HCI and Usability Principles and Guidelines in the Website Development Process: An International Perspective

  • Tomayess Issa
  • Pedro Isaias


This chapter provides an answer to the question “Do industry practitioners consider that human computer interaction (HCI) and usability principles and guidelines are essential in the website development process?” The answer was sought by means of an online survey (N = 126), of Information Systems(IS)/Information Technology (IT) personnel in Australia and Portugal, that allowed the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data. Explanatory analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, including frequencies and an independent sample T-test. The study findings suggest that both HCI and Usability were significant aspects of the website development process especially in the marketing websites, as their inclusion will encourage users to revisit these websites and thereby increase businesses’ profits. Usability and HCI features are especially important in the design stage to improve the structure and functionality of a website. The conclusions drawn in this chapter will assist IS/IT industry practitioners in Australia and Portugal to implement HCI and usability approaches by means of a New Participative Methodology for Marketing Websites (NPMMW).


Human Computer Interaction User Participation Real Interaction Content Management System Maintenance Stage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Avison D, Fitzgerald G (2002) Reflections and information systems development 1988–2002. In: Kirikova M, Grundspenkis J, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski WG, Wrycza S, Zupancic J (eds) Information systems development :advances in methodologies, components, and management. Kluwer Academic, New York, p 460Google Scholar
  2. Avison D, Fitzgerald G (2003) Where now for development methodologies. Commun ACM 46(1):79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barcellini F, Detienne F, Burkhardt J-M (2006) Users’ participation to the design process in an open source software online community. In: 18th annual workshop on psychology of Programming Interest Group, UK, 2006. pp 1–15Google Scholar
  4. Benyon D, Turner P, Turner S (2005) Designing interactive systems. Pearson Education Limited, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human computer interaction: changing roles oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho Y, Park J, Han SK, Kang S (2011) Development of a web-based survey system for evaluating affective satisfaction. Int J Ind Ergonom 41:247–254Google Scholar
  7. Cyr D, Bonanni C, Bowes J, Ilsever J (2005) Beyond trust: website design preferences across cultures. J Glob Info Manag 13(4):24–52Google Scholar
  8. Darlington K (2005) Effective Website Development. Pearson Education Limited, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  9. DePaula R (2003) A new era in human computer interaction: the challenges of technology as a social proxy. In: Latin American conference on HCI, 2003. ACM international conference proceeding series, pp 219–222Google Scholar
  10. Diaper D, Sanger C (2006) Tasks for and tasks in human-computer interaction. Interact Comput 18:117–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman D (2007) Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd G, Beale R (2004) Human-computer interaction. 3rd edn. Pearson Education Limited, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan W, Yan Z (2010) Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 26:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farzan R, Brusilovsky P (2011) Encouraging user participation in a course recommender system: an impact on user behaviour. Comput Hum Behav 27:276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ficarra F, Nichol E, Cripolla-Ficarra M, Richardson L (2011) Advances in human-computer interaction: graphics and animation components for interface design. Paper presented at the HCITOCHGoogle Scholar
  16. Flavian C, Guinaliu M, Gurrea R (2006) The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Inf Manag 43:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Følstad A, Anda BCD, Sjøberg DIK (2010) The usability inspection performance of work-domain experts: an empirical study. Interact Comput 22(2):75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon J, McNew R (2008) Developing the online survey. Nurs Clin N Am 43:605–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graefe A, Mowen A, Covelli E, Trauntvein N (2011) Recreation participation and conservation attitudes: differences between mail and online respondents in a mixed mode survey. Hum Dimens Wildlife 16(3):183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haklay M (2010) Interaction with geospatial technologies. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Harbich S, Hassenzahl M (2011) Using behavioral patterns to assess the interaction of users and product. Int J Hum Comput Stud 69:496–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison R, Reilly T (2011) Mixed methods designs in marketing research. Qual Market Res Int J 14(1):7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Head AJ (1999) Design Wise. Thomas H Hogan Sr., MedfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Hesse-Biber S (2010) Emerging methodologies and methods practices in the field of mixed methods research. Qual Inquiry 16(6):415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hornbaek K (2006) Current practice in measuring usability: challenges to usability studies and research. Int J Hum Comput stud 64:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Isomursu M, Ervasti M, Kinnula M, Isomursu P (2011) Understanding human values in adopting new technology–a case study and methodological discussion. Int J Hum Comput Stud 69(4):183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Issa T (1999) Online shopping and human factors (Unpublished). Research Project, Murdoch University, PerthGoogle Scholar
  28. Issa T (2008) Development and evaluation of a methodology for developing websites. PhD Thesis, Curtin University, Western Australia.
  29. Issa T (2013) online survey: best practice. In: Isaias P, Nunes MB (eds) Information systems research and exploring social artifacts: approaches and methodologies. IGI Global USA, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  30. Issa T, Turk A (2012) Applying usability and HCI principles in developing marketing websites. Int J Comput Inf Syst Ind Manag Appl 4:76–82Google Scholar
  31. Issa T, Turk A, West M (2010) Development and evaluation of a methodology for developing marketing websites. In: Martako D, Kouroupetroglou G, Papadopoulou P (eds) Integrating usability engineering for designing the web experience: methodologies and principles. IGI Global PublishingGoogle Scholar
  32. Joshi A, Sarda NL, Tripathi S (2010) Measuring effectiveness of HCI integration in software development processes. J Syst Softw 83(11):2045–2058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanis H (2011) Estimating the number of usability problems. Appl Ergon 42(2):337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kotamraju NP (2011) Playing stupid, caring for users, and putting on a good show: feminist acts in usability work. Interact Comput 23(5):439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lavie T, Oron-Gilad T, Meyer J (2011) Aesthetics and usability of in-vehicle navigation displays. Int J Hum Comput Stud 69(1–2):80–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lazar J (2006) Web usability. Pearson Education, Inc., EnglandGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee S, Koubek RJ (2010) The effects of usability and web design attributes on user preference for e-commerce web sites. Comput Ind 61(4):329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee Y, Kozar K (2012) Understanding of website usability: specifying and measuring constructs and their relationships. Decis Support Syst 52(2):450–463. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leung R, Law R (2012) Human factors in website usability measurement. In: Zhang Y (ed) Future wireless networks and information systems, vol 143. Lecture notes in electrical engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 501–507. doi: Google Scholar
  40. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22(140):55Google Scholar
  41. Lowry PB, Zhang D, Zhou L, Fu X (2010) Effects of culture, social presence, and group composition on trust in technology-supported decision-making groups. Info Systems J 20:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maceli M, Atwood M (2011) From human factors to human actors to human crafters. Paper presented at the iconference SeattleGoogle Scholar
  43. Mankelow T (2006) Optimal usability. NZ Bus 20(1):53Google Scholar
  44. Martin S, Camarero C, San Jose R (2011) Does involvement matter in online shopping satisfaction and trust? Psychol Market 28(2):145–167Google Scholar
  45. Maudsley G (2011) Mixing it but not mixed-up: mixed methods research in medical education (a critical narrative review). Med Teach 33(2):92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McBurney DH, White TL (2007) Research methods, 7th edn. Thomson Learning, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Molina-Azorin J (2011) The use and added value of mixed methods in management research. J Mixed Methods Res 5(1):7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicolson D, Knapp P, Gardner P, Raynor D (2011) Combining concurrent and sequential methods to examine the usability and readability of websites with information about medicines. J Mixed Methods Res 51(1):25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nielsen J (2003) Usability 101. Accessed 16 Sept 2012
  50. Nies J, Pelayo S (2010) From users involvement to users’ needs understanding: a case study. Int J Med Inf 79(76–82)Google Scholar
  51. O’Brien H, Toms E (2010) The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. J Am Soc Info Sci Technol 61(1):50–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olson G, Olson J (2003) Human computer interaction: psychological aspects of the human use of computing. Annu Rev Psychol 54:491–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Preece J, Rogers Y, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T (1994) Human computer interaction. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  54. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson J, Martin S (2010) IT use and declining social capital? More cold water from the general social survey (GSS) and the American Time-Use Survey (ATUS). Soc Sci Comput Rev 28(1):45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sauer J, Seibel K, Rüttinger B (2010) The influence of user expertise and prototype fidelity in usability tests. Appl Ergon 41(1):130–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sekaran U (2003) Research methods for business “a skill building approach”, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Sengers P, Boehner K, Knouf N (2009) Sustainable HCI meets third wave HCI: 4 Themes. In: CHI 2009Google Scholar
  59. Sengers P, McCarthy J, Dourish P (2006) Reflective HCI: articulating an agenda for critical practice. In: CHI’ 06, New York 2006. pp 1683–1686Google Scholar
  60. Shackel B (2009) Usability—context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interact Comput 21:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J (2011) Interaction design—beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Shi M (2011) Website characteristics and their influences: a review on web design. Paper presented at the ABIS 2011 refereed proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  63. Smyth J, Dillman D, Christian L, O’Neill A (2010) Using the internet to survey small towns and communities: limitations and possibilities in the early 21st Century. Am Behav Sci 53:1423–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Subramanyam R, Weisstein FL, Krishnan MS (2010) User participation in software development projects. Commun ACM 53(3):137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Te’eni D, Carey J, Zhang P (2007) Human computer interaction: developing effective organizational information systems. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Vora P (1998) Human factors methodology for designing web sites. In: Chris Forsythe EGJR (ed) Human factors and web development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 153–172Google Scholar
  67. Wiggins B (2011) Confronting the dilemma of mixed methods. J Theor Philos Psychol 31(1):44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information SystemsCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Universidade Aberta (Portuguese Open University)LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations