A Comparative Analysis of Graphical and Voice User Interfaces in Human-Computer Interaction

References

[1] T. Kosch, J. Karolus, J. Zagermann, H. Reiterer, A. Schmidt, and P. W. Woźniak, “A survey on measuring cognitive workload in human-computer interaction,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 13, pp. 1-39, 2023.

[2] M. Chromik and A. Butz, “Human-XAI interaction: A review and design principles for explanation user interfaces,” in Proc. IFIP Conf. Human-Computer Interaction, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021, pp. 619-640.

[3] A. Singh, “Human-computer interaction: A review of usability, design, and accessibility trends,” Global Research Repo, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 362-387, 2025.

[4] J. Wang, Z. Xu, X. Wang, and J. Lu, “A comparative research on usability and user experience of user interface design software,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1-10, 2022.

[5] F. Milani, J. Zhang, and K. Hu, “The rise of conversational interfaces: Usability and adoption challenges,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 137, Art. no. 107421, 2022.

[6] B. Paneru, B. Paneru, R. Poudyal, and K. B. Shah, “Exploring the nexus of user interface and user experience in the context of emerging trends and artificial intelligence,” International Journal of Informatics, Information System and Computer Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 102-113, 2024.

[7] A. M. Klein, K. Kölln, J. Deutschländer, and M. Rauschenberger, “Design and evaluation of voice user interfaces: What should one consider?” in Proc. Int. Conf. Human–Computer Interaction, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2023, pp. 167-190.

[8] R. Jha, M. F. H. Fahim, M. A. M. Hassan, C. Rai, M. M. Islam, and R. K. Sah, “Analyzing the effectiveness of voice-based user interfaces in enhancing accessibility in human–computer interaction,” in Proc. IEEE 13th Int. Conf. Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), Apr. 2024, pp. 777-781.

[9] S. Ranade, A. Soni, and R. Patel, “Error resilience and contextual adaptation in speech-based systems,” Journal of Human-Technology Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 89–-02, 2024.

[10] A. Darejeh, N. Marcusa, G. Mohammadi, and J. Sweller, “A critical analysis of cognitive load measurement methods for evaluating the usability of different types of interfaces: Guidelines and framework for human-computer interaction,” arXiv:2402.11820, 2024.

[11] A. Blackwell, “Comparative interaction paradigms: Evaluating multimodal affordances in modern HCI,” Human–Computer Studies Review, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 44-59, 2024.

[12] K. Buchta, P. Wójcik, M. Pelc, A. Górowska, D. Mota, K. Boichenko, and M. Igras-Cybulska, “NUX IVE: A research tool for comparing voice user interface and graphical user interface in VR,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), Mar. 2022, pp. 982-983.

[13] M. Aladwan, “Exploring accessibility challenges in digital interfaces: A usability perspective,” Journal of Interactive Systems Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 65-78, 2021.

[14] B. Shneiderman, C. Plaisant, M. Cohen, S. Jacobs, N. Elmqvist, and N. Diakopoulos, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 6th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson, 2016.

[15] Y. Liu, C. B. Sivaparthipan, and A. Shankar, “Human-computer interaction based visual feedback system for augmentative and alternative communication,” International Journal of Speech Technology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 305-314, 2022.

[16] S. Rijo-García, E. Segredo, and C. León, “Computational thinking and user interfaces: A systematic review,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 647-656, 2022.

[17] A. A. Alnuaim, M. Zakariah, P. K. Shukla, A. Alhadlaq, W. A. Hatamleh, H. Tarazi, and R. Ratna, “Human-computer interaction for recognizing speech emotions using multilayer perceptron classifier,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 2022, Art. no. 6005446, 2022.

[18] A. Dix, J. Finlay, G. D. Abowd, and R. Beale, Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd ed. Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education, 2004.

[19] J. Preece, Y. Rogers, and H. Sharp, Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2015.

[20] J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2012.

[21] M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky, “User experience: A research agenda,” Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 91-97, 2006.

[22] A. M. Klein, J. Deutschländer, K. Kölln, M. Rauschenberger, and M. J. Escalona, “Exploring the context of use for voice user interfaces: Toward context-dependent user experience quality testing,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 36, no. 7, Art. no. e2618, 2024.

@article{1713006,
      author = {M. J. Ugbogbo, O. O. Omonijo, A. O. Olateju, A. Kabiru, E. C. Moye},
      title = {A Comparative Analysis of Graphical and Voice User Interfaces in Human-Computer Interaction},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2025},
      volume = {9},
      number = {6},
      pages = {1692-1699},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1713006.pdf},
      abstract = {Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) has evolved from command-driven systems to user-centered designs that prioritize usability, accessibility, and user experience (UX). In this study, a comparative analysis of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) was carried out in order to examine their relative effectiveness in contemporary interaction design. A heuristic evaluation based on Nielsen's usability principles and the ISO 9241-11 usability framework was used to assess the usability, accessibility, and user experience (UX) of four widely used systems: Google Assistant and Duolingo (VUIs) and Microsoft Word and WhatsApp (GUIs). The findings show that GUIs achieved higher mean performance in terms of usability (4.6) and accessibility (4.4), which indicate developed visual conventions, strong error control, and inclusive design elements.  VUIs, on the other hand, showed a better user experience (4.2), with conversational fluency, natural interaction, and emotional engagement. These findings show a functional-emotional trade-off. While VUIs improve immersion and contextual interaction, GUIs provide precision and predictability.  Critical gaps in existing HCI practice are also identified by the study, including a lack of context-aware multimodal integration, underdeveloped accessibility frameworks for voice interaction, and a dependence on static evaluation techniques in spite of quickly developing AI-driven interfaces.  The study comes to the conclusion that there is no single interface paradigm that is always better; instead, adaptive, multimodal integration that reacts to task demands, user characteristics, and real-world situations is necessary for good HCI design.},
      keywords = {Usability, Accessibility, User Experience (UX), Human-Computer Interaction, Multimodal Design},
      month = {December},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I6-1713006}
  }