ISSUE-6: User Interface Issues for Mobile Browsing

I've been working on this issue testing different current phone browsers and discovered the following issues. This is a rough draft, but the main findings are there.

Comments, clarifications, suggestions etc are welcome.

Luis 

-----------


X.1 User Interface Issues for Mobile Browsing


Previous studies reveals that mobile browsing user experience is affected by the user's state, context, mobile device, browser application, network infrastructure, and web sites [Phone Web Browsing]. Although modern mobile phones come with better processors, more RAM, higher connectivity and increased resolution screens, the gap with their desktop-LAN counterpart is likely to remain, which keeps phones far away from the rich mobile browsing experience.


X.1.1 Indistinguishable/Non-Existing Chrome 


In desktops, there are cases when the chrome becomes blurred with small windows. This issue is permanent in with phone browsers due to limitations in screen size. Phone browser designers have chosen to give more space to content presentation, keeping the chrome indistinguishable at best.


X.1.2 Fewer Security Indicators


Due to the small screen limitations, current phone browsers have prioritized to only present security full/crossed padlock when applicable. The URL bar is commonly not displayed or partially displayed. Users who are familiar with the https:// <https:///>  prefix may become deceived by such limitation. Favicons are not displayed.

Additionally security information is possible to obtain via menus requiring more clicks than in desktops, which is barrier to overcome. The level security detail differs across phone browsers.


X.1.3 Longer time and more clicks for better security


Typing username and password when entering sites is more cumbersome with numeric keypads than with desktops keyboards.  The T9 feature commonly available in phones is not useful since usernames and passwords are normally not part of the dictionary. As a result, authentication takes longer time and users and error prone.


X.1.4 Poor Password Management


Compared to full-fledged browsers, phone browsers have poor support for storing and protecting passwords associated to sites requiring authentication. 


X.1.5 Modified Look and Feel


Users become familiar with a site's and look and feel (brand logo, colors, page layout, interaction) and any change to it would create suspicion unless previously warned. To prevent suspicion, phone browsing should try to keep the same experience. Unless organizations may design mobile-adapted pages, in the past mobile browsers commonly resided behind a transcoding proxy that changed the look and feel to adapt content to the screen size. This situation hasn't changed with powerful phones that handle e2e security, but still change the look and feel (color, menus, ...).


X.1.6 Browser Fragmentation


The GUI fragmentation among phone browsers is more critical than desktop browsers. The menus and placed in different ways.


X.1.7 Anti-Phishing support

Modern browsers provide users with the ability to report phishing sites. Browsers also download lists of phishing sites that are checked upon URL access. Such features are not supported in phone browsers, probably due to traffic limitations and costs.

X.1.8 Java policy decisions not recorded

Trusting applications and web sites requires user consent every time. The reason is that in mobile phones, consent is often associated with payments, which is not visible to the policy layer.


X.1.9 Proxied Security vs. e2e Security


A large amount of legacy phones rely are WAP-based so they reside behind a proxy. Browsing secure web sites is 

not possible,  proxied or tunneled. End users may experience difficulties in understanding the security implications for the different cases.


X.1.Z Open Issues


There are no studies on security usability in mobiles phones. A comparative usability study is in place.


Web Phone Browsing

WEB BROWSING ON MOBILE PHONES - CHARACTERISTICS OF USER EXPERIENCE.
Doctoral Dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Virpi Roto, December 2006.

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 15:33:39 UTC