## 4 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of Interpretation Accuracy, Comprehension, Preference, and Information Adequacy  
The overall means and standard deviations for interpretation accuracy, comprehension, preference, and information adequacy are tabulated in Table 5. The results of the one-way ANOVA revealed that text, diagrams, images, and animation achieved significant statistical differences (<0.05). A comparison of the interpretation accuracy, comprehension, and preference for the four interfaces is illustrated in Figure 7. The results of the post-hoc test are provided in Table 6.  
Each variable is discussed individually as follows. **Interpretation accuracy:** The respondents achieved the highest interpretation accuracy for the image interface, followed by the animation, text, and diagram interfaces. The ANOVA results indicated that the data achieved statistical significance. Post-hoc test results showed that the interpretation accuracy for the diagram interface was significantly lower than those for the text, image, and animation \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Experience**} \\ \hline
**Item** & **Very Experienced** & **Experienced** & **Average** & **Inexperienced** & **Very Inexperienced** \\ \hline smart products & 8 (26.7\%) & 9 (30.0\%) & 0 (0\%) & 10 (33.3\%) & 3 (10.0\%) \\ computer products & 2 (6.7\%) & 4 (13.3\%) & 11 (36.7\%) & 7 (23.3\%) & 6 (20.0\%) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Usage Frequency} \\ \hline Item & Frequent & Occasional & Infrequent & Nonusers \\ \hline health apps & 1 (3.3\%) & 2 (6.7\%) & 10 (33.3\%) & 17 (56.7\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Respondents’ experiences and usage frequency for relative products and apps. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Text** & **Diagram** & **Image** & **Animation** \\ \hline Interpretation accuracy & 4.37(0.96) & 2.80(0.66) & 4.80(0.66) & 4.73(0.64) \\ Comprehension & 3.63(1.189) & 2.87(0.90) & 3.87(1.14) & 4.07((0.94) \\ Preference & 3.33(0.88) & 2.77(0.93) & 3.27(1.20) & 3.80(0.96) \\ Information adequacy & 3.30(0.95) & 3.03(1.03) & 3.23(1.30) & 3.53(1.17) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Average mean and standard deviation values for interpretation accuracy, comprehension, preference, and information adequacy (standard deviation in parentheses; unit: points; five-point Likert scale). Figure 7: Comparison of interpretation accuracy, comprehension, preference, and information adequacy (unit: points; five-point Likert scale). interfaces (\(p\) = 0.000 *). The other results failed to achieve statistical significance. Therefore, information interpretation accuracy is a key factor to consider when designing diagram interfaces. **Comprehension:** The animation interface was the easiest for the respondents to understand, followed by the image, text, and diagram interfaces. ANOVA results indicated that the data achieved statistical significance. Post-hoc test results showed that the diagram interface achieved significant differences with the image (\(p\) = 0.005 *) and animation (\(p\) = 0.000 *) interfaces. The other results failed to achieve statistical significance. This suggests that animation and image interfaces are preferable for information presentation. **Preference:** The respondents preferred the animation interface the most, followed by the text, image, and diagram interfaces. The ANOVA results indicated that the data achieved statistical significance. Post-hoc test results showed that the preferences for the animation interface were significantly greater than those for the diagrams (\(p\) = 0.002 *). These results suggest that respondents preferred animation interfaces to image interfaces. **Information Adequacy:** The mean adequacy values of the four interfaces were compared to determine respondents' perceived information adequacy. The results showed that the animation interface demonstrated the highest information adequacy, followed by the text, image, and diagram interfaces.