WAP Usability

WAP's greatest crime seems to be that it is not the Web in miniature. Those expecting a small screen version of the web browsers they are used to are bound to be disappointed. From a usability perspective, that means WAP applications must be as efficient as possible, and must start from the ground up, with a detailed understanding of real user needs emerging from careful requirement gathering programmes.

WAP technology, which brings text-based online services to the mobile phone, is already causing considerable excitement in European markets. With the focus on 'the mobile Internet' and 'm-commerce', WAP is already being touted as central to the future of 'online' business. Perhaps as a reaction to the hype, some commentators (among them usability 'guru' Jakob Nielsen) are already lining up to burst the WAP bubble.

Although the criticism varies from individual to individual, it can roughly be divided into three streams:

• The current WAP interface (and screen size) is unsuitable for the applications currently being touted by service providers
• The tasks WAP is used for would be more simply completed by simply using the phone already in the hand
• WAP systems are currently unreliable and thus disappoint WAP users

The latter two of these points are likely to be less relevant in the long term - almost any new technology will have its teething troubles, especially one as quickly adopted as WAP. Although I have witnessed friends attempt to find film screening times using WAP, only to give up and ring the cinema, this seemed to be more related to the quality of the systems and reliability of the service providers rather than any intrinsic difficulty with the interface.

It is the first point that is most interesting from a usability point of view. Reading between the lines, WAP's greatest crime seems to be that it is not the Web in miniature. Those expecting a small screen version of the web browsers they are used to are bound to be disappointed. But it would be a mistake to judge WAP based on what experts in the field expect it to achieve. All the signs are that real world users are more than happy with the services that can be provided by WAP technology.

Evaluating the potential of WAP means taking time to think about those audiences and tasks that are currently poorly served by the telecommunications market:

• A mountaineer wanting instant access to weather reports certainly cannot be expected to pull out a laptop and would probably prefer written reports to a phone message. The same principle applies to anyone looking for relevant news on the move.
• Anyone away from their desk or home who wants to make a simple transaction, such as transferring money between bank accounts or gambling online, would be better served through WAP than attempting to ring a (typically unresponsive) call-centre.
• A sports fan out for the evening would find WAP by far the easiest way to find a specific result. Similarly, anyone looking for 'concentrated' information, such as share prices or TV schedules, would find WAP ideal.

Given that, in Europe at least, the mobile phone is approaching ubiquity, it seems hard to believe that these benefits will not encourage significant take-up of WAP services.

Perhaps the most common mistake that the prophets of WAP's doom make is assuming that WAP is attempting to be an extension of the Web, when it should perhaps be more accurately viewed as an extension of traditional phone services such as the 'speaking clock'. Users are unlikely to 'surf' on WAP, nor are they as likely to make purchasing decisions, other than those that are solely information based. They will be more task-oriented than ever before.

From a usability perspective, that means WAP applicationsmust be as efficient as possible, and must start from the ground up, with a detailed understanding of real user needs emerging from careful requirement gathering programmes. WAP success stories will concentrate on meeting these requirements rather than attempting to cram the Web into a one-inch square screen.