mobile deck turning sms into a rich user experience

8/3/2019 Mobile Deck Turning SMS Into a Rich User Experience

1/7

MobileDeck: Turning SMS into a Rich User ExperienceDaniel Risi

Nokia Technology InstituteRd Torquato Tapajos 720069048-660 Manaus, Brazil

+55 92 8136 [email protected]

Mauro TefiloNokia Technology InstituteRd Torquato Tapajos 720069048-660 Manaus, Brazil

+55 92 8171 [email protected]

ABSTRACTThis paper describes the concept and the technological solutionused in MobileDeck, a content request and delivery systemdesigned for emerging markets, which uses SMS as the maincommunications channel. MobileDeck consists of a mobile

application with a graphical user interface dynamically integratedwith a content providing server. The effectiveness of this systemas a way to enhance the end-user experience is demonstrated by

the results of two different studies.

Categories and Subject DescriptorsD.5.2 [Information Systems]: Information Interfaces andPresentation input devices and strategies, screen design,interaction style.

General TermsDesign, Reliability, Security, Experimentation, Human Factors.

KeywordsMobile human computer interaction, mobile wirelesscommunication, SMS technology, mobile usability.

1. INTRODUCTIONShort Message Service (SMS) has long been established as the defacto standard for sending and receiving text messages in mobilephones. In 2007, it was used by 74% of active users, with anaverage 2.6 SMS sent per day per person across the whole mobilephone subscriber base [1] and [2].

As one of the most widely adopted communications services, ithas been successfully used for over a decade as marketing and

services channel [3]. The fact that SMS has a relatively limited setof features basically a text string of 160 characters seems to becompensated by at least two factors: its huge active users base [4]and its high response rate [5].

In emerging markets, those characteristics are especially crucialwhen designing mobile services and advertising campaigns,

considering that mobile Internet is still gaining momentum [6]. In

that scenario, text messaging is the most viable way to reachlarger audiences, albeit compromising a considerable portion ofthe engagement effect [7] and [8].

MobileDeck, initially introduced in the Brazilian market, whereactually has more than 100k active users, is an end-to-end solutiondesigned to address that issue, enhancing the SMS experience byadding a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to it. Thisimplementation allows text messaging to behave exactly like a

data feed to a rich application. In that sense, it offers a new user-friendly channel for several existent SMS services like news,horoscope, promotions and so forth.

Besides a general description of the technological approach usedin MobileDeck, this paper aims to demonstrate the potentialeffectiveness of this kind of platform as a relevantcommunications medium. In order to achieve that, two different

studies are presented: a usability test conducted during project

development at Nokia Technology Institute (INdT) and a marketresearch made prior to the commercial release of the product.

2. MOBILEDECKThe key idea behind MobileDeck is to provide an engaging front-

end environment for requesting and receiving content via SMS.On the client side, it consists of a mobile application capable of

displaying both textual information and graphics using predefinedlayouts that are accessed through instructions contained in abinary SMS. In other words, every time the user requests a

service, the application sends an SMS that is received by aspecific server, and the response is again redirected to theapplication. The returning SMS acts like a script that mounts andfeeds the next screen with the appropriate content.

This solution can be explained through the example in figure 1.From the main menu, which is a grid of icons, the user can chooseone of the services, e.g. horoscope. That procedure activates theservice screen (in this example, another grid menu). Once the

desired content is chosen, the application requests the data bysending an SMS to a predefined short code. That request is thenprocessed, while the application displays a receiving datafeedback. When the response is received by the application(binary SMS), a result screen is populated with the respectivedata.

Figure 1. Example of a service being accessed (horoscope)Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

MobileHCI 2010 September 7 - 10, 2010, Lisboa, Portugal.

ACM 978-1-60558-835-3.


2/7

All the SMS traffic involved in this data request/receive process isthus transparent to the user. The response time is usually just afew seconds, so that the whole experience is extremely close toaccessing content directly from the web using a mobile device.From that perspective, it is important to stress that this solution

was designed for emerging markets, where fast data networks arestill inaccessible to the majority of the population.

Depending on the kind of service/content being accessed,different kinds of layouts will be displayed. This includes listviews, input forms, and the above-mentioned icon grids and resultscreens.

Some services will require accessing information from the serverprior to the final result, in order to populate the next screen with

the respective options. This situation can be exemplified by thelocation finder service, in figure 2.

Figure 2. Example of a service being accessed (location finder)

When this service is accessed, the user is required to choose an

icon that corresponds to specific kind of location, e.g. hotels.Once selected, the user is directed text input layout, locally stored

in the application, where the postal code of the desired hotel mustbe filled in. At this point, the system requests the data from the

server, by sending an SMS and receiving a binary SMS response.

On the next step, the application displays all the hotels that arelocated near that postal code in a list view, so that the user canchoose one. Again, the application must access the server viaSMS, in order to display the result screen containing theinformation being sought.

The obvious limitations of this system must be taken into accountwhen designing each screen, and each service workflow. It iscritical to optimize the number of SMS requests per service as

well as the amount of data being exchanged, in order to avoidexceeding the maximum length of a single SMS. Evenconsidering that a binary SMS can concatenate a series ofmessages, the traffic time would increase considerably, as well asthe possibility of errors.

These limitations are also addressed by the protocol system used

in MobileDeck, offers considerable scalability and flexibility forupdating content. Since all UI elements are embedded on theapplication, the existing icons and screen templates can be usedfor a number of services in runtime.

Another important concern about the MobileDeck solution is thatthe user must be accurately informed about the cost of each

request. To avoid legal issues, during the registration process theuser must accept an agreement informing that he will be included

in a opt-in database. The agreement also informs how much theservice costs and how the billing system works. Still, it is

important to remind the user every time a service is beingcharged, since only part of the SMS traffic is actually paid by theuser.

3. MOBILEDECK ARCHITECTUREMobileDeck is divided in four subsystems: a) a mobile clientapplication, embedded in the mobile phone; b) a web server (SM

Platform), that bridges the mobile client with informationproviders; c) a SMS broker that traffics the SMS; and d) ainformation provider.

The embedded application, designed to Nokia Series 40 and

Series 60 devices, sends SMS for a specified SMS short code toachieve a determinate service. The service response is done bybinary SMS, listing a predefined SMS port. The coreprogramming language used to develop the mobile applicationwas J2ME and its WMA 1.0 (Wireless Message API, JSR 120).The Series 60 version has a user interface developed with

Lightweight UI Toolkit (LWUIT), which is a free UI library andtool for creating richer and more portable Java ME user interfaces

[9].

SM Platform is a subsystem built to enable SMS to be sent,

received and transferred to different purposes (e.g. enterprise toenterprise, enterprise to people, people to enterprise, machine tomachine, machine to people and others).SM Platform is one of themain telecom components used in MobileDeck, and is intended toprovide a multi-service environment for message basedinformation services. The core programming language used in

server side was Java, having a combination of Servlet [10] andApplication Server [11].

SMS broker is a business entity that negotiates agreements with

network providers, acting as a middleman for messaging servicesbetween a cellular network and third parties [12]. The brokersmessage aggregator uses the SMPP to maintain connections withcarrier networks. Aggregators typically provide access to theirservers either through that same technology or using custom APIs

written in Java, PHP, Perl, and so on [13].

The information provider is responsible for making value-addedservices available for end-users. For example, when a mobile

phone user sends an interactive text message to retrieveinformation, the content provider returns the information (in thiscase, a text message back to the user) through the SMS broker.

The way the main components of the MobileDeck architectureinteract is shown in figure 3. This example illustrates a userrequesting a service and receiving a response. First, a plain SMSis sent using the MobileDeck embedded application to a specificshort code, through a standard protocol. Then, the SMS broker

routes the SMS message to the information provider, whichprocesses the service requisition. After that, the informationprovider queries the MobileDeck server (SM Platform) to obtain asecure code (see section 4.1) and so, order a requisition to thebroker to send the service response. Thus, a binary SMS is sent tothe user, which is received in the MobileDeck application.

In order to reduce cost, compression data algorithms were used tokeep messages small (see section 3.3). It is worth pointing out that

many times only few messages are necessary to obtain a serviceresponse.

The security issues related to the MobileDeck architecturalconcept are explained in section 4.


3/7

Figure 3. MobileDeck Architecture (high level design)

3.1 Binary SMSAs MobileDeck sends protocol information inside a binary SMSbody (see section 3.2), a brief explanation of how it works is validhere. A binary SMS uses the concept of port just like any Internet

socket does. Thus, a message can be received in a given port thatwakes up a specific service (in JME this is accomplished throughthe Push Registry API).

The User Data Header (UDH) is the feature used to specify whatports our client will send the message to. It is also used toconcatenate more than one SMS (in case the message exceeds theSMS maximum length). In MobileDeck, both the UDH and thebody are codified in hexadecimal representation.

3.2 Protocol and CommunicationMobileDecks telecom infrastructure depends on the properinteraction of three main interfaces: client application running inthe mobile device, server application, including informationprovider, and SMS broker software.

Both client and server can start the communication, depending onthe type of service. Typically, the client requests a service to theserver. On the other way around, the server can just push a serviceto the client. In all cases the broker takes action. To synchronizeall cited interfaces it is necessary that all components use astandard protocol created specifically for this purpose.

To execute a request to the information provider the protocolbelow must be followed:

, where:

: The secure code generated based on mobileIMEI. It guarantees that the content was sent by the

embedded MobileDeck application.

: Keyword to identify a SMS service.

The protocol also defines whether a screen is embedded in themobile application. For example, a horoscope service screencontaining all signs could be an embedded screen because it isstatic (the signs are fixed).

To push a screen into MobileDeck application in mobile phone,the following protocol must be used. This protocol is regardinglist screen, enabling to build in MobileDeck dynamic screens. It issent using binary SMS to a specific SMS-port.

||| , where:

: The secure code generated based on mobileIMEI. The information provider partners must request thissecure code to send the show screen command toMobileDeck (more details about it are showed in section4.1).

: This ID informs MobileDeck that theinformation sent follows the specification of list viewprotocol, i.e., the set of services must be presented in a listview screen.

: | ; |...o : The unique keyword that represents

this service.

o : Service nameto be displayed onthe screen.

When a list element is selected, then the keyword is send by SMSto indicate it, enabling thus a communication between the mobileapplication and an information provider.

The same essence is used to build other screen types, like grid,input text, only text screen, etc.

3.3 Data CompressionWith a limitation of 160 characters per message, a compressionalgorithm is mandatory, helping to reduce the consumption ofexpensive resources, such as transmission bandwidth. On theother hand, the cost for the information decompressing processmay be expansive to some systems. In this case, as one of project

objectives is to reduce the overall cost, the fewer messages aresent, the better.

MobileDeck uses jZlib, a lossless compression mechanism, whichis a reimplementation of the Zlib software library [14]. This kindof compression algorithm is suitable to the purposes of this projectbecause information loss cannot be allowed. Zlib supports theDEFLATE algorithm.

4. SECURITYAlthough SMS is a well-designed communications protocol, therearesecurity issues that must be addressed to prevent the messagefrom being intercepted by an unauthorized monitoring agent.MobileDecks security mechanism was developed with this

premise.

End-to-end security or confidentiality and integrity over the wholepath between two parties (e.g., a mobile station to another mobilestation) are not provided by mobile systems (such as GSM andUMTS) and therefore they have to be implemented at applicationlevel [15].

Due to this fact, some important aspects, like authentication andconfidentiality must be analyzed during the project of an SMS-based service. There is a necessity to implement a level of well-

known security methods such as cryptography: to mess up theoriginal chain of bytes to be sent in an incomprehensive chain ofbytes that can only be read if the receiver has the key to puteverything back in its right place.

MobileDeck deals with two main different kinds of data transfer.First, the mobile application may need to send a message to theserver requesting a service. The other case is when the

MobileDeck server sends directly the UI instructions (see section3.2), via SMS. During these transfers, it is absolutely necessary to

guarantee that the message received by the server was sent by a


4/7

real authorized MobileDeck-compliant application and that the UIupdate really came from the server.

For each connection between server and application, MobileDeckuses an authentication policy based in password creation, usingthe IMEI (device serial number) as the key. This is a simple and

efficient alternative, which makes difficult to an unauthorizedthird party to break the security.

For a future work, this method can be improved by othertechniques integration, like message digest [16] and cryptography[17].

5. EXPERIMENTThis section describes the experiments executed in order to

investigate the MobileDeck system in terms of usability and useracceptance.

5.1 Usability EvaluationUsability is commonly comprehended as a qualitative attributethat assesses quality-in-use or how easy application are to use [18]

and [19].

In these days, mobile users are increasingly becoming reliant ontheir mobile phones as their primary communication medium, andwill nearly always carry their handsets with them. This growingdependence on the mobile device is gradually positioning it as thekey repository for other core services. The increasing number of

mobile users significantly implies the importance of assuring thatthe application is useable by means of usability evaluation method[20]. Based on it, usability tests for MobileDeck were carried out.

The methodology to measure the MobileDeck usability was theHeuristic evaluation [21], which has been widely applied andinvestigated, most likely due to its efficiency in detecting most ofusability flaws at front of a rather limited investment of time andhuman resources in the evaluation. However, the capacity of

expert-based techniques to capture contextual factors in mobilecomputing is a major concern [22].

Briefly put, heuristic evaluation is a kind of analytic usabilityevaluation method conducted by a small group of evaluators, whoexamine a user interface, judge its compliance with a set ofusability principles or heuristics, generate a list of usabilityproblems, and, quite often, categorize the severity of the samethus identified according to their estimated impact on userperformance or acceptance [23].

The mobile heuristics chosen for this evaluation were: usercontrol, feedback, consistency and patterns/standards, flexibilityand use efficiency, and errors proof. Such criteria were inserted inthe evaluation form together with the satisfaction level evaluationscales; both are guidelines to assess the subjective feedback andthe task accomplishment observation.

The evaluation scales adopted for this experiment was:satisfactory, which indicates that the developed aspects

demonstrate to contribute with great relevance for the systemeffectiveness and they must be kept; low gravity, which means theaspects present a slight difficulty, however, for a small margin ofusers, and they can even get better along the time; serious, itindicates that must consider its analysis and revision as soon as

possible, once it will be worse in a short or medium term;extremely serious, then it must consider its immediate analysisand revision.

The recommended number of evaluators for a heuristic evaluationis between three and five, given that the informational gain withan additional evaluator drastically decreases after the fifth one andthat the benefit-cost ratio is highest when three or four evaluatorsare employed [23]. Therefore, for this experiment took part five

persons, being two women and three men.

To perform the usability tests was used the MobileDeck

application shown in figure 1 and 2, and described in section 2,evaluating the main premise of MobileDeck system, which is toadd a compelling visual and interactive experience to traditionalSMS services, such as those offered by mobile operators and

content aggregators (horoscope, news, promotions, etc).

This experiment was made in Manaus, Brazil, where SMS

technology is broadly disseminated, different from others mobileconnection technology, as GPRS.

The evaluation method was explained in details to eachparticipant as well as what he/she should do and how long eachsession should take. Then, the use scenery was presented to userto introduce the participant into MobileDeck system conception,presenting some task, considered real and stereotyped, to be

executed by participant to evaluate the usability. After finishingall tasks, the system evaluation questionnaire should be filled inby the participant. After carrying out all interaction tests, it wasquantified all data of the applied questionnaires.

5.2 User Acceptance EvaluationTo evaluate MobileDeck user acceptance a consumer intercept

survey methodology was used. This kind of survey is typicallycarried out on the street (street intercepts), in shopping malls (mallintercepts) or in retail outlets themselves, or in any space wherethere is a representative population of target consumers.

Surveys are the most widely used data collection method forstudying mobile user behavior and service usage. Surveys can beimplemented using e.g. telephone, postal mail, e-mail, web, andvarious face-to-face questioning methods, depending on the

available resources and the objectives of the research. The methodused also defines the scalability and accuracy of the survey. Timeseries data can be produced by repeating a certain set of questions.

Surveys are flexible as a wide range of information can becollected to study e.g. attitudes, values, beliefs, and past behavior.[24]

However, survey responses always depend on the respondentsmotivation, honesty, memory, and ability to respond. While arandom sample of subjects is often selected for the survey, theactual respondents are usually self-selected, meaning that the truecharacteristics of the whole population cannot be obtained fromthe sample. Finally, formulations of survey questions and answeroptions could lead to different interpretations, both by therespondent and the researcher. [25]

The consumer intercept survey was conducted by a third-partycompany at So Paulo, Brazil, and was divided in two datacollection locations. In the first data collection, 120 men and 120

women were interviewed, and in the second, 80 men and 80women. In both situations the interviewees age was between 15to 42 years, an age-group that represents the major concentrationof mobile phone users in Brazil (70%), according to Anatel [26].The interviewee should have different occupations and academicbackground [27]. The interviewees are included in social classesB (50%) and C (50%), according to the IBGE scale [28], and were


5/7

divided among both prepaid (86,1%)and postpaid(13,9%)planusers.

During the interview, a MobileDeck prototype was presented andeach person answered questions about their general perception ofthe application and the relevancy of accessing certain kindscontents via SMS.

6. RESULTSWe begin this section by showing the usability tests result. Then,it is presented the user acceptance survey results.

6.1 Usability testIn figure 4 1 is illustrated the usability test result. In the legend islisted the 5 test participants of the experiment (participant 1, 2, 3,4, and 5); in the x-axis is showed singly each mobile heuristicscited in section 5.1; and in the y-axis is the adopted evaluationscale for the experiment, where 1 represents satisfactory, 2represents low gravity, 3 represents slight difficulty, and 4represents serious (for more details, see section 5.1).

Figure 4. Usability Test Result

Based on these results, the MobileDeck application wasconsidered as acceptable to go to market.

6.2 User acceptance surveyIn order to prove the user acceptance of MobileDeck concept, itwas collected from the experiment participants the relevancy ofSMS service contents, listed in Table 1, even as, the positive andnegative reactions, which is conceded is Table 2 and 3,respectively.

It is possible to infer the interested by user for service based onSMS. The results tabulated in table 1 make it clear. Furthermore,it was collect a good percentage of positive reaction, neverthelessnegative reaction were collected. For future works the negativereactions listed in table 3 will be studied to be mitigated.

Table 1. Relevancy of kinds contents via SMS

Service Total Male Female

Daily News 69,6% 70,8% 68,3%Weather Forecast 66,7% 69,2% 64,2%

Traffic Report 56,8% 63,3% 49,0%

Sporting News 42,9% 59,2% 26,7%

Job Prospects 26,7% 22,5% 30,8%

Horoscope 23,1% 16,4% 30,0%

Movie News 22,1% 23,3% 20,8%

Table 2. Positive reaction by social classes

Positive Reactions B CImprove the services based on SMS

usage 60% 29%

Allow receive news about my team 54% 41%

Check horoscope 20% 18%

It more cheap than internet 23% 38%

Allow to take information when Imdriving 46% 21%

Its not necessary to type 53% 18%

Its absolutely interesting. I would see

it working 48% 31%

Table 3. Negative reaction by social classes

Negative Reactions B CIts expensive 12% 46%

Im not interested in it 54% 41%

Its missing services about advertising 8% 17%

I want to customize the main servicegrid menu 43% 29%

6.3 Experiment LimitationsThe results presented in this work may contain some variation ofthe reality, due to the limitations of the experiment.

One of these limitations include the time spent to use the mobileapplication, i.e., the best scenario would be that each participant

could make use of the evaluated application in his/her day by dayand identify what could be improved in agreement with his/herapplication usage. In this case, an evaluation in long term couldprobably obtain different results. The type of the application usedin the experiment was also a limitation; the evaluation result canbe changed according to the application under observation. We

also mention the expectation effect of a given person (Placebo andHawthorne effect) and the expectation effect of the

experimentalist as factors that can influence the experimentparticipant evaluation [29].

7. CONCLUSIONMobileDeck was developed with the idea that SMS, as acommunications protocol, allows the interchange of messages at arelatively low cost anywhere at anytime. By allying this strengthwith a rich environment we hope to offer an alternative to mobileinternet technologies like GPRS for content distribution oneparticularly adequate for the characteristics of emerging markets.

The results of both experiments presented here suggest that SMS-based applications with a graphical UI are relevant and suitable to

provide a relatively straightforward experience to the end-user. AsMobileDeck is being currently released in the Brazilian market,

during the next months it will be possible to evaluate its actualperformance as a media channel, through access statisticsprovided by the server application. In this phase ofimplementation, it will be also possible to perform other usabilitytests to confirm if the results obtained previously will follow thesame pattern across all operator networks and over the culturalidiosyncrasies within the country.

Besides investigating how this sort of solution will meet the user

expectations under real conditions, future works of this researchinclude an overall improvement of MobileDecks underlying


6/7

technology. This will be done mainly by refining the currentsecurity workflow through cryptography and by building analgorithm to allow graphical elements (e.g. icons) to be alsocarried over binary SMS, as well as, include mechanism tobecome MobileDeck self-adaptive for the user (e.g., to make more

accessible a service that is more used, even as, remove servicesthat is not used, and update the MobileDeck with possible

interesting service) such as purposed in [30] and [31].Eventually, it is expected that market demands will also point outthe technological directions of this system. Hopefully this solutionwill reach other countries, where new challenges will be faced.

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSOur thanks to INdTs Rosaurea Magalhes Usability Lab forperforming usability tests cited in this paper.

9. REFERENCES[1] Leung, C. H., Chan, Y. Y., and Chan, C. S. 2003. Analysis of

mobile commerce market in Hong Kong. In Proceedings ofthe 5th international Conference on Electronic Commerce(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 30 - October 03,2003). ICEC '03, vol. 50. ACM, New York, NY, 408-412.DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/948005.948058

[2] Church, K., Smyth, B., Cotter, P., and Bradley, K. 2007.Mobile information access: A study of emerging searchbehavior on the mobile Internet.ACM Trans. Web 1, 1 (May.2007), 4. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1232722.1232726

[3] Zerfos, P., Meng, X., Wong, S. H., Samanta, V., and Lu, S.2006. A study of the short message service of a nationwidecellular network. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMMConference on internet Measurement(Rio de Janeriro,

Brazil, October 25 - 27, 2006). IMC '06. ACM, New York,NY, 263-268. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1177080.1177114

[4] Enck, W., Traynor, P., McDaniel, P., and La Porta, T. 2005.

Exploiting open functionality in SMS-capable cellularnetworks. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference onComputer and Communications Security (Alexandria, VA,USA, November 07 - 11, 2005). CCS '05. ACM, New York,NY, 393-404. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1102120.1102171

[5] Eberspaecher, J., Bettstetter, C., and Vhogel, H. 2001 Gsm:Switching, Services and Protocols. 2nd. John Wiley & Sons,Inc.

[6] Tsang, M. M., Ho, S., and Liang, T. 2004. ConsumerAttitudes Toward Mobile Advertising: An Empirical Study.Int. J. Electron. Commerce 8, 3 (Apr. 2004), 65-78.

[7] Kolko, B. E., Rose, E. J., and Johnson, E. J. 2007.Communication as information-seeking: the case for mobile

social software for developing regions. In Proceedings of the16th international Conference on World Wide Web (Banff,Alberta, Canada, May 08 - 12, 2007). WWW '07. ACM, NewYork, NY, 863-872. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1242572.1242689

[8] Page, C. 2005. Mobile research strategies for a globalmarket. Commun. ACM48, 7 (Jul. 2005), 42-48. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1070838.1070864

[9] White, Jim. Java ME User Interfaces: Do It with LWUIT.2007. DevX online magazine.

[10]Pursnani, V. 2001. An introduction to Java servletprogramming. Crossroads 8, 2 (Dec. 2001), 3-7. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/567155.567157

[11]Dinker, D. and Schwetman, H. 2006. Using Java methodtraces to automatically characterize and model J2EE serverapplications. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference onWinter Simulation (Monterey, California, December 03 - 06,

2006). L. F. Perrone, B. G. Lawson, J. Liu, and F. P.Wieland, Eds. Winter Simulation Conference. WinterSimulation Conference, 1187-1194.

[12]Pillai, P. 2005. Experimental mobile gateways. Crossroads11, 4 (Aug. 2005), 6-6. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1144389.1144395

[13]Brown, J., Shipman, B., and Vetter, R. 2007. SMS: TheShort Message Service. Computer40, 12 (Dec. 2007), 106-110. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MC.2007.440

[14]P. Deutsch and J. Gailly. ZLIB Compressed Data FormatSpecification Version 3.3. RFC. RFC Editor, 1996.

[15]Hwu, J., Hsu, S., Lin, Y., and Chen, R. 2006. End-to-endsecurity mechanisms for SMS.Int. J. Secur. Netw. 1, 3/4

(Dec. 2006), 177-183. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSN.2006.011777

[16]Spinellis, D. 2000. Reflection as a mechanism for softwareintegrity verification.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3, 1 (Feb.2000), 51-62. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/353323.353383

[17]Garza-Saldaa, J. J. and Daz-Prez, A. 2008. State ofSecurity for SMS on Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the2008 Electronics, Robotics and Automotive MechanicsConference (September 30 - October 03, 2008). CERMA.IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 110-115. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CERMA.2008.63

[18]IEEE_Std_1061. "IEEE standard for a software qualitymetrics methodology". IEEE Std 1061-1998, 1998.

[19]ISO/IEC (1998) 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for officework with visual display terminals (VDT)s--Part 11Guidance on usability. ISO/IEC 9241-11:1998 (E).

[20] Hussain, A. and Ferneley, E. 2008. Usability metric formobile application: a goal question metric (GQM) approach.In Proceedings of the 10th international Conference on

information integration and Web-Based Applications &Services (Linz, Austria, November 24 - 26, 2008). G. Kotsis,D. Taniar, E. Pardede, and I. Khalil, Eds. iiWAS '08. ACM,New York, NY, 567-570. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1497308.1497412

[21]Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., &Mack, R.L., (Eds.), Usability inspection methods, pp. 25-64.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.[22]Bertini, E., Gabrielli, S., and Kimani, S. 2006. Appropriating

and assessing heuristics for mobile computing. In

Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visualinterfaces (Venezia, Italy, May 23 - 26, 2006). AVI '06.ACM, New York, NY, 119-126. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1133265.1133291

[23]Law, L. and Hvannberg, E. T. 2002. Complementarity andconvergence of heuristic evaluation and usability test: a casestudy of universal brokerage platform. In Proceedings of the


7/7

Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer interaction(Aarhus, Denmark, October 19 - 23, 2002). NordiCHI '02,vol. 31. ACM, New York, NY, 71-80. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/572020.572030

[24]Kivi, A. 2009. Measuring mobile service usage: methods andmeasurement points.Int. J. Mob. Commun. 7, 4 (Apr. 2009),415-435. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2009.023692

[25]Martin E. (1983). Surveys as Social Indicators: Problems inMonitoring Trends. Handbook ofSurvey Research, eds. RossiP., Wright J., and Anderson A., Academic Press Inc.,California,United States, pp. 677-743.

[26]ANATEL. Paste/2000-perspectivas para ampliao emodernizao do setor de telecomunicaes para o perodo

2000/2005 (in portuguese). ANATEL-Agncia Nacional deTelecomunicaes, 2000.

[27]S. Shan and H. V. Rocha. A Comparative Study of Human-Computer Interface Evaluation Methods. In: InternationalConference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, 1996.Valdivia, Chile, 1996. v. 1. p. 101-111.

[28]Gazeta Mercantil Journal (in portuguese), 2002, in press.

[29]Wainer, J., Novoa Barsottini, C. G., Lacerda, D., andMagalhes de Marco, L. R. 2009. Empirical evaluation inComputer Science research published by ACM.Inf. Softw.Technol. 51, 6 (Jun. 2009), 1081-1085. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.01.002

[30]Tefilo, M., Cordeiro, L., Barreto, R., Pereira, J. R.,Mardem, A., and Freitas, P. 2008. Mandos: A User

Interaction Method in Embedded Applications for MobileTelephony. In Proceedings of the First internationalConference on Advances in Computer-Human interaction(February 10 - 15, 2008). ACHI. IEEE Computer Society,Washington, DC, 271-276. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACHI.2008.25

[31]Tefilo, M., Martini, A., and Silva, W. 2009. Vair: A Toolto Improve the Usability in Embedded Applications Based onUser Adjustment. In Proceedings of the 2009 Secondinternational Conferences on Advances in Computer-Humaninteractions (February 01 - 07, 2009). ACHI. IEEE

Computer Society, Washington, DC, 57-62. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACHI.2009.44

mobile deck turning sms into a rich user experience

Documents