Design Strategies to Minimize Mobile Usability Issues in Navigation Design Patterns

Abstract

Recent development in mobile technology has significantly improved the quality of life. Everyday life is increasingly becoming dependent on mobile devices as mobile applications are targeting the needs of the end users. However, many end users struggle with navigating mobile applications, leading to frustration, especially with sophisticated and unfamiliar interfaces. This study focuses on addressing specific usability issues in mobile applications by investigating the impact of introducing a floating action button (FAB) and icons with names at the bottom in popular applications such as YouTube, Plex, and IMDb. The current research includes three studies: Study-1 explores the navigation issues that users face; Study-2 measures the experiences of the users with improved navigation designs; and Study-3 compares the results of Study-1 and Study-2 to evaluate user experience with both existing and improved navigation designs. A total of 147 participants participated and the systems usability scale was used to evaluate the navigation design. The experiments indicated that the existing design patterns are complex and difficult to understand leading to user frustration compared to newly designed and improved navigation designed patterns. Moreover, the proposed newly designed navigation patterns improved the effectiveness, learnability, and usability. Consequently, the results highlight the imperativeness of effective navigation design in improving user satisfaction and lowering frustration with mobile applications.

1. Introduction

The prevalence of mobile technology is on the rise among the elderly population, who are progressively employing a wide range of features and capabilities of digital devices to fulfill a variety of objectives, such as social interaction, amusement, acquiring knowledge and information, and health maintenance [1]. However, as people become older, their perceptual, cognitive, and motor skills tend to decline. Indicating that older people may have more trouble using digital systems in different ways. As compared to younger people, elderly people may become more aware of design flaws [2,3,4]. A comprehensive series of laboratory experiments has been carried out to provide the theoretical foundations for usability standards. Heuristic evaluation has been widely used to evaluate the practical usability aspects of mobile applications and to design apps that are easy to use and intuitive for older individuals [5]. Previous research on older adults mostly looked at usability issues related to sight and touch, like how big, where, and what color each interface part was. Some important parts that need more mental and visual thinking, like navigation and menus, have not been looked into as deeply [6]. As the availability of digitized data continues to grow, mobile interface navigation has become a vital method for designers and developers to direct and support users in accessing different materials and completing tasks [7,8]. Usability studies on interface navigation have focused on traditional feature phones. An ongoing usability issue emphasized in specified studies relates to menu disorientation, specifically among elderly individuals. The convoluted and detailed menu layouts commonly found in the latest gadgets are often cited as a significant difficulty for this particular group [9,10,11,12]. Moreover, when touchscreens came out, the mobile user’s interaction experience changed completely. It was much easier to find a way around after switching from hierarchical options to flat menus. Nevertheless, progress brought about new types of user problems in navigating mobile interfaces. Elderly individuals saw significant difficulties when faced with situations that required them to navigate complex menus, smoothly transition between different interfaces, switch functions, and return to previous screens. The discipline of usability research has yet to extensively investigate these particular challenges [3,13]. In addition, the swift development of user interfaces often introduces distinct design styles for displaying menus, organizing material, and applying interaction mechanisms. Various usability problems frequently hinder the frequent and diverse changes in design patterns for navigation. The intricate nature of this situation necessarily leads to an increased cognitive burden and more significant challenges for users, especially among older individuals, however, the complete magnitude is still unknown [14].

Conversely, it can be challenging for professionals and designers to find a balance between big-picture ideas and the specifics of user interface elements like text, images, and buttons [15,16]. Designers must adhere to these criteria, which have been derived from prior usability studies, with utmost accuracy. Applying these rules to various design scenarios is crucial to ensure that the designs smoothly blend into the intended usage environment and conform to the prevailing style guides in the mobile industry [17]. Therefore, numerous design patterns have continually been proposed and utilized in mobile interfaces to address specific issues in user interfaces. These include various features such as navigation patterns, forms, search functionality, sorting and filtering options, feedback, affordance elements, and support through help and tutorials [18]. However, there needs to be more well-established usability standards and recommendations for designing mobile interface patterns, especially regarding navigation patterns. As reported, mobile user interface research has only slightly focused on navigation patterns, including link navigation, content navigation, and menu navigation. Subsequently, more investigation needs to be conducted in areas such as information control, iconography, and input and selection patterns [19]. When faced with many design possibilities, it can be challenging for professionals and designers to understand each pattern’s unique qualities. This is especially true when determining which navigation pattern is most intuitive and user-friendly for older adults. Consequently, it is imperative to thoroughly grasp the navigational patterns and usability issues older persons encounter when utilizing mobile interfaces [16].

2. Review of Literature

The term ‘navigation’ has typically been extrapolated from the concept of navigating in geographical space within the field of Human–Computer Interaction (HCI). It entails grasping several meaningful chunks of information by taking into account their interrelationships: proximity, distance, connectedness, reachability, neighborhood, crossroads, and so on [8]. This study focuses on two crucial aspects of navigating mobile interfaces: menu and content navigation [19].

This section analyzes prior studies investigating the usability problems in navigating mobile interfaces from multiple perspectives. Furthermore, it examines possible variables that can influence navigation behavior.

2.1. Menu-Oriented Navigation

Utilizing menus is a prevalent approach for accessing information [7]. A well-designed menu is essential for delivering functionalities and presenting the information structures of websites or applications [20]. Previous research has examined numerous aspects of menu navigation, such as panel position, menu layout, item arrangement, menu patterns, and the effects of task complexity and human characteristics. For example, the arrangement of panels and menus was primarily studied in relation to desktop usage. According to earlier studies, a left panel layout or other suitable menu positions can be helpful. Researchers have mainly focused on studying panel placement and menu organization in the desktop environment. Prior research indicates that employing a left panel design as a menu location and strategically positioned intra-article navigation schemes can improve web navigation performance regarding recall and retention [21].

Furthermore, the menu arrangement is important [22]. Evidence suggests that a static vertical menu, which presents all menu items simultaneously, is more favorable than a dynamic menu, which requires additional steps to access other menu items each time. This is especially pertinent for people with reduced sensory and cognitive capacities [23,24]. As feature phones became more popular, the usability difficulties associated with menu architecture became more apparent. This was primarily because system navigation was hampered by limited screen space and increasing information. The cognitive decline associated with aging, including diminished memory, spatial ability, and perceptual capability, presents challenges for the elderly in understanding the spatial configuration of menu items and the hierarchy of functions, nodes, and information. As a result, these users frequently felt confused when confronted with complex menus and nested functions [10,12,25,26]. To enhance the navigational capabilities of older adults, it is advised to implement simple and flat menu architectures [25]. Providing text labels for icons and buttons can also help older persons remember functions, locations, and navigation paths [10,25,27,28,29]. Apple and Microsoft have provided detailed rules for navigating mobile interfaces, specifically focused on menu hierarchies, in response to the emergence of touchscreen-driven mobile technology. For example, the iOS guidelines for user interface design describe three types of navigation: flat navigation, which involves navigating between different pages or categories; content-driven or experience-driven navigation, which permits users to navigate through the content freely; and hierarchical navigation, which starts from a home page and involves moving through linked child pages one option at a time [30]. Microsoft utilizes similar navigation concepts, including flat and hierarchical navigation schemes [31,32]. Drill-down views are commonly employed in menu navigation, where the menu hierarchies are usually restricted to two levels [33]. Because of the widespread use of flat and large menu layouts, feature phones often have confusing hierarchical menus. This method helps alleviate confusion [3,34,35].

Nevertheless, touchscreen mobile devices introduced a range of menu patterns and design ideas, the efficacy of which has yet to be investigated. Preliminary research has examined these menu patterns among the younger adult population. To evaluate the differences in navigation ability and preferences between several 3D menu types such as the rotating stage, 3D carousel, and collapsible cylindrical tree. Kim and his colleagues (2011) conducted a study [36], where they contrasted these 3D menus with a 2D overview menu in a range of task complexity and menu width settings. However, most menu designs have not been thoroughly investigated, and their efficacy is uncertain, especially for older persons. The current standard for mobile user interface, menu navigation, and usability is still built on how things work on PCs and feature phones. More research is required to fully understand the problems and benefits of using a more comprehensive range of menu patterns in mobile interfaces [6,19].

2.2. Content-Oriented Navigation

In addition to menus, content is essential for creating hierarchy and attention, which helps users comprehend the underlying logic of mobile apps and websites [37]. An optimal content display pattern should be by users’ cognitive frameworks, assisting them in the selective extraction and cognitive processing of information [19]. For instance, older adults tend to use a linear method of visual exploration, which means elderly people follow a straight line when folders are on a desktop [38]. Furthermore, older people usually perform better in content-oriented searching instead of navigation-oriented searching. Elderly individuals, specifically, may encounter difficulties when it comes to navigating via hypertext and links in comparison to younger users. This can be due to the increased need for pre-existing technological knowledge and the pressures placed on decision-making, visual processing, and working memory [39]. As a result of their stable crystallized intellect and reading comprehension abilities, older adults continue to demonstrate commendable performance in content searching [40,41]. Several content display schemes have been proposed to improve the online navigation experience. Various list formats, such as cascade, thumbnail, and vertical lists, are available [16]. Nevertheless, the preliminary results of web browsing may present difficulties in multiple ways due to the limited screen size of mobile devices [6]. It is essential to investigate the efficacy of different content presentation patterns first. Previous research has looked at a few of the frequently used design patterns for mobile navigation. Osman, Ismail, and Wahab (2009) compared the fisheye and vertical lists among younger individuals to evaluate task efficiency, user happiness, and learnability. According to the results, the fisheye list exhibited superior performance in terms of comprehension and acceptability when compared to the vertical list. In contrast, the vertical list showed a faster execution time for tasks [42]. A study carried out by Yu and Kong in 2016 examined three different list pattern designs: progressive list design, list-view design, and thumbnail design. The study focused on evaluating these designs’ reading performance and subjective evaluations among younger adults. Their research found that the thumbnail design was the most effective method for locating target information [43]. In contrast, the progressive list design had the lowest performance in terms of both reading ability and subjective assessments. However, little research has investigated the usability concerns associated with material presentation patterns in older people. Furthermore, older people may encounter usability difficulties while interacting with various content presentation patterns; simple actions like flipping, scrolling, touching, and swiping can be difficult for older adults [44,45]. High motor skills and visual coordination between pressing the target and the display response are required for these interaction strategies [45]. Because of this, it can be difficult for older adults to discern between different types of movements, such as pinch, swipe, scroll, tap, double tap, or multi-press. Elderly people can have trouble telling when a button has been hit or figuring out how long to tap a target [44,46,47]. However, due to the increased complexity of mobile user interfaces, older individuals encounter challenges when attempting to distinguish between touch-sensitive and non-touch-sensitive areas [3,44].

2.3. Floating Action Button (FAB)

According to Google’s study, many users rely on the floating action button (FAB) for navigation when users face a new interface [6]. It is a strategy for designers to prioritize the most critical action they want the user to perform. Further studies have confirmed that the floating action button (FAB) favorably impacts user experience. A qualitative study involving 40 users found that users preferred the FAB over the traditional navigation component represented by the “+” button in the upper right corner of the screen. Those who performed tasks successfully utilizing the FAB found it more effective than the toolbar alternative [7]. However, previous studies suggest that the floating action button (FAB) solves the designer’s issues like the Hamburger Menu [48].

3. Methodology

The digital era changed the whole world. Every age group uses mobile technology as per their requirements. The presented study selected three applications for this research: YouTube, plex, and IMDb. There are 2.7 billion monthly active users of YouTube worldwide. YouTube is ranked second in the international ranking regarding social media apps [49]. According to the statistics, six million active users use the plex monthly [50]. IMDb was the 52 most visited websites on the internet as per 2019 statistics. According to the research, in 2022, 11.5 million used it monthly, and 83 million registered users on IMDb [51].

YouTube is a video-sharing platform that allows users to watch, like, share, comment on, and create their own videos. It is available on a variety of devices, including PCs, laptops, tablets, and smartphones. YouTube application is used by almost every person in the world. Users are facing a lot of issues regarding usability because on the website all the functionalities and actions are available on the screen and the user is much more comfortable as compared to the application. Many actions and functionalities are available but hidden from the home screen. Non-technical persons and older adults face many visibility issues on the interface, on the application a user cannot find the autoplay button and how to turn it off, quality preferences of any video are also not available, and the user cannot switch to kids YouTube. Like YouTube, the other applications, Plex and IMDb, also provide a less usable interface design for the user or older adults. The current user and new user may face many difficulties and struggle to understand the features of these applications. The learning curve makes it more difficult for the new users. It is common for users to face visibility issues on these types of applications like learning ability and ease of use. The unique characteristics of each forum, including its interface, features, and design choices, may cause users to experience differing degrees of frustration. It is possible that the available navigation options and menu arrangements are not always clear and easy to understand. Complex layouts might make it difficult for users to find specific features or settings. Autoplay, setting quality preferences, switching from one mode to another mode, and finding the categories can be hard for some users when the layout of the interface or the choices change or are updated regarding the navigation design. As these systems become better and updated, designers often add more complicated features that were not in their original scope. This can give rise to a perception of excessive complexity and inundate consumers, whether users are new or already familiar with the platforms. A total of 147 users, aged from 17 to 45 years participated in this study and belong to different fields, have different education backgrounds, and have at least 1-year experience using these applications. All the users use these applications on their cell phones and the screen size of every phone is different, ranging from 5.5 inches to 6.8 inches. As shown in

Table 1. Sample Data (Participant Details).

N	Educational Background	Age	Scree Size	Resolution
147	Under-graduate	17–21	5.5–6.8 inches	720p–1440p
	Bachelors	21–25
	Masters	25–28
	PhD	27–40

, all the participants participated voluntarily, and around 6% of the participants started but did not complete the study. During the study/survey, a team of volunteers assisted the authors in observing or assisting the participant in completing all the tasks assigned. Figure 1 illustrates the workflow of the research process in this study.

4. Survey Design

To obtain information from participants, the researcher included a System Usability Scale in the survey for these applications. In order to assess current patterns in navigation interface design, the researcher interviewed random users and conducted usability tests. The interview questions are given in

Table 2. Interview questions.

Sr#	Visual Design
1	How would you rate the overall visual design of the app? Do you find it visually appealing and easy to understand?
2	Are the colors, fonts, and layout in the app clear and helpful, or do they create any confusion?
Usability
3	How easy or difficult was it for you to use the app to complete the tasks?
4	Did you encounter any difficulties or frustrations when trying to use the app’s features?
Interaction
5	How smooth was your interaction with the app? Did the buttons, icons, and other interactive elements work as you expected?
6	Did the app respond to your actions in a way that made sense to you?
Navigation
7	Was it easy to find your way around the app? Could you quickly locate the features or sections you were looking for?
8	Did you ever feel lost or unsure of how to navigate to a specific section of the app?
Individual Experiences
9	How would you describe your personal experience using the app? Did it meet your expectations?
10	Did the app provide a user-friendly experience that catered to your specific needs and preferences?

. In various application contexts, the users were given 14 navigation tasks based on these patterns. Visual design, usability, interaction, navigation, and individual experiences were the foci of the follow-up interviews aimed at eliciting more nuanced insights into user experiences. It helps the researcher to fine-tune the design approach and pinpoint problem spots with the use of this helpful information.

5. Mobile Navigation Patterns

Using the three aforementioned applications, the users were asked to perform 14 tasks. The proposed research work tasks performed by the participant are given in

Table 3. Tasks performed by the participant.

Sr#	YouTube
1	Turn on\off the autoplay.
2	Set the video quality preference for any video.
3	Check your download in application.
4	Switch to kids YouTube from normal.
Plex
5	Set the video quality preference for any video.
6	Switch to Live TV.
7	Check category either movie or TV show.
8	Check your download in application.
9	Find and tap on camera roll for sharing.
IMDb
10	Turn on\off the autoplay.
11	Check videos that are free\paid.
12	Find and tap to subtitle and captions options.
13	Check storage and clear cache.
14	Check category for either movie or TV show.

. A total of 45 min was given to the participants to complete the tasks.

Interface Design

The comments and data collected can help designers make decisions when designers are making prototypes for mobile app navigation patterns. By carefully looking at poll results, designers can learn a lot about what users want and what problems they are having. This helps them make navigation patterns that are easier for people to use and understand. Ultimately, this method could make the application better for all users and make them happier.

The navigation design pattern of three selected applications is represented in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. Figure 2 illustrates a modification in the YouTube navigation design pattern. The design layout revision incorporates floating action buttons to enhance user interaction. Positioned at the bottom right of the interface, the floating action button streamlines user tasks, improving efficiency and reducing effort. Figure 3 depicts a redesign in the Plex navigation structure, characterized by the introduction of floating action buttons. These buttons, located at the bottom-right of the interface, have been shown to significantly improve task performance by reducing the physical and cognitive load on users, thereby increasing operational efficiency. As shown in Figure 4, the IMDb navigation layout has been updated with the inclusion of floating action buttons. These buttons, located in the bottom-right corner of the interface, enable users to perform actions more easily and with greater efficiency, minimizing effort in task execution.

6. Experiment Design

Initially, the participants were asked how often they used traditional navigation in apps. Then, to make it easier to navigate, the apps received new layouts and buttons. Every design style featured a floating action button or icons with names at the bottom. The front-end design was conducted using Figma, and the application was developed using Flutter [52]. Everyone took part by downloading the apps to their phones and playing around with them. The researcher used the System Usability Scale to obtain people’s opinions on how easy the navigation patterns were to use.

To understand how people use and interact with the navigation of the application three different studies are conducted in this research.

• Participants were asked about their experiences with current program navigation interfaces, and their ease of use was assessed using a measure known as the System Usability Scale (SUS). This method made it easier to understand the usability of the applications’ current navigational features.
• Improved navigation design prototypes of these applications were also evaluated by the same participants using the System Usability Scale.
• Study one and two were compared to evaluate the user preferences regarding navigation design patterns.

The aim of the proposed study is to provide an easy-to-understand, less complex, and easy-to-learn navigation behavior of the application that is smooth and user-friendly.

4.

The usability tests in the study were conducted with 147 participants across three applications, YouTube, Plex, and IMDb, evaluating both the existing and improved navigation patterns. Each participant was tasked with 14 usability tasks, ranging from turning on/off autoplay to navigating video quality settings and switching between different app modes. The total time allocated for each participant to complete the tasks on the three apps was 45 min. The tests were analyzed using the SUS and statistical paired t-tests, to compare user experiences with the existing versus the improved navigation designs. These analyses provided quantitative insights into various aspects such as ease of use, complexity, technical support needs, and user confidence, confirming that the improved designs significantly enhanced usability across the applications.

5.

To evaluate the improved navigation patterns, the authors first introduced new interface elements like floating action buttons (FABs) and simplified menu structures. Each participant was tasked with completing 14 specific navigation tasks on both the existing and newly designed interfaces. These tasks were selected to reflect common user actions, such as changing video quality settings, checking downloads, and switching between different modes within the applications. The improved navigation designs were then evaluated using the SUS to gather the participants’ feedback on the ease of use, learnability, and overall satisfaction. Statistical analysis, including paired t-tests, was employed to compare the usability results between the existing and improved navigation patterns, which allowed the authors to measure the effectiveness of the new designs in reducing complexity and improving user confidence.

6.

To avoid biasing the test participants, the authors likely followed a standard usability testing practice where the improved navigation was not explicitly labeled as “improved” or presented as “their version”. By performing so, they would have prevented participants from forming preconceived notions about the usability of either design. Instead, both the existing and improved navigation patterns were likely introduced in a neutral manner, ensuring that participants were unaware of the design’s origin or intention. This method would help eliminate any potential bias that might arise if participants believed they were expected to prefer the “improved” version. Moreover, the use of a standardized tool like the SUS to assess usability further minimizes bias, as participants focus on evaluating specific aspects of the user experience (ease of use, satisfaction, etc.) rather than subjective preferences. Additionally, alternating the order in which participants tested the designs could help control bias, ensuring that comparisons between the two versions were objective and based on genuine user interaction rather than preconceived expectations.

7. Interviews and Survey

Interviews were carried out with a group of users that were selected at random. Random sampling was utilized to guarantee that the selected users were a representative sample of the whole user population, making it a statistically sound approach for making inferences about a population. During these interviews, the participants were asked about their experiences with the application’s navigation patterns and their attitudes about them. With this qualitative method, the researcher was able to obtain more detailed feedback and ideas from the users. By using both surveys and interviews together, it is possible to obtain a full picture of what users wanted and what users thought about, how users navigated the apps in a better way. SPSS 26.0 was used to analyze and evaluate this quantitative data. The analysis and evaluation are based on three studies, Study-1 consists of Survey 1, which includes or calculates the user behavior regarding the originally designed navigation design pattern; Study-2 consists of improved navigation design patterns; and Study-3 compares Study-1 and Study-2. The study is used to compare the navigation design patterns of YouTube, Plex, and IMDb, and conclude which designed navigation design is better regarding usability.

• Current YouTube navigation design pattern = Y1, modified YouTube navigation design pattern = Y2
• Current Plex navigation design pattern = P1, modified Plex navigation design pattern = P2
• Current IMDb navigation design pattern = I1, modified IMDb navigation design pattern = I2

Study-1 used a paired t-test based on the System Usability Scale to examine how these applications are currently navigated. Furthermore, Study-1 revealed differences in how users navigate between YouTube and Plex, IMDb and Plex, and YouTube and Plex. The mean value of SUS is shown in

Table 4. Mean of SUS Study-1 (N = 147).

Q#	System Usability Scale (Statements)	YouTube		Plex		IMDb
1	Like to use the application navigation frequently.	2.9	1.11	2.97	1.18	2.84	1.22
2	The application navigation is unnecessarily complex.	3.15	1.10	3.20	1.15	3.36	1.14
3	The application is easy to use.	3.57	1.96	3.11	1.27	3.10	1.18
4	Need technical support to use the application navigation.	3.19	1.22	3.43	1.22	3.41	1.06
5	Various functions in this application navigation are well integrated.	3.80	0.94	3.72	1.00	3.79	0.92
6	Too much inconsistency in the application navigation.	3.16	1.12	3.46	1.13	3.39	1.11
7	Learn to use the application very quickly.	3.43	1.30	3.00	1.35	3.09	1.22
8	The application is very complicated to use.	2.73	1.34	3.17	1.31	3.19	1.14
9	Very confident using the application.	3.44	1.24	3.12	1.23	3.23	1.11
10	I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.	3.45	1.34	3.90	1.21	3.82	1.22

.

The user perceptions regarding different usability aspects across the three different applications selected for the study are shown in Table 1. The researcher considered different usability issues or aspects; according to the statistics, the participants rated YouTube in first place, IMDb in second place, and Plex in third place regarding frequent navigation use. IMDb is considered the more complex navigation and unnecessary, with the highest mean score; Plex stands second; and YouTube is third, with fewer points. Participants found that YouTube navigation is much easier than IMDb and Plex. Users think they require technical support mostly in Plex, followed by IMDb, and YouTube. YouTube is well integrated compared to IMDb, and IMDb is well integrated compared to Plex. The participants feel that across the three applications, Plex has more inconsistencies than IMDb, and IMDb has more than YouTube. The participant feedback reflects that the navigation of YouTube is easy to learn, and in this category, IMDb is in second place, and Plex is in third place. According to the mean score, the participant feels IMDb is more complicated than Plex and YouTube. The confidence level of the users is much higher while users are using YouTube than Plex, and IMDb received the third position. In terms of learning things, users think that Plex is the worst application, Plex is better, and YouTube is good because its navigation is easy to understand.

Figure 5 represents the comparison of selected applications regarding how frequently a user navigates the applications, and

Table 5. Paired t-test of frequent use of the application.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
1	YouTube vs. Plex	3.159	0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	4.408	<0.001
	Plex vs. IMDb	1.180	0.23

shows the significant difference between these applications. There is no significant difference with users using YouTube and Plex $(t=3.159, p=0.001)$; users feel the same while navigating on YouTube and Plex. In the second case, it is shown that the participants navigated YouTube more frequently than IMDb $(t=4.408, p<0.001)$. The third row of the table shows $(t=1.180, p=0.23)$ there is no significant difference between IMDb and Plex, but if the mean score is considered, both applications have little difference because Plex obtained 2.97 and IMDb obtained 2.84. According to the mean score, IMDb is better and provides a navigation design pattern that facilitates the user using it quickly. The data suggest that there are noticeable differences in navigation preferences among users of these three applications. YouTube users exhibit the most effective navigation, followed by Plex users, while Facebook users demonstrate less efficient navigation habits.

Table 6. Paired t-test of the application navigation is unnecessarily complex.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
2	YouTube vs. Plex	−0.446	0.656
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−1.720	0.0870
	Plex vs. IMDb	−1.274621	0.204

shows the complexity of the navigation design patterns, and the diagrammatical view represents the pictorial representation of these applications in Figure 6, which have unnecessarily complex navigation designs. As shown in Table 6, column 1, the user feels that YouTube has no significant difference $(t=-0.446, p=0.656)$ in the navigation design pattern unnecessarily compared to Plex. The second column shows that YouTube and IMDb $(t=-1.720, p=0.087)$ have the same situation. Users found that both have almost the same navigation design pattern that is unnecessarily complex. During the interaction of Plex and IMDb $(t=-1.274, p=0.204)$, users found the same things and behaviors. If the mean score of these three applications is observed, they show minor differences: YouTube is at 2.98, Plex is at 2.97, and IMDb is rated at 2.84. YouTube is much easier to use when compared to IMDb and Plex regarding navigation design patterns. According to user feedback, these three applications have complex navigation design patterns with minor differences, so there is a massive need for improvement in navigation design patterns.

Figure 7 shows how easy it is for the user to use these three applications. In

Table 7. Paired t-test of the application is easy to use.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
3	YouTube vs. Plex	4.362	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	4.200	<0.001
	Plex vs. IMDb	0.055	0.955

, according to the statistics that are generated using the paired t-test, YouTube navigation is easier to use compared to Plex, and it has a significant difference to IMDb $(t=4.362, p<0.001)$, which shows that YouTube is better and the user is comfortable using this type of navigation design pattern. The participant faced many hurdles during the interaction with IMDb, and their feedback shows that YouTube is easy to use and that there is a significant difference between IMDb $(t=-1.274, p<0.001)$ in terms of navigation design patterns. After using both applications, Plex and IMDb, the user feels that there is no significant difference between their navigation design patterns; they are almost the same. The pair t-test results show no significant difference between IMDb $(t=0.055, p=0.955)$ and PLex, but the mean score looks like both applications have very little difference, where Plex has a value of 3.11, and IMDb has a value of 3.10. According to the feedback on these three applications, YouTube exists in first place, IMDB is in second place, and Plex is in third place, but overall improvement is required to enhance the user’s comfort zone.

The graphical representations in Figure 8 show how much technical support is required to interact with the navigation design pattern of the selected applications. In

Table 8. Paired t-test of the need of technical support to use the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
4	YouTube vs. Plex	−1.862	0.064
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−1.720	0.087
	Plex vs. IMDb	0.111	0.911

, the first column indicates no significant difference between IMDb $\left(t=-1.862, p=0.064\right),$ YouTube and Plex in receiving user technical help. The researcher can say that both applications require technical support to function efficiently. The second column reflects the same thing, where both applications, YouTube and IMDb, have no significant difference $(t=-1.720, p=0.087)$. The last column also reflects the outcome in IMDb $(t=0.111, p=0.911)$, where both navigation design patterns used in Plex and IMDb have the same result. If the table of mean scores is examined, it shows that the selected applications have no significant difference, but the main score shows their existence from the user’s point of view. Plex is considered an application that requires the most technical support, so YouTube and IMDb are much better than both. It is concluded that, in light of the test that is conducted based on user feedback, these three applications need technical support and a vast need for improvement in navigation design patterns.

Figure 9 and

Table 9. Paired t-test of the functions in the application navigation are well integrated.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
5	YouTube vs. Plex	0.827	0.409
	YouTube vs. IMDb	0.130	0.896
	Plex vs. IMDb	−0.614	0.540

show the statistics about how many functions are well integrated into these applications regarding navigation design patterns. YouTube and Plex have very little significant difference, but it is not considerable $(t=-1.720, p=0.087)$. These differences need to be more for the participant to understand, which applications have well-integrated navigation design patterns. YouTube and IMDb have almost the same navigation design pattern, and the user feels the same integration of the functions on navigation design patterns in the last column of the table $(t=-1.720, p=0.087)$ and found no significant difference. Plex and IMDb statistics show no significant difference $(t=-1.720, p=0.087)$ in their navigation design patterns. All these results are based on paired t-tests, but the result of the mean score shows little difference between these applications; according to the table, the mean value of YouTube is 3.80, plex is 3.72, and IMDb is 3.79. Therefore, the application has good integrated functions. YouTube lies in first place, IMDB is in second place, and Plex is in third place. The results show that users find almost the same behavior in these applications. In order to increase user satisfaction and usability, these results highlight the need to make sure that different parts of an application work together smoothly.

Figure 10 shows the inconsistencies of the applications.

Table 10. Paired t-test of too much inconsistency in the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
6	YouTube vs. Plex	−2.912	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−2.108	<0.001
	Plex vs. IMDb	0.617	0.539

shows the numeric values of the paired t-test. The numeric values indicate that there is a significant difference$(t=-2.912, p<0.001)$ between these two applications, YouTube and Plex. Plex is considered as an application that has more inconsistencies in its navigation design pattern, while the respondents prefer YouTube due to fewer inconsistencies in its navigation design patterns. The contrast between YouTube and IMDb shows that IMDb has more inconsistencies in its navigation design pattern and found a significant difference $(t=-2.108, p<0.001)$, and YouTube has a better navigation pattern. When the researcher weighed up Plex vs. IMDb, the user’s feedback and the pair t-test result found no significant difference $(t=0.617, p=0.539)$ between the navigation design patterns. However, if the mean score of the feedback is considered, the participant feels that IMDb has fewer inconsistencies with a minor difference, in which the values are 3.46 and 3.39. Keeping in mind this question statement, it is inevitable that users face many challenges during the interaction of these applications, and the Plex navigation design pattern is the main reason. IMDb is considered in the second position, and YouTube has fewer navigation inconsistencies and lies in the third position.

The results of the study highlight the critical importance of upholding a consistent and user-friendly navigation system to enhance the overall user experience and application satisfaction.

The physical appearance of the diagram is shown in Figure 11 and

Table 11. Paired t-test of learning to use the application very quickly.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
7	YouTube vs. Plex	3.794	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	2.99	<0.001
	Plex vs. IMDb	−0.734	0.464

shows how quickly participants learn these applications. The first comparison is between YouTube and Plex; these statistics show a significant difference $(t=3.794, p<0.001)$ between YouTube and Plex. In contrast to Plex, YouTube has a navigation design pattern that is very quick to learn. The navigation design pattern of YouTube and IMDb also has a significant difference $(t=2.99, p<0.001)$, which shows that YouTube has an excellent and quick-learning navigation design pattern and IMDb is lagging. Plex and IMDb have no significant difference $(t=-0.734, p=0.464)$ according to the values of the table and the paired t-test. However, if researchers consider the mean value of these applications, it indicates that IMDb is a quick-learning application compared to Plex. The summary of the statistics concludes that the participants prefer YouTube, and IMDb and Plex are lagging. These results emphasize how important an app’s learnability is to enhancing usability and user satisfaction.

The degree of significance obtained by the paired t-test is shown in

Table 12. Paired t-test of the application is very complicated to use.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
8	YouTube vs. Plex	−3.205	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−3.528	<0.001
	Plex vs. IMDb	−0.165	0.869

and pictorial values are shown in Figure 12. The first result of the table reflects that YouTube is less complicated to use than Plex, and the number in the table shows a significant difference $(t=-3.205, p<0.001)$ between the applications. The navigation design pattern of Plex is more complicated than YouTube’s. The second comparison of Study-1 to the statement “complicated to use” proves that YouTube has a less complex navigation design pattern than IMDb. The table shows a significant difference $(t=-3.528, p<0.001)$. During the interaction between Plex and IMDb, participants felt that the navigation design patterns were similar in terms of complexity of use, and there was no significant difference $(t=-0.165, p=0.869)$. If Table 12 is considered, the mean score shows very little difference, only 0.02. The participant had many complications while using IMDb, Plex, and YouTube, which is much better. The complexity level of this navigation design pattern requires a better design that helps the users interact with the application quickly and efficiently. These results highlight the importance of maintaining navigation simplicity to increase usability and user efficiency.

The diagram against the results of the statement “the user feels confident using the application” is given in Figure 13, and the calculations of the paired t-test are shown in

Table 13. Paired t-test of very confident using the application.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
9	YouTube vs. Plex	2.987	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	2.194	<0.001
	Plex vs. IMDb	−1.033	0.303

. The user feels very confident in using YouTube. The statistical analysis shows a significant difference $(t=2.987, p<0.001)$ between YouTube and Plex. IMDb lost the participant confidence level during the interaction, and the paired t-test result proves that there is a significant difference $(t=2.194, p<0.001)$ during the use of these applications. The participant found that Plex and IMDb have no significant difference $(t=-1.033, p=0.303)$. The mean score of Plex and IMDb draws a small line between the navigation design pattern, with a difference of only 0.11, Plex obtained 3.12, and IMDb earned 3.23. According to the mean score, IMDb gives users more confidence than Plex. A comparison of the three apps revealed that YouTube is preferred, and IMDb and Plex are lagging. Ultimately, these discoveries emphasize the significance of creating apps that offer practicality and bolster users’ assurance in their ability to utilize the applications proficiently.

Figure 14 represents the degree of learnability before using these applications. The results of the paired t-test shown in

Table 14. Paired t-test of needed to learn a lot of things before the system could be used.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
10	YouTube vs. Plex	−3.545	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−2.912	<0.001
	Plex vs. IMDb	0.620	0.535

regard the user’s need to learn some things before interacting with these applications. The comparison of YouTube and Plex shows a significant difference $(t=-3.545, p<0.001)$ between these two applications. Plex requires new things from the user before using the application, and YouTube provides a much more convenient navigation design pattern for the user. YouTube and IMDb have a significant difference $(t=-2.912, p<0.001)$ in their navigation design pattern. YouTube is well known and has some elements that give the participant better interaction, but IMDb creates hurdles to using its navigation Design pattern. The test results show no significant difference $(t=0.620, p=0.535)$ between Plex and IMDb. However, when the mean score is considered, it shows little difference between them. IMDB obtained 3.82, and Plex obtained 3.90, meaning that IMDb is better than Plex. In conclusion, these results highlight the importance of making apps easy to use and understand. Improving user satisfaction and engagement might result from making learning more manageable.

The results of Study-2 are displayed after improvements were made to the navigation of the selected applications. Study-2 reveals differences in navigation design patterns when comparing YouTube with Plex, YouTube with IMDb, and Plex with IMDb. Paired t-tests are used to compare the navigation design patterns of these applications.

Table 15. (N = 147) Mean of SUS Study-2.

Q #	System Usability Scale (Statements)	YouTube		Plex		IMDb
1	I feel I am using this application frequently.	4.20	0.85	4.06	0.96	4.01	0.85
2	I felt that the navigation Design pattern of this application was unnecessarily complex.	2.40	1.05	2.37	1.04	2.62	1.10
3	I feel that this application is easy to use.	4.34	0.84	4.20	0.89	4.15	0.86
4	I found that I needed the support of a technical person during the interaction with this application.	2.47	1.17	2.47	1.16	2.64	1.16
5	I think that the integration of the function of this application is good.	3.41	1.11	3.81	1.19	3.85	1.20
6	I felt that the navigation design pattern of this application has too many inconsistencies.	2.56	1.12	2.62	1.13	2.76	1.11
7	I can predict that most people learn to navigate this application very quickly.	4.24	1.00	4.10	1.01	4.17	0.88
8	I think that the navigation of the application is poorly managed, which leads to complexity.	2.44	1.20	2.47	1.21	2.47	1.19
9	I felt that I was very confident in using this application.	4.43	0.76	4.28	0.84	4.26	0.81
10	I feel that I have to learn many things to interact with this application.	2.54	1.24	2.67	1.22	2.67	1.23

presents the mean score of the applications regarding navigation design patterns. The statistics show the mean score of usability in different aspects. YouTube performs better than Plex in frequently used navigation design patterns, and Plex performs better than IMDb. The navigation of YouTube is more precise than Plex. YouTube is easy to use, and after Plex, it defeats IMDb. IMDb requires more technical support to use this application; Plex and YouTube are almost on the same level. YouTube has a well-integrated navigation design pattern, and the functions of IMDb are also well-integrated; Plex represents some of its weaknesses. IMDb needs to perform consistently and show more consistency than Plex, and Plex is more inconsistent than YouTube. The navigation behavior of YouTube is rapid and efficient, and IMDb has a quicker learner behavior than Plex. IMDb and Plex have the same complication level, but YouTube provides more comfort zones for the user. The navigation of YouTube allows the user to perform their action more confidently than Plex and IMDb. The navigation design pattern of YouTube facilitates the user and provides a more friendly environment for users to learn new things. Plex is lagging, and IMDb is more challenging for the users.

The frequency of use of these apps is shown in Figure 15.

Table 16. Paired t-test of the frequent use of the application.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
1	YouTube vs. Plex	−4.302	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	0.434	0.632
	Plex vs. IMDb	−3.849	<0.001

shows the outcomes of paired sample t-tests on navigation patterns, and sheds light on the preferences and habits of users on these three major social media sites. The navigation patterns of YouTube users were significantly different from those of Plex users $(t=-4.302, p<0.001)$, indicating that the two platforms provide different user experiences. In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference between YouTube and IMDb users when comparing their navigation styles $(t=-0.434, p=0.663)$, suggesting that the two networks may have similar user bases. Unexpectedly, IMDb’s navigation patterns drastically differed from that of Plex $(t=-3.849, p<0.001)$, showing that even though the same corporation owns both platforms, users interact with them differently.

The representation in Figure 16 depicts the navigation of these applications, which is superfluous in its complexity. The findings from paired samples t-tests provide significant insights into the relationship between navigation patterns and the perception of superfluous complexity, as presented in

Table 17. Paired t-test of the application’s navigation is unnecessarily complex.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
2	YouTube vs. Plex	3.151	0.002
	YouTube vs. IMDb	0.554	0.579
	Plex vs. IMDb	3.214	0.002

. To begin with, a comparative analysis of YouTube and Plex revealed that users considered YouTube’s navigation considerably simpler $(t=3.151, p=0.002)$. This finding suggests that users perceive YouTube’s navigation as more accessible and less complicated than Plex’s. In contrast, the perceived complexity difference between IMDb and YouTube was not statistically significant $(t=0.554, p=0.579)$, indicating that users did not perceive a significant distinction between the two platforms regarding navigation complexity. Compared to IMDb, Plex’s navigation was considerably more complicated in users’ eyes $(t=3.214, p=0.002).$ These findings suggest that users of IMDb considered the navigation on Plex superfluous in complexity. Particularly when the users perceive navigation to be complicated or perplexing, these results highlight the criticality of a user-friendly navigation design, which can substantially affect user satisfaction and efficacy.

Figure 17 represents how easy it is to use the apps. In

Table 18. Paired t-test of the application is easy to use.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
3	YouTube vs. Plex	−2.795	0.006
	YouTube vs. IMDb	0.532	0.592
	Plex vs. IMDb	−3.555	<0.001

, paired samples t-tests examine the movement patterns and how easy is to use the application. The results are very interesting, firstly, the users noticed that when they compared YouTube and Plex, they found YouTube to be much easier to use $(t=-2.795, p=0.006)$. This means that the easy-to-use browsing on YouTube makes it a more enjoyable and simple experience to use than Plex. However, there was no statistically significant difference in how easy users thought YouTube and IMDb were to use $(t=0.532, p=0.592)$, which means that users did not notice a big difference in how easy these two apps were to use.

Plex, on the other hand, was much less user-friendly than IMDb $(t=-3.555, p<0.001)$. This means that IMDb users thought Plex’s navigation was less obvious and harder to use, which could affect user’s happiness and adoption. These results show how important it is to make sure that apps have easy-to-use navigation to improve overall usability and user happiness since this seems to be a key factor in how easy users think something is to use.

The graph in Figure 18 shows the technical help that is needed to use the apps.

Table 19. Paired t-test of the need for technical support to use the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
4	YouTube vs. Plex	2.800	0.006
	YouTube vs. IMDb	0.321	0.592
	Plex vs. IMDb	2.978	0.003

shows the outcomes of paired samples t-tests that show what kind of professional help is needed to use these apps. People who used YouTube said they needed much less technical help than those who used Plex $(t=2.800, p=0.006)$. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference between YouTube and IMDb regarding technical help $(t=0.321, p=0.747)$. Interestingly, users said they needed more technical help for Plex than IMDb $(t=2.978, p=0.003)$. According to this, IMDb may be easier to use and require less help, while Plex could use better help or guidance tools for users.

The diagram in Figure 19 depicts how users perceive effective function integration in apps. The paired samples t-test results in

Table 20. Paired t-test of the functions in this application navigation are well integrated.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
5	YouTube vs. Plex	−2.435	0.016
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−1.149	0.251
	Plex vs. IMDb	−1.707	0.090

shed light on users’ perceptions of effective function integration in these applications. Users gave YouTube a considerably higher rating for good function integration than Plex $(t=-2.435, p=0.016$). However, there was no statistically significant difference between YouTube and IMDb $(t=-1.149, p=0.251)$, suggesting that consumers thought integrating features in these two apps was about the same. Interestingly, respondents reported a similar amount of function integration when comparing IMDb to Plex $(t=-1.707, p=0.090)$. Based on these results, YouTube and IMDb have a smoother integration of features than Plex, which might use some work in this area to improve user experience.

Figure 20 shows a graph depicting how people feel about the application’s navigation being inconsistent.

Table 21. Paired t-test of too much inconsistency in the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
6	YouTube vs. Plex	3.71	<0.001
	YouTube vs. IMDb	0.902	0.368
	Plex vs. IMDb	2.852	0.005

displays the outcomes of paired sample t-tests, and sheds light on how users perceive irregularities in the program’s navigation. According to the results, users perceived YouTube’s navigation as more consistent, giving it a considerably lower rating for inconsistency $(t=3.671, p<0.001)$. There was no statistically significant difference between YouTube and IMDb when comparing the two apps $(t=0.902, p=0.368)$, the participants thought both applications were equally consistent in their navigation. It is worth noting that IMDb users reported a lower level of navigational consistency on IMDb compared to Plex users $(t=2.852, p=0.005)$. According to these results, Plex could do better for its users if it made its application navigation more consistent. Users also note that YouTube’s navigation is more consistent than competing apps.

Figure 21 shows a picture that illustrates how easily people may learn how to navigate the application. The findings of the paired samples t-tests are presented in

Table 22. Paired t-test of learning to use the application very quickly.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
7	YouTube vs. Plex	−2.012	0.046
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−1.780	0.077
	Plex vs. IMDb	−1.067	0.287

and contain the information that sheds light on the ease with which the application’s navigation can be learned. In a comparison between YouTube and Plex, respondents assessed YouTube as much easier to learn $(t=-2.012, p=0.046)$. This indicates that respondents viewed YouTube’s navigation system to be more user-friendly and simpler to understand overall. The comparison between YouTube and IMDb revealed a similar pattern, with YouTube being more accessible to learn than IMDb $(t=-1.780, p=0.077)$. However, this difference did not approach the level of statistical significance that would be considered significant.

On the other hand, when testing IMDb versus Plex, no significant difference was detected in terms of quick learnability $(t=-1.067, p=0.287)$, suggesting that users evaluated both applications as having a similar learning curve for navigation. Based on these findings, it appears that YouTube may have an advantage over Plex in terms of the user-friendliness of its navigation system and the ease with which it can learn. On the same level, IMDb is a platform that is somewhere in the middle of these two.

The navigation complexity of the applications is presented in Figure 22. The perceived complexity of the app’s navigation can be observed in

Table 23. Paired t-test of the application is very complicated to use.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
8	YouTube vs. Plex	2.865	0.005
	YouTube vs. IMDb	1.417	0.158
	Plex vs. IMDb	2.001	0.047

, which presents the outcomes of paired samples t-tests. According to the results, YouTube’s navigation system is much easier and less confusing than Plex’s $(t=2.865, p=0.005)$. Users also noted that YouTube is more user-friendly. Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived difficulty between YouTube and IMDb $(t=1.415, p=0.158)$, indicating that users considered the two apps to have equally complex navigation. Comparing IMDb and Plex showed that users found IMDb to be easier to browse $(t=2.001, p=0.047)$. These results suggest that IMDb is more user-friendly than Plex and that YouTube’s navigation mechanism is less confusing than IMDb and Plex combined. It shows that YouTube might have an advantage in this market because of its user-friendly interface.

Figure 23 shows a picture of how confident users are in their ability to use the apps. The paired group’s t-test results in

Table 24. Paired t-test of very confident using the application.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
9	YouTube vs. Plex	−1.989	0.049
	YouTube vs. IMDb	−1.403	0.162
	Plex vs. IMDb	−1.192	0.233

show users confidence in using these apps. People who used YouTube compared it to Plex said they were much more confident in using YouTube $(t=-1.989, p=0.049)$, which means users felt safer and more at ease using YouTube than Plex. However, there was no statistically significant difference in confidence between YouTube and IMDb $(t=-1.403, p=0.162)$, meaning that users were just as sure about using both apps. Users said they were more confident using IMDb than Plex $(t=-1.192, p=0.235)$, making it the clear winner in the comparison. Based on these results, it seems that YouTube gave users more confidence than Plex but that YouTube and IMDb gave users about the same amount of trust. People felt more confident using IMDb than Plex. However, individuals may feel more confident with a simple application.

Figure 24 shows a chart showing what users need to learn to use the apps. The results shown in

Table 25. Paired t-test of learning a lot of things before the system could be used.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
10	YouTube vs. Plex	1.959	0.052
	YouTube vs. IMDb	1.059	0.291
	Plex vs. IMDb	1.266	0.207

, from the paired sample t-tests, on the need to learn before using these apps are very interesting. When people compared YouTube to Plex, users seemed to need a little less training before they could use YouTube $(t=1.959, p=0.052)$. This means that users may think YouTube is easier to use and do not need as much training at first compared to Plex. There was not a statistically significant difference between YouTube and IMDb $(t=1.059, p=0.291)$, which means that users thought both apps were easy to learn. People who used IMDb said users needed a little less training before using it $(t=1.266, p=0.207)$ than people who used Plex. This made IMDb a preference. According to these results, YouTube may be slightly easier to learn than Plex for new users. However, there is not a big difference between YouTube and IMDb. The most popular opinion is that IMDb is the easiest to use, needing less training before starting to use than Plex.

The final study conducted was a comparison of Study-1 and Study-2. A paired t-test is used to evaluate the navigation design patterns of existing applications and improve navigation design patterns regarding the system visibility scale. The differences between these navigation design patterns are noticeable.

The comparison of the existing navigation design pattern of YouTube and the improved navigation pattern of YouTube is represented in Figure 25, and the pair t-test is used to calculate between them and the results are shown in

Table 26. Paired t-test of the use of the application navigation frequently and the application navigation is unnecessarily complex.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
1	Y1 vs. Y2	−7.152	<0.001
2	Y1 vs. Y2	5.517	<0.001

. The participants prefer the improved navigation design pattern compared to the existing applications, showing a significant difference $(t=-7.152, p<0.001)$ between them regarding the frequent use of applications. According to the participant, an existing application could be more complex than an improved one. The significant difference $(t=5.517, p<0.001)$ between these two applications has also proved to be considerable.

Figure 26 represents how easy it is to navigate this application and shows which application needs how much support from a technical person to navigate it and the paired t-test results are shown in

Table 27. Paired t-test of the application is easy to use and the need of technical support to use the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
3	Y1 vs. Y2	−5.802	<0.001
4	Y1 vs. Y2	5.196	<0.001

. YouTube’s improved navigation design pattern is better than its existing navigation design pattern. There is a significant difference $(t=-5.802, p<0.001)$ between these two navigation design patterns. The improved navigation design pattern required less technical support to navigate on this application. The results of the paired t-test show a significant difference $(t=5.196, p<0.001)$ between these two navigation design patterns. Users prefer the improved navigation design patterns.

Figure 27 illustrates the integration of various functions into the navigation design pattern, and also presents the inconsistencies between both navigation design patterns. The statistics in

Table 28. Paired t-test of the functions in the application navigation are well integrated and too much inconsistency in the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
5	Y1 vs. Y2	3.182	0.002
6	Y1 vs. Y2	4.234	<0.001

show that there is a significant difference $(t=3.182, p=0.002)$, but it is not considerable regarding the integration of the functions. The improved navigation design pattern consists of fewer inconsistencies and provides the user with more space to use the navigation design pattern comfortably. There is a significant difference $(t=4.234, p<0.001)$ between these two navigation design patterns in terms of the inconsistency of the application navigation design pattern. The existing application navigation design pattern consists of many inconsistencies which are faced by the user during navigating the existing navigation design.

Figure 28 shows the learnability of the navigation design pattern of the existing application and the improved application, and also presents how complicated the application is to use; both representations reflect the participant’s behavior and preferences. Paired t-test results are shown in

Table 29. Paired t-test of learning to use the application very quickly and the application is very complicated to use.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
7	Y1 vs. Y2	−5.693	<0.001
8	Y1 vs. Y2	1.735	0.085

. The users rated the learnability of the improved navigation design pattern with a high star. The paired t-test also shows the significant difference $(t=-5.693, p<0.001)$ between existing and improved navigation design patterns. The test results show the preferences of the participants. The navigation design patterns have very little difference in complexity. According to the paired t-test, there is a significant difference $(t=1.735, p=0.085)$, but it is not pronounceable. However, the user feels the improved navigation design pattern is better than the existing one.

The confidence of both navigation design patterns existing and new ones is presented in Figure 29. It also shows that the participant learns new things before interacting with the system.

Table 30. Paired t-test of very confident using the application and the need to learn a lot of things before the system could be used.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
9	Y1 vs. Y2	−7.627	<0.001
10	Y1 vs. Y2	5.657	<0.001

shows the result of the paired t-test. Users feel more confident while interacting with the newly designed navigation design pattern, and there is a significant difference $(t=-7.627, p<0.001)$ between them. Users need to learn many things before interacting with the existing navigation of the application. However, the improved navigation design pattern requires less effort from the users and provides them with a good understanding of the navigation design pattern and there is a significant difference $(t=-5.657, p<0.001)$.

Figure 30 illustrates how easily and frequently users can navigate an application and how much it is unnecessarily complex.

Table 31. Paired t-test of the use of the application navigation frequently and the application navigation is unnecessarily complex.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
1	P1 vs. P2	−8.440	<0.001
2	P1 vs. P2	6.085	<0.001

shows the results of the paired t-test. The table’s first result shows a significant difference $(t=-8.440, p<0.001)$ between existing and improved navigation design patterns regarding frequent use of the applications. Most of the participants frequently navigate on newly designed navigation. The second result of the table presents that the newly designed navigation is less complex, and the existing application is unnecessarily complex. A significant difference $(t=6.085, p<0.001)$ between these two navigation design patterns is proved by paired t-test.

The reflection of the user’s comfort, ease, and need for technical support to navigate the application is shown in Figure 31. The significance of the navigation design pattern is given in

Table 32. Paired t-test of the application is easy to use and the need for technical support to use the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
3	P1 vs. P2	−7.475	<0.001
4	P1 vs. P2	6.397	<0.001

. This feedback from the user and paired t-test result shows that there is a significant difference $(t=-7.475, p<0.001)$ between these navigations regarding ease of use. The existing navigation of Plex needs more technical support and technical persons to navigate the application. The results show that there is a significant difference $(t=6.397, p<0.001)$ between these two navigations. Users feel that the existing navigation design pattern requires more technical support.

The integration of the various functions and inconsistency of the navigation is represented in Figure 32. The application’s newly designed navigation is well integrated compared to the existing navigation.

Table 33. Bar chart of the functions in this application navigation are well integrated and too much inconsistency in the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
5	P1 vs. P2	3.704	<0.001
6	P1 vs. P2	5.658	<0.001

shows a significant difference $(t=3.704, p<0.001)$ between the newly designed navigation, which is much better and well-integrated for the user’s understanding. The inconsistency of the existing application is more than the newly designed navigation. A paired t-test shows the significant difference $(t=5.658, p<0.001)$ between these two navigations and shows that the participant appreciates the consistency of the newly designed navigation in Table 33.

The learnability and complexity of the navigation are illustrated in Figure 33. The paired t-test results are shown in

Table 34. Paired t-test of learning to use the application very quickly and the application is very complicated to use.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
7	P1 vs. P2	−7.620	<0.001
8	P1 vs. P2	4.182	<0.001

. The results indicate that the learner ability curve of newly designed applications is high compared to existing navigation, and there is a significant difference $(t=-7.620, p<0.001)$ between them. The existing application’s complexity is more elevated than the newly designed navigation. User fields that newly designed navigation are very quick to learn and less complex than the existing ones. The paired t-test found a significant difference $(t=4.182, p<0.001)$ between them.

Figure 34 presents the user’s confidence level and shows the things required to learn before interacting with the system.

Table 35. Paired t-test of very confident using the application and the need to learn a lot of things before the system could be used.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
9	P1 vs. P2	−8.449	<0.001
10	P1 vs. P2	8.630	<0.001

shows the significant difference between the two navigation design patterns. The participant behavior reflects that the newly designed navigation gives them more confidence than the existing navigation, and the table results provide a significant difference $(t=-8449, p<0.001)$ between them. The current navigation design is more complex, and the users must learn many things before entering the system. Also, a significant difference $(t=8.630, p<0.001)$ exists. This means that the users found that the newly designed navigation gives the user confidence and less effort to use the applications.

Table 36. Paired t-test of the use of the application navigation frequently and the application navigation is unnecessarily complex.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
1	I1 vs. I2	−8.851	<0.001
2	I1 vs. I2	5.251	<0.001

shows the significant differences between these two navigation design patterns. The frequent use of the application and the unnecessary complexity of the application are illustrated in Figure 35. The frequent use of the navigation design pattern of the newly designed navigation is noted and also proved using the paired t-test. A significant difference $(t=-8.851, p<0.001)$ between these two navigation design patterns is represented in Table 36, row 1. The second row shows that the existing navigation design pattern of IMDb needs to be simplified, and there is a significant difference $(t=5.251, p<0.001)$ between these two navigation design patterns. The newly designed navigation design pattern provides the frequent and more understandable use of navigation design.

Figure 36 shows the application’s ease of use and presents the technical support that the participants need during the interaction with these navigations. The results of the paired t-test are shown in

Table 37. Paired t-test of application is easy to use and the need for technical support to use the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
3	I1 vs. I2	−8.054	<0.001
4	I1 vs. I2	5.706	<0.001

. It is found that there is a significant difference $(t=-8.054, p<0.001)$ between the newly designed navigation and the existing one regarding ease of use. The user found that the newly developed application is easier to use than the current one. The participant behavior reflects that participants need less technical support to use this navigation design pattern than the existing one. The paired t-test result shows that there is a significant difference $(t=5.706, p<0.001)$ between them. The results conclude that the newly designed navigation of the application is easy to use and requires less technical support to navigate.

The integration of various functions and inconsistencies in the application’s navigations are represented in Figure 37.

Table 38. Paired t-test of the functions in this application navigation are well integrated and too much inconsistency in the application navigation.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
5	I1 vs. I2	3.521	<0.001
6	I1 vs. I2	4.463	<0.001

shows the results of the paired t-test. The participants responded that the integration of the various functions is good in the newly designed navigation compared to the existing one, and a significant difference $(t=3.521, p<0.001)$ was found in the paired t-test. The current navigation design pattern consists of many things that need to be corrected for the users. A significant difference $(t=4.463, p<0.001)$ is found between new and old navigation designs. The newly designed navigation design pattern is more concise and according to the user’s expectations.

The quick learner ability and complexity of both navigation design patterns are presented in Figure 38. The significant differences between navigation design patterns are also presented in

Table 39. Paired t-test of learning to use the application very quickly and the application is very complicated to use.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
7	I1 vs. I2	−8.132	<0.001
8	I1 vs. I2	4.781	<0.001

. The quick learnability graph of both navigation design patterns shows the difference between them, and the paired t-test proves a significant difference $(t=-8.132, p<0.001)$ between them. Users can learn the newly designed application very quickly and efficiently. The complexity of the existing navigation design pattern is higher than that of the newly designed navigation. The current navigation design pattern provides some less understanding to the users. The pair t-test results reflect the same thing and found a significant difference $(t=4.781, p<0.001)$. It is found that the newly designed navigation is very quick to learn and less complex.

Figure 39 shows the confidence level and how much things need to be learned before interacting with the system. The tabular representation represents the pair t-test result in

Table 40. Paired t-test of very confident using the application and the need to learn a lot of things before the system could be used.

Q #	Navigation Design Pattern	t	Significance (Two-Sided p)
9	I1 vs. I2	−8.448	<0.001
10	I1 vs. I2	7.294	<0.001

. The participants were very confident while navigating the newly designed navigation and preferred it to the old one. The pair t-test results show a significant difference $(t=-8.448, p<0.001)$ between them. According to the participant feedback, the existing navigation design pattern of the application required more things from the users to learn. The newly designed navigation requires less effort from the users, and paired t-tests found a significant difference $(t=7.294, p<0.001)$ between them. The newly designed system gives the user more confidence and requires fewer things to learn before the interaction.

8. Discussion

A system usability scale was used to evaluate the user feedback, and a paired t-test was used for statistical analysis. The existing and improved navigation design patterns consider the different usability aspects like ease of use, user efficiency, system complexity, understanding issues, etc. Three different studies were conducted. Study one consists of three applications with existing navigation design patterns: YouTube, Plex, and IMDb. The same user used all these three applications at different times. The participants were using these applications on their smartphones.

In study one, according to the system usability scale, YouTube and Plex are easier to use than IMDb. IMDb is unnecessarily more complex than Plex, and Plex is more complicated than YouTube. YouTube’s navigation design pattern is easier to use than Plex, but Plex is better than IMDb. Plex requires more technical support to use its navigation than IMDb and YouTube, which require less technical support. YouTube has a good integration navigation design pattern compared to Plex and IMDb, and IMDB has the most minor integration of the functions. The navigation Design pattern of Plex needs to be more consistent, and IMDb and YouTube are lagging. The navigation design pattern of YouTube is easy to learn and understand. Users can learn it quickly and efficiently. Plex is more challenging as compared to IMDb. IMDb’s navigation design pattern is considered more complicated than Plex, and YouTube’s navigation is easier than Plex. The navigation design pattern of Plex is more complex and challenging for the user. According to the statistics, the user requires more things to learn before using the system. IMDb’s navigation lies on the second number, and YouTube is on the third number regarding learning new things before interacting with the system.

Improved navigation design patterns were used in Study-2 to compute the user behavior and usability issues regarding these applications. The improved navigation design pattern consists of a floating button and a bottom navigation design pattern that helps the user interact with the system more efficiently. Paired t-test is used to calculate the significant difference between these three applications. The navigation design pattern of YouTube is highly appreciated by the user because it is frequently used. IMDb is a little complicated, and Plex is more challenging for the participants. The complexity curve shows that YouTube and IMDb navigation is almost the same; users can understand it more easily than existing navigation, but users highly appreciate Plex’s navigation design pattern in terms of complexity. The participants feel that the Plex navigation is easy to use as compared to YouTube and IMDb, but it lags behind the two other applications. The need for a technical person to use this application is mostly required to use YouTube, IMDb, and Plex. Plex is easy to understand and provides users with good interaction. Integrating the navigation function is preferable in YouTube to Plex, and Plex more than IMDb. The newly designed navigation of YouTube consists of fewer inconsistencies other than two applications, Plex and IMDb. IMDb has more inconsistencies as compared to Plex. According to the participant’s predictions, the learning curve of YouTube is higher than that of Plex, and Plex’s curve is more elevated than IMDb’s. According to the statistics, users think that the navigation of YouTube is managed well, and it can be better than Plex and IMDb. IMDb is considered the most poorly managed navigation Design pattern that still leads to complexity. Users feel more confident while using YouTube navigation and then show their trust in Plex and IMDb. The participants feel that they need to learn fewer new things than Plex, and Plex requires less effort from the user to use than IMDb.

Study-3 compares the existing navigation design patterns and the newly designed navigation design patterns. It is concluded that the newly designed navigation design pattern has participant usability and increases their efficiency in completing their task. On the existing navigation design pattern, users face many usability challenges while interacting with these applications, but the improved navigation design pattern is more efficient, enhances usability, and overcomes the challenges that the users face.

The study exhibits several strengths that enhance its credibility and relevance in the field of mobile usability. Firstly, it employs a comprehensive evaluation approach by combining quantitative measures, such as the SUS, with qualitative feedback from participants, providing a well-rounded understanding of user experiences. Additionally, the inclusion of a diverse participant pool, representing various educational backgrounds and age groups, allows for a broader perspective on usability challenges. The focus on widely used applications like YouTube, Plex, and IMDb ensures that the findings are applicable to real-world scenarios, addressing prevalent navigation issues. Furthermore, the study effectively identifies specific usability problems and proposes actionable design improvements, such as enhanced navigation patterns, which demonstrate the potential for tangible benefits in user experience. Overall, the thorough documentation of user interactions and a user-centered approach solidifies the study’s impact on improving mobile application design.

While the SUS is a valuable and reliable tool for evaluating usability, it may not fully capture the complexity of user experience, especially regarding emotional and contextual factors.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged to provide a balanced perspective on its findings. One key limitation is the potential for selection bias, as the participant pool may not fully represent the broader population of mobile users, which could affect the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the study focuses exclusively on three applications, YouTube, Plex, and IMDb, limiting the scope of usability insights and potentially overlooking navigation issues prevalent in other platforms. Furthermore, while the study captures various usability issues, it may not delve deeply into the underlying cognitive processes that affect user interactions, which could provide more context for the observed behaviors. By recognizing these limitations, future research can build upon the study’s findings and address these gaps for a more comprehensive understanding of mobile usability.

9. Future Work

Three applications were used, and 147 participants participated in this experiment. The number of participants can be increased, and different applications can be used, all three applications have the same category, “online video library”. Different types of applications involving various types of users from different cultures can be helpful to reduce the usability of mobile applications in the future. The same experiment may help enhance the usability of websites.