Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparative research of WhatsApp and Telegram by using heuristic principles
2022 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Over the last few years, text messaging has taken the domination among young adults. Messaging via phones has a wide range of both, human and social factors. These Instant Messaging [IM] applications also offer features other than just texting and for example, sending documents, photos, videos, links and more. All these features and attributes are making people pull towards these IM applications more and more. Despite having these features, people expect more from these IM applications, which leads these IM applications to compete with each other by providing more features or modifying the existing features. This competition to be the better application amongst the IM applications has led us to do a research study on which applications have better user experience through a survey evaluation.

Background: Messaging through phones got a lot easier when platforms like iMessage, Telegram, WhatsApp, etc., were introduced to people. WhatsApp and Telegram gained popularity over iMessages as iMessages was limited only to IOS. So, technically people preferred WhatsApp and Telegram over iMessages. In order, to deduct which application is preferred among WhatsApp and Telegram, a survey evaluation is done based on Usability Heuristics. Thus, the title of the thesis is “Comparative research of WhatsApp and Telegram by using heuristic principles.”

Objectives: The prime objective of the thesis is to compare both the applications, WhatsApp, and Telegram and to find which application has followed the principles of Usability most. The comparison between these two applications is done via a survey evaluation and the results will be noted.

Methods: The method that has been chosen and used for comparison is survey evaluation. The survey will be done via google forms, and the questions of the study are based on HCI principles. The survey will have a total of 10 questions. Approximately of 45 users will be given the questionnaire google form to fill out.

Results: The results from the survey will be collected and noted. The results are examined and the application that has the better user experience will be found.

Conclusion: From the study and the survey, it is concluded that WhatsApp has a better user experience than Telegram.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2022.
Keywords [en]
Instant Messaging, WhatsApp, Telegram, Survey evaluation, Usability, HCI Principles
National Category
Computer Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-23801OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-23801DiVA, id: diva2:1707558
Subject / course
DV1478 Bachelor Thesis in Computer Science
Educational program
DVGDT Bachelor Qualification Plan in Computer Science 60.0 hp
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2022-11-01 Created: 2022-10-31 Last updated: 2022-11-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1107 kB)1780 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 1107 kBChecksum SHA-512
77f9dff7f805044c3da1c17e1edba940ad249b6577347ebcc5ce6b76e7c79d4fdb4e8e3e8cefb22acbdd8fee86491e5a466102ed36dad94a6f001ca3e110a16c
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Computer Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 1780 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 922 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf