Requirements Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 299–330 | Cite as

An integrated strategy to systematically understand and manage quality in use for web applications

Quality RE for Sys. & Architecting


The main goal in evaluating software quality is to ultimately improve its quality. In this work, we discuss SIQinU (Strategy for Improving Quality in Use), a six-phased evaluation-driven strategy for understanding and improving software quality requirements in a systematic way. Starting with quality in use (QinU), we design specific user tasks and context of use, and through identifying problems in QinU, we determine external quality (EQ) attributes that could be related to these QinU weakly performing indicators. Then, after deriving EQ attributes related to the QinU problems, we evaluate EQ and derive a benchmark to be used as a basis to make improvements. Once improvement recommendations are made based on poorly performing EQ indicators, a new version of the software application is completed and evaluated again for its EQ to establish a delta from the initial benchmark. Then, we re-evaluate QinU to determine the improvements resulting in QinU from the improvements made at the EQ level, thus leading to a cyclic strategy for improvement and development of relationships. SIQinU is a repeatable and consistent strategy which relies on: a conceptual framework (with ontological base), a process, and specific methods. In order to illustrate SIQinU, a real case study is conducted.


Quality in use External quality Actual usability Web applications Quality improvement 



Thanks to the support by National Basic Research Program of China (973 project) (No. 2007CB310803) and PAE-PICT 2188 project at UNLPam, from the Science and Technology Agency, Argentina.


  1. 1.
    Abran A, Surya W, Khelifi A, Rilling J, Seffah A, Robert F (2003) Consolidating the ISO usability models. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual international software quality management conferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachmann F, Bass L, Klein M, Shelton C (2005) Designing software architectures to achieve quality attribute requirements. IEE Proc Softw 152(4):153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili V, Lindvall M, Regardie M, Seaman C, Heidrich J, Munch J, Rombach D, Trendowicz A (2010) Linking software development and business strategy through measurement. IEEE Comput 43(4):57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker P, Molina H, Olsina L (2010) Measurement and evaluation as quality driver. In: Journal ISI (Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information), special issue “quality of information systems”, Lavoisier, Paris, 15(6), pp 33–62Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker P, Lew P, Olsina L (2011) Strategy to improve quality for software applications: a process view. In: ACM proceedings of the international conference of software and system process (ICSSP), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp 129–138Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bevan N (2009) Extending quality in use to provide a framework for usability measurement. In: Proceedings of HCI international 2009. San Diego, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bevan N, Bohomolni I (2000) Incorporating user quality requirements in the software development process. In: Proceedings of 4th international software quality week Europe, Brussels, pp 1192–1204Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brambilla M, Comai S, Fraternali P, Matera M (2008) Designing web applications with webml and webratio. In: Rossi G, Pastor O, Schwabe D, Olsina L (eds) Web engineering: modeling and implementing web applications, HCIS, Chap. 9. Springer, London, pp 221–262Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burton M, Walther J (2001) The value of web log data in use-based design and testing. J Comput Mediat Commun 6(3):1563–1578Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cappiello C, Daniel F, Matera M (2009) A quality model for mashup components. In: Proceedings of the international congress on web engineering ICWE ‘09, San Sebastian, Spain, pp 236–250Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E (1995) Using non-functional requirements to systematically support change. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE), York, England, pp 132–139Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer, DodrechtMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung L, Supakkul S (2004) Representing NFRs and FRs: a goal-oriented and use case driven approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering research, management and applications (SERA04), pp 29–41Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chung L, Supakkul S (2006) Capturing and reusing functional and non-functional requirements knowledge: a goal-object pattern approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on information reuse and integration (IRI), pp 539–544Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Covella G, Olsina L (2006) Assessing quality in use in a consistent way. In: ACM proceedings of the international congress on web engineering, (ICWE ‘06), SF, USA, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ginige A, Murugesan S (2001) Web engineering: an introduction. IEEE Multimed 8(1):14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassenzahl M (2008) User experience: towards an experiential perspective on product quality, IHM; V.339. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the assoc. francophone d’interaction homme-machine, pp 11–15Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO 13407 (1998) User centred design process for interactive systemsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC FDIS 25010 (2010) Systems and software engineering. Systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE). System and software quality modelsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC 25012 (2008) Software engineering: software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE): data quality modelGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lew P, Olsina L, Zhang L (2010) Quality, quality in use, actual usability and user experience as key drivers for web application evaluation. In: Proceedings of the LNCS 6189, Springer, 10th international congress on web engineering (ICWE2010), Vienne, Austria, pp 218–232Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lew P (2010) An integrated strategy to understand and improve quality in use (SIQinU) for web applications, BUAA, school of computer science, Beijing, China, 2010, Doctoral thesis accessed by 05 Apr 2011 at:
  23. 23.
    Molina H, Papa F, Martín M, Olsina L (2004) Semantic capabilities for the metrics and indicators cataloging web system; engineering advanced web applications. Rinton Press, NJ, pp 97–109Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moraga MA, Bertoa MF, Morcillo MC, Calero C, Vallecillo A (2008) Evaluating quality-in-use using bayesian networks. In Proceedings of QAOOSE 2008, Paphos, CyprusGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon BA (1992) Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Transact Softw Eng (TSE) 18(6):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nielsen J, Levy J (1994) Measuring usability: preference versus performance. Commun ACM 37(4):66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olsina L, Papa F, Molina H (2008) How to measure and evaluate web applications in a consistent way. In: Rossi G, Pastor O, Schwabe D, Olsina L (eds) Web engineering: modeling and implementing web applications, HCIS, Chap. 13. Springer, London, pp 385–420Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olsina L, Rossi G, Garrido A, Distante D, Canfora G (2008) Web applications refactoring and evaluation: a quality-oriented improvement approach. J Web Eng. Rinton Press, US, 4(7), pp 258–280Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Santos PJ, Badre AN (1995) Discount learnability evaluation. Graphics, visualization and usability center. Georgia Institute of Technology. Accessed by 19 Oct 2010 at Scholar
  30. 30.
    Supakkul S, Chung L (2010) Visualizing non-functional requirements patterns. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on requirements engineering visualization (REV ‘10) in conjunction with RE ‘10, Sydney, Austria, pp 25–34Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Supakkul S, Hill T, Chung L, Tun TT, Leite JC (2010) An NFR pattern approach to dealing with NFRs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE), Sydney, Australia, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tang A, Avgeriou P, Jansen A, Capilla R, Ali Babar M (2010) A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools. J Syst Softw 83(3):352–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zimmermann P, Gomez P, Danuser B, Schär S (2006) Extending usability: putting affect into the user-experience. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI ‘06, ACM Press, NY, pp 27–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Lew
    • 1
  • Luis Olsina
    • 2
  • Pablo Becker
    • 3
  • Li Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.GIDIS_Web Engineering SchoolUniversidad Nacional de La PampaGeneral PicoArgentina
  3. 3.GIDIS_Web Engineering SchoolUniversidad Nacional de La PampaGeneral PicoArgentina

Personalised recommendations