A comparison of visual and textual city portal designs on desktop and mobile interfaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cities have recently begun to focus on how digital technology can better inform and engage people through an online presence containing web portals for desktop computers and mobile devices. Yet we do not know whether common user interface design strategies apply to government portal design given their vast repositories of information for citizens of varying ages. This mixed-methods study compares the usability of desktop and mobile interfaces for two types of city portals, textual and visual, using the System Usability Scale, a standardized usability questionnaire. Using a set of twelve tasks, we evaluated three usability aspects of two city portals: effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Our results suggest there was a main effect between textual and visual designs, with users rating the textual design on a mobile device higher than a visual design. From this, we suggest that responsive design may not be the best fit when designing city portals to be experienced for use on desktop and mobile devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it