The paper, appendix A, describes the terminology: > Our use of dumb is in accordance with the preferred terminology of our participants, to signify the benefit

The paper, appendix A, describes the terminology: > Our use of dumb is in accordance with the preferred terminology of our participants, to signify the benefits of the devices, as being dumb is a prized state, that strips away the – in participants’ perspectives – negative features of smartphones. They are often characterized by a tactile T-9 keyboard (or, nine-button) and lack of touchscreen. In most cases, their form and contents have been minimally updated since the advent of smartphones; while some models may offer more contemporary features, such as integration of modern messengers, they are ultimately designed for individuals who either cannot afford a smartphone, or use the device as a kind of pre-smartphone. Engaging with these smartphone-staple features, such as modern messengers or a Web browser, are cumbersome and the form factor of the device hinders easy engagement. They also define "Feature phones", "Designer dumbphone", and "Smartphone", so it is not a simple dichotomy ("A division into two contrasting things or parts"). They also comment "we choose to report in the language of our participants for whom dumb is a compliment, while recognizing that it is not a unanimously accepted term".