Science behind user friendliness of agricultural mobile apps: A study on readability
Abstract views: 279 / PDF downloads: 126
https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i1.120831
Keywords:
Agriculture, Comprehension, Gunning Fog Index, Mobile apps, ReadabilityAbstract
With the virtual world buzzing with heavy information load, it is often confusing for 21st century users to decide which information is needful for them. The information givers in order to attract audience, views and make profit margins dump irrelevant information. As a results, users often end up receiving wrong information or even misinterpreting or not comprehending the information. Agriculture sector has not remained untouched by this heavy inflow of information through ICT. The need for right information at right time and at right place is of prime importance in this sector for better and quick decision making by different stakeholders. The introduction of ICT in agriculture in form of mobile phones resulted in shrinking the information gap. The present study was carried out in Pantnagar, Uttarakhand in 2019 to analyse the readability scores of three different mobile apps, viz. Plantix, Kisan Suvidha and Apni Kheti launched by three different organizations and compare them. The results reveal that overall readability score of agricultural apps calculated using Gunning Fog Index is 10.77. The individual average GFI scores of Plantix, Kisan Suvidha and Apni Kheti are 11.27, 11.16 and 9.88, respectively, indicating moderate difficulty level when we take into consideration the end users reading level, who are mostly farmers in this case. The ultimate aim of launching mobile apps in agriculture will be fulfilled directly or indirectly if we take into consideration the readability of the apps along with focusing on user’s reading level.Downloads
References
Bahadori S, Wainwright W T and Ahmed H O. 2019. Readability of Information on Smartphone Apps for Total Hip Replacement and Total Knee Replacement Surgery Patients. Journal of Patient Experience 7(3): 395–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373519844266
Dale E and Chall J. 1949. The Concept of Readability. Elementary English 26 (1): 19–26.
Gunning R. 1952. The Technique of Clear Writing, pp 36–37, McGraw-Hill, New york, USA.
Hammes B, Hustings Y E and Primdahl J. 2016. Readability of patient information and consent documents in rheumatological studies. BMC Medical Ethics 17(42) https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12910-016-0126-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0126-0
Hargis G. 2000. Readability and computer documentation. Association for Computing Machinery Journal of Computer Documentation 24(3): 122–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344634
Lee S and French N. 2011. The readability of academic papers in the Journal of Property Investment & Finance. Journal of Property Investment & Finance 29(6): 693–704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/14635781111171814
Partow P and Ardekani M B. 1991. Measuring readability of management information system Journals. Journal of Information Technology Management 1(2).
Plavén-Sigray P, Matheson G J, Schiffler B C and Thompson W H. 2017. The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife 6: e27725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725
World Bank. 2012. Mobile applications for agriculture and rural development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of the articles published in The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences is vested with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which reserves the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad, for reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information. The Council has no objection to using the material, provided the information is not being utilized for commercial purposes and wherever the information is being used, proper credit is given to ICAR.