Web Usability: Principles and Evaluation Methods

  • Maristella Matera
  • Francesca Rizzo
  • Giovanni Toffetti Carughi

Abstract

Current Web applications are very complex and highly sophisticated software products, whose usability can greatly determine their success or failure. Defining methods for ensuring usability is one of the current goals of Web engineering research. Also, much attention is currently paid to usability by industry, recognising the importance of adopting methods for usability evaluation before and after application deployment. This chapter introduces principles and evaluation methods to be adopted during the whole application lifecycle for promoting usability. For each evaluation method, the main features, as well as the emerging advantages and drawbacks, are illustrated so as to support the choice of an evaluation plan that best fits the goals to be pursued and the available resources. The design and evaluation of a real application is also described for exemplifying the concepts and methods introduced.

Keywords

Web usability Evaluation methods Web usability principles Development process 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal R, Imielinski T, Swami A. (1993) Mining Association Rules Between Sets of Items in Large Databases. In: Proceedings of ACM-SIGMOD 93, Washington, DC, May, pp 207–216Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Analog. (2005) http://www.analog.cx. (accessed on 18th January 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A-Prompt Project. (2005) http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/ (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    AWSD-WebLog. (2005) http://awsd.com/scripts/weblog/index.shtml (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baresi L, Garzotto F, Paolini P (2001) Extending UML for Modeling Web Applications. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, USA, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berendt B, Hotho A, Stumme G (2002) Towards Semantic Web Mining. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference, Sardinia, Italy, June. Springer, Berlin, LNCC. 2342, pp 264–278Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berendt B, Spiliopoulou M (2000) Analysis of Navigation Behaviour in Web Sites Integrating Multiple Information Systems. J Very Large Data Bases, 9(1):56–75Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bias RG, Mayhew DJ (1994) Cost-justifying usability. Academic Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blackmon MH, Polson PG, Kitajima M, Lewis C (2002) Cognitive Walkthrough for the Web. In: Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, USA, April, pp 463–470Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bobby. (2005) http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brajnik G (2004) Using Automatic Tools in Accessibility and Usability Assurance. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on User Interface for All, Vienna. June, Springer, Berlin, LNCC 3196, pp 219–234Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brooks P (1994) Adding Value to Usability Testing. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York, pp 255–271Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ceri S, Fraternali, P (2003) Architectural Issues and Solutions in the Development of Data-Intensive Web Applications. In: Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, Asilomar, USA, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ceri S, Fraternali P, Bongio A, Brambilla M, Comai S, Matera M (2003) Designing Data-Intensive Web Applications, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ceri S, Fraternali P, Matera M (2002) Conceptual Modeling of Data-Intensive Web Applications. IEEE Internet Computing, 6(4):20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conallen J (2002) Building Web Applications with UML, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooley R (2003) The Use of Web Structures and Content to Identify Subjectively Interesting Web Usage Patterns. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 3(2):93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooley R, Mobasher B, Srivastava J (1999) Data Preparation for Mining World Wide Web Browsing Patterns. J Knowledge and Information Systems, 1(1):5–32Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooley R, Tan P, Srivastava J (2000) Discovery of Interesting Usage Patterns from Web Data. In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Workshop on Web Usage Analysis and User Profiling, San Diego, USA, August. Springer, Berlin, LNCC 1836, pp 163–182Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd G, Beale R (1998) Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doubleday A, Ryan M, Springett M, Sutcliffe A (1997) A Comparison of Usability Techniques for Evaluating Design. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, August, pp 101–110Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eirinaki M, Vazirgiannis M (2003) Web Mining for Web Personalization. J ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 3(1):1–27Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fraternali P, Lanzi PL, Matera M, Maurino A (2004) A Model-Driven Web Usage Analysis for the Evaluation of Web Application Quality. Web Engineering, 3(2):124–152Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fraternali P, Matera M, Maurino A (2002) WQA: An XSL Framework for Analyzing the Quality of Web Applications. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Web-Oriented Software Technologies, Malaga, Spain, JuneGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garzotto F, Matera M (1997) A Systematic Method for Hypermedia Usability Inspection. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 6(3):39–65Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hull L (2004) Accessibility: It’s Not Just for Disabilities Any More. ACM Interactions, 41(2):36–41MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hutchins EL, Hollan JD, Norman DA (1985) Direct manipulation interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 1:311–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    IBM (2005) Ease of Use guidelines. http://www-306.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/publish/558 (2005). (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO (1997) ISO 9241: Ergonomics Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminal (VDT) Parts 1–17Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ivory MY, Hearst MA (2001) The State of the Art in Automating Usability Evaluation of User Interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys, 33(4):470–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ivory MY, Sinha RR, Hearst MA (2001) Empirically Validated Web Page Design Metrics. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, USA, April, pp 53–60Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jeffries R, Desurvire HW (1992) Usability Testing vs. Heuristic Evaluation: Was There a Context? ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(4):39–41Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jeffries R, Miller J, Wharton C, Uyeda KM (1991) User Interface Evaluation in the Real Word: A Comparison of Four Techniques. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, USA, pp 119–124Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kantner L, Rosenbaum S (1997) Usability Studies of WWW Sites: Heuristic Evaluation vs. Laboratory Testing. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1997 International Conference on Computer Documentation, Snowbird, USA, pp 153–160Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lewis JR (1995) IBM Computer Usability Satisfaction Questionnaires: Psychometric Evaluation and Instruction for Use. Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1):57–78Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    LIFT. (2005) http://www.usablenet.com (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lim KH, Benbasat I, Todd PA (1996) An Experimental Investigation of the Interactive Effects of Interface Style, Instructions, and Task Familiarity on User Performance. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(1):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lowe D (2003) Emerging knowledge in Web Development. In Aurum A, Jeffery R, Wohlin C, Handzic M (eds) Managing Software Engineering Knowledge. Springer, Berlin, pp 157–175Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lynch P, Horton S (2001) Web Style Guide: Basic Design Principles for Creating Web Sites, 2nd edn. Yale University Press, New Heaven, CTGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Madsen KH (1999) Special Issue on The Diversity of Usability Practices. J Communications of the ACM, 42(5)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marchionini G, Shneiderman B (1988) Finding Facts vs. Browsing Knowledge in Hypertext Systems. IEEE Computer, 21(1):70–80Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meo R, Lanzi PL, Matera M, Esposito R (2004) Integrating Web Conceptual Modeling and Web Usage Mining. In: Proceedings of the 2002 International ACM Workshop on Web Mining and Web Usage Analysis, Seattle, USA, AugustGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Molich R, Nielsen J (1990) Improving a Human-Computer Dialogue. Communications of the ACM, 33(3):338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nielsen J (1992) The Usability Engineering Lifecycle. J IEEE Computer, 25(3):12–22Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability Engineering. Academic Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nielsen J (1994) Special Issue on Usability Laboratories. Behavior and Information Technology, 13(1)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nielsen J (1994) Guerrilla HCI: Using Discount Usability Engineering to Penetrate Intimidation Barrier. In: Proceedings of the Cost-Justifying Usability, Academic Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nielsen J (1995) Multimedia and Hypertext Internet and Beyond, Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nielsen J (2000) Web Usability. New Riders, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nielsen J, Landauer TK (1993) A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1993 International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, Netherlands, April, pp 296–213Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nielsen J, Mack RL (1994) Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nielsen J, Molich R (1990) Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1990 International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, USA, April, pp 249–256Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Norman DA (1991) Cognitive Artifacts. In: Proceedings of the Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge University. New York, pp. 17–38Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Polson P, Lewis C, Rieman J, Wharton C (1992) Cognitive Walkthrough: A Method for Theory-based Evaluation of User Interfaces. Man-Machine Studies, 36:741–773Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T (1994) Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Punin JR, Krishnamoorthy MS, Zaki MJ (2002) LOGML: Log Markup Language for Web Usage Mining. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Web Mining and Web Usage Analysis, San Francisco, USA, August, pp 88–112Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schwabe D, Rossi G (1998) An Object Oriented Approach to Web-Based Applications Design. Theory and Practice of Object Ssystems, 4(4):207–225Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shneiderman B (1992) Designing the User Interface. Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shneiderman B (2000) Universal Usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shneiderman B, Byrd D, Croft WB (1998) Sorting out searching. Communications of the ACM, 41(4):95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Srivastava J, Cooley R, Deshpande M, Tan PN (2000) Web Usage Mining: Discovery and Applications of Usage Patterns from Web Data. ACM Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery in Data Explorations, 1(2):12.23Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stroulia E, Niu N, El-Ramly M (2002) Understanding Web Usage for Dynamic Web-site Adaptation: A Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Web Site Evolution, Montreal, Canada, October, pp 53–64Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Theofanos MF, Redish J (2003) Bridging the gap between accessibility and usability. ACM Interactions, 10(6):36–51Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Virzi RA (1992) Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects is Enough? Human Factors, 34(4):457–468Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    WebCriteria SiteProfile. (2005) http://www.coremetrics.com (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    WebRatio Site Development Studio. (2005) http://www.webratio.com (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wharton C, Rieman J, Lewis C, Polson P (1994) The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A Practitioner’s Guide. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability Inspection Methods, Wiley, New York, pp 105–140Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Whiteside J, Bennet J, Holtzblatt K (1988) Usability Engineering: Our Experience and Evolution. In: Helander M (ed.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam pp 791–817Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wilson TD (2000) Human Information Behavior. Informing Science, 3(2):49–55Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wurman RS (1997) Information Architects, Watson-Guptill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    W3C Consortium — Extended log file format. (2005) http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-logfile.html. (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    W3C Consortium-WAI-Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. (2005) W3C-WAI Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (accessed 18 January 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maristella Matera
    • 1
  • Francesca Rizzo
    • 2
  • Giovanni Toffetti Carughi
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Human Computer Interaction LaboratoryPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations