## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Visual Confirmation  
The Wilcoxon test in SPSS 29.0.1.0, which is suitable for small sample data, as in this case, was used to compare the pre- and post-overall data distribution obtained from the OUI and MUI questionnaires. The results indicate that the significance level of EQ1 (easy to differentiate the three ingredient list area) was 0.028 and that of EQ5 (easy to differentiate the 3 cooking step area) was 0.014, as listed in Table 3.  
As is shown in Table 4, for EQ1, the significance level (\(p<0.05\)) reveals that the MUI was easier to distinguish than the OUI concerning the ingredient list area (fixed area) in this case. In relation to EQ5, the statistical analysis (with a \(p<0.05\)) and the average mean suggest that the MUI performed better than the OUI in terms of distinguishing the cooking step area, which was the sliding area, in this specific scenario. Three Elements in Visual Confirmation  
Based on the comparative analysis of EQ1 and EQ5, we further explored the related questions to determine the influences of the \"color\", \"layout\", and \"content\" on the visual confirmation in the OUI and MUI scenarios. From a data standpoint, the average scores for \"content\" were 5.73, 5.82, 5.27, and 6.05, as depicted in Figure 7. These data illustrate that the \"content\" presented a clear advantage in both the OUI and MUI scenarios, irrespective of the particular area. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **N** & **Mean** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & **Min.** & **Max.** & **Median** \\ \hline EQ1 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} OUI \\ MUI \\ \end{tabular} & 22 & 5.68 & 1.427 & 3 & 7 & 6.00 \\ \hline EQ5 &
\begin{tabular}{c} OUI \\ MUI \\ \end{tabular} & 22 & 6.50 & 0.740 & 5 & 7 & 7.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of EQ1 and EQ5 for visual confirmation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **EQ1 OUI–MUI** & **EQ5 OUI–MUI** \\ \hline Z & \(-2.198\) b  & \(-2.448\) b  \\ \hline Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) & 0.028 & 0.014 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Wilcoxon signed-rank test. b Based on negative ranks.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Test statistics a for EQ1 and 5 (visual confirmation). The Kruskal-Wallis test results obtained via SPSS are shown in Table 5. They showed that the OUI and MUI had different outcomes when the users interacted with the fixed areas in the interfaces (i.e., the ingredient list area). Within the OUI, the significance level between \"color\" and \"layout\" was 1.000, while the significance level between \"color\" and \"content\" was 0.000 (\(p<0.001\)) and that between \"layout\" and \"content\" was 0.003 (\(p<0.01\)). In contrast, no significance was found among the three elements in the MUI. Our data show that, in the ingredient list area, the \"color\" had the least impact in the OUI, while the \"color\" and \"layout\" played a role in the MUI (the lack of difference implies that their functions were similar). However, when the users interacted with the sliding areas (i.e., the cooking step area) in the interfaces, the K-W test results, listed in Table 5, showed similar outcomes for the OUI and MUI. In the OUI, the significance level between \"color\" and \"layout\" was 1.000, that between \"color\" and \"content\" was 0.000 (\(p<0.001\)), and that between \"layout\" and \"content\" was 0.001 (\(p<0.01\)). In the MUI, the significance level between \"color\" and \"layout\" was 1.000, whereas that between \"color\" and \"content\" was 0.006 (\(p<0.01\)) and that between \"layout\" and \"content\" was 0.016 (\(p<0.05\)). Therefore, the cooking step area involved frequent interaction, requiring the users to frequently slide the page. Thus, \"content\" remained the primary choice for visual confirmation in both the OUI and MUI. In the MUI, the influence of the \"content\" and