## 4 Application and Results
### Phase 5-Discovering Similarities of the Methodologies
* **Identification of the most commonly utilized models as an initial step**: 82.9% (34 of 41) of the multiple-step methodologies have a first step that is part of the conceptual model. Moreover, 51.2% (21 of 41) of the process methodologies have a first step that is part of the user domain. This means that overall, researchers were more likely to obtain knowledge about the end users in an abstract way before diving into more concrete aspects. * **Identification of models frequently utilized as the final step:** 65.9% (27 of 41) of the process methodologies end with a step that is part of the physical domain. Moreover, 70.7% (29 of 41) of the process methodologies end with a step that is part of the experimental model. This shows that there is a will on the researchers' part to test out the user interface (physical domain) as the final part of their methodology. All the methodologies that ended with the experimental model have put in place experiments, such as about the user interface they developed, the product they tested, or a strategy they needed to test out. In the context of user interface design, experimentation is a crucial step, since it forms the testing of the newly developed interface. * **Iterations**: 22% (9 of 41) of the multiple-step methodologies presented iterations, meaning that the methodologies went back to a step that was previously developed. Of these iterations, 55% (5 of 9) happened over the computational model of the physical domain and the experimental model of the physical domain (CompPhys -> ExpePhys). All five of these iterations were conducted over different versions of a user interface, making it possible to carry out heavy testing on the interface developed, with each new version trying to improve the previous one. * **Conceptualization of design methodologies:** In their article, [PERSON] et al. [22] adapted the Design Science Research methodology theorized by [PERSON] [41] for specificities of interface design for users in low-income countries. The specificities taken into account on the methodology are to enable collaborations at different times and locations. The result is a six-step methodology that is highly iterative, and where each step has their identifier, which is numbered according to the iteration number associated with each step. According to the authors, they \"strongly recommend this model for any large and complex research project aiming to develop an artifact\". From the 174 research articles, it is the only one that put such a focus on the methodology. * **Coverage of the meta-model:** Matrix (15) sums up the coverage of the models by the process methodologies; for example, over the 41 multiple-step methodologies, 58.5% covered the ConcUser model. The sum of percentages for the models is greater than 100% because each methodology covers more than one model. The models never encountered were MathFunc, MathProc, CompUser, CompFunc, CompProc, and ExpeProc. Considering the focus of the application on the design of interfaces adapted for users in low-income countries, it makes sense that aspects such as the knowledge of the end users (ConcUser) and aspects of the features of the app (ConcFunc) are more developed than mathematical or computational models because of the nature of the topic, which is more likely to focus on the understanding of the users or the solution proposed in a conceptual way. \[ \begin{bmatrix}ConcUser&ConcFunc&ConcPlys&ConcProc\\ MathUser&MathFunc&MathPhys&MathProc\\ CompUser&CompFunc&CompPhys&CompProc\\ ExpeUser&ExpeFunc&ExpePhys&ExpeProc\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}58.96&18.50\%&13.87 \%&4.62\%\\ 5.20\%&0\%&1.73\%&0\%\\ 0\%&0\%&15.61\%&0\%\\ 12.14\%&1.73\%&16.18\%&0\%\end{bmatrix} \] (15)