A Comparison on the Usability of Mobile e-Wallet Applications: GCash, Maya, Grabpay

Q3 Social Sciences
M. J. Gumasing, G. K. M. Cangco, S. M. Ilagan, Eunice Gabrielle A. Reyes
{"title":"A Comparison on the Usability of Mobile e-Wallet Applications: GCash, Maya, Grabpay","authors":"M. J. Gumasing, G. K. M. Cangco, S. M. Ilagan, Eunice Gabrielle A. Reyes","doi":"10.1145/3588243.3588253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of digital e-wallets is prevalent in the Philippines as people intend to pay without using physical money or bank-issued cards. This study aims to determine the usability of GCash, Maya, and GrabPay and the satisfaction of its users. It also intends to determine the best e-wallet in terms of usability and satisfaction. An online survey was distributed through Google Forms to 165 e-wallet users wherein they answered a (1) System Usability Scale questionnaire and (2) a Satisfaction Rating questionnaire which were in Likert Scale form. Results show that the 3 e-wallets were significantly the same in overall design, content, and organization but differ in usability, overall functionality, and accessibility. GCash is the best in both usability (SUS Score = 80.55) and user satisfaction in terms of functionality and accessibility. Moreover, Maya and GrabPay were significantly lower in usability and functionality, and GrabPay was found to be the least accessible. It is recommended that Maya should mainly extend its features by not restricting those who do not have bank accounts or bank cards to make use of their services, while Grab should make great efforts on promoting their e-payment services by creating an independent application intended only for GrabPay.","PeriodicalId":37324,"journal":{"name":"International Journal on E-Learning: Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal on E-Learning: Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3588243.3588253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of digital e-wallets is prevalent in the Philippines as people intend to pay without using physical money or bank-issued cards. This study aims to determine the usability of GCash, Maya, and GrabPay and the satisfaction of its users. It also intends to determine the best e-wallet in terms of usability and satisfaction. An online survey was distributed through Google Forms to 165 e-wallet users wherein they answered a (1) System Usability Scale questionnaire and (2) a Satisfaction Rating questionnaire which were in Likert Scale form. Results show that the 3 e-wallets were significantly the same in overall design, content, and organization but differ in usability, overall functionality, and accessibility. GCash is the best in both usability (SUS Score = 80.55) and user satisfaction in terms of functionality and accessibility. Moreover, Maya and GrabPay were significantly lower in usability and functionality, and GrabPay was found to be the least accessible. It is recommended that Maya should mainly extend its features by not restricting those who do not have bank accounts or bank cards to make use of their services, while Grab should make great efforts on promoting their e-payment services by creating an independent application intended only for GrabPay.
移动电子钱包应用程序的可用性比较:GCash, Maya, Grabpay
数字电子钱包的使用在菲律宾很普遍,因为人们不打算使用实物货币或银行发卡支付。本研究旨在确定GCash, Maya和GrabPay的可用性及其用户满意度。它还打算在可用性和满意度方面确定最好的电子钱包。通过谷歌表格对165名电子钱包用户进行了在线调查,其中他们回答了(1)系统可用性量表问卷和(2)满意度评级问卷,问卷采用李克特量表形式。结果表明,这三种电子钱包在整体设计、内容和组织方面都非常相似,但在可用性、整体功能和可访问性方面存在差异。GCash在可用性(SUS得分= 80.55)和用户满意度(功能和可访问性)方面都是最好的。此外,Maya和GrabPay在可用性和功能上明显较低,而GrabPay被发现是最不容易访问的。建议Maya应该主要扩展其功能,不限制那些没有银行账户或银行卡的人使用他们的服务,而Grab应该努力推广他们的电子支付服务,创建一个专门针对GrabPay的独立应用程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信