ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
Exploring the Design Space of Glanceable Smartwatch Feedback Displays: Experimental Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-monitoring technologies are commonly used to promote health behavior change, with glanceable displays offering continuous feedback throughout the day. Yet, it is still unclear how various aspects of these glanceable representations affect their interpretability and usability.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effects of 3 design factors-stylization, granularity, and salience-on users' ability to understand glanceable smartwatch-based feedback on daily step goals.
methodsWe conducted an online simulation study to examine how 3 design dimensions-stylization, salience, and granularity-influence the effectiveness of glanceable feedback displays. Stylization and salience were crossed in a 2×2 factorial design, while granularity varied from 1% to 20% progress increments. A total of 202 Amazon Mechanical Turk participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 16 smartwatch display conditions. In each condition, participants viewed feedback on daily step progress and estimated the level of progress shown. We measured estimation error and questionnaire-assessed perceived usability and acceptability. The collected data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations and linear regression.
resultsHigh stylization reduced accuracy (+4.52 error points; P<.001) and negatively affected perceptions across 6 dimensions, including comprehension (P=.003), complexity (P<.001), and usability (P=.001). Granularity had a nonlinear effect: error was lowest around 5%-10%, with sharp increases at 20%. The 10% level also received the most favorable ratings, for example, comprehension (+0.656; P=.003). Salience had no effect. Previous smartwatch users were less accurate than never-users (+7.46 points) but rated displays as more useful (P=.002) and easier to focus on (P<.001). Current users gave similarly positive ratings on attention and usefulness.
conclusionsThese findings could help researchers design effective glanceable smartwatch feedback displays and expand the design space for glanceable feedback.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.