An Exploratory Study of the Motivations and Satisfactions on Mobile Web Browsing

392
-1

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
392
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

An Exploratory Study of the Motivations and Satisfactions on Mobile Web Browsing

  1. 1. An Exploratory Study of the Motivations and Satisfactions on Mobile Web Browsing Ru Ping, Kuo (ruping@uw.edu)AbstractNowadays, people go online using their smartphones become an overwhelming trend even thoughbrowsing on a mobile phone has some limitations in nature. However, a clear picture ofmotivation on mobile web browsing is still unavailable. This study intends to discover the validpredictors about this matter by adopting uses and gratifications theory. Moreover, this studyassumes that users’ satisfaction and attitude toward future use will be affected by the limitationsof mobile phones such as screen-size. In order to answer above questions, an online survey wasconducted (n=63). Three positive factors: “pass time & pleasure”, “convenient to search”,“habit” and two negative factors: irritations cause by “the device” and “the web” werediscovered by using factor analysis technique. The correlation analysis shows that only “passtime and pleasure” has a positive correlation with “intention of future use” but both irritatingfactors influence the users’ satisfaction as expects.1. Introduction Despites the current mobile web browsing experience is mostly troublesome, the intenseneed of accessing internet from mobile devices was clearly discovered among many studies (e.gChurch and Oliver, 2011; Kane et al.,2009; Li, Griswold, and Hollan, 2008; Heimonen, 2009;Cui, and Rot, 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). In general, these studies explored this subject from threedifferent approaches: the nature of information need and triggers, taxonomy of mobile webusage, and looking for the patterns from users’ real behaviors (Kaikkonen, 2011). Although thesestudies share some agreements among the findings, a clear picture of motive predictors on mobileweb browsing is still unavailable. Moreover, we don’t know whether these predictors aredifferent from or similar to prior user motivations in web browsing studies, too. Therefore,today’s website designers face a difficulty about making better design decisions for tailor-makingtheir mobile websites. The discussion above suggests that mobile users’ motivation and attitudetoward mobile web browsing is a domain requiring further academic research. Meanwhile, theuses and gratifications (U & G) theory has fruitful results on explaining users’ attitudes and 1
  2. 2. motivations toward the web in past one to two decades. Hence, my empirical study intends todiscover the valid predictors about mobile web browsing motivates by adopting U & G theory. Inaddition, there are some well-known usability issues of mobile browsing and these issues such assmall-screen constriction strongly affect user experience on mobile web browsing. My study alsoaims to learn how do these limitations influence the motivations and satisfactions of users inmobile web browsing?2. Literature Review2.1 Current status of Mobile Web Browsing Kaikkonen’s (2011) survey found that 92% of the respondents report that “able to accessweb” is important when they purchase a mobile phone. Morgan Stanley’s analysts1 predict thatthe mobile web will be bigger than desktop Internet use by 2015 based on the current adoptionrate. Even today, according to StatCounter data, over 13% global websites traffic is accessedfrom mobile devices2. Moreover, a recently study3 shows that more than 58% of mobile internetusers in the U.S. are getting content through their browsers (42% via mobile apps). Clearly,people go online using their advanced mobile devices become an overwhelming trend eventhough browsing on a mobile phone has some limitations in nature.2.2 Small-Screen Effect and Mobile Web Browsing In the last few years, the advanced mobile technology has changed the role of internet onmobile (Kaikkonen, 2011), for example, a great improvement in the cost and the speed of internetconnection, touch screen, better display quality, and custom-made content and applications. Eventhough people are more willing to go online with their mobile device, still, the screen-size-constraint is the inevitable obstacle. Many researchers (e.g. Jonesa, Buchananb, and Thimbleby,2003; Jones, Marsden, Mohd-Nasir, Boone, and Buchanan, 1999; Roto and Kaikkonen, 2003)found evidences support that the need of “tailored mobile approaches to Internet”; but shortly, itbecome clear that this approached is not satisfy users’ diverse needs (Kaikkonen, 2008). Somestudies (e.g. Kaikkonen, 2008 and 2011; Schmiedl, Seidl, and Temper, 2009) found that mobileusers choose to use “full web” for their specific needs even they might encounter more usabilityissues than use “mobile tailored web”. In other words, users’ motivations play an important role1Retrieval from http://mashable.com/2010/04/13/mobile-web-stats/2 Retrieval from StatCounter http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-201209-2012113 STAT (Simple Targeting & Audience Trends)report, provides by JunptapRetrieval from http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110511005706/en/Jumptap-Launches-STAT-Simple-Targeting-Audience-Trends 2
  3. 3. on this matter; therefore, website owners or designers might make better decision about theirmobile web design strategy if they can better understand these various needs from mobile users.2.3 What Motive People Browsing on Mobile Phone Since the end of 2010, several published papers focus on this topic. For example, in a two-week diary study, researchers discovered that mobile users’ information needs are very situation-oriented. The researchers labeling top three category of information needs are trivia (18.5%),direction (13.3%), and point of interest (12.4%) which is also related to second category (Sohn,Li, Griswold, and Hollan,2008). The other similarstudy was conducted byChurch and Oliver in 2011;they also found the contextinfluences (location, time,activity and social interaction) Figure 1 Percentage of behaviors exhibited for each motivation (Taylor et al., 2008)in mobile settings. Moreover,Church and Oliver (2011) found that mobile web is used in repetitive daily compared to mobilesearch (e.g. googling) is used in more random situation. Taylor et al., (2008) proposed apreliminary framework (see Figure 1 for details) describing the relationships between motivationsand behaviors based on the qualitative data analysis which they collected from 11 interviewees.As the role of internet on mobile usage changed, Kaikkonen (2011) compared her recentlyfinding with prior studies, she concluded that people browse wider variety of web today. Inaddition, several web activates are more common on their mobile device than computer, such asinformation search (57.9% vs. 53.3%), reading news & weather (56.6% vs. 34.8%), reading email(57.1% vs. 51.7%), search contact information (51.3% vs. 40.8%), location information /viewingmaps (57.1% vs. 46.7%), and sharing photos (50.4% vs. 49.6%). Last, according to a recentlyonline survey, search for general information, looking for a store address, killing time, looking forcontact information, and read about a company are most common activities when peoplebrowsing on their mobile phone4.2.4 “Uses and Gratifications Theory” and User Motivations in Web Browsing Study4 1) General information (25%), 2) looking for a store address (17%), 3)killing time (15%), 4) looking for contact information (12%), 5) others(9%) & 6)read about a company (8%) .The Seybold Report (Volume 11, Number 16 • August 22, 2011) is conducted by Modapt, Inc. andMorrissey & Company. 3
  4. 4. The notion of “active audience” makes Uses and Gratifications (U & G) Theory becomesthe most favorable theory when researchers like to understand consumer motivations for media use. Although some scholars worried about the present U&G model might insufficient because that the internet seems providing infinite choice to the users and reasons for using the internet are differ from person to person (Ruggiero, 2000). However, plentiful empirical studies proved that the adaptability of this theory by Figure 2 Attitude toward the web model extending its theoretical framework. Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) discovered fivepredictors about internet motives: interpersonal, utility, pass time, information seeking,convenience and entertainment; their finding becomes an effective and flexible model forfollowing researchers. Similarly, Stafford and Stafford (2002) conducted a two-step study todiscover the factors motivating commercial websites use. At length, they identified five keyunderlying factors from 179 web use motivations, which are searching, cognition (information foreducation or learning), new and unique, socialization, and entertainment. Chen and Wells (1999)in their “Attitude toward the site” study discovered two positive factors: entertainment,informativeness, and one negative factor: organization (irritation). According to Luo (2002), this“Users’ Attitude towards the Web Model” (see Figure 2 for details) has been considered as a keyindicator of user’s attitude toward the web. That is to say internet users who perceive the websitesas entertaining and informative generally show a positive attitude toward them and more willingto visit them again. In contrast, those who perceive irritating experience of websites indicate anegative attitude toward them. In sum, the uses and gratifications approach is highly appropriatefor studying new communication sources (Kaye, 2010).3. Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework Based on the above discussions, the conceptual framework of my study was created (seeFigure 3 for details). Since this study attempts to discover how the users’ motives in webbrowsing are changed because the limitations of mobile phones such as screen-size effect, theapproach of my study design requires the gathering of a list of identified use and gratificationfactors from previous U & G studies which relate to this topic and testing whether these factorsapply in my research context. In addition, the “Users’ Attitude towards the Web Model” extends 4
  5. 5. the explanatory power of U& G theory by highlightingthe negative factor“irritation”. Thus, it isnecessary considering thenegative variables in mystudy because the naturallimitation of mobile webbrowsing. Accordingly, toinvestigate the relationshipbetween users’ motivationsand future usages of mobileweb browsing, the followinghypotheses are constructed. Figure 3 the conceptual framework of my study H 1: There is a positively relationship between “motives” and the “intention toward the future usage” of mobile web browsing. H2: There is a negatively relationship between “irritation” and the “intention toward the future usage” of mobile web browsing.4. Methods To best evaluate the uses and gratification in a new media context, the survey method iswidely accepted and used by many researchers from various disciplines. This study conducts anonline survey in a similar manner. Moreover, in order to enhance the internal validity of thequestionnaire, two strategies: experts review and pilot test were used.4.1 Questionnaire Design The survey questionnaire was developed and adapted from many previous studies(Ebersole, 1999; Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000; Parker and Plank, 2000; Stafford and Stafford,2002; LaRose and Eastin, 2004; Nguyen, Ferrier, Western, and McKay, 2005; Johnson and Yang,2009; Luo, Chea, and Chen, 2010; Jere and Davis, 2011; Lim and Ting, 2012) since there is noany prior effective questionnaire available. After the pilot study, the final questionnaire wasrevised based on the participants’ feedbacks and it consists of four major sections: demographicand general internet usage, general mobile usage, motivations and gratifications of mobile web 5
  6. 6. browsing, and attitude toward future usage (see appendix for details). All measurement scales(except demographic and general internet and mobile usage) are Likert-type with 5-point format,anchoring at "1"(strongly disagree) and "5"(strongly agree).4.2 Participants This study used Google Docs to create the questionnaire and adopted “snowball sampling”strategy to recruit participants because of the resource limitation. Total 63 valid responses arecollected between Nov 20, and Nov. 27, 2012. For ensuring the participants’ attributes arerepresented the desired target population, two screening questions: “mobile web browsingexperience” and ”months of currently-owned smartphone” were used in the survey as well. Of the63 respondents, 33 are male (52.4%) and 30 are female (47.8%). Most of them are in the agegroups between 25 and 34 (“25~29 years” is 25% and “30~34 years” is 22%).5. Results5.1 Descriptive Statistics of General Mobile Usage In range, the respondents’ smartphone-screen-size is between 3.3” and 5.0” (mode is 3.5”,65.6%). The survey data shows Android as the leading OS with 51% of all participants’currently-owned smartphone, followed by Apple iPhone at 41.5%, Microsoft at 3.2% and theothers at 4.3%. Of respondents, for five most types of websites they visit are: Search Engine(M=3.98, SD=.13); News websites (M=3.69, SD=.53); Maps websites (M=3.61, SD=.61); Portalsites (M=3.31, SD=.62); Web-based mail (M=3.31, SD=.74).5.2 Mobile Web Browsing Motivations and Irritations 5.2.1 Means This construct was measured by 38 items adapted from the prior U & G studies, which include: why people do mobile web browsing (motivations/24 items), why people avoiding mobile web browsing (irritations/10 items), and their attitudes toward this matter and future usage (4 items). First step, this study will report the importance of these items to the respondents by measuring and comparing items’ means and standard deviations (see Table 1, Table2, and Table 3 for details). 6
  7. 7. 5.2.2 Factor AnalysisThis study also categorized individual motivational items (24 items) into broadercategories. By doing so, I can compare the valid motivators (factors) about mobile webbrowsing with prior studies and underline my finding for future discussion. Meanwhile,irritations (factors) of mobile Table 1 Factor analysis of motivations itemsweb browsing were extractedfrom the other 10 items aswell. Thus, according torespondents self-report, these34 items are analyzed usingexploratory factor analysis. Inaddition, KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) and Bartlett’stest were used in order toverify the internal reliability.For the motivation of mobileweb browsing part, the KMOvalue is .781 and is significant Table 2 Factor analysis of irritations items(p = .000), therefore factoranalysis is appropriate. Total24 items were assigned to aparticular factor if the primaryloadings were greater than .50(Rencher, 1995; Pallant,2011). However, using thedefault options in SPSS, I Table 3 Factor analysis of attitude itemsobtained a seven-factorsolution. According to Pallant(2011), every componentshould has three or moreitems loding. Therefore, Iused “fixed number of factors”option instead, a more optimal “three-factor solution” was extracted. These three factorswere retained accounting for 55.796% of the variance and they comprised of 21 items of 7
  8. 8. the original 24 items. Based on the character of each factor, I labeled them as “pass time & pleasure”, “convenient to search”, and “habit” (see Table 1 for details). For the reasons that irritating respondents’ mobile web browsing uses were extrated into two componints (factors) explaining a total of 47.121% of the variance. These two factors were comprised of 8 items of the original 10 irritations (see Table 2 for details). Its KMO value is .739 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value is significant (p = .000), too. As seen in Table 3, the first group of irritation factor is generally caused by devices’ constratction and the second group is mostly because of websits’ design. Last, two factors were extracted from 4 items that used to evaluate respondents’ satisfaction and attitude toward future usage of mobile web browsing. These two factors were retained accounting for 79.374% of the variance and I labeled them as “current satisfaction” and “intention of future use” (see Table 3 for details). The KMO value is .675 and is significant (p = .000) as well.5.3 Correlation Analysis 5.3.1 Correlation between “Motives” and “Attitude toward Future Usage” Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explore H1. In other words, both two factors related to satisfaction and Table 4 &5 Correlation between motives and attitude toward future use intention toward future usages were assessed with three motivation factors (pass time & pleasure, convenient to use, and habit) in order to see is there any significant relationship. As seen in Table 4, a significant positive association was found between “pass time & pleasure” and “intention of future use” (r=.294, p<.005); and the other significant positive relationship is between “habit” and “current satisfaction” (r=.331, p<.001). However, the motive of “convenient to search” 8
  9. 9. has no relationship with both “current satisfaction” and “intention of future usage”. Therefore, H1 is only partly supported. In addition, among all questions about “why people do mobile web browsing”, the positive relationship only shows on the items as follow: “I want to get in-depth information”, “It’s entertaining.”, “It’s enjoyable.”, “I just like to surf websites”, and “I want to share information with others.” (See Table 5 for details). 5.3.2 Correlation between “Irritation” and “Attitude toward Future Usage” Similarly, Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explore H2, too. This study seeks the negative relationship among the irritations and respondents’ “attitude toward future usage” on mobile web browsing, Table 6 & 7 Correlation between irritation and attitude toward future use especially the irritating items regarding the “small-screen” effect (e.g. “I often feel the screen size is too small to browse websites”; “I easier being tired when reading words on the screen”; “I find that most websites are difficult to navigate with my mobile”). As seen in Table 6, although both irritation factors have significant negative relationship with “current ratification” (r= -.340, p<.001; r= -.274, p<.005). But H2 is not supported because neither “irritation from device” nor “irritation from website” was a negative predator to “future usage”. Furthermore, there was no negative relationship between “intention of future use” and any individual items of irritation besides “information is too hard to find” (see Table 7 for details).6. Conclusion To the best of my knowledge, this study is the first research intends to discover motivepredictors on mobile web browsing by adopting U & G theory. The results show that there arethree valid motive factors: “pass time and pleasure”, “convenient to search”, and “habit”;however, only “pass time and pleasure” has a positive correlation with “intention of futureusage”. It’s fair to say that mobile user’s web browsing needs are diverse and very situation-oriented as prior studies suggested (e.g. Sohn, Li, Griswold, and Hollan, 2008; Taylor et al.,2008). Moreover, “pass time” plays a significant role in this matter. It is clear that smartphone 9
  10. 10. users use their phone to have fun and stay informed since they always keep the phone around. Tomany respondents, web browsing on smartphone becomes a habit in the end. Although my studyshows no correlation between “convenient to search” and “intention of future usage” or “currentsatisfaction”, it does not mean “search” is not important to mobile users; on the contrary,information search is one of the most important web activities according to many prior researches(e.g. Kaikkonen, 2011). Meanwhile, in small samples, the correlation coefficients among thevariables are less reliable although different research suggests the minimum sample size in factoranalysis differently. Therefore, even Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) value both show my study is appropriate; it is beneficial to expand the sample size inorder to verify these motivations in future studies. Moreover, convenient sample is not a randomsample of the population, the generalizability of this study is limited. An important assumption of this study is that users’ motives in web browsing activities willbe changed because the limitations of mobile phones such as screen-size effect. The results ofcorrelation suggest that irritation from both “the device” and “the website” negatively influencesusers’ satisfaction of mobile web browsing, however, no evidence shows that it will diminishesusers’ intention of future use. Obviously, mobile web browsing is too convenient to give up. Asthe result, the internet use pattern might change because of the limitation of mobile phone (e.g.“avoiding tasks that required input”, “avoiding read long articles on smart phone”), the trend ofmobile web browsing is overwhelm as many researches already suggested (e.g. Kaikkonen,2011). It’s also worth to notice that most of respondents agree that they unwilling to browsinginternet on their smartphone because website are messy (M=3.45, SD=.56) and difficult tonavigate (M=3.87, SD=.55). As more and more people visit websites from their mobile devices,web designers should pay attention on the website traffic statistics. Look for the main useractivities (browsing patterns and related pages) that generate from mobile devices and consideradopting “responsive web design” approach to redesign these pages at least. Last but not least, my exploratory study presents three predictors of mobile web browsingbased on a small-sample size survey. However, people seemed to have multiple motivations andit leads to differentiation in the activities users do. It is also of interest to examine whether users’demographics or preexisting preference and experience on web browsing affects the motivationand satisfaction on mobile web browsing in the future study. 10
  11. 11. ReferencesAnne Kaikkonen. (2008). Full or Tailored Mobile Web- Where and How do People Browse on Their Mobiles?. In: The international conference on mobile technology, application, & systems. Ilan, Taiwan.Anne Kaikkonen. (2011). Mobile Internet, Internet on Mobiles or Just Internet You Access with Variety of Devices?. In: OZCHI 11. Canberra, Australia.An Nguyen, Elizabeth Ferrier, Mark Western and Susan McKay. (2005). Online News in Australia: Patterns of Use and Gratification. Australian Studies in Journalism, 15: 5-34.Betty J. Parker, and Richard E. Plank. (2000). A Uses and Gratifications Perspective on the Internet as a New Information Source. American Business Review, 18(2), 43-49Carol A Taylor, Ona Anicello, Scott Somohano, Nancy Samuels, Lori Whitaker, and Judith Ramey. (2008). A Framework for Understanding Mobile Internet Motivations and Behaviors. In: CHI 2008, Florence, Italy.Dan Li. (2005). Why Do You Blog: a Uses-and-gratifications Inquiry into Blogger’s Motivations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Marquette University.Grischa Schmiedl, Markus Seidl, and Klaus Temper. (2009). Mobile Phone Web Browsing – A Study on Usage and Usability of the Mobile Web. In: MobileHCI’09. Bonn, Germany.Jere, M. G., and Davis, S. V. (2011). An Application of Uses & Gratifications Theory to Compare Consumer Motivations for Magazine & Internet Usage among South African Women’s Magazine Readers. South African Business Review, 15(1), 1-27.Karen Church, and Nuria Oliver. (2011). Understanding Mobile Web and Mobile Search Use in Today’s Dynamic Mobile Landscape. In: MobileHCI 2011, (pp. 67-76). Stockholm, Sweden.Barbara K. Kayea. (2010). Going to the Blogs: Toward the Development of a Uses and Gratifications Measurement Scale for Blogs. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 194-210.Matt Jones, Gary Marsden, Norliza Mohd-Nasir, Kevin Boone, and George Buchanan. (1999). Improving Web Interaction on Small Displays. Computer Networks, 1129–1137.Matt Jonesa, George Buchananb, and Harold Thimbleby. (2003). Improving Web Search on Small Screen Devices. Interacting with Computers, 479–495.Julie Pallant. (2011). Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. Allen & Unwin.Philip R. Johnson, and Sung-Un Yang. (2009). Uses and Gratifications of Twitter: An Examination of User Motives and Satisfaction of Twitter Use. In: The Communication Technology Division of the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, USA.Qimei Chen, and William D. Wells (1999), Attitude toward the Site, Journal of Advertising Research,27-37. 11
  12. 12. Samuel E. Ebersole. (1999). Adolescents’ Use of the World-Wide Web in Ten Public Schools: A Uses and Gratifications Approach. ph.D. thesis, Regent University.Shaun K. Kane, Amy K. Karlson, Brian R. Meyers, Paul Johns, Andy Jacobs, and Greg Smith. (2009). Exploring Cross-Device Web Use on PCs and Mobile Devices. In:Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2009, Uppsala, Sweden.Timothy Sohn, Kevin A. Li, William G. Griswold, and James D. Hollan. (2008). A Diary Study of Mobile Information Needs. In: CHI 08, pp. 433-442. ACM Press, New York.Thomas E. Ruggiero. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication & Society, 3-37.Tomi Heimonen. (2009). Information Needs and Practices of Active Mobile Internet Users, In: the 6th International Conference on Mobile Technology, Application & Systems 2009, Nice, France.Virpi Roto, and Anne Kaikkonen. (2003). A.: Perception of Narrow Web Pages on a Mobile Phone. Human Factors in Telecommunications 2003, Berlin, Germany.Weng Marc Lim, and Ding Hooi Ting. (2012). E-shopping: An Analysis of the Uses and Gratifications Theory. Modern Applied Science.Xueming Luo. (2002). Uses and Gratifications Theory and E-Consumer Behaviors: a Structural Equation Modeling study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 34-41.Yanqing Cui, and Virpi Roto. (2008). How People Use the Web on Mobile Devices. In: The 17th international conference on World Wide Web. Beijing, China.Zizi Papacharissi, and Alan M. Rubin. (2000). Predictors of Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 175-196. 12
  13. 13. 7. Appendix: Questionnaire Hello, thank you for considering participating in this study. The purpose of this survey isto learn more about the reasons why people browsing website on their mobile phones. If youown a smartphone and at least 18 years old, please spend few minutes answer the questionnaire.The survey form is anonymous. I will not ask for your name or identifying information. If youhave any questions, please contact me at the phone number or e-mail address provided.Yours sincerely, Graduate student | Ruby Kuo (ruby_tw@yahoo.com) HCDE program at the University of WashingtonPart I: Demographic and General Internet Usage • What is your gender? Male Female • What is your age? 18~24 25~29 30~34 35~39 40~44 45~49 50~54 55~59 older than 60 • How would you rate your computer skills? Novice Average Expert • About how many years have you had access to the Internet? Less than 1 year 1 - 3 years 4 - 6 years 7 - 9 years 10 years or more • About how many years have you had access to the Internet via your mobile phone? never Less than 1 year 1 - 2 years 3 - 4 years 5 years or more • How often do you access the Internet? Less often 1 - 2 times a week 3 - 5 times a week About once a day Several times a day • How many hours do you spend on web browsing in a week? __________ • How many hours do you spend on web browsing via your mobile in a week? __________Part II: General Mobile Usage • How long have you been own a smart phone? _____ month(s) _____year(s) • How long have you been own your current smart phone? _____ month(s) _____year(s) 13
  14. 14. • How many smart phones you currently have? ____________• OS of smart phone that you currently have (if you have more than one, please answers this question with the one you mainly use)? iphone window phone android phone others, _______________(please give details)• Screen size of smart phone that you currently have (if you have more than one, please answers this question with the one you mainly use)? ______________• What is your smartphone’s brand (if you have more than one, please answers this question with the one you mainly use)? _________________ and model _________________• What kind of browser you use (if you have more than one, please answers this question with the one you mainly use)? _______________________• How often do you use your smart phone for Making voice calls very frequently often sometimes rarely never Sending messages very frequently often sometimes rarely never Checking email very frequently often sometimes rarely never Browsing websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never Videotaping or taking picture very frequently often sometimes rarely never Playing games very frequently often sometimes rarely never Watching TV (videos) very frequently often sometimes rarely never Listening to music (or radio) very frequently often sometimes rarely never Reading eBooks very frequently often sometimes rarely never Use other applications very frequently often sometimes rarely never• What often do you visit these websites with your smart phone Search engine very frequently often sometimes rarely never Portal site very frequently often sometimes rarely never Maps website very frequently often sometimes rarely never Social media very frequently often sometimes rarely never Web-based mail very frequently often sometimes rarely never News websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never Sports websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never Online shopping websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never 14
  15. 15. Video sharing and hosting very frequently often sometimes rarely never websites Leaning and reference websites very frequently often sometimes rarely never Others _____________________________________________________________Part III: Motivations and Gratifications of Mobile Web BrowsingIn the next section of the survey, your will find a number of potential reasons regarding why (and why not) peoplebrowsing websites with their smartphone. Please read over each of the potential reasons and then select anappropriate response based on your level of agreement with that statement.A. “I browsing website with my smartphone, because...” Strong Strong Agree Natural Disagree Agree Disagreeit’s a new way to do researchI want to look for specific informationI want to see what is out thereI want to get up-to-date news and informationI want to get timely things(information) quicklyI want to find interesting thingsI want to get in-depth informationI want to get nearby informationI want to get direction or address (information of location)it’s easy to useI can use it anytime, anywhereit’s a habitI want pass time when I boredI want to occupy my timeI have nothing better to doit’s entertainingit’s enjoyableI want to relaxI just like to surf websitesI like to access certain sitesI want to keep in touch with friends and familyI want to share information with otherswhen there’s no one else to talk or be with 15
  16. 16. it makes me feel less lonelyB. “I don’t like to browse website with my smartphone, because...” Strong Strong Agree Natural Disagree Agree DisagreeI often lose track of time and my surroundings when I’m onlineI often feel the screen size is too small to browse websitesI easier being tired when reading words on the screenI often feel irritated when browsing website with my mobileI often feel distraction when browsing website with my mobileI often feel frustrated when browsing website with my mobilewhen websites (or the tasks) require me to inputI find that most websites are messyI find that most websites are difficult to navigate with my mobileI likely not to browsing website because information are too hard tofindPart IV: Attitude and Intention toward Future Usage Strong Strong Agree Natural Disagree Agree DisagreeIt’s likely that I will continue to browsing websites with smartphoneI plan to do more mobile web browsing in the futureI feel comfortable when I browsing websites with my smart phoneI feel confident that I can efficiently get information I need bybrowsing the websites Thank you for taking the time to fill out the questionnaire! If you have questions orsuggestions about it, please contact me by phone 206-7798746 or e-mailruby_tw@yahoo.com. 16

×