International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) – eISSN: 1865-7923 – Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of
Myeg Users
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i11.11306
Azham Hussain (*), Emmanuel O.C. Mkpojiogu,
Norzila Ishak, Nurhidayah Mokhtar
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
azhamh123@gmail.com
Abstract—Mobility is the trend right now. It is transforming the user expe-
rience from the confines of the desk to the convenience of anytime-anywhere.
MyEG Services Berhad ("MYEG") is a concessionaire for Malaysian Electron-
ic-Government ("E-Government") MSC Flagship Application. MYEG builds,
operates and owns the electronic channel that delivers services from various
Government agencies to Malaysia citizens and businesses. To make their ser-
vices up-to-date and in trend, MyEG app was developed and can also be used to
check summons, pay summons, renew road-tax and renew auto insurance. To
make sure that this application is efficient, fulfilling the customer needs and sat-
isfaction, a usability evaluation was conducted. The evaluation was conducted
in “Jabatan Teknologi Maklumat & Komunikasi, Politeknik Seberang Perai”,
with 15 participants consisting of both lecturers and students. The think-aloud
protocol was used while conducting the evaluation. The result of the evaluation
revealed that overall the app is efficient, successful in fulfilling the users’ re-
quirement and needs and promotes users mobile experience.
Keywords—Mobile experience; think-aloud protocol; usability evaluation.
1 Introduction
The mobile MyEG app has undergone a complete transformation and offers new
features. The new enhancements provide customers with easier accessibility to per-
form a variety of e-government transaction. The user need to login unto the MyEG
app to gain access for the following services: renewal of road tax, renewal of auto
insurance, checking and payment of PDRM summonses, checking and payment JPJ
summonses, and the checking of deli-very status for requested MyEG services.
Through this updated mobile app, users can quickly complete their e-government
trans-actions at any time and any place [1-10].
4 http://www.i-jim.org
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i11.11306
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i11.11306
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
2 Methods
The MyEG app usability test involved the use of the think-aloud protocol with a
post-test questionnaire administered to participants. A representative number of users
were recruited to carry out some representative tasks on the application. A facilitator
recorded all the user actions and comments during the test session. After the users
finished their assigned tasks, the facilitator then gives them a set of questionnaire to
fill. The questionnaire collect data related to user’s satisfaction about the user inter-
face and the presentation of the application [11-19].
The roles of the personnel involved in the usability test were as follows: Facilitator:
the facilitator coordinates, manages and directs the test session and the entire usability
evaluation. He also records the participants’ or testers’ actions and comments. The
facilitator briefs participants or testers on the usability evaluation. He defines the
usability and the purpose of usability testing and responds to participants’ requests for
assistance while also observing them. He also conducts the debriefing sessions [20-
30]. Participants (Testers): The usability testing was run with 15 participants (or test-
ers). These participants were either academic staff or students of Politeknik Seberang
Perai. They were selected on the basis of their prior experience or lack of prior expe-
rience on the use of the MyEG app. The participants’ ages ranged from 20 years old
and above and included both genders. All participants were good in computer skills
and these skills helped the participants a lot in the running of the test.
Two places were used for the conduct of the usability test. The first location was
JTMK Office which was used for the testing with academic staff. The second location
was JTMK lab for testing with students. Before the commencement of the test ses-
sion, the facilitator briefed the participants on the purpose of the usability test for
MyEg app. He explained the instructions to participants on what to do during the test
and informed the participants that the object of evaluation was the application and not
the participants themselves. After that, the facilitator introduced to participants how to
use the MyEG application. He also gave a printed copy of the task description to the
participants. There were task that require participants to read aloud the results that
they got. Time-on-task began when the participants start their tasks. The facilitator
then records the participants’ actions and comments. After the participants have fin-
ished all the tasks, they were made to complete a satisfaction questionnaire. There
were five tasks tested [31-43]. They are inter alia: i) install the application; ii) login
into the application; iii) customize user profile; iv) check PDRM summonses; v) make
a payment for PDRM summonses.
The task scenarios are as follows:
Task 1 Scenario: Install the application.
Instructions are as follows: Using android phone, try to install the MyEG mobile
application.
Description: This task requires a participant to install the MyEG app using an an-
droid phone. Users’ success rates in accomplishing this task will measure the effec-
tiveness of the app while the time they expended to achieve success in the installa-
tions process measures the efficiency of the app.
The steps involved include:
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 5
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
• The participant should find the “Play Store” on the android phone and then type
MyEG at the Google Play search engine. After that, the participant will select the
install button for the installation process
• If the installation process is successful, the participant will see the open button
• The user should then login into the application.
Task 2 Scenario: Login into the application.
Instruction:
• From the home page of the android phone, try to login into the MyEG apps using
the given ID and password. ID: ayumiesz; and Password: sonicz.
The steps involved include:
• After installing the MyEG app, the participant should try to login into the applica-
tion using the information given, that is, he/she should key in his/her username and
password and then click on the login button
• See error message if any exits.
Task 3 Scenario: Customize user profile.
Instruction: In login status, try to update user profile for item address and item
phone number based on the information below:
• Phone number: 013 – 3425874
• Postcode: 13800
• City: Butterworth
• State: Pulau Pinang
• Address: No 234, Taman Saujana, Jalan Keramat.
The step involved include:
• In user profile, participant is required to click menu function and then choose edit
profile
• At the edit profile, participant is required to update information based on the task
instructions and then save the changes.
Task 4 Scenario: Check PDRM Summonses.
Instruction: in login status, try to check PDRM summonses based on the ID; e.g.
ID: 840512105386
After the list of summonses is viewed at the android phone screen, the partici-
pant/tester must speak aloud on how many summonses he or she viewed.
The steps involved include:
• In login status, at the home page, participant is required to click check and pay
PDRM Summons function and then insert the given ID Number
• After inserting the ID Number, participant then clicks the button, Check Summons.
If the ID Number have summons, then a list of summons will be viewed.
Task 5 Scenario: Make a payment for PDRM Summonses.
6 http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Instruction:
• In login status, select one PDRM summons and make payment for that summons
using the information below to fill payment information.
─ Card Type: Visa
─ Card Expiry Date: MM = 12 and YYYY = 2019
─ Card Number: 4786 7040 0008 0233
─ Security Code: 011
─ Card Holder Name: Norzila Ishak
─ Card Issued By: Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad
• Tick authorized and then submit the payment
The steps involved are:
• After inserting the ID Number; click the button, Check Summons. If the ID Num-
ber have summons, a list of summons will be viewed
• Tick one summons and make payment. A click on the button pays 1 summons
• After that, confirm details will be viewed. Participants are required to click proceed
to payment button and then payment details will be viewed
• Participants then make payment using credits card. To make payment, participants
will click on credit cards (Master/Visa) button and then the credit card form details
will be viewed
• Participants need to fill the credit card information using the given information at
task 5. Next, participants will click the authorized button and then submit the form
• The MyEG app will process the information for the validation of card details.
Success or failure in these 5 tasks measures the effectiveness of the apps interface
while the amount of resources (time and effort) expended in achieving these goals
measures the efficiency of the interface.
Some equipment and materials used to support the usability evaluation are as fol-
lows:
• Android mobile devices: Android mobile devices were used to test the MyEG app.
Participants used these devices to carry out the usability test
• Screencast Video Recorder application (Mobizen): The Mobizen app was used to
record all of the user activities on the MyEG app. This app records the hand ges-
ture/movement of the user while using the MyEG app
• Mobile-device camera: Mobile device camera was used by the facilitator to capture
and understand the users’ interaction and to capture their facial expressions
• Internet connection (Celcom First Gold Plus CBS): Internet was provided to make
task 1 installation process successful
• Scripted instructions: These instructions guide participants in performing the tasks
given to them
• Microsoft Office 2010 (Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word): Microsoft Excel
was used to calculate and analyse the data while Microsoft Word was used to write
the report.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 7
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
The ISO/IEC 9241-11 standard was used as a guide in measuring the usability of
the MyEG app. The standard postulates that usability is “the extent to which a product
can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficien-
cy and satisfaction in a specified context of use”. Table 1 below explains the attributes
of usability and the metrics that were used to capture them [44-53].
Table 1. Usability Attributes and Associated Metrics Used
Attributes Metrics
Effectiveness: The accuracy and complete-
ness with which specified users achieve
specified goals in particular environments
-Number of errors that occur while carrying out task
-Percentage of participants that completed their tasks
Efficiency: The resources expended in
relation to the accuracy and completeness
with which users achieve goals
-Time taken by the user to learn how to use the application
-Time taken to install the apps
-Time taken to accomplish given task
-Data entry time, time the user takes to fill up their information
-Response time of the apps
Satisfaction: The comfort and acceptability
of use.
-Psychometric questionnaires to capture users’ perception
about the MyEG application they used.
3 Results and Discussion
The result of the usability evaluation is as follows: Demographics:
Fig. 1. Gender
8 http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 2. Age
Figure 1 result shows that 60% i.e., 9 out of 15 of the respondents were females,
while 40% were males. Also, Figure 2 shows that the highest number (8) (53%) of
respondents were within the age range 20-30, six (40%) respondents were within the
age range 30-40, while 1 (7%) respondent was in the age range 40-50.
3.1 Performance
Fig. 3. Question 1
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 9
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 4. Question 2
Figure 3 shows that of the 15 respondents, 14 (93%) perceived that the speed of in-
stallation was fast enough. The speed of installation was actually influenced by the
mobile data connection. In Figure 4, twelve (12) (80%) respondents disagreed that the
application responds too slowly to inputs.
Fig. 5. Question 3
10 http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 6. Question 4
Figure 5 shows that 10 of 14 (71%) respondents believed that data entry errors
were easy to correct. One respondent failed to provide answer to this question. This
made the total respondents for this question to be fourteen instead of fifteen. In Figure
6, 11 (73%) respondents feel that the application provides adequate feedback when an
internal fault is detected.
Fig. 7. Question 5
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 11
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 8. Question 6
Figure 7 indicates that 9 (93%) of the respondents believe that the application pro-
vides quick, positive feedback on the acceptance or rejection of data entry. Figure 8
shows that 14 (93%) of respondents believe that they get the site information quickly.
Fig. 9. Question 7
12 http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 10. Question 8
In addition, Figure 7 indicated that 13 respondents (87%) perceived that they were
able to complete their tasks and scenarios quickly.
3.2 Learning
Figure 10 indicates that 10 (67%) respondents disagreed that learning to operate
the application initially was full of problems.
Fig. 11. Question 9
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 13
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 12. Question 10
Figure 11shows that 9 (60%) of the respondents did not perceive that they would
need the support of a technical person to be able to use the application. More so, 12
(80%) of the study participants were of the opinion that it was easy to learn to use the
application.
3.3 Interface
Figure 13 revealed that 12 (80%) of the respondents believe that the interface of
the application was pleasant. In Figure 14, 11 (73%) participants felt that the applica-
tion has a very attractive presentation.
Fig. 13. Question 11
14 http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 14. Question 12
Fig. 15. Question 13
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 15
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 16. Question 14
Figure 15 shows that 14 (93%) of the respondents perceived that graphic symbols
are appropriate for the information they represent. With regard to Figure 16, 14 (93%)
respondents believe that the application is user friendly and easy to use.
3.4 End-User Satisfaction
Fig. 17. Question 15
16 http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 18. Question 16
In Figure 17, 13 (87%) of study participants believe that the information in the app
was effective in helping them complete the tasks and scenarios. Figure 18 indicates
that all respondents (100%) believe that the application’s information presented was
clear and understandable. Figure 19 shows that 13 (87%) of the respondents felt that
tasks can be performed in a straightforward manner using the application. In Figure
20, 14 (93%) of the study participants perceived that overall, they were satisfied with
how easy it is to use the application.
Fig. 19. Question 17
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 17
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 20. Question 18
3.5 Loyalty
Fig. 21. Question 19
18 http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
Fig. 22. Question 20
Figure 21 revealed that 14 (93%) of the respondents indicated that they will likely
to use the app in future. In Figure 22, 14 (93%) of the respondents also indicated that
they will likely recommend the app to friends.
4 Conclusion
A usability evaluation was conducted to assess the mobile expe-rience of the
MyEG application. The think-aloud protocol was used. Also, the usability attributes
of effectiveness, efficiency, and satis-faction with suitable metrics were used in as-
sessing the app. The results showed that overall, the MyEG application promoted
good and rich user experience. The study participants perceived that the app was usa-
ble and comfortable.
5 References
[1] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Yahaya, NB & Bakar, NZBA (2018), A mobile usability as-
sessment of an m-shopping app. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control
Systems (JARDCS) 10 (SI), 1212-1217. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055455
[2] Gündüz, F & Pathan, ASK (2013), On the key factors of usability in small-sized mobile
touch-screen application. Int. J. Multimed. Ubiquitous Eng, 8(3), 115-138.
[3] Kaikkonen, A, Kekäläinen, A., Cankar, M, Kallio, T & Kankainen, A (2005), Usability
testing of mobile applications: A comparison between laboratory and field testing. Journal
of Usability Studies, 1(1), 4-16.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 19
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055455
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055455
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
[4] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Jamalsse, A & Mohammed, RA (2018), Grab mobile app: a
UX assessment on mobile devices. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Con-
trol Systems (JARDCS) 10 (SI), 1233-1238.
[5] Liu, F (2008), Usability Evaluations on Websites. School of Art &Design, Wuhan Univer-
sity of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, p: 141.
[6] Dumas, JS & Redish, J (1999), A practical Guide to Usability Testing. Intellect Ltd, UK,
US.
[7] Srivasta, J, Cooley, R, Deshpande, M & Tan, PN (2000), Web Usage Mining: Discovery
and Application of Web Usage Pattern from Web Data. Department of Computer Science
and Engineering, University of Minnesota. https://doi.org/10.1145/846183.846188
[8] Mkpojiogu, EOC, Hussain, A & Hassan, F (2018), A systematic review of usability quality
attributes for the evaluation of mobile learning applications for children. ICAST 2018, AIP
Conf. Proc. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055494
[9] Icela, L (2017), Usability evaluation focused on user experience of repositories related to
energy sustainability : A Literature Mapping.
[10] Nayebi, F, Desharnais, JM & Abran, A (2012), The state of the art of mobile application
usability evaluation, 2012 25th IEEE Can. Conf. Electr. Comput. Eng., 1–4. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ccece.2012.6334930
[11] Paz, F & Pow-Sang, JA (2014), Current Trends in Usability Evaluation Methods: A
Systematic Review, 2014 7th Int. Conf. Adv. Softw. Eng. Its Appl., pp: 11–15. https://doi.
org/10.1109/asea.2014.10
[12] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC & Suleiman, K (2018), A usability testing of a mobile print
shop booking and design application. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and
Control Systems (JARDCS) 10 (SI), 1359-1365.
[13] Holzinger, A (2005), Usability engineering methods for software developers. Communica-
tions of the ACM, 48(1), 71-74. https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039541
[14] Molich, R, & Wilson, C (2008), Tips and tricks for avoiding common problems in usabil-
ity test facilitation. CHI'08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.
ACM, pp: 2379-2382. https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358689
[15] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Suleiman, K & Alhussian, H (2018), A heuristic evaluation
of a mobile print and design shopping application. Journal of Advanced Research in Dy-
namical and Control Systems (JARDCS) 10 (SI), 1457-1462. Buchanan, S, & Salako, A
(2009), Evaluating the usability and usefulness of a digital library. Library Review, 58(9),
638-651. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910997928
[16] Rubin, J & Chisnell, D (2008), Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and
Conduct Effective Tests. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[17] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Abduljabbar, AM & Almadhagi, AHG (2018). UUM mo-
bile for students: a usability evaluation on two mobile OS platforms. Journal of Advanced
Research in Dynamical and Control Systems (JARDCS) 10 (SI), 1514-1519. https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.5055454
[18] Gündüz, F & Pathan, ASK (2012), Usability improvements for touch-screen mobile flight
booking application: A case study. 2012 International Conference on Advanced Computer
Science Applications and Technologies (ACSAT), IEEE, pp: 49-54. https://doi.org/10.11
09/acsat.2012.9
[19] Dillon, A (2002), Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human-computer inter-
actions. Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science.
[20] Mkpojiogu, EOC & Hussain, A (2018), Assessing the influence of self-reported require-
ments importance on the perceived quality of proposed software products. ICAST 2018,
AIP Conf. Proc. 2016, 020091, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055493
20 http://www.i-jim.org
https://doi.org/10.1145/846183.846188
https://doi.org/10.1145/846183.846188
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055494
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055494
https://doi.org/�10.1109/ccece.2012.6334930
https://doi.org/�10.1109/ccece.2012.6334930
https://doi.org/10.1109/asea.2014.10
https://doi.org/10.1109/asea.2014.10
https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039541
https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039541
https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358689
https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358689
https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910997928
https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910997928
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055454
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055454
https://doi.org/10.1109/acsat.2012.9
https://doi.org/10.1109/acsat.2012.9
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055493
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
[21] Ahmad, N, Boota, MW & Masoom, AH (2014), Smart Phone Application Evaluation with
Usability Testing Approach, J. Softw. Eng. Appl., 7(12), 1045. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.
2014.712092
[22] Brown, ME & Hocutt, DL (2015), Learning to Use, Useful for Learning: A Usability
Study of Google Apps for Education, J. Usability Stud., 10 (4), 160–181.
[23] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Isse, AJ & Mohammed, RA (2018), Grab mobile applica-
tion: a usability evaluation. ICAST 2018, AIP Conf. Proc. 2016, 020054, https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.5055456
[24] ISO 9241-11 (1998), Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display termi-
nals (vdts)–part 11: Guidance on usability. ISO Standard 9241-11: 1998. International Or-
ganization for Standardization. https://doi.org/10.3403/01822507u
[25] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Yahaya, NB & Bakar, NZBA (2018), A mobile usability as-
sessment of carousell mobile app. ICAST 2018, AIP Conf. Proc. 2016. 020053, https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.5055455
[26] Bartek, V & Cheatha, MD (2003), Experience Remote Usability Testing, Part 2: Examine
the Benefits and downside of Remote Usability Testing. http://www.mendeley.com/
research/experience-remote-usability-testing-part-2-examine-benefits-downside-remote-us
ability-testing/ . https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2003-05659
[27] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Abduljabbar, AM & Almadhagi, AHG (2018), A usability
evaluation of UUM mobile for students app on IOS and android platforms. ICAST 2018,
AIP Conf. Proc. 2016, 020052, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055454
[28] Chau, P. Cole, M, Massey, AP, Montoya-Weiss, M & O’Keefe, RM (2002), Cultural dif-
ferences in consumer’s online behaviors. Commun. ACM, 45(10), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.
1145/570907.570911
[29] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC & Hassan, F (2018), Dimensions and sub-dimensions for the
evaluation of m-learning apps for children: A review. International Journal of Engineering
& Technology (IJET) 7 (3.20), 291-295. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.20.19168
[30] Forsell, C & Johansson, J (2010), An heuristic set for evaluation in information visualiza-
tion. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, ACM,
pp: 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1145/1842993.1843029
[31] Krippendorff, K (2004), Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology, (Sage Pub-
lications Inc., United States, 2004).
[32] Gehrke, D & Turban, E (1999), Determinants of successful website design: Relative im-
portance and recommendations for effectiveness, Proc. 32nd Hawaii Int. Conf. System
Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.1999.772943
[33] Harrison, R, Flood, D & Duce, D (2013), Usability of mobile applications: Literature
Review and Rationale for A New Usability Model, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-
0827-1-1
[34] Hussain, A & Mkpojiogu, EOC (2015), An application of the ISO/IEC 25010 standard in
the quality-in-use assessment of an online health awareness system, J. Teknol., 77(5) 9–13.
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6107
[35] El-Gayar, O, Timsina, P, Nawar, N, & Eid, W (2013), Mobile applications for diabetes
self-management: Status and potential, J. Diabetes Sci. Technol., 7(1), 247–262.
https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700130
[36] Naismith, L (2004), Literature review in mobile technologies and learning, NESTA Futur.
Ser. ; Rep. 11, p: 44.
[37] Hussain, A, Abd Razak, MNF, Mkpojiogu, EOC & Hamdi, MMF (2017), UX evaluation
of a video streaming application with teenage users. Journal of Telecommunication, Elec-
tronic & Computer Engineering (JTEC), 9 (2-11), 129-131.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 21
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055493
https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2014.712092
https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2014.712092
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055456
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055456
https://doi.org/10.3403/01822507u
https://doi.org/10.3403/01822507u
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055455
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055455
http://www.mendeley.com/research/experience-remote-usability-testing-part-2-examine-benefits-downside-remote-usability-testing/
http://www.mendeley.com/research/experience-remote-usability-testing-part-2-examine-benefits-downside-remote-usability-testing/
http://www.mendeley.com/research/experience-remote-usability-testing-part-2-examine-benefits-downside-remote-usability-testing/
https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2003-05659
https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2003-05659
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055454
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055454
https://doi.org/10.1145/570907.570911
https://doi.org/10.1145/570907.570911
https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.20.19168
https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.20.19168
https://doi.org/10.1145/1842993.1843029
https://doi.org/10.1145/1842993.1843029
https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.1999.772943
https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.1999.772943
https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1
https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6107
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6107
https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700130
https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700130
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
[38] Naslund, JA, Aschbrenner, KA, Marsch, LA & Bartels, SJ (2016), The future of mental
health care: Peer-To-peer support and social media, Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci., 25 (2),
113–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796015001067
[39] Hussain, A, Isam, M & Mkpojiogu, EOC (2017), A UX assessment of a mobile recom-
mender app for household electrical energy savings. Journal of Telecommunication, Elec-
tronic & Computer Engineering (JTEC), 9 (2-11)
[40] Joo, S, Lin, S & Lu, K (2011), A Usability Evaluation Model for Academic Library
Websites: Efficiency, Effectiveness and Learnability, J. Libr. Inf. Stud., 9(2), 11–26.
[41] Toribio-Guzmán, JM, García-Holgado, A, Pérez, FS, García-Peñalvo, FJ & Martín, MAF
(2016), Study of the Usability of the Private Social Network SocialNet using Heuristic
Evaluation, Proc. XVII Int. Conf. Hum. Comput. Interact. - Interacción ’16, pp: 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2998626.2998674
[42] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC & Jasin, NMD (2017), Usability metrics and methods for
public transportation applications: a systematic review. Journal of Engineering Science
and Technology (JESTEC), Special Issue on ISSC’16, 4, 98-105.
[43] Chiang, KP & Dholakia, RR (2003), Factors Driving Consumer Intention to Shop Online:
An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Consumer psychology, 13(1&2), 177–183. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp13-1&2_16
[44] Hussain, A, Isam, M & Mkpojiogu, EOC (2017), A UX assessment of a mobile recom-
mender app for household electrical energy savings. Journal of Telecommunication, Elec-
tronic & Computer Engineering (JTEC), 9 (2-11)
[45] Bangor, A, Kortum, P & Miller, J (2009), Determining what individual SUS scores mean:
Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114-123.
[46] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Musa, J & Mortada, S (2017), A user experience evaluation
of amazon kindle mobile application. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Applied Science and Technology (ICAST’17), Kedah, Malaysia. AIP Conference Proceed-
ings 1891 (1), 020060, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005393
[47] Nielsen, J (1993), Usability Engineering, Academic Press, United States.
[48] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Fadzil, NM & Hassan, NM (2017), The UX of amila preg-
nancy on mobile device. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Sci-
ence and Technology (ICAST’17), Kedah, Malaysia. IP Conference Proceedings 1891 (1),
020061, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005394
[49] Kiseol, Y & Hye-Young, K (2012), Mobile shopping motivation: an application of multi-
ple discriminant analysis, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
40(10), 778-789. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211263182
[50] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Abubakar, H & Hassan, HM (2017), The usability evalua-
tion of mudah.my on mobile device. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Applied Science and Technology (ICAST’17), Kedah, Malaysia. AIP Conference Proceed-
ings 1891 (1), 020058; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005391
[51] Ferré, X, Juristo, N, Windl, H & Constantine, L, Usability engineering Usability Basics,
IEEE Softw., 18. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.903160
[52] Hussain, A, Mkpojiogu, EOC, Jamaludin, NH & Moh, STL (2017), A usability evaluation
of Lazada mobile application. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied
Science and Technology (ICAST’17), Kedah, Malaysia. AIP Conference Proceedings
1891 (1), 020059, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005392
[53] Limayem, M, Khalifa, M & Frini, A (2000), What make consumer buy from internet? A
Longitudinal study of online shopping. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber-
netics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(4). https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.852436
22 http://www.i-jim.org
https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796015001067
https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796015001067
https://doi.org/10.1145/2998626.2998674
https://doi.org/10.1145/2998626.2998674
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp13-1&2_16
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp13-1&2_16
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005393
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005393
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005394
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005394
https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211263182
https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211263182
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005391
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005391
https://doi.org/10.1109/52.903160
https://doi.org/10.1109/52.903160
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005392
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005392
https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.852436
Paper—A Study on the Perceived Mobile Experience of Myeg Users
6 Authors
Azham Hussain is the Associate Professor of Software Engineering at School of
Computing, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia. He is the founder of Hu-
man-Centered Computing Research Group, which is affiliated with the Software
Technology Research Platform Center at School of Computing, Universiti Utara Ma-
laysia. Azham Hussain is a member of the US-based Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronic Engineers (IEEE), and actively involved in both IEEE Communications and
IEEE Computer societies.
Emmanuel O.C. Mkpojiogu is a Lecturer at Department of Computer and Infor-
mation Technology, Veritas University, Abuja, Nigeria. Currently, he is a PhD stu-
dent at School of Computing, Universiti Utara Malaysia. The research area is User
Experience, Human Computer Interaction and Software Engineering. He has pub-
lished many articles in reputable Scopus indexed journals. mkpojiogue@gmail.com
Norzila Ishak is a lecturer at Department of Information Technology and Commu-
nication, Politeknik Seberang Perai, PermatangPauh, Penang. Her research focus on
Human Computer Interaction and User Experience.
Nurhidayah Mokhtar is a lecturer at Department of Information Technology and
Communication, Politeknik Seberang Perai, PermatangPauh, Penang. She has com-
pleted her master’s in information technology and looking forward to further to PhD
in Human Computer Interaction or Software Requirement for mobile.
Article submitted 2019-07-16. Resubmitted 2019-09-03. Final acceptance 2019-09-10. Final version
published as submitted by the authors.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 11, 2019 23
https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.852436
https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.852436