## 5 Results and Discussion
### Analysis and Results of the Importance of Level 2 Indicators  
The analysis of the secondary indicators for each primary indicator was conducted in descending order of their weights, from the highest to the lowest. The specific details of the analysis are as follows:  
(1) Security and Privacy (B5) Indicator Layer. As depicted in Figure 4, in the distribution of weights for the secondary indicators under Security and Privacy, Property Protection (0.5485) carries the highest weight, followed by Privacy Protection (0.2409), with System Security (0.2106) ranking last. This ranking reflects that protection of their financial assets and personal information is prioritized by app users engaged in online transactions over the ability to defend against viruses. Therefore, when optimizing the security and privacy of an app, priority should be given to strengthening asset and privacy protection. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level 1** & **Weights** & **Rank** & **Level 2** & **Weights** & **Rank** & **Overall Weights** & **Rank** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{B2} & \multirow{8}{*}{0.2674} & C7 & 0.3271 & 2 & 0.0875 & 5 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C8 & 0.1077 & 4 & 0.0288 & 10 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C9 & 0.0586 & 5 & 0.0157 & 14 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C10 & 0.3464 & 1 & 0.0926 & 4 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C11 & 0.1163 & 3 & 0.0311 & 9 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C12 & 0.0439 & 6 & 0.0117 & 16 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{B3} & \multirow{8}{*}{0.0823} & C13 & 0.2314 & 2 & 0.0191 & 12 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C14 & 0.0669 & 4 & 0.0055 & 19 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C15 & 0.0443 & 5 & 0.0036 & 21 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C16 & 0.4661 & 1 & 0.0384 & 8 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C17 & 0.1913 & 3 & 0.0157 & 13 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{B4} & \multirow{8}{*}{0.2052} & C18 & 0.1096 & 3 & 0.0225 & 11 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C19 & 0.5813 & 1 & 0.1193 & 2 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C20 & 0.3092 & 2 & 0.0634 & 7 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{B5} & \multirow{8}{*}{0.4094} & C21 & 0.2106 & 3 & 0.0862 & 6 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C22 & 0.5485 & 1 & 0.2245 & 1 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & C23 & 0.2409 & 2 & 0.0986 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 21: Cont. Learning and Operation (B2) Indicator Layer. As depicted in Figure 5, in the weight distribution of secondary indicators for Learning and Operation, Simplicity in Use (0.3464) emerges as the highest weighted indicator, followed closely by Efficiency (0.3271), then Learnability (0.1163), Memorability (0.1077), and Convenience (0.0586), with Error Prevention (0.0439) at the bottom. This order reveals a strong user preference for apps that boast intuitive interfaces, simplicity in mastery, the capability to efficiently accomplish tasks, and the ease of quickly learning and remembering operational procedures. Therefore, in the process of optimizing the learning and operation aspects of an app, placing a premium on Usability and Efficiency should be considered a priority. Figure 4: Bar chart of weights for B5 indicator layer. Figure 3: Bar chart of weights for Level 1 indicator layer. (3) Information Architecture (B4) Indicator Layer. As shown in Figure 6, in the weight distribution of secondary indicators for Information Architecture, Page Information Architecture (0.5813) holds the highest weight, followed by Navigation (0.3092), and then Findability (0.1096). This indicates that users place particular importance on the app's page layout and content organization as well as on how navigation clearly guides users to different functional areas. Therefore, when optimizing an app's information architecture, it is recommended that Page Information Architecture and Navigation be prioritized. (4) Interaction Experience (B3) Indicator Layer. As illustrated in Figure 7, in the distribution of weights for secondary indicators of Interaction Experience, Consistency (0.4661) has the highest weight, followed by Immediate Feedback (0.2314), Error Feedback (0.1913), Interface Simplicity (0.0669), and finally, Help (0.0443).