A COMPARATIVE USABILITY STUDY OF STANDARD AND ACCESSIBILITY-OPTIMIZED MOBILE E-COMMERCE INTERFACES FOR ELDERLY USERS IN INDIA
Purpose
This study examines how an accessibility-optimised mobile interface (larger fonts, bigger targets, and simpler navigation) affects usability for Indian smartphone users aged 60+.
Design/methodology/approach
In a within-subject experiment, participants performed tasks (finding a product, filtering, and checking out) on each interface. We recorded completion rates, errors, time-on-task, and System Usability Scale (SUS) scores. Data were analysed with paired t-tests (Wilcoxon tests if needed), using Cohen’s d and Cronbach’s alpha.
Findings
The accessibility-optimized interface received significantly higher usability satisfaction scores than the standard interface (M = 43.33 vs. 31.33; t(29) = 5.860, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.070), with improvements across all 10 SUS items. Task-based measures similarly favoured the optimized design.
Research limitations/implications
The lab setting and participant group may limit generalisability; future work should test these interventions in diverse, real-world contexts. The within-subject design provides strong evidence of interface effects.
Mohapatra, A., Chandel, K. & Kochuveetil, P. C. (2026). A Comparative Usability Study of Standard and Accessibility-Optimized Mobile E-Commerce Interfaces for Elderly users in India. International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, 02(05). https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i5.074
Mohapatra, Anousha, et al.. "A Comparative Usability Study of Standard and Accessibility-Optimized Mobile E-Commerce Interfaces for Elderly users in India." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, vol. 02, no. 05, 2026, pp. . doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i5.074.
Mohapatra, Anousha,Khushi Chandel, and Prashanth Kochuveetil. "A Comparative Usability Study of Standard and Accessibility-Optimized Mobile E-Commerce Interfaces for Elderly users in India." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology 02, no. 05 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i5.074.
2.BarrierBreak. (2025). Digital accessibility report: India.
3.Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, I. L. McClelland, & B. Weerdmeester (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.
4.Clark, C., & Kimmons, R. (n.d.). Cognitive load theory. In EdTech Books Encyclopedia.
5.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
6.Kumar, R. (2005). Usability engineering. In Human computer interaction. Laxmi Publications.
7.Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2009). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
8.HelpAge India. (2025). Understanding intergenerational dynamics and perceptions on ageing.
9.Johnson, J. (2014). Designing with the mind in mind: Simple guide to understanding user interface design guidelines (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
10.Lewis, J. R. (2018). Measuring perceived usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(12), 1148–1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1418805