[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

Evaluating Quality in Use of Corporate Web Sites: An Empirical Investigation

Published: 17 July 2018 Publication History

Abstract

In our prior work, we presented a novel approach to the evaluation of quality in use of corporate web sites based on an original quality model (QM-U) and a related methodology (EQ-EVAL). This article focuses on two research questions. The first one aims at investigating whether expected quality obtained through the application of EQ-EVAL methodology by employing a small panel of evaluators is a good approximation of actual quality obtained through experimentation with real users. To answer this research question, a comparative study has been carried out involving 5 evaluators and 50 real users. The second research question aims at demonstrating that the adoption of the EQ-EVAL methodology can provide useful information for web site improvement. Three original indicators, namely coherence, coverage and ranking have been defined to answer this question, and an additional study comparing the assessments of two panels of 5 and 10 evaluators, respectively, has been carried out. The results obtained in both studies are largely positive and provide a rational support for the adoption of the EQ-EVAL methodology.

References

[1]
M. Q. Abbasi, J. Weng, Y. Wang, I. Wang, I. Rafique, X. Wang, and P. Lew. 2012. Modeling and evaluating user interface aesthetics: Employing ISO 25010 quality standard. In Proceedings 8th International Conference on Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC’12). 303--306.
[2]
G. A. Adams and G. R. Frost. 2004. The Development of Corporate Web-sites and Implications for Ethical, Social and Environmental Reporting through these Media. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
[3]
A. M. Aladwani and P. C. Palvia. 2002. Developing and validating and instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Info. Manage. 39, 6, 467--476.
[4]
A. Albunquerque and A. D. Belchior. 2002. E-commerce websites: A qualitative evaluation. In Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference (WWW’02).
[5]
S. J. Barnes and R. T. Vidgen. 2002. An integrative approach to the assessment of e-commerce quality. J. Electron. Commerce Res. 3, 3, 114--127.
[6]
P. Becker, P. Lew, and L. Olsina. 2012. Specifying process views for a measurement, evaluation, and improvement strategy. Adv. Softw. Eng. 2012, Art. 2.
[7]
K. S. Bordens and B. B. Abbott. 2011. Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
[8]
G. Büyüközkan, J. Arsenyan, and G. Ertek. 2010. Evaluation of E-Learning Web Sites Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design Based Approach. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 3, 1, 24--42.
[9]
D. Campbell and A. C. Beck. 2004. Answering allegations: the use of the corporate website for restorative ethical and social disclosure. Business Ethics: Euro. Rev. 13, 2/3, 100--116.
[10]
A. Fernandez, E. Insfran, and S. Abrahão. 2011. Usability evaluation methods for the web: A systematic mapping study. Info. Softw. Technol. 53, 789--817.
[11]
D. Fogli and G. Guida. 2015. A practical approach to the assessment of quality in use of corporate web sites. J. Syst. Softw. 99, 52--65.
[12]
A. M. Graziano and M. L. Raulin. 2012. Research Methods: A Process of Inquiry (8th ed.). Pearson.
[13]
M. Herrera, M. A. Moraga, L. I. Caballero, and C. Calero. 2010. Quality in use model for web portals (QiUWeP). In Current Trends in Web Engineering, F. Daniel and F. M Facca (Eds.). LNCS 6385 (91--101). Springer, Berlin.
[14]
M. Hertzum and N. E. Jacobsen. 1999. The evaluator effect during first-time use of the cognitive walkthrough technique. In Proceedings Human-Computer Interaction International Conference (HCI’99).
[15]
M. Hertzum and N. E. Jacobsen. 2001. The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 13, 421--443.
[16]
M. Hertzum, N. E. Jacobsen, and R. Molich. 2002. Usability inspection by groups of specialists: Perceived agreement in spite of disparate observations. In Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’02). ACM Press, New York.
[17]
A. Holzinger. 2005. Usability engineering methods for software developers. Commun. ACM 48, 1, 71--74.
[18]
K. Hornbæk and E. Frøkjær. 2008. A Study of the Evaluator Effect in Usability Testing. Human-Comput. Interact. 23, 251--277.
[19]
Y. C. Hu. 2014. Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making in the determination of critical criteria for assessing service quality of travel websites. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 3, Part 2, 6439--6445.
[20]
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2011. ISO/IEC 25010:2011--System and Software Engineering--Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)--System and Software Quality Models.
[21]
Y. Lee and K. A. Kozar. 2006. Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decis. Support Syst. 43, 1383--1401.
[22]
P. Lew, L. Olsina, and L. Zhang. 2010. Integrating quality, quality in use, actual usability and user experience. In Proceedings of the 6th Central and Eastern European Software Engineering Conference (CEE-SECR’10). 978, 117--123.
[23]
C. T. Liu, T. C. Du, and H. H. Tsai. 2009. A study of the service quality of general portals. Info. Manage. 46, 52--56.
[24]
H. F. Lin. 2010. An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput. Educat. 54, 4, 877--888.
[25]
I. S. MacKenzie. 2013. Human-Computer Interaction: An Empirical Research Perspective. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA.
[26]
G. Malak and H. Sahraoui. 2010. Modeling web quality using a probabilistic approach: An empirical validation. ACM Trans. Web 4, 3, 9:1--9:31.
[27]
N. Manouselis and D. Sampson. 2004. Multiple dimensions of user satisfaction as quality criteria for web portals. In Proceedings of the IADIS WWW/Internet Conference. 535--542.
[28]
L. Mich, M. Franch, and L. Gaio. 2003. Evaluating and designing web site quality. IEEE Multimedia, January--March, 34--43.
[29]
Jacob Nielsen. 1994. Usability Engineering. Academic Press, San Diego.
[30]
J. Nielsen and R. Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, J. Carrasco Chew and J. Whiteside (Eds.). ACM Press, New York, 249--256.
[31]
N. Nwasra, N. Basir, and M. F. Marhusin. 2015. A framework for evaluating QinU based on ISO/IEC 25010 and 25012 Standards. In Proceedings 2015 9th Malaysian Software Engineering Conference. 70--75.
[32]
J. Offutt. 2002. Quality attributes of web software applications. IEEE Software, March--April, 25--32.
[33]
L. Olsina, F. Papa, and H. Molina. 2008. How to measure and evaluate web applications in a consistent way. In Web Engineering: Modeling and Implementing Web Applications, G. Rossi, O. Pastor, D. Schwabe, and L. Olsina (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 385--420.
[34]
L. Olsina and G. Rossi. 2002. Measuring web application quality with WebQEM. IEEE Multimedia, October--December, 20--29.
[35]
L. Olsina, P. Lew, A. Dieser, and B. Rivera. 2011. Using web quality models and a strategy for purpose-oriented evaluations. J. Web Eng. 10, 4, 316--352.
[36]
T. Orehovački, A. Graníc, and D. Kermek. 2012. Exploring the quality in use of web 2.0 applications: The case of mind mapping services. In Proceedings of the Conference on Current Trends in Web Engineering (ICWE’12). 266--277. Springer, Berlin.
[37]
T. Orehovački, A. Graníc, and D. Kermek. 2013. Evaluating the perceived and estimated quality in use of Web 2.0 applications. J. Syst. Softw. 86, 3039--3059.
[38]
R. Polillo. 2012. A core quality model for web applications. J. Web Eng. 11, 3, 181--208.
[39]
R. Rekik and I. Kallel. 2013. Fuzz-Web: A methodology based on fuzzy logic for assessing web sites. Int. J. Comput. Info. Syst. Industr. Manage. Appl. 5, 126--136.
[40]
R. Rekik, I. Kallel, J. Casillas, and A. M. Alimi. 2016. Using multiple criteria decision making approaches to assess the quality of web sites. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Info. Secur. 14, 747--761.
[41]
D. Sheskin. 2011. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures (5th ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[42]
A. Stefani and M. Xenos. 2008. E-commerce system quality assessment using a model based on ISO 9126 and Belief Networks. Softw. Qual. J. 16, 107--129.
[43]
A. Stefani and M. Xenos. 2011. Wight-modeling of B2C system quality. Comput. Stand. Interf. 33, 4, 411--421.
[44]
D. Straub, M.-C. Boudreau, and D. Gefen. 2004. Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Info. Syst. 13, 24, 380--427.
[45]
C.-C. Sun and G. T. R. Lin. 2009. Using fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating the competitive advantages of shopping websites. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 9, 11764--11771.
[46]
WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative). 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Towards automatic evaluation of the Quality-in-Use in context-aware software systemsJournal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing10.1007/s12652-021-03693-w14:8(10321-10346)Online publication date: 5-Feb-2022
  • (2020)Double-entry analysis system (DEAS) for comprehensive quality evaluation of websites: case study in the tourism sectorEl profesional de la información10.3145/epi.2020.jul.32Online publication date: 6-Oct-2020
  • (2019)A Method for Analyzing the Quality-in-Use in Collaborative ContextsProceedings of the XX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction10.1145/3335595.3335633(1-8)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2019

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on the Web
ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 12, Issue 3
August 2018
207 pages
ISSN:1559-1131
EISSN:1559-114X
DOI:10.1145/3240924
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 July 2018
Accepted: 01 January 2018
Revised: 01 January 2018
Received: 01 August 2017
Published in TWEB Volume 12, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Web site quality
  2. actual quality
  3. expected quality
  4. quality assessment methodology
  5. quality in use
  6. quality model

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Towards automatic evaluation of the Quality-in-Use in context-aware software systemsJournal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing10.1007/s12652-021-03693-w14:8(10321-10346)Online publication date: 5-Feb-2022
  • (2020)Double-entry analysis system (DEAS) for comprehensive quality evaluation of websites: case study in the tourism sectorEl profesional de la información10.3145/epi.2020.jul.32Online publication date: 6-Oct-2020
  • (2019)A Method for Analyzing the Quality-in-Use in Collaborative ContextsProceedings of the XX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction10.1145/3335595.3335633(1-8)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2019

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media