Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhcs

Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: A structural model

Junho H. Choin, Hye-Jin Lee
Graduate School of Information, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea
Received 31 December 2010; received in revised form 27 July 2011; accepted 22 September 2011
Communicated by C. Bartneck
Available online 8 October 2011

Abstract

Motivated by the need to develop an integrated measure of simplicity perception for a smartphone user interface, our research
incorporated visual aesthetics, information design, and task complexity into an extended construct of simplicity. Drawn from three
distinct domains of human–computer interaction design and related areas, the new development of a simplicity construct and
measurement scales were then validated. The final measurement model consisted of six components: reduction, organization, component
complexity, coordinative complexity, dynamic complexity, and visual aesthetics. The following phase aimed at verifying the relationship
between simplicity perception of the interface and evaluations of user satisfaction. The hypothesis was accepted that user satisfaction
was positively affected by simplicity perception and that the relationship between the two constructs was very strong. The findings imply
that a simplified interface design of the task performance, information hierarchy, and visual display attributes contributes to positive
satisfaction evaluations when users interact with their smartphone as they engage in communication, information search, and
entertainment activities.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Smartphone; Simplicity; Satisfaction; Visual aesthetics; Information design; Task complexity

1. Introduction Along with other concepts in usability and user interface

Since the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, the
smartphone has become a dominant mobile device for
communication, information, and entertainment. The
rapid transition to the smartphone in the mobile market
has also brought significant changes to the user interface
design and the usability of mobile devices. A smartphone is
a converged device for mobile computing and communica-
tion, and thus requires revised definitions of the principal
concepts of Human–Computer Interaction, which may be
distinguished from those of the PC and the feature phone.
Still limited by a small screen size, a smartphone has the
functions of a broadband enabled computer in a mobile
use context. Usability and HCI concepts, developed mainly
for the use context and interface conditions of a personal
computer, should thus be reconfigured for the current and
future mainstream mobile devices.
design, simplicity has emerged as a key issue in the smart-
phone. For instance, Apple’s iPhones (iOS3 and iOS4) were
acclaimed for their minimalist design and simple user inter-
face. Competitors also adopted the zeitgeist and ‘simple and
easy’ has become the catchphrase for mobile UI design.
However, in the realm of human–computer interaction and
user experience design, simplicity has been only defined as
one of factors of visual aesthetics mostly in a PC use context.
Thus, emerging inquiries are what it means by simplicity in
the context of smartphone user interface, how we can develop
a comprehensive measurement scale of simplicity, and to
what extent the simplicity perception affects positive out-
comes such as user satisfaction. To grasp with the new user
experience of the smartphone, an extensive and revamped
conceptualization of simplicity is needed first.
1.1. Simplicity and visual aesthetics in web usability

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 82 2 2123 4196; fax: þ 82 2 2123 8654. The history of simplicity concept is rather recent in human–
E-mail address: junhochoi@yonsei.ac.kr (J.H. Choi). computer interaction research. While human–computer

1071-5819/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.09.002
130 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
interaction research has traditionally focused on utility and
usability issues, the field has expanded its focus and perspective
into the whole user experience including aesthetics and
emotions (Kim et al., 2003; Hassenzahl and Tractinsky,
2006; Schmidt et al., 2009; International Organization for
Standardization, 2010). As a new realm in the HCI field, visual
aesthetics has shown positive associations with perception of
usability (Tractinsky et al., 2000), evaluations of content
quality (Aladwani and Palvia, 2002), and emotional satisfac-
tion (Cyr et al., 2008; Zhang and von Dran, 2000). In sum,
beautiful designs are perceived as usable and an interface with
good visual aesthetics can improve task performance.
Simplicity has been identified as one of the major UI
factors influencing perceived visual aesthetics (Ngo et al.,
2003), along with diversity and complexity (Pandir and
Knight, 2006; Tuch et al., 2009). Also, HCI research
has repeatedly found simplicity as an important compo-
nent in the aesthetic evaluations of websites (Lavie and
Tractinsky, 2004; Ngo et al., 2003; Thielsch and Hirscheld,
2010). The mechanism between simplicity and aesthetic
perception can be found in processing fluency theory.
Processing fluency theory posits that aesthetic pleasure is
a function of the user’s stimulus processing dynamics
(Reber et al., 2004). That is, the more fluently users can
process interface stimuli, the more positive their aesthetic
evaluation. Referred to as the ease of processing visual
object, fluency is affected by figural goodness, the amount
of information, symmetry, clarity, contrast, and the famil-
iarity of visual objects (Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004;
Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010). High fluency leads to a
positive judgment because users can recognise and process
stimuli more successfully with fewer errors and less
uncertainty. If user processing demands determine aes-
thetic appraisal, simple layouts would be processed more
fluently and thus valued more positively.
In a study of scale construction for the visual aesthetics
of websites (Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010), simplicity is
defined as the aspects that facilitate the perception and
processing of a layout. Mainly focused on the static
webpage design, the construct of simplicity consists of five
facets: clarity, orderliness, homogeneity, balance, and the
proper grouping of visual elements on the screen. Those five
facets clearly echo the Gestalt psychologists’ figural good-
ness concepts (Arnheim, 1974). In an experimental study on
the websites, the simplicity facet is found to be strongly
related to evaluations of perceived usability and utility/
usefulness (Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010). The strong
correlations may reflect the conceptual overlap between
simplicity and usability, but may also suggest that simplicity
is a property of both aesthetics and usability.
1.2. Simplicity for the smartphone use context: beyond
visual aesthetics and web usability
Simplicity is an important component of the aesthetic
impression of webpages on PC screens. However, in
mobile devices, it should be reconfigured as more than a
component of visual aesthetics. The caveat of an aesthetic
approach to simplicity in HCI research is that simplicity in
mobile computing may be not a unified concept but a
multidimensional one. That is, processing fluency demands
for performing diverse tasks on a small screen exist in
multiple and dynamic interaction modes as well as in the
single and static visual objects. In the interactionist
view on the beauty, aesthetic impression has three
defining features: value positive, intrinsic, and objectified
(Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010; Santayana, 1955). Thus, as
a main component of beauty, simplicity is value positive
because it provides pleasure. It is intrinsic because an
object can be perceived as simple immediately without any
cognitive work or reasoning about expected utility. Lastly,
simplicity is directed toward an object rather than toward
a neurological sensation. Simplicity of mobile devices may
share those basic features of aesthetic impression. How-
ever, mobile phone UI designers and users should always
consider the utility of the object. Thus, the domain of
simplicity needs to be extended into other dimensions such
as information design and task performance usability.
The rationale for the conceptual extension of simplicity in
a mobile use context can be found in the different interac-
tion modes and usability requirements of a smartphone
compared to those of the Web and a PC. Since the birth of
the Xerox Star, WIMP and GUI have been a main frame-
work of user interface and the usability in the PC OS and
the Web. Icons and GUI remain a main components of the
smartphone interface, but other interface components such
as pointing and windowing interfaces have evolved quite
differently in the smartphone OS. Firstly, for portability,
smartphones have a limited screen size, which generates the
condition for thinking how to maximise the utility of the
limited space. The overlapping or stretching of multiple
windows in the same screen mode should be limited, and
displaying a full set of menu items should be depressed.
Secondly, the clearest transition from a PC and Web
usability is a haptic interface. Using fingertips instead of a
mouse pointing device diminishes the precision of control;
thus, error prevention for correct navigation and input
becomes a priority in the smartphone interaction design.
For instance, icons and navigation buttons should be large
enough for correct touch input by a fingertip. Furthermore,
iPhone has a single hard key for multiple navigation and
control functions creating a different condition from the
PC’s rather precise control with a mouse.
Different use context from PC is another rationale for
the extension of the simplicity concept in a mobile inter-
face. Because people carry and use a smartphone ubiqui-
tously, the utility of the object can be transformed by
different contexts of use, such as space, time, privacy
condition, and personal needs. In contrast to the use
context of the Web in a PC, mobile phone users feel the
pressure of time and monetary costs due to the limited
battery life and usage charges. Also, when using their
smartphones outdoors, users face numerous disruptions
such as an unclear display while in sunlight. The
 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
unavailability of full concentration on the screen for a
relatively long time will lead users to expectations of high
efficiency and low cognitive loads in information proces-
sing and task performance. Reasoning about expected
utility is an innate use context for both mobile phone
users and UI designers. Thus, aesthetic impression may
depend on the use context and on reasoning about utility.
The conceptual overlapping of simplicity with other
domains is demonstrated well in the practical user interface
design realm. SAP’s (2004) software design guideline
clearly argues for an initiative to expand the simplicity
concept by illustrating multifaceted or multidimensional
meanings of a simple user interface. For instance, they
define simplification of the application design as a combi-
nation of effective information design, cognitive ease of
learning & use, and task performance efficiency. Clearly,
these have been the main concepts of usability domain. If
HCI researchers feel the obligation of providing to practi-
tioners a reliable and valid methodology with solid con-
cepts and theoretical models, reconceptualization and
modelling of simplicity are required for an emerging
smartphone interface design.
2. Literature review: dimensions of simplicity
Following reviews of the relevant literature, this study
posits that the concept of simplicity is multidimensional
and can be classified into three dimensions: (1) visual
aesthetics, (2) information design, and (3) task complexity.
The last two dimensions are the new addition to the
traditional concept of simplicity. Main components in
each dimension of simplicity are reviewed in the following
sections.
2.1. Simplicity in visual aesthetics
Simplicity has been regarded as a partial component of
visual aesthetics. Moshagen and Thielsch (2010) generated
a structural model of the visual aesthetics of websites and
enlisted four lower order factors: simplicity, diversity,
colourfulness, and craftsmanship. Among them, simplicity
reflects web screen design aspects that facilitate the
perception of a layout. Clarity, orderliness, homogeneity,
grouping, balance, and symmetry are internal items of
simplicity (Bauerly and Liu, 2008; Moshagen and Thielsch,
2010; Tractinsky et al., 2006). These attributes are also
classified as classical aesthetics whereas other attributes
such as originality, creativity, use of special effects as
expressive aesthetics in evaluations of attractiveness (Lavie
and Tractinsky, 2004; Shaik and Ling, 2009). Definitely,
these classical aesthetics attributes, or simplicity, are
clearly related to Gestalt psychologists’ figural goodness
(Arnheim, 1974). Consistent with previous studies on the
relationship between simplicity and usability perception
(Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004), visual simplicity facet is
positively related to the usability perception and pragmatic
quality.
131
In contrast, diversity plays a counteracting role in visual
aesthetics. A merely simple stimulus can lead users to
boredom because a reduction of visual cues can result in
low arousal and eventually in a negative response. Visual
richness or novelty boosts the arousal potential of a
stimulus by provoking interest and tension (Hekkert
et al., 2003). ‘‘Unity in diversity’’ (Fechner, 1876) is still
the golden rule of interface design, but visual richness or
diversity may not be a preference for mobile users.
Compared to a webpage on a PC monitor, a mobile screen
is more limited in terms of screen size and user attention.
Given that a smartphone screen does not allow enough
space for complex visual cues or multiple windows for
various tasks, mobile phone’s functions are separated into
small packet of pages and user’s attention to a fixed page is
also limited.
2.2. Simplicity in information design
Simplicity not only applies to the aesthetic perception of
a visual layout, but also to the information design, that is,
the organization, structure, flow, and frame of interface
items (Maeda, 2006). Often referred to as information
architecture (Wurman, 1997), information design is a key
domain of HCI, which investigates the way in which
information is represented or the processes of data classi-
fication, formation, organization, and presentation for
meaningful and effective interaction (Tufte, 1990, 1997,
2006; Marsico and Levialdi, 2004). Simplicity can be
obtained through the optimal structuring of interface
items, and consequently lowering the complexity of the
visual information presented in textual and/or graphic
forms. For a smartphone with dozens of applications,
balancing functional complexity and an easy interface is
critical for usability. Simplicity of the information struc-
ture is classified into four sub-constructs: reduction,
organization, integration, and prioritising (Maeda, 2006;
SAP, 2004).
Reduction refers to task performance with fewer steps.
Designers need to sacrifice functionality to offset the
reduced steps in applications. A smartphone user demands
a low depth of menu to run an application. The setting
menu often requires several steps to access the final stage
of control options, but low depth of a menu structure can
improve simplicity. For example, most iPhone applications
can be accessed via the one-step touch of an icon, but the
setting menu of the iPhone 3 has 3–4 depths in average
with 6 depths in maximum.
Organization is chosen as a core component of simpli-
city by both Maeda (2006) and SAP (2004). It refers to
minimising the cognitive load of a user for the efficient
processing of information chunks. Similar items are orga-
nized into categories in the setting menu. Most smart-
phones have multi-page main screens with icons arranged
in a grid, and newer versions have an option to create
folders to organize icons into the categories.
132 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
Integration refers to the coherence of interface items
across different applications. Isolated tasks can leave users
lost in a maze of functionality. Simplicity can be obtained
through a consistent framework for easier accessibility
based on common user mental models. iOS phones main-
tain a consistent interface for navigation and action keys.
Prioritising means classifying and presenting functions
by the degree of importance. By highlighting some infor-
mation cues and hiding others, users can recognise the
important information cues more easily and correctly. The
importance is given by interface designers usually in setting
menu and different ordering can be found in different OSs:
the airplane mode setting is on the top of setting list and
Wi-Fi is next in the iOS, but the Wi-Fi setting is on the top
and Call is next in the Android OS. Prioritising can also be
achieved by user customization. In most smartphones,
users can re-position icons into a preferred location on
the screen. Android phones have separate home screens in
which users can customise the screen menu.
2.3. Simplicity in task complexity
We adopt Wood’s (1986) and Nadkarni and Gupta’s
(2007) framework of task complexity to define perceived
smartphone UI simplicity. Mainly studied in the informa-
tion systems (IS) and HCI domains (Geissler et al., 2001),
this task-based framework is important for the smartphone
use context because, beyond the basic calling and messa-
ging functions, users utilise phones to fulfil a variety of
task goals such as search, browsing, social networking,
personal management, gaming, and entertainment.
There have long been contrasting arguments regarding
the relationship between complexity and simplicity. In
studies of visual aesthetics, one perspective is that com-
plexity is a deterrent to the perception of beauty, whereas
simplicity is a contributing factor (Birkhoff, 1933). An
opposing perspective is that simplicity and complexity are
dialectic relationship and that the harmonious ‘combina-
tion of diversity in unity’ is the central principle of
aesthetics (Eysenck, 1941; Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010).
Visual richness or diversity provokes interest and tension,
while merely a simple stimulus results in low aesthetic
arousal.
In studies of information systems, there are similar views
regarding a contrasting relationship between complexity
and simplicity in terms of usability. Perceived complexity
can increase the richness of information cues and provide a
satisfying user experience (Hall and Hanna, 2004; Palmer,
2002). At the same time, complexity can create frustration
in users and hinder user satisfaction. Nadkarni and Gupta
(2007) propose a median stance that the relationship is
not linear but inverted-U shape (Berlyne, 1974; Pandir
and Knight, 2006). Low levels of perceived complexity
create boredom whereas high levels of it generate confu-
sion (Tuch et al., 2009). The idea that median levels of
complexity maximise user satisfaction is a valid proposi-
tion for the PC experience but may not be proper for the
mobile experience. Because use duration of a smartphone
per task is relatively short, confusion is a more serious
usability issue than boredom in the mobile use context.
Thus, a lack of complexity or obstruction can be defined as
simplicity (Nielsen, 2000). Therefore, setting complexity as
a reversed measure of simplicity in mobile task perfor-
mance presents a reasonable relationship (Schaik and
Ling, 2005).
For smartphone users, information cues on the small
screen are central to performing each task goal. Users need
to make a series of judgments during the performance of a
task, and these judgments are based on information cues,
which are clues about the attributes of stimulus objects
(Wood, 1986). These information cues are perceived from
various task stimulus objects including text, icons, back-
ground images, the layout, navigation tools, and soft and
hard keys. The visual interface of a smartphone is the
primary medium through which users interact with the
information cues. The less complex the information cues
for fulfilling a task are, the simpler users will perceive the
user interface of the smartphone.
Wood (1986) posits that task complexity describes the
relationships between task inputs and resources for suc-
cessful task performance. Task inputs set upper limits on
knowledge and skills. He propose that perceived task
complexity is a combination of three sub-dimensions:
component, coordinative, and dynamic. Nadkarni and
Gupta (2007) adopt the definition and concepts into the
judgment of website complexity as follows:
2.3.1. Component complexity
Component complexity is a function of the number of
distinct information cues that must be processed in the
performance of a task (Berlyne, 1974; Campbell, 1988;
Nadkarni and Gupta, 2007). As the number of informa-
tion cues increases, the knowledge and skill requirements
for the task also increase. Thus, fewer information cues
and formats on the screen decrease the cognitive loads of
the users. For a smartphone, component complexity refers
to the visual density of information cues. In a screen
layout, long labels, too many images, and a mix of multiple
colours are dense cues. A task stimulus with dense
information cues is perceived as more complex than one
with sparse and similar cues.
2.3.2. Coordinative complexity
This refers to the range of and interdependencies among
the different information clusters in the task stimulus
(Campbell, 1988; Steinmann, 1976). The timing, frequency,
intensity, and the sequencing between task inputs and
outputs determine the degrees of the relationships among
groups of related topics (Wood, 1986). The wider the range
of an information cluster and the less uniform the inter-
relationships among the clusters, the greater the perception
of coordinative complexity. That is, high coordinative
complexity is caused by a wide range of topics covered, a
high number of sub pages, and too many paths or links.
 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
For a smartphone, this issue usually emerges when users
try to access to a certain menu or execute a certain
function in an application that has illogically categorised
menu or setting items or vaguely connected task functions.
2.3.3. Dynamic complexity
This refers to the ambiguity and uncertainty that users
face while carrying out task performance activities
(Campbell, 1988; March and Simon, 1958). Ambiguity
refers to the level of different possible interpretations of
the same information cue and uncertainty is the level of
predictability of an action–outcome relationship. Thus,
dynamic complexity is a function of clarity and predict-
ability in the cause–effect chain or means-ends hierarchy
(Wood, 1986). It may also be translated into the intuitive-
ness of user interaction cues. For a smartphone, unpre-
dictable navigation or outcome expectation creates
dynamic complexity and undermine the perceived simpli-
city of the task performance.
2.4. Simplicity and outcomes: user satisfaction
Main components of three dimensions of simplicity for
smartphone are reviewed above. Once simplicity is concep-
tualised for the scale development, it is important to verify
that the simplicity perception of a smartphone user interface
leads to positive outcomes which are critical to the success of
a smartphone design. Among several usability outcomes, user
satisfaction occupies a central position in usability and
user experience design (Bevan, 2001; Abran et al., 2003;
Hassenzahl, 2004; Hornbaek, 2006; Bevan, 2008; Cyr et al.,
2008). When users are satisfied with a system, they are more
likely to use the system frequently (DeLone and McLean,
1992), return to a website (Hoffman et al., 1996), purchase
products at e-commerce sites and recommend the sites to
others (McKinney et al., 2002).
End-user or customer satisfaction is defined as a positive
attitude towards the use experience. It is an affective state
of freedom from discomfort (ISO 9241-11, 1998) and of
representing a favourable emotional reaction to the system
use experience (McKinney et al., 2002). User satisfaction is
the consequence of the various stages of use experience.
For example, the e-commerce website use experience is a
sequence of purchasing stages: need arousal, information
search, evaluation, decision, and post-purchase behaviour
(Kotler, 1997). Though not identical to the product pur-
chasing experience, the smartphone use experience can be
understood as a sequence of need, search, and execution
stages for performing a specific task. The satisfaction with
the usability is an evaluation of the efficiency and effective-
ness of the process.
Simplicity may be a determinant of user satisfaction,
but the relationship has yet to be proven. Smartphone
users will have higher satisfaction when they have a
positive evaluation of the user interface and simplified
interface design critically influences on the satisfying
user experience (Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001). A simple
133
layout, well-organized information, clarity, visual attrac-
tiveness, and ease of use have been regarded as factors of
perceived system quality and satisfaction (Abels et al.,
1997; Bailey and Pearson, 1983; Doll and Torkzadeh,
1988; McKinney et al., 2002). These factors (i.e., access,
navigation, and interactivity) have been widely investi-
gated in the use context of PC, and interface design factors
of simplicity can be directly applied to mobile use. In a
mobile use context simplicity can be more important than
other usability factors of efficiency and effectiveness.
In the smartphone user experience, user satisfaction is a
critical outcome of user experience, and simplicity may be
a strong predictor of user satisfaction. Thus, in order to
test the relationship between simplicity perception and
satisfaction evaluation, we proposed a hypothesis for the
testing of structural model.
Hypothesis. The perception of simplicity in the smartphone
interface influences positive user satisfaction.
2.5. The present research and a conceptual model
Simplicity is the key issue for interface design and
usability engineering, especially in mobile devices. How-
ever, there has been scarce empirical validation of simpli-
city in terms of conceptualization and measurement thus
far. This is not surprising considering the recent introduc-
tion of the smartphone and the relatively new user
experience of mobile computing. The conceptualization
of simplicity in a smartphone and its usability outcome will
provide a new insight into the field of mobile HCI and a
competitive advantage for design practitioners. Easy to use
and visually pleasing mobile interface will be improved by
considering simplicity factors.
This study aims for quantitative scale development of
simplicity concept and modelling of its structural relation-
ship with sub-components and attitudinal outcome. Given
that the conceptualization of simplicity for a smartphone is
a new attempt and the purpose of study is explorative in
nature, qualitative methods may also be productive for
developing the meaning structure of simplicity embedded
with the user experiences in everyday lives. Many qualita-
tive methods such as ethnography, naturalistic inquiry,
focus group interview, diary studies have been widely used
in HIC research and usability testing (Choe et al., 2006;
Jones and Marsden, 2006; Sohn et al., 2008). Providing a
rich and ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973) on the user’s
point of view would be helpful for understanding the
meanings and interpretations of simplicity in people’s
everyday experiences. For instance, through qualitative
brainstorming processes, SAP (2004) have identified under-
lying facets of simplicity. In addition, Maeda (2004, 2006)
extracted 10 principles of simplicity design based on the
interpretive paradigm.
In spite of these benefits of qualitative approach, there is
an apparent need for a validated assessment instrument and
theoretical modelling for emerging constructs in HCI (Lavie
134 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142

Simplicity in Information Design

Reduction Organization Reduction Organization

Simplicity in Task Complexity

Component
Complexcity

Coordinative Simplicity Satisfaction

Complexcity

Dynamic
Complexcity

Visual Aesthetics

Simplicity in Visual Aesthetics

Fig. 1. Conceptual model diagram.

and Tractinsky, 2004; Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010). Adopt- experience were qualified to participate in the survey. To
ing important facets of simplicity concept identified in earlier collect survey participants, encouraging text messages were
qualitative research, this study utilises a quantitative sent to approximately 400 people who were attending a
approach to measurement validation and model testing large university in the capital of South Korea. A total of
because developing valid measures and modelling relation- 205 smartphone users responded to the questionnaire
ships between related concepts are a prerequisite for follow- (51% response rate). In an effort to study perceptions of
up studies of simplicity in the UI design and usability testing. the simplicity and relevant constructs in the natural
Thus, this study comprises of two phases. The initial environment, the participants were asked to answer survey
phase of this research aims to develop a conceptual questions based on their own smartphone use experiences.
foundation of simplicity in the smartphone user experience Thus, no experimental design material or manipulated task
and to validate the proposed measurement model. In our scenario was presented to the participants. Fifty-two
measurement model, simplicity is expected to be composed percent of the sample used the iPhone and forty-eight
of three dimensions: aesthetics, information architecture, percent used other OSs (Android 36%, Symbian 10%,
and task (un)complexity. The second phase seeks to verify Blackberry OS 2%). Almost half of the users had 500 MB
the relationship between simplicity perception and user data usage monthly pricing plan and twenty-one percent
satisfaction because the satisfaction occupies a central had 1 GB or more. More female users (70%) participated
position as an outcome in usability and user experience in the survey. The oversampling of female users was due to
design. Smartphone user’ satisfaction is expected to be the technical unavailability of automatic screening by the
influenced by the simplicity perception of the user inter- online survey site. The results of t-test to check for a
face. Fig. 1 depicts the overall research model of this study possible gender effect showed no significant differences
which combines a measurement model for simplicity between female and male users in usage pattern (e.g., data
perception and a structural model for the relationship usage, number of applications) and in any of the constructs
between simplicity and satisfaction. used in this study (e.g., reduction, organization, compo-
nent complexity, coordinative complexity, dynamic com-
plexity, visual aesthetics, and satisfaction).
3. Scale construction for smartphone user interface
simplicity
3.2. Measurement items
Incorporating visual aesthetics, information design, and
task complexity into an extended concept of smartphone From diverse domains of the literature, we adapted
user interface simplicity perception, a measurement model
measures of eight constructs in three dimensions for
is proposed and validated in this section. simplicity perception. Because most of the original mea-
surement statements were drawn from Web usability
3.1. Data collection studies, we rephrased each items to match the properties
of mobile interfaces. Simplicity was set as a second order
An online survey was conducted in July of 2010, and formative factor. Each sub-construct of simplicity repre-
only smartphone users with at least one month of use sents specific interface and usability attribute and, at the
 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
same time, forms the higher order construct, simplicity, as
a whole. That is, any change in a first-order sub-construct
would affect the perception of simplicity. Each sub-
construct was measured with multiple items, mostly three
or four, by 7 point Likert-type scale. Survey questions of
each sub-construct are presented in the Appendix.
The four constructs of reduction, organization, integration,
and prioritising in the information architecture depend on
Maeda’s (2006) simplicity design principles and SAP’s (2004)
practical guidelines. These four constructs were assessed
adapting the measurement scale for simplicity perception of
webblogs by Lee et al.’s. (2007). For example, reduction was
measured by questions of how much users perceive their
phones as having unnecessary, difficult, or complicated steps
to use the functions (reversed coding). Organization was
rated on the perceived degree of a systematic or well-
structured arrangement of menu categories, content, func-
tions, and information. Respondents rated integration as the
perceived degree of coherently combined interfaces, such as
the grouping of menu items, one-step functions to menus or
to settings. Prioritising was rated by the degree of ease of
recognition of recent or frequent use functions and the active/
passive mode of functions
Three constructs in task (un)complexity were measured
by adapting perceived website complexity (PWC) scales
(Wood, 1986; Nadkarni and Gupta, 2007). Component
complexity was assessed by the perceived degree of visual
density in text, images, icons, and layouts. Coordinated
complexity was measured according to the perceived
degree of logical connectedness in the relationship between
interface items and functions such as paths to functions,
screen transitions, and information clusters. Dynamic
complexity was rated on the perceived degree of certainty
or predictability in the control input–action output and
information presentation on the succeeding screens.
Aesthetic simplicity was assessed by three items drawn
from Moshagen and Thielsch’s (2010) Visual aesthetics
for Website Inventory (VisAWI) scale. Respondents
were asked to rate the extent to which they perceive
their phone’s screen user interface as neat, modern, and
balanced.
Satisfaction as an outcome of simplicity perception was
measured by three items drawn from McKinney et al’s.
(2002) Web-customer satisfaction scale. The items used
were ‘‘I am satisfied with the smartphone I use,’’ ‘‘I like the
smartphone I use,’’ and ‘‘I am disappointed with the
smartphone I use (reversed coding).’’
3.3. Analysis and validation procedures
With the measurement items and the relationships
between the constructs explained above, this study involves
a three-step analysis procedure using Structural Equation
Model (SEM) in AMOS 15 because SEM can assess both
measurement properties and test the theoretical relation-
ships simultaneously. The first step is to refine the
proposed measurement model for the parsimony and
135
predictability. The assessment of model validity is con-
ducted by checking goodness-of-fit indices. If the fit indices
are not acceptable, the proposed model should be refined
for the improvement of the measurement model by drop-
ping problematic variables and measured items. Then, with
the refined model, a first-order factor analysis is analysed
to check the reliability and validity of the constructs
measured by the questionnaire. Using maximum likeli-
hood, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is needed to
verify the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity of each variable or construct. The results are
described in the following section.
Secondly, after verifying the validity and reliability of
each construct in the refined model with CFA, a second-
order CFA is carried out to measure the relative impor-
tance of each component of simplicity (Section 3.5). Our
measurement model proposed that the simplicity percep-
tion is a formative indicator and composed of multiple
components of information design, task (un)complexity,
and visual aesthetics. The components or latent variables
in the refined measurement model serves as measurement
variables of simplicity scale.
After the first- and second-order CFA, the proposed
structure model is tested in order to examine the relation-
ship between simplicity perception and user satisfaction
(Section 4). Assuming that the simplicity construct com-
posed of multiple components affects satisfaction even-
tually, the last process seeks to verify the theoretical
relationship between the verified simplicity construct and
the evaluation of user satisfaction.
To develop a new scale or construct, a validity check is
critical to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.
Construct validity is defined as the extent to which
measured items actually reflect the theoretical construct
as intended and one of the benefits of structural equation
modelling is that it assesses the construct validity (Hair
et al., 2010). Usually, the construct is validated by two
components of construct validity: convergent and discri-
minant validity. Convergent validity refers to the extent of
the agreement of proposed measures of related constructs,
whereas discriminant validity (a.k.a. divergent validity) is
the degree of disagreement of theoretically unrelated
constructs. In the first-order and second-order confirma-
tory factor analyses in the following sections, we tested
whether the three-factor scale of simplicity measure was
closely related yet had separate dimensions of user’s
perception of smartphone simplicity.
Face validity, also known as content validity, is the
assessment of the correspondence of the measured items
in the scale and their conceptual definition. That is, it refers
to the match between the observed reality and the theore-
tical definition. The degree of correspondence between
measured item and the concept is subjectively assessed
mostly by expert judges. Though borrowing scales from
previous studies does not always guarantee face validity, we
carefully selected established scales and adapted the mea-
surement items to the smartphone use context.
136 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142

3.4. Measurement model refinement: confirmatory factor Table 1

analysis Fit measures for the measurement models.

Fit Recommended Initial measurement Refined measurement

As shown in the conceptual model diagram in Fig. 1, index criteria model model
we initially set a total of 10 constructs in our model. Among 2 nnn nn

them, except for simplicity, nine constructs were directly x Z .05 1478.348 228.451
measured with multiple items. Simplicity was set as a (d.f. ¼ 704) (d.f. ¼ 168)
x2/d.f. r 3.0 2.100 1.360
second-order formative construct, which acts as an index GFI Z .90 .735 .905
of eight components derived of three domains of informa- AGFI Z .90 .692 .869
tion design, task (un)complexity, and visual aesthetics. CFA RMR r .05 .171 .094
was conducted to provide a confirmatory test of the RMSEA r .05 .073 .042
NFI Z .90 .752 .935
proposed measurement model, which specifies how mea- CFI Z .90 .850 .982
sured variables logically and systematically represent con-
structs in the model. In order to achieve more accurate and Note: Items and variables omitted from the refined model are marked in
parsimonious model, the measurement scales were modified. the Appendix.
nn
p o .01.
The initial measurement model had 40 observed vari- nnn
p o .001.
ables for 9 latent variables. To confirm the fitness of the
proposed model, Chi-square, Chi-square/d.f., GFI, AGFI,
RMR, RMSEA, NFI, and CFI were assessed. These reliability score are the estimates of convergent validity
multiple goodness-of-fit (GOF) measures indicate how in the structural equation modelling. Table 2 shows
well the estimated covariance matrix of the specified confirmatory factor loadings of each measured item and
measurement model represents the observed covariance reliability scores of each construct. Factor loadings above
matrix of the data. Typically, using three to four fit indices .5 are considered acceptable in general and most of
including Chi-square and Chi-square/d.f. as key values loadings exceeded .6. Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores
provides adequate evidence of model fit (Hair et al., 2010). above .7 are considered acceptable and all scores exceeded
Out of the fit measures for the initial measurement model, .8. Thus, convergent validity was confirmed successfully.
only x2 and x2/d.f. were acceptable by recommended Secondly, discriminant validity was checked. Discrimi-
criteria. Because the initial model did not satisfy acceptable nant validity is the extent to which a construct is unique
validation, model refinement was required for the improve- and distinct from other constructs. The correlation coeffi-
ment of the measurement model. cients and the squared root of average variance extracted
The refined measurement model was finalised with 21 (AVE) are the estimates for the confirmation of discrimi-
observed variables for 7 constructs. Two latent variables nant validity and the result is shown in Table 3. Among 7
and their six observed variables were deleted from the variables, all correlations were significant and there was
initial measurement model. The two latent variables the highest correlation between dynamic complexity and
omitted in the refined model were integration and prior- visual aesthetics (r ¼ .582). In the table the diagonal
itising in information design domain. Additionally, 13 elements represent the squared root of average variance
observed variables, which belonged to reduction, organiza- extracted (AVE), providing a measure of the variance
tion, component complexity, coordinative complexity, or shared between each construct and its measures. Because
dynamic complexity were deleted from the initial measure- the squared root of AVE scores were higher than the
ment model for parsimony and better goodness-of-fit correlations between the constructs, the assessment of
of the final measurement model. For example, omitted discriminant validity did not reveal any problems.
were two observed variables belonged to coordinative Lastly, to verify the internal consistency or unidimen-
complexity (‘‘The paths to certain functions are logical’’) sionality of each latent variable, we also measured the
and reduction (‘‘My phone has unnecessary steps to use construct reliability and Table 4 shows its result. Gener-
certain functions’’). After some of the observed variables ally, it is acceptable when composite reliability is higher
and latent variables were trimmed through model refine- than .7 and AVE is higher than .5. Most of the scores
ment process, all the fit measures for the final measurement were above the criteria indicating sufficient construct
model were acceptable only except for AGFI (.869) and reliability.
RMR (.094), which were slightly short of recommended
criteria. The fit measures for the initial and refined 3.5. Simplicity scale measurement model: second-order
measurement models are compared in Table 1. factor analysis
With the refined measurement model, we conducted
CFA to confirm whether the constructs in the model were Based on previous literatures, eight components or sub-
valid and reliable. Firstly, convergent validity was tested. constructs for the simplicity scale were initially proposed.
Convergent validity is confirmed when the measured items After verifying the validity and reliability of each variable
of a specific construct share a high proportion of variance in the refined measurement model with CFA as above, we
in common. Factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha chose six components for simplicity scale for smartphone
 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142 137

Table 2
Convergent validity: factor loadings and reliability scores.

Latent constructs Measured items Mean (SD) Confirmatory factor loadings Reliability (Cronbach a)

(1) Reduction Reduction 1 4.293 (1.454) .644a 0.882

Reduction 2 .741nnn
Reduction 3 .764nnn
(2) Organization Organization 2 4.925 (1.339) .677a 0.879
Organization 3 .748nnn
Organization 4 .706nnn
(3) Component complexity Component 1 4.661 (1.357) .503a 0.914
Component 2 .812nnn
Component 3 .843nnn
Component 4 .779nnn
(4) Coordinative complexity Coordinative 2 5.012 (1.246) .898a 0.845
Coordinative 3 .600nnn

(5) Dynamic complexity Dynamic 1 4.889 (1.212) .637a 0.881

Dynamic 2 .711nnn
Dynamic 3 .800nnn
(6) Visual aesthetics Aesthetic 1 5.613 (1.162) .897nnn 0.927
Aesthetic 2 .803nnn
Aesthetic 3 .735a
(7) User satisfaction Satisfaction 1 5.291 (1.385) .906a 0.92
Satisfaction 2 .907nnn
Satisfaction 3 .651nnn

Note: Full statements of measured items are listed with numbers in the Appendix.
nnn
p o .001.
a
Loading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance.

Table 3
Discriminant validity: correlations of the latentables and the square root of the AVE.

Latent variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) Reduction (.793)

(2) Organization .313nnn (.724)
(3) Component complexity .279nnn .293nnn (.750)
(4) Coordinative complexity .294nnn .453nnn .302nnn (.784)
(5) Dynamic complexity .309nnn .480nnn .303nnn .493nnn (.762)
(6) Visual aesthetics .384nnn .449nnn .330nnn .439nnn .582nnn (.859)
(7) User satisfaction .525nnn .548nnn .311nnn .433nnn .498nnn .567nnn (.803)
nnn
p o 0.001.

Table 4 customization of icon movement, users seem not to

Construct reliability: composite reliability and AVE of latent variables. perceive integration and prioritising as components of
simplicity.
Latent variables Composite reliability AVE
The six components of simplicity for smartphone user
(1) Reduction 0.745 0.494 interface were reduction and organization in information
(2) Organization 0.767 0.524 design domain, component complexity, coordinative com-
(3) Component complexity 0.836 0.563 plexity, and dynamic complexity in task (un)complexity
(4) Coordinative complexity 0.760 0.615
(5) Dynamic complexity 0.805 0.580
domain, and visual aesthetics. Comprising these six compo-
(6) Visual aesthetics 0.894 0.737 nents, the second-order CFA was carried out to measure the
(7) User Satisfaction 0.844 0.644 relative importance of each component of simplicity. In
order to estimate formative indicator, six latent variables
user interface. Two initial components dropped were served as measurement variables of simplicity. Fit measures
integration and prioritising in the information design for the second-order CFA model showed that only AGFI
dimension. Because smartphones offer default user and RMR slightly did not reach the recommended criteria,
138 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142

but all other fit measures were acceptable (Table 5). Thus, simplicity construct, composed of six components, affects
the simplicity scale was successfully validated. user satisfaction eventually as stated in the Hypothesis
Fig. 2 displays a result of second-order CFA with unstan- (Section 2.4). Given that user satisfaction is critical to the
dardised path weight. Among 6 components, dynamic com- success of a product or service, we examined whether the
plexity showed the highest path weight (1.03) and component simple user interface design of a smartphone actually leads
complexity presents the lowest (0.48). It denotes that dynamic to user satisfaction as a token of positive outcome. For the
complexity, which refers to low uncertainty and high predict- confirmation of relationship between two concepts, both fit
ability in performing task with a smartphone is a stronger measures and path weights should be satisfied.
cause of simplicity perception than component complexity, Table 6 shows fit measures of the structural model.
which refers to the density of information cues. According to the given fit indices, most of the fit statistics
were acceptable but GFI and AGFI, which were slightly
4. Structural model for simplicity and user satisfaction lower than the recommended criteria. RMR was margin-
ally higher than the recommended criteria.
After the first and second-order CFA, the proposed
structural model was tested. We assumed that the

Table 5 Table 6
Fit measures for the second-order CFA: simplicity scale model. Fit measures for the structural model.

Fit index Recommended criteria Simplicity scale model Fit index criteria Recommended Structural model
2
x2
Z .05 n
156.635 (d.f. ¼ 129) x Z .05 257.529nnn (d.f. ¼ 182)
x2/d.f. r3.0 1.214 x2/d.f. r 3.0 1.415
GFI Z .90 .920 GFI Z .90 .895
AGFI Z .90 .895 AGFI Z .90 .866
RMR r .05 .097 RMR r .05 .117
RMSEA r .05 .032 RMSEA r .05 .045
NFI Z .90 .943 NFI Z .90 .926
CFI Z .90 .989 CFI Z .90 .977
nnn
n
p o 0.05. p o .001.

Simplicity in Information Design

e1 e2 e3 e6 e7 e8
1 1 1 1 1 1

Reduction 1 Reduction 2 Reduction 3 Organization 2 Organization 3 Organization 4

1.00 1.11 1.13 1.00 0.96
0.70 0.9
0.871 d3 1 1.19 6 0.90

1
e18 Component 1 Reduction d2 Organization d1
1.00
0.461 1
e19 Component 2 1.51
Component
Simplicity inTask Complexity

0.39 0.74
1 Complexcity
e20 Component 3 1.55 1.00
0.56 0.48
1
e21 Component 4 1.50
.75 0.75
d4
Simplicity
0.15 1
1 0.99
e26 Coordinative 2 1.00
0.781 Coordinative
Complexcity 0.95
e27 Coordinative 3 0.87
0.43 1.03
d5 0.48
0.701
1
e32 Dynamic 1 1 d6 Visual Aesthetics
1.00
0.501 1.11
e33 Dynamic 2 Dynamic 1.02
1.80 Complexcity
0.35 Aesthetic 1 Aesthetic 2 Aesthetic 3
e34 1 Dynamic 3 1.08
1 1 1
0.17 0.28 0.42
e35 e36 e37

Simplicity in Visual Aesthetics

Fig. 2. Simplicity scale measurement model.

 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
Fig. 3. Structural model for simplicity and satisfaction in the smartphone.
(Note: All path coefficients were significant at the level of p o .001).
Fig. 3 shows a diagram of the final structural model and
results with standardized regression weights. All of the
paths were significant at the level of p o .001. As a second-
order factor, simplicity affected user satisfaction with a
high path weight (path coefficient ¼ .78). Thus, the hypoth-
esis was accepted that simplicity perception of a smart-
phone user interface, composed of visual aesthetics,
organization, reduction, dynamic complexity, coordinative
complexity, and component complexity, affects user satis-
faction. The standardized path weights between simplicity
and components were slightly changed from those in
simplicity measurement model (Fig. 2) because the struc-
tural model includes an additional construct of satisfac-
tion. Visual aesthetics and dynamic complexity appeared
as the most influential factors of simplicity perception
when the relationship with satisfaction was considered
simultaneously. Reduction and component complexity
showed rather low path weights.
5. Discussion and implications
Motivated by the need to develop an integrated mea-
surement scale of the simplicity perception of smartphone
user interfaces, our research incorporated visual aesthetics,
information design, and task complexity into an extended
concept of smartphone simplicity perception. Drawn from
three distinct domains of human–computer interaction
research and related areas, the new development of the
simplicity construct and the measures were refined and
then validated (Sections 3.4 and 3.5). Given the explora-
tory orientation of construct development, the initial
measurement model was revised and two components in
the information design domain were dropped. Thus, the
final measurement model consisted of six components:
reduction, organization, component complexity, coordina-
tive complexity, dynamic complexity, and visual aesthetics.
These six components formed a scale for the measurement
139
of simplicity perception of a smartphone user interface.
Implications of each component are summarised below.
Visual aesthetics appears to be a very strong component
of simplicity perception. Past studies of simplicity and
visual aesthetics have assumed a partial and multidimen-
sional relationship: simplicity is only a part of the visual
aesthetic factors. Diversity, colourfulness, and craftsman-
ship (Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010) or expressive aes-
thetics (Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004) were considered as
other, sometimes contrasting, components of visual aes-
thetics. Given that these multiple dimensions of visual
aesthetics were generated for the rather complex Web
screen usability design, an assessment of visual aesthetics
for a small screen smartphone needs to be adapted into a
single dimension of visual simplicity or classical aesthetics.
A clean, modern, and balanced arrangement of graphic
and textual items is actually the main design motto of
smartphone UI. These variables were successfully vali-
dated as a factor of visual aesthetics for simplicity.
All three of the task complexity components were success-
fully integrated into the measurement model for simplicity.
Interestingly, dynamic complexity was the one of the most
influential factor as a simplicity measure in the structural
model, along with visual simplicity. This fact denotes that the
core area of simplicity perception is related to the intuitive
predictability and action–outcome certainty. Coordinative
complexity was shown to be another strong factor of
simplicity. Consistency through a logical relationship among
various interface items appears to lessen the cognitive load
and task complexity, and eventually to heighten overall
simplicity perception when users interact with a wide range
of task stimuli when using their smartphones.
Component complexity was incorporated into a factor of
simplicity perception, but the degree of influence was the
lowest compared to the other factors. Fewer information
formats and cues were thought to decrease the cognitive
load for task performance and contribute to the perception
of simplicity. However, the impact of visual density on task
performance was not so strong that a low density of visual
cues on the screen had a weaker relationship with simplicity
perception. It appears that non-active smartphone users
perceive density as detrimental to simplicity, whereas active
users overcome the cognitive load and feel density less than
non-active users. A post-hoc analysis showed that the
degree of smartphone usage, measured by the number of
applications installed, had a statistically significant negative
correlation with visual density perception (r ¼ - .25,
p o .01). The number of applications installed does not
necessarily mean that a user uses those applications very
often, but it indicates how actively the user utilises the
diverse functions of a smartphone besides the basic calling
or messaging functions. Thus, we can infer that a learning
effect comes into play as users experience more applications
and actively interact with their smartphones.
In the information design domain four components have
been claimed both by researchers and practitioners as the
core factors of simplicity: reduction, organization,
140 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
integration, and prioritising (Maeda, 2006; Lee et al., 2007;
SAP, 2004). However, integration and prioritising were
omitted from the measurement model while two others
factors, reduction and organization, were retained. It is
likely that integration and prioritising were not supported
by our data due to the different interface frameworks
between the iPhone and other smartphones because the
Android OS provides separate home screens while the
iPhone OS has unified main screens. The post-hoc analysis
demonstrated that iPhone users had a higher perception of
integration than Android users (t=2.77, p o .01). In con-
trast, Android users perceived more customizability than
iPhone users (t=2.05, p o .05). Meanwhile, reduction and
organization showed a moderate level of influence on the
perception of simplicity. A reduced number of steps to
access a specific function and a well-categorised menu
structure seem to create a positive, though not strong,
mental mode of easy and quick understanding of the
information hierarchy.
The later phase of this research sought to verify the
relationship between simplicity perception of the interface
and the evaluation of user satisfaction (Section 4). Through a
series of model validation, the hypothesis was accepted that
user satisfaction is positively affected by simplicity perception
and the relationship between the constructs was found very
strong. User satisfaction is critical in the design of a mobile
interface because smartphones are very personal and, at the
same time, very observable objects. People carry them nearly
always for everyday activities, and dissatisfaction with such a
necessity creates numerous difficulties in their everyday lives.
Moreover, a mobile phone is easily exposed to other people
and an unhappy user could disseminate negative comments
on the phone to latent customers. Because smartphone
interface belongs to the nature of experience goods
(Shapiro and Varian, 1998), it is difficult for users to evaluate
the value of a smartphone before actually purchasing and
then using the device. Also, because most users enter into a
long-term contract with telephone service operators, simpli-
city perception may have a weak direct relationship with
purchase intention or continuous use. However, simplicity
appears to have a strong indirect relationship with those
behavioural outcomes through satisfaction as satisfied users
would establish a very positive brand image and recommend
the device to others who may be future customers.
6. Conclusion
The findings of this study imply that a simplified inter-
face design of the task performance, information hierar-
chy, and visual display attributes contributes to positive
satisfaction evaluations when users interact with their
smartphones as they engage in diverse tasks ranging from
communication and information search to entertainment.
The main contribution of this study lies in the fact that
it is an attempt to integrate three distinct conceptual
approaches into a unified measure of simplicity perception.
We adapted measurement items, traditionally intended for
the Web usability on PC, to revised ones for the smart-
phone. There has been a lack of integrated conceptualiza-
tion or measurement scale for the simplicity despite the
fact that it has been a core catchphrase for the interaction
design practitioners. In each domain simplicity has been
conceptualised as a different attribute: information hier-
archy in HCI, task performance attribute in IS, and visual
aesthetics in the newly emerged emotion approach in
UX design. The measurement scale developed and vali-
dated in this study can be termed as an ‘Integrated Scale
of Simplicity for Smartphone Interface’. As broadband
mobile devices have suddenly become mainstream consu-
mer products and changed the way people communicate,
work, and entertain, the initiative to develop a validated
measurement scale and a theoretical modelling is needed.
These scale and model can explain which interface attri-
butes in the smartphone contribute to the users’ perception
of simplicity and, then, how the interface design for
simplicity can generate positive outcomes.
There are some limitations of this study. This study is
based on data gathered at a rather early period of smart-
phone diffusion. Thus, more early adopters were sampled
who may have higher levels of knowledge and skills for
digital devices than average users. Some caveats should be
stated for a clearer interpretation of this study’s findings.
Because our concern was to develop a generalisable measure-
ment and relational model regardless of the variations in the
diverse smartphone OSs or manufacturers, we did not focus
on analysing the differences between smartphone OSs. More-
over, partially due to insufficient sample size for split-group
analysis, validating the model with separate user groups, such
as iPhone vs. Android users, was not attempted. However,
the two dominant smartphone OSs may create a different
model of the user perception of simplicity.
Cultural variation may be another possible caveat. This
study targeted smartphone users in South Korea because
the iPhone and Android phones were introduced in the
market with only a six-month gap, due to a delayed
contract with Apple. Thus, South Korean smartphone
users were valuable in that the sample may be devoid of
temporal bias due to the iPhone’s pre-eminent market
exposure. However, simplicity perception even for the
same smartphone, especially in aesthetic evaluation, varies
across countries because users have distinct cultural values
and prior experiences. Thus, multicultural model valida-
tion is suggested for future research. In addition, for
parsimony of model construction, this study excluded
other usability concepts such as ease of use and usefulness
and behavioural outcomes such as brand loyalty and
(re)purchase intention. To fully represent HCI issues in
the smartphone interface design, these concepts should be
included for the construction of extended model.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by Yonsei University
research fund of 2011.
 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142 141

Table A1

Domains Constructs (latent variables) Measure items (observed variables)

Information design Reduction (1) My phone has unnecessary steps to use certain functions.a
(2) My phone has difficult steps to use certain functions.a
(3) My phone has complicated steps to use certain functions.a
(4) My phone has unnecessary functions I don’t want.a,b

Organization (1) My phone shows menu categories systematically.b

(2) My phone provides content systematically.
(3) My phone is designed to provide functions consistently.
(4) Information in my phone is well structured and systematic.

Integrationb (1) My phone groups similar menu items in the same category.
(2) My phone offers one-step function to run certain menus.
(3) My phone offers one-step function to change settings.

Prioritizingb (1) I can identify the most recent function run.

(2) I can set the frequently used functions.
(3) I can set the active/inactive mode of functions I want to use.

Task complexity Component complexity (1) The text directions are too long.a
(2) The background images are visually dense.a
(3) The icon images in the screen are visually dense.a
(4) The layout of screen is visually dense.a

Coordinative complexity (1) The paths to certain functions are logical.a,b

(2) The backgrounds across screen transitions are consistent.
(3) The information clusters in screens are interrelated.

Dynamic complexity (1) Information on the succeeding page is predictable.

(2) Each control input takes me to the desired action.
(3) Information presented on the next screen is certain.

Aesthetic simplicity Aesthetic simplicity (1) Screen design is neat.

(2) Screen design is modern.
(3) Screen design is well balanced.

Satisfaction (1) I am satisfied with the smartphone I use.

(2) I like the smartphone I use.
(3) I am disappointed with the smartphone I use.a
a
Reversed items.
b
Dropped from the final measurement scale of simplicity.

Appendix A. Survey items (initial measurement)
See Table A1.
References
Abels, E.G., White, M.D., Hahn, K., 1997. Identifyinguser-based criteria for
Web pages. Internet Res.: Electron. Network. Appl. Policy 7, 252–262.
Abran, A., Khelifi, A., Suryn, W., Seffah, A., 2003. Usability meanings
and interpretations in ISO standards. Software Qual. J. 11, 325–338.
Aladwani, A.M., Palvia, P.C., 2002. Developing and validating an
instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Inf. Manage.
39, 467–476.
Arnheim, R., 1974. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the
Creative Eye. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bailey, J., Pearson, S.W., 1983. Development of a tool formeasuring and
analyzing computer user satisfaction. Manage. Sci. 29, 530–545.
Bauerly, M., Liu, Y.L., 2008. Effects of symmetry and number of
compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. Int. J.
Human–Comput. Interact. 24, 275–287.
Berlyne, D.E., 1974. Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps
Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Hemi-
sphere Pub.Corp,, Washington.
Bevan, N., 2008. UX, usability and ISO standards. In: Proceeding of the
CHI Conference. Florence, Italy.
Bevan, N., 2001. International standards for HCl and usability. Int. J.
Human–Comput. Interact. 55, 533–552.
142 J.H. Choi, H.-J. Lee / Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012) 129–142
Birkhoff, G.D., 1933. Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Campbell, D.J., 1988. Task complexity: a review and analysis. Acad.
Manage. Rev. 13, 40–52.
Choe, P., Kim, C., Lehto, M., Lehto, X., Allebach, J., 2006. Evaluating
and improving a self-help technical support website: use of focus
group interviews. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact. 21, 333–354.
Cyr, D., Kindra, G.S., Dash, S., 2008. Web site design, trust, satisfaction
and e-loyalty: the Indian experience. Online Inf. Rev. 32, 773–790.
DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 1992. Information systems success: the
quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3, 60–95.
Doll, W.J., Torkzadeh, G., 1988. The measurement of end-user comput-
ing satisfaction. MIS Q. 12, 259–274.
Eysenck, H., 1941. The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula.
Psychol. Rev. 48, 83–92.
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic
Books, New York.
Geissler, G., Zinkhan, G., Watson, R.T., 2001. Web home page complex-
ity and communication effectiveness. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2, 1–46.
Hair, J.F., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2010. Multivariate Data
Analysis 7th ed Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hall, R.H., Hanna, P., 2004. The impact of web page text-background
colour combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics and beha-
vioural intention. Behav. Inf. Technol. 23, 183–195.
Hassenzahl, M., 2004. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in
interactive products. Human–Comput. Interact. 19, 319–349.
Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N., 2006. User experience—a research
agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25, 91–97.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., van Wieringen, P.C., 2003. Most advanced, yet
acceptable: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic
preference in industrial design. Br. J. Psychol. 94, 111–124.
Hoffman, D.L., Kalsbeek, W.D., Novak, T.P., 1996. Internet and Web
use in the US. Commun. ACM 39, 36–46.
Hornbaek, K., 2006. Current practice in measuring usability: challenges
to usability studies and research. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact.
64, 79–102.
International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), 2010. Human
Centered Design Process for Interactive Systems. ISO 13407.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1998. Ergonomic
Requirements for Office Work With Visual Display Terminals (VDTs)
Part11: Guidance on Usability. ISO9241-11.
Jones, M., Marsden, G., 2006. Mobile Interaction Design. Wiley,
Chichester, U.K.
Kim, J., Lee, J., Choi, D., 2003. Designing emotionally evocative home-
pages: an empirical study of the quantitative relations between design
factors and emotional dimensions. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact.
59, 899–940.
Kotler, P., 1997. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implemen-
tation, and Control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff.
Lavie, T., Tractinsky, N., 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived
visual aesthetics of web sites. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact. 60,
269–298.
Lee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y.-J., 2007.The effects of simplicity and
perceived control on perceived ease of use. In: Proceeding of the
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Association for Infor-
mation Systems, pp. 1–16.
Maeda, J., 2006. The Laws of Simplicity. MIT Press, Cambridge.
March, J., Simon, H., 1958. Organizations. Wiley, New York.
De Marsico, M., Levialdi, S., 2004. Evaluating web sites: exploiting user’s
expectations. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact. 60, 381–416.
McKinney, V., Yoon, K., Zahedi, F., 2002. The measurement of web-
customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach.
Inf. Syst. Res. 13, 296–315.
Moshagen, M., Thielsch, M.T., 2010. Facets of visual aesthetics. Int. J.
Human–Comput. Interact. 68, 689–709.
Nadkarni, S., Gupta, R., 2007. A task-based model of perceived website
complexity. MIS Q. 31, 501–524.
Ngo, D.C.L., Teo, L.S., Byrne, J.G., 2003. Modeling interface aesthetics.
Inf. Sci. 152, 25–46.
Nielsen, J., 2000. Designing Web Usability. New Riders Publishing,
Indianapolis.
Palmer, J.W., 2002. Web site usability, design, and performance metrics.
Inf. Syst. Res. 13, 151–167.
Pandir, M., Knight, J., 2006. Homepage aesthetics: the search for
preference factors and the challenges of subjectivity. Interact. Comput.
18, 1351–1370.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., Winkielman, P., 2004. Processing fluency and
aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 364–382.
Santayana, G., 1955. The Sense of Beauty. Dover, New York.
SAP, 2004. Simplifying for Usability. SAP Design Guide.
Schaik, P., Ling, J., 2005. Five psychometric scales for online measure-
ment of the quality of human-computer interaction in web sites. Int. J.
Human–Comput. Interact. 18, 309–322.
Schaik, P., Ling, J., 2009. The role of context in perceptions of the
aesthetics of web pages over time. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Stud. 67,
79–89.
Schmidt, K.E., Liu, Y.L., Sridharan, S., 2009. Webpage aesthetics,
performance and usability: design variables and their effects. Ergo-
nomics 52, 631–643.
Shapiro, C., Varian, H.R., 1998. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to
the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Sohn, T., Li, K., Griswold, W., Hollan, J. 2008. A Diary study of mobile
information needs. In: Proceeding of the CHI Conference 2008,
Florence, Italy.
Steinmann, D., 1976. The effects of cognitive feedback and task complex-
ity in multiple-cue probability learning. Organ. Behav. Human Per-
form. 15, 168–179.
Thielsch, M.T., Hirschfeld, G., 2010. High and low spatial frequencies in
website evaluations. Ergonomics 53, 972–978.
Tractinsky, N., Cokhavi, A., Kirschenbaum, M., Sharfi, T., 2006.
Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of
web pages. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact. 64, 1071–1083.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S., Ikar, D., 2000. What is beautiful is usable.
Interact. Comput. 13, 127–145.
Tuch, A.N., Bargas-Avila, J.A., Opwis, K., Wilhelm, F.H., 2009. Visual
complexity of websites: effects on users’ experience, physiology, perfor-
mance, and memory. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact. 67, 703–715.
Tufte, E.R., 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire.
Tufte, E.R., 1997. Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence
and Narrative. Graphics Press, Cheshire.
Tufte, E.R., 2006. Beautiful Evidence. Graphics Press, Cheshire.
Wood, R.E., 1986. Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ.
Behav. Human Decision Processes 37, 60–82.
Wolfinbarger, M., Gilly, M.C., 2001. Shopping online for freedom,
control, and fun. Calif. Manage. Rev. 43, 34–55.
Wurman, R.S., 1997. Information Architects. Graphics Inc, New York.
Zhang, P., von Dran, G., 2000. Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: a two-factor
model for website design and evaluation. Journal of the American
Society for Information Sciences 51, 1253–1268.