ=ìëÉêë=ïáíÜ=~=ÇÉëáêÉ= Ñçê=ëáãéäáÅáíóI= íÜ~í= áëI=ïáíÜ=~=ëíêçåÖ=

éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=Ñçê=É~ëÉ=çÑ=ìëÉI=ïáíÜ=åç=é~êíáÅìä~ê=çíÜÉê=ÇÉëáêÉë=Ñçê=ÉáíÜÉê=îÉêë~íáäáíó=çê=

ëéÉÅá~äáë~íáçå= EQQB=çÑ= íçí~ä= ë~ãéäÉ=Ó=OTR= êÉëéçåÇÉåíëFK=qÜáë=éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=é~êíäó=

ã~íÅÜÉë=ïáíÜ=ÇÉëáÖå=íóéÉ=E_FI=éKPOÑI=ÜçïÉîÉê=ïáíÜçìí=áíë=áåÜÉêÉåí=~ëéÉÅí=çÑ=ëéÉJ

Åá~äáë~íáçåK=

=

* = qÜÉ=Öê~éÜ=Çáëéä~óë=íÜÉ=B=çÑ=CóÉëÒ=ãÉåíáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉí=çÑ=ÇáÅÜçíçãáÅ=EóÉëLåçF=

î~êá~ÄäÉë=

Ease of Use

Customisation

Convenience

Control

Participation

Versatility

Specialisation

Integration

Generality

100806040200

% of mentions

25

40

28

12

84

30

1

10

21

Base 275 members of the cluster simplicity

66 Appendix

^KNO= `äìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáé=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉë=

=

`ÜáJpèì~êÉ=íÉëíë= mÉ~êëçå=`ÜáJëèì~êÉ=

aÉÖêÉÉë=çÑ=ÑêÉÉÇçã= páÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=EOJí~áäÉÇF=

`äìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêJëÜáéLrë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=GG=

QMITQ= O= MIMM=

** qÜÉ=íïçJëáÇÉÇ=~ëóãéíçíáÅ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÜáJëèì~êÉ=ëí~íáëíáÅ= áë=ëã~ääÉê=íÜ~å=

MKMNI=ëç=íÜÉ=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=íÜÉ=Éëíáã~íáçåë=Pd=éÜçåÉë=ìëÉêë=~åÇ=dpj=ìëJ

Éêë=~êÉ=åçí=ÇìÉ=íç=ÅÜ~åÅÉ=î~êá~íáçåK=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=íÉåÇ=íç=ÄÉ=ãÉãÄÉêë=çÑ=íÜÉ=

ÅäìëíÉê= EαH/βHF= EÅçåíêçää~ÄäÉ= ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíóFI= ïÜáäÉ= dpj= éÜçåÉ= ìëÉêë= ~êÉ= ãçêÉ=

äáâÉäó=íç=ÄÉ=ãÉãÄÉêë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅäìëíÉê=EαJLβMF=EëáãéäáÅáíóFK=

=

controllable functionality

simplicity

convenient functionality

6050403020100

% of cluster members

48

28

23

22

28

51

GSM phone usage3G phone usage

Base 632 respondents (115 3G phone users/ 516 GSM phone users)

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 67

^KNP= ^å~äóëáë=çÑ=íÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇåÉëë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=

I usually try new technologies as soon as

they are introduced

Before trying, I wait a little to see what other

people say

I usually wait quite long, until the new

technologies are well established

I am sceptical about new technologies, and I

tend to reject them

6050403020100

% of answers to the question

0

12

30

58

2

45

40

12

3G phone usersGSM phone users

Base 632 respondents (115 3G phone users/516 GSM phone users)

68 Appendix

^KNQ= `çãé~êáëçåë=çÑ=~ëëÉëëãÉåíë=çÑ=íÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇåÉëë=çÑ=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

`ÜáJpèì~êÉ=íÉëíë==

`ÜáJëèì~êÉ= aÉÖêÉÉë=çÑ=ÑêÉÉÇçã=

páÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=EOJí~áäÉÇF=

qÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇJåÉëëGrë~ÖÉ=çÑ=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉëGG=

NOSIVO=EmÉJ~êëçå=`ÜáJëèì~êÉF=

P= MKMM=

GG qÜÉ=íïçJëáÇÉÇ=~ëóãéíçíáÅ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÜáJëèì~êÉ=ëí~íáëíáÅ=áë=ëã~ääÉê=íÜ~å=MKMNI=ëç=

íÜÉ=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=çÑ=Éëíáã~íáçåë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=ìë~ÖÉLåçåJìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=éÜçåÉë=~êÉ=åçí=ÇìÉ=

íç=ÅÜ~åÅÉ=î~êá~íáçåK=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=íÉåÇ=íç=íêó=åÉï=íÉÅÜåçäçÖáÉë=~ë=ëççå=~ë=íÜÉó=~éJ

éÉ~êI=ïÜáäÉ=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=~êÉ=ãçêÉ=ÜÉëáí~åíK=

^äëç=áÑ=íÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇåÉëë=áë=íêÉ~íÉÇ=~ë=~å=çêÇáå~ä=ëÅ~äÉI=êìååáåÖ=Ñêçã=N=Ef=ìëì~ääó=

íêó=åÉï=íÉÅÜåçäçÖáÉë=~ë=ëççå=~ë=íÜÉó=~êÉ=áåíêçÇìÅÉÇF=íç=Q=Ef=~ã=ëÅÉéíáÅ~ä=~Äçìí=åÉï=

íÉÅÜåçäçÖáÉëI=~åÇ=f=íÉåÇ=íç=êÉàÉÅí=íÜÉãFI=íÜÉêÉ=~êÉ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=íÜÉ=

ãÉ~å= ê~åâë=çÑ= Pd=~åÇ=dpj=ìëÉêë= Ej~åå=tÜáíåÉó= ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí= ~í= MKMM= Ó= ~ëóãéíçíáÅK=

ëáÖK=íïçJí~áäÉÇFK=

=

jÉ~åW=

Pd=ìëÉêë=Ó=NKRR=

dpj=ìëÉêë=Ó=OKPU=

=

jÉÇá~åW=

Pd=ìëÉêë=Ó=NKMM=

dpj=ìëÉêë=Ó=OKMM=

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 69

^KNR= ^å~äóëáë=çÑ=íÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇåÉëë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=êÉëìäíë=Ñçê=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ENF=

=

=

=

I usually try new technologies as soon as

they are introduced

Before trying, I wait a little to see what other

people say

I usually wait quite long, until the new

technologies are well established

I am sceptical about new technologies, and I

tend to reject them

6040200

% of answers to the question

0

21

37

42

0

10

22

67

1

8

38

53

simplicity

controllable functionality

convenient functionality

Base 115 3G phone users

70 Appendix

^KNS= ^å~äóëáë=çÑ=íÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇåÉëë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=êÉëìäíë=Ñçê=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=EOF=

=

=

I usually wait quite long, until the new

technologies are well established

Before trying, I wait a little to see what other

people say

I usually try new technologies as soon as

they are introduced

I am sceptical about new technologies, and I

tend to reject them

50403020100

% of answers to the question

0

47

40

13

1

36

45

19

4

49

37

9

convenient functionality

controllable functionality

simplicity

Base 516 GSM phone users

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 71

=

^KNT= mÉêÅÉéíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëìÄàÉÅíáîÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=ìë~ÖÉ==

=

=

=

I am well acquainted with most functions, and I find

them easy to use

I purposefully selected some functions, which I know and manage fairly

well

I know a little about most functions, but I am not a

true expert in any of them

I only use a few functions frequently, but I would try others if they were easier

to use

I only use very few functions, since many

things remain unclear to me

I acquired my device a short time ago, and

therefore do not have enough experience

806040200

% of answers to the question

51

9

27

7

3

2

71

5

17

3

2

2

GSM phone users3G phone users

Base 632 respondents (115 3G phone users/516 GSM users)

72 Appendix

^KNU= `çãé~êáëçåë=çÑ=íÜÉ=~ëëÉëëãÉåíë=çÑ=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=çÑ=íÜÉáê=ëìÄàÉÅíáîÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=

= mÉ~êëçå=`ÜáJëèì~êÉ= aÉÖêÉÉë=çÑ=

ÑêÉÉÇçã=páÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=EOJí~áäÉÇF=

rë~ÖÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉGG=

NRIOT=EO=ÅÉääë=Ü~îÉ=ÉñJéÉÅíÉÇ=Åçìåíë=äÉëë=íÜ~å=RF=

R= MIMN==

GG== qÜÉ=íïçJëáÇÉÇ=~ëóãéíçíáÅ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÜáJëèì~êÉ=ëí~íáëíáÅ= áë=ëã~ääÉê=íÜ~å=MKMNI=

ëç=íÜÉ=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=çÑ=Éëíáã~íáçåë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=ìë~ÖÉLåçåJìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=éÜçåÉë=~êÉ=åçí=

ÇìÉ= íç= ÅÜ~åÅÉ= î~êá~íáçåK=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë= íÉåÇ= íç= ~ëëÉëë= íÜÉãëÉäîÉë= ~ë=ãçêÉ= ÉñéÉêáJ

ÉåÅÉÇ=íÜ~å=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë

=

fÑ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=áë=íêÉ~íÉÇ=~ë=~å=çêÇáå~ä=ëÅ~äÉ=êìååáåÖ=ÑêçãW=N=Ef=~ÅèìáêÉÇ=ãó=ÇÉJ

îáÅÉ=~=ëÜçêí=íáãÉ=~ÖçI=~åÇ=íÜÉêÉÑçêÉ=Çç=åçí=Ü~îÉ=ëìÑÑáÅáÉåí=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉF=íç=S=Ef=~ã=ïÉää=

~Åèì~áåíÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ãçëí= ÑìåÅíáçåëI= ~åÇ= f= ÑáåÇ= íÜÉã=É~ëó= íç=ìëÉFI= íÜÉêÉ= ~êÉ= ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=

ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ê~åâë=çÑ=Pd=~åÇ=dpj=rëÉêë=Ej~åå=tÜáíåÉó=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=

~í=MKMM=Ó=~ëóãéíçíáÅK=ëáÖK=íïçJí~áäÉÇFK=

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 73

^KNV= qÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÑêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=ãçÄáäÉ=~ééäáÅ~íáçåë==

== == Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=E_~ëÉ=NNRF= dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=E_~ëÉ=RNSF=

== == `çìåí= `çä=B= `çìåí= `çä=B=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= NNQ= VV= QVN= VR=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= N= N= ON= Q=

åÉîÉê= = = Q= N=

sçáÅÉ=íÉäÉéÜçåó===== åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= = = N= M=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= TQ= SQ= PQO= SS=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= PU= PP= NRQ= PM=

åÉîÉê= P= O= NU= P=

pjp=~åÇ=jjp======= åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= = = P= M=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= PO= OU= PS= T=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= RQ= QT= NTR= PQ=

åÉîÉê= OU= OQ= OPU= QS=

jçÄáäÉ=fåíÉêåÉí===== åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= O= O= ST= NP=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= PU= PP= NV= Q=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= QM= PR= VM= NT=

åÉîÉê= PR= PN= OUT= RS=

jçÄáäÉ=bJã~áä===== åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= N= N= NOM= OP=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= RS= QV= NTT= PQ=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= QV= QP= OPT= QS=

åÉîÉê= T= S= QS= V=

mÜçíçë=~åÇ=sáÇÉçë====== åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= P= O= RS= NN=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= VO= UM= NVO= PT=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= NU= NS= NVS= PU=

åÉîÉê= Q= Q= VO= NU=

lêÖ~åáëÉêLmfj======= åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= N= N= PT= T=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= PS= PN= NQ= P=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= QU= QO= RU= NN=

åÉîÉê= OP= OM= OPQ= QR=

lÑÑáÅÉ=~ééäáÅ~íáçåë===== åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= V= T= ONN= QN=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= NT= NR= OS= R=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= PM= OS= NMS= OM=

åÉîÉê= ST= RU= OUN= RQ=

jìëáÅ=Ççïåäç~Ç=~åÇ=éä~ó=== åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= N= N= NMQ= OM=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= V= T= V= O=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= PN= OT= SN= NO=

åÉîÉê= RM= QP= NSM= PN=

jçÄáäÉ=qs======= åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= OS= OP= OUT= RS=

ÑêÉèìÉåíäó= OP= OM= Q= N=

çÅÅ~ëáçå~ääó= OQ= ON= QS= V=

åÉîÉê= PS= PO= NTN= PP=

k~îáÖ~íáçå=~åÇ=içÅ~íáçå=_~ëÉÇ=pÉêîáÅÉë=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= PO= OU= OVS= RT=

74 Appendix

^KOM= ^î~áä~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=Ñçê=PdLdjp=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

== cìåÅíáçå= Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

== == `çìåí= `çä=B= `çìåí= `çä=B=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= = = N= M=sçáÅÉ=íÉäÉéÜçåó==

~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NNR= NMM= RNS= NMM=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= = = P= M=pjp=~åÇ=jjp=

~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NNR= NMM= RNQ= NMM=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= O= O= ST= NP=ãçÄáäÉ=fåíÉêåÉí=

~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NNP= VU= QQV= UT=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= N= N= NOM= OP=ãçÄáäÉ=bJã~áä==

~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NNQ= VV= PVT= TT=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= P= O= RS= NN=mÜçíçë=~åÇ=sáÇÉçë== ~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NNO= VU= QSM= UV=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= N= N= PT= T=lêÖ~åáëÉêL=mfj== ~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NNQ= VV= QTV= VP=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= V= T= ONN= QN=lÑÑáÅÉ=~ééäáÅ~Jíáçåë== ~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NMT= VP= PMR= RV=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= N= N= NMQ= OM=jìëáÅ=Ççïåäç~Ç=~åÇ=éä~ó== ~î~áä~ÄäÉ= NNQ= VV= QNP= UM=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= OS= OP= OUT= RS=jçÄáäÉ=qs==

~î~áä~ÄäÉ= UV= TT= OOV= QQ=

åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉ= PO= OU= OVS= RT=k~îáÖ~íáçå=~åÇ=i_p== ~î~áä~ÄäÉ= UP= TO= OON= QP=

=

=

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 75

^KON= ^å~äóëáë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÑêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=~î~áä~ÄäÉ=ãçÄáäÉ=~ééäáÅ~íáçåëW=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=

=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

Organiser/PIM

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Mobile E-mail

Mobile Internet

Office applications

Navigation and Location Based Services

Music download and play

Mobile TV

32,521,51

Mean

1,84

1,62

1,66

2,11

2,80

2,55

2,16

2,14

2,71

3,00

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Usage frequency of functions. Base 115 3G phone users

76 Appendix

^KOO= ^å~äóëáë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÑêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=~î~áä~ÄäÉ=ãçÄáäÉ=~ééäáÅ~íáçåëW=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=

=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Organiser/PIM

Mobile Internet

Music download and play

Mobile E-mail

Office applications

Mobile TV

Navigation and Location Based Services

32,521,51

Mean

1,20

1,32

1,41

1,33

2,16

2,29

1,36

1,67

2,62

2,89

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Usage frequency of functions. Base 516 GSM users

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 77

^KOP= `çãé~êáëçåë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÑêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=~î~áä~ÄäÉ=~ééäáÅ~íáçåë=Äó=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëK=

EaáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=~êÉ=ÜáÖÜäáÖÜíÉÇ=ïáíÜ=GG=çê=GF= cêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=ìë~ÖÉ=çÑÁ= ^ëóãéíçíáÅK=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=íïçJí~áäÉÇ=

j~ååJtÜáíåÉó=

sçáÅÉ=íÉäÉéÜçåóG= MKMR=pjpLjjp= MKTO=jçÄáäÉ=fåíÉêåÉíGG= MKMM=jçÄáäÉ=bJã~áäGG= MKMM=mÜçíçëLsáÇÉçëG= MKMO=lêÖ~åáòÉêLmfjGG= MKMM=lÑÑáÅÉ=^ééäáÅ~íáçåëGG= MKMM=jìëáÅ=Ççïåäç~Ç=~åÇ=éä~óG= MKMO=jçÄáäÉ=qsGG= MKMN=k~îáÖ~íáçåLiçÅ~íáçå=_~ëÉÇ=ëÉêîáÅÉëGG= MKMM=

kçíÉëW==

GG= ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ê~åâë=çÑ=Pd=~åÇ=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=Eé=Y=MKMNF=

áå=Ñ~îçìê=çÑ=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

G== ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåÅÉë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ê~åâë=çÑ=Pd=~åÇ=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=Eé=Y=MKMRF=

áå=Ñ~îçìê=çÑ=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

78 Appendix

^KOQ= qÜÉ=êÉä~íáçåëÜáé=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÜáÖÜ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=~åÇ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÑêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=~î~áä~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçåëW=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=

Elåäó=ìëÉêë=ïÜç=ëÉäÉÅíÉÇ=íÜÉ=~åëïÉêW=Cf=~ã=ïÉää=~Åèì~áåíÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ãçëí=ÑìåÅíáçåëI=~åÇ=

f=ÑáåÇ=íÜÉã=É~ëó=íç=ìëÉÒ=~êÉ=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=áå=íÜÉ=~å~äóëáëF=

=

=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

Organiser/PIM

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Mobile E-mail

Mobile Internet

Office applications

Navigation and Location Based Services

Mobile TV

Music download and play

32,521,51

Mean

1,84

1,83

1,75

2,19

2,88

2,66

2,23

2,21

2,73

3,00

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 82 highly experienced 3G phone users

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 79

^KOR= qÜÉ=êÉä~íáçåëÜáé=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÜáÖÜ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÑêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=~î~áä~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçåëW=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=

=

Elåäó=ìëÉêë=ïÜç=ëÉäÉÅíÉÇ=íÜÉ=~åëïÉêW=Cf=~ã=ïÉää=~Åèì~áåíÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ãçëí=ÑìåÅíáçåëI=~åÇ=

f=ÑáåÇ=íÜÉã=É~ëó=íç=ìëÉÒ=~êÉ=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=áå=íÜÉ=~å~äóëáëF=

=

=

G== `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Organiser/PIM

Mobile Internet

Mobile E-mail

Music download and play

Office applications

Mobile TV

Navigation and Location Based Services

32,521,51

Mean

1,22

1,38

1,44

1,39

2,39

2,42

1,46

1,85

2,70

2,93

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 266 highly experienced GSM users

80 Appendix

^KOS= ^å~äóëáë=çÑ=ÑêÉèìÉåíäó=ìëÉÇ=~î~áä~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=

=

=

=

Voice telephony

Organiser/PIM

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Mobile E-mail

Office applications

Mobile Internet

Navigation and Location Based Services

Music download and play

Mobile TV

100806040200

% of mentions for frequent usage

20

7

15

31

80

49

33

28

64

99

Which functions are frequently used? Base 115 3G phone users

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 81

^KOT= ^å~äóëáë=çÑ=ÑêÉèìÉåíäó=ìëÉÇ=~î~áä~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=

=

=

=

=

Voice telephony

SMS and MMS

Organiser/PIM

Photos and Videos

Mobile Internet

Music download and play

Mobile E-mail

Office applications

Mobile TV

Navigation and Location Based Services

100806040200

% of mentions for frequent usage

1

2

5

3

37

34

4

7

66

95

Which functions are frequently used? Base 516 GSM phone users

82 Appendix

^KOU= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=áå=ÑìåÅíáçå=çÑ=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ENFG=

==

=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

Organiser/PIM

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Mobile E-mail

Office applications

Mobile Internet

Navigation and Location Based Services

Music download and play

Mobile TV

32,521,51

Mean

1,98

1,66

1,80

2,21

2,74

2,69

2,31

2,15

2,73

3,00

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 59 3G phone users, members of the cluster controllable functionality

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 83

^KOV= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=áå=ÑìåÅíáçå=çÑ=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=EOF=

=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

Organiser/PIM

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Mobile E-mail

Office applications

Mobile Internet

Mobile TV

Navigation and Location Based Services

Music download and play

32,521,51

Mean

1,77

1,85

1,71

2,19

3,00

2,50

2,22

2,15

2,68

3,00

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 32 3G phone users, members of the cluster convenient functionality

84 Appendix

^KPM= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=áå=ÑìåÅíáçå=çÑ=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=EPFG=

==

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

SMS and MMS

Organiser/PIM

Photos and Videos

Mobile Internet

Office applications

Mobile E-mail

Navigation and Location Based Services

Music download and play

Mobile TV

32,521,51

Mean

1,60

1,25

1,27

1,77

2,68

2,29

1,73

2,09

2,69

3,00

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 25 3G phone users members of the cluster simplicity

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 85

^KPN= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=áå=ÑìåÅíáçå=çÑ=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ENFG=

=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voice telephony

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Organiser/PIM

Mobile Internet

Music download and play

Mobile E-mail

Mobile TV

Office applications

Navigation and Location Based Services

32,521,51

Mean

1,30

1,46

1,66

1,41

2,36

2,49

1,47

1,93

2,81

2,96

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 121 GSM phone users, members of the cluster controllable functionality

86 Appendix

^KPO= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=áå=ÑìåÅíáçå=çÑ=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=EOFG=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

Voicel telephony

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Organiser/PIM

Mobile Internet

Music download and play

Mobile TV

Office applications

Mobile E-mail

Navigation and Location Based Services

32,521,510,50

Mean

1,20

1,41

1,41

1,36

2,27

2,44

1,34

1,77

2,73

2,88

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 145 GSM phone users, members of the cluster convenient functionality

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 87

^KPP= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=áå=ÑìåÅíáçå=çÑ=ÅäìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáéW=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=EPFG=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

verbal telephony

SMS and MMS

Photos and Videos

Organiser/PIM

mobile Internet

mobile E-mail

Office applications

Music download and play

Mobile TV

Navigation and Location Based Services

32,521,510,50

Mean

1,15

1,17

1,26

1,27

1,98

2,07

1,31

1,46

2,43

2,86

Mean running from 1 (never) to 3 (very often)

Base 250 GSM phone users, members of the cluster simplicity

88 Appendix

^KPQ= oÉ~ëçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=åçåJìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=PdJëéÉÅáÑáÅ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=ÖáîÉå=Äó=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=

G== qÜÉ=Öê~éÜ=Çáëéä~óë=íÜÉ=B=çÑ=CóÉëÒ=ãÉåíáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉí=çÑ=ÇáÅÜçíçãáÅ=EóÉëLåçF=

î~êá~ÄäÉë=

Some functions, such as the mobile Internet, are too expensive for many

users

I believe that some people just don't know that there are so many functions

Most functions are not suitable for mobile usage (for instance the display

and keypad are often too small)

Many functions are so complicated to use that most users would not make

the effort to try them all

Many users do not employ all functions because they need only

some specific ones (for example music, Internet) in their daily life

806040200

% of mentions

72

50

45

46

52

Base 115 3G phone users

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 89

^KPR= oÉ~ëçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=åçåJìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=ëéÉÅáÑáÅ=ÑìåÅíáçåë=ÖáîÉå=Äó=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëG=

G== qÜÉ=Öê~éÜ=Çáëéä~óë=íÜÉ=B=çÑ=łóÉëC=ãÉåíáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉí=çÑ=ÇáÅÜçíçãáÅ=EóÉëLåçF=

î~êá~ÄäÉë=

Some functions, such as the mobile Internet, are too expensive for many

users

Most functions are not suitable for mobile usage (for instance the display

and keypad are often too small)

Many users do not employ all functions because they need only

some specific ones (for example music, Internet) in their daily life

Many functions are so complicated to use that most users would not make

the effort to try them all

I believe that some people just don't know that there are so many functions

6050403020100

% of mentions

58

45

53

40

48

Base 516 GSM phone users

90 Appendix

^KPS= oÉÖáçå~ä=^ëéÉÅíëW=a~í~=Ñçê=píóêá~=

píóêá~=NW= `çãé~êáëçå=çÑ=PdLdpj=íÉäÉéÜçåó=ìë~ÖÉ=áå=^ìëíêá~==

aç=óçì=ìëÉ=~=ëã~êíéÜçåÉ\=

vÉë=EPd=éÜçåÉ=ìë~ÖÉF= kç=Edpj=éÜçåÉ=ìë~ÖÉF=

= `çìåí= `çä=B= `çìåí= `çä=B=

táÉå= OU= OQ= NMV= ON=

káÉÇÉê∏ëíÉêêÉáÅÜ= OS= OP= VM= NU=

lÄÉê∏ëíÉêêÉáÅÜ= NP= NN= VM= NT=

píÉáÉêã~êâ= NR= NP= TR= NQ=

qáêçä= NR= NP= QQ= V=

h®êåíÉå= NN= NM= PO= S=

p~äòÄìêÖ= Q= Q= PO= S=

sçê~êäÄÉêÖ= P= O= OP= Q=

mêçîáåÅÉ=

_ìêÖÉåä~åÇ= = = OM= Q=

qçí~ä= NNR= NMM= RNS= NMM=

=

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 91

píóêá~=OW= rë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=íÉäÉéÜçåó=áå=píóêá~=

_~ëÉ=VM=êÉëéçåÇÉåíëW=NR=Pd=ìëÉêëI=TR=dpj=ìëÉêë=

=

no

yes

100806040200

% of answers to the question

83

17

Do you use a smartphone?

92 Appendix

píóêá~=PW= oÉ~ëçåë=Ñçê=åçí=ìéÖê~ÇáåÖ=íç=Pd=ÖáîÉå=Äó=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=áå=píóêá~G=

_~ëÉ=TR=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

* The graph displays the % of „yes“ mentions for the set of dichotomic (3G phone users/no) variables

I don't know smartphones/PDA phones

Too expensive

No need

50403020100

% of mentions

44

26

36

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 93

píóêá~=QW= nì~äáíáÉë=ÉñéÉÅíÉÇ=Äó=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêëLdpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=Ñêçã=íÜÉáê=ãçÄáäÉ=ÇÉîáÅÉG=

aç=óçì=ìëÉ=~=ëã~êíéÜçåÉ\=

Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ENRF= dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ETRF=

= `çìåí= `çäìãå=B= `çìåí= `çäìãå=B=

sÉêë~íáäáíó= U= RQ= OV= PV=

fåíÉÖê~íáçå= S= PV= NU= OQ=

dÉåÉê~äáíó= P= NT= V= NO=

`çåîÉåáÉåÅÉ= = = NN= NR=

b~ëÉ=çÑ=rëÉ= P= OM= QO= RS=

péÉÅá~äáë~íáçå= T= QR= V= NO=

`çåíêçä= V= RT= OV= PU=

`ìëíçãáë~íáçå= V= RU= OU= PU=

nì~äáíáÉë=

m~êíáÅáé~íáçå= R= PQ= NV= OR=

G== jìäíáéäÉ=~åëïÉêëK=pìã=çÑ=B=çîÉê=NMM

píóêá~=RW= `äìëíÉêáåÖ=çÑ=~ää=êÉëéçåÇÉåíë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=íÜÉ=èì~äáíáÉë=ÉñéÉÅíÉÇ=Ñêçã=~=ãçÄáäÉ=éÜçåÉ=

aáëíêáÄìíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅäìëíÉê=Å~íÉÖçêáÉë=

== cêÉèìÉåÅó= mÉêÅÉåí= s~äáÇ=mÉêÅÉåí=`ìãìä~íáîÉ=mÉêÅÉåí=

Åçåíêçää~ÄäÉ=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíó= ON= OPIO= OPIO= OPIO=

ÅçåîÉåáÉåí=ÑìåÅíáçå~äáíó= OS= OUIT= OUIT= RNIV=

ëáãéäáÅáíóLìë~Äáäáíó= QP= QUIN= QUIN= NMMIM=

s~äáÇ=

qçí~ä= VM= NMMIM= NMMIM= =

94 Appendix

píóêá~=SW= `äìëíÉê=ãÉãÄÉêëÜáé=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉë=

=

_~ëÉ=VM=ENR=dpj=ìëÉêë=L=TR=Pd=ìëÉêëF=

=

simplicity

controllable functionality

convenient functionality

6050403020100

% of cluster members

55

27

18

16

35

50

GSM phone users3G phone users

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 95

píóêá~=TW= qÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇåÉëë=~ÅÅçêÇáåÖ=íç=PdLdpj=éÜçåÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=

pÅ~äÉ=êìååáåÖ=Ñêçã=NEf=ìëì~ääó=íêó=åÉï=íÉÅÜåçäçÖáÉë=~ë=ëççå=~ë=íÜÉó=~êÉ=áåíêçÇìÅÉÇF=íç=

Q=Ef=~ã=ëÅÉéíáÅ~ä=~Äçìí=åÉï=íÉÅÜåçäçÖáÉëI=~åÇ=f=íÉåÇ=íç=êÉàÉÅí=íÜÉãF=

PdLdpj=ìë~ÖÉ=

=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

ENRF=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

ETRF=

jÉ~å= NISN= OIPR=

jÉÇá~å= NIQT= OIMM=

qÉÅÜåçäçÖó=ãáåÇÉÇåÉëë=

píÇ=aÉîá~íáçå= ITN= ITN=

=

píóêá~=UW= mÉêÅÉéíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëìÄàÉÅíáîÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=ìë~ÖÉ==

pÅ~äÉ= êìååáåÖ= Ñêçã=NEf= ~ÅèìáêÉÇ=ãó=ÇÉîáÅÉ= ~= ëÜçêí= íáãÉ=~ÖçI= ~åÇ= íÜÉêÉÑçêÉ=Çç=åçí=

Ü~îÉ=ëìÑÑáÅáÉåí=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉF=íç=S=Ef=~ã=ïÉää=~Åèì~áåíÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ãçëí=ÑìåÅíáçåëI=~åÇ=f=ÑáåÇ=

íÜÉã=É~ëó=íç=ìëÉF=

PdLdpj=ìë~ÖÉ=

=Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=

ENRF=dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ETRF=

jÉ~å= RIQQ= RIMR=

jÉÇá~å= SIMM= SIMM=

mÉêÅÉéíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=çïå=èì~äáíó=çÑ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=

píÇ=aÉîá~íáçå= IUQ= NIOP=

=

96 Appendix

píóêá~=VW= =^å~äóëáë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÑêÉèìÉåÅó=çÑ=ãçÄáäÉ=~ééäáÅ~íáçåëG=

=

pÅ~äÉ=êìååáåÖ=Ñêçã=N=EåÉîÉêF=íç=P=EîÉêó=çÑíÉåF=

=

eçï=çÑíÉå=Çç=óçì=ìëÉ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ÑìåÅíáçåë\=

Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ENRF= dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ETRF=

= jÉ~å= jÉÇá~å=píÇ=aÉîá~J

íáçå= jÉ~å= jÉÇá~å=píÇ=aÉîá~J

íáçå=

sçáÅÉ=íÉäÉéÜçåó= PIMM= PIMM= IMM= OIVQ= PIMM= IPN=

pjp=~åÇ=jjp= OIPN= OIMM= ITQ= OISM= PIMM= IRP=

ãçÄáäÉ=fåíÉêåÉí= NIUS= OIMM= IST= NIRR= NITV= IRV=

ãçÄáäÉ=bJã~áä= NITM= OIMM= ITQ= NIPR= NIMM= IRP=

mÜçíçë=~åÇ=sáÇÉçë= OIOV= OIUT= IUS= OINT= OIMM= ISO=

lêÖ~åáëÉêLmfj= OITP= PIMM= ISQ= OINS= OIMM= ITO=

lÑÑáÅÉ=~ééäáÅ~íáçåë= NISP= OIMM= ISR= NIPO= NIMM= IRQ=

jìëáÅ=Ççïåäç~Ç=~åÇ=éä~ó=

NINU= NIMM= IPV= NIOS= NIMM= IRP=

jçÄáäÉ=qs= NIQN= NIMM= ITR= NIPP= NIMM= IRQ=

k~îáÖ~íáçå=~åÇ=içÅ~Jíáçå=_~ëÉÇ=pÉêîáÅÉë=

NIRQ= NIVV= IRO= NINS= NIMM= IPT=

=

G= `~ëÉë=ïáíÜ=ãÉåíáçå=CÑìåÅíáçå=åçí=~î~áä~ÄäÉÒ=~êÉ=ÉñÅäìÇÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Å~äÅìä~íáçå=

çÑ=íÜÉ=ãÉ~å=ëÅçêÉ=

=

Tables, Graphs and Statistical Analyses 97

píóêá~=NMW= oÉ~ëçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=åçåJìë~ÖÉ=çÑ=Pd=ëéÉÅáÑáÅ=ÑìåÅíáçåë==

tÜó=ÇçåÛí=ëçãÉ=éÉçéäÉ=ìëÉ=~=ëã~êíéÜçåÉ\=

Pd=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ìëÉêë=ENRF= dpj=éÜçåÉ=ìëÉêë=ETRF=

= `çìåí= `çäìãå=B= `çìåí= `çäìãå=B=

f=ÄÉäáÉîÉ=íÜ~í=ëçãÉ=éÉçéäÉ=àìëí=ÇçåDí=âåçï=íÜ~í=íÜÉêÉ=~êÉ=ëç=ã~åó=ÑìåÅíáçåë=

R= PO= PR= QT=

j~åó=ÑìåÅíáçåë=~êÉ=ëç=ÅçãJéäáÅ~íÉÇ=íç=ìëÉ=íÜ~í=ãçëí=ìëJÉêë=ïçìäÇ=åçí=ã~âÉ=íÜÉ=ÉÑÑçêí=íç=íêó=íÜÉã=~ää=

T= QR= OR= PQ=

j~åó=ìëÉêë=Çç=åçí=Éãéäçó=~ää=ÑìåÅíáçåë=ÄÉÅ~ìëÉ=íÜÉó=åÉÉÇ=çåäó=ëçãÉ=ëéÉÅáÑáÅ=áå=íÜÉáê=Ç~áäó=äáÑÉ=

S= PT= QN= RR=

jçëí=ÑìåÅíáçåë=~êÉ=åçí=ëìáíJ~ÄäÉ=Ñçê=ãçÄáäÉ=ìë~ÖÉ=EÑçê=áåëí~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=Çáëéä~ó=~åÇ=âÉóJé~Ç=~êÉ=çÑíÉå=íçç=ëã~ääF=

U= RQ= PU= RN=

pçãÉ=ÑìåÅíáçåëI=ëìÅÜ=~ë=íÜÉ=ãçÄáäÉ=fåíÉêåÉíI=~êÉ=íçç=ÉñJéÉåëáîÉ=Ñçê=ã~åó=ìëÉêë=

NM= TM= QP= RT=

G=jìäíáéäÉ=~åëïÉêëK=pìã=çÑ=B=çîÉê=NMM=

=

==

=