Mobile users search briefly
Church et al. (2007) found mobile queries shorter than desktop ones and often repeated, and Church and Oliver (2011) reported much searching happens on the move or mid-conversation. Place the search box prominently and show keyboard and recent searches on tap. Ward et al. (2012) show autocomplete reduces effort and helps users pick better queries.
Filters and results
Open filters in a bottom sheet so results stay visible and show applied filters as chips that meet touch target size guidance. Lagun et al. (2014) found mobile attention lingers near mid-screen rather than the top, and Kim et al. (2015) found judgements slower on small screens. Following information foraging theory (Pirolli & Card, 1999), bold query terms in titles and snippets to strengthen scent, and weigh infinite scroll against pagination.
No results is not the end
Hearst (2009) stresses helping users recover from failure. Design an empty state with spelling suggestions, similar queries and popular categories, and offer a one-tap clear-filters button when filters caused it. Search is input, so mobile form usability rules such as the right keyboard type and a clear button apply too.
FAQ
- Where should the mobile search box go?
- Always visible at the top if search is core; otherwise often a search tab in bottom navigation.
- How many autocomplete suggestions?
- Typically 5–8, within the area not hidden by the keyboard.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-27
References
- Church, K., Smyth, B., Cotter, P., & Bradley, K. (2007). Mobile information access: A study of emerging search behavior on the mobile Internet. ACM Transactions on the Web, 1(1), Article 4. Early large log study showing short, repetitive mobile queries.
- Church, K., & Oliver, N. (2011). Understanding mobile web and mobile search use in today's dynamic mobile landscape. In Proceedings of MobileHCI 2011 (pp. 67–76). ACM. Diary study showing mobile search depends on context.
- Ward, D., Hahn, J., & Feist, K. (2012). Autocomplete as research tool: A study on providing search suggestions. Information Technology and Libraries, 31(4), 6–19. Examines how autocomplete affects query quality and effort.
- Lagun, D., Hsieh, C.-H., Webster, D., & Navalpakkam, V. (2014). Towards better measurement of attention and satisfaction in mobile search. In Proceedings of the 37th International ACM SIGIR Conference (pp. 113–122). ACM. Eye-tracking showing attention centres on mid-screen results.
- Kim, J., Thomas, P., Sankaranarayana, R., Gedeon, T., & Yoon, H.-J. (2015). Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior and performance in web search on large and small screens. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(3), 526–544. Compares search on large and small screens.
- Hearst, M. A. (2009). Search user interfaces. Cambridge University Press. Textbook on search interface design.
- Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643–675. Information foraging theory: users follow information scent.