Advertisement

Development of a Methodology for Evaluating the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications

  • Tihomir Orehovački
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6949)

Abstract

Quality in use is comprised of two seemingly different though interlocking concepts: usability and user experience. Consequently, complementary evaluation of pragmatic and hedonic attributes could significantly affect the acceptance of software applications. However, in the context of Web 2.0 applications this topic has still not attracted enough attention from the HCI community. Therefore we present a research aimed at developing a methodology that would facilitate the analysis and comparison of evaluated Web 2.0 applications.

Keywords

Web 2.0 Quality in Use Usability User Experience Subjective and Objective Measures Evaluation Methodology 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Dujmović, J.J.: Preferential Neural Networks. In: Antognetti, P., Milutinović, V. (eds.) Neural Networks – Concepts, Applications, and Implementations, pp. 155–206. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Esposito, V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H.: Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, methods, and applications. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hart, J., Ridley, C., Taher, F., Sas, C., Dix, A.: Exploring the Facebook Experience: A New Approach to Usability. In: 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges, pp. 471–474. ACM, Lund (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience – a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering – Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – System and software quality models (2011) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Exploring the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications: The Case of Mind Mapping Services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (accepted for publishing)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orehovački, T.: Perceived Quality of Cloud Based Applications for Collaborative Writing. In: Pokorny, J., et al. (eds.) Information Systems Development – Business Systems and Services: Modeling and Development. Springer, Heidelberg (in press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orehovački, T.: Proposal for a Set of Quality Attributes Relevant for Web 2.0 Application Success. In: 32nd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 319–326. IEEE Press, Cavtat (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silva, P.A., Dix, A.: Usability – Not as we know it! In: 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on HCI 2007: People and Computers XXI: HCI...but not as we know it, vol. 2, pp. 103–106. ACM, University of Lancaster (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Straub, D., Boudreau, M., Gefen, D.: Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13(1), 380–427 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomas, D.M., Watson, R.T.: Q-Sorting and MIS Research: A Primer. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 8, 141–156 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson, A.-J., Kemp, E.A.: Web 2.0: extending the framework for heuristic evaluation. In: 10th International Conference NZ Chapter of the ACM’s Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 29–36. ACM, New Zealand (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tihomir Orehovački
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Organization and InformaticsUniversity of ZagrebVaraždinCroatia

Personalised recommendations