A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Academic Websites

  • Sairam VakkalankaEmail author
  • Reddi Prasadu
  • V. V. S. Sasank
  • A. Surekha
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1090)


The main goal of this paper is to design a tool for the evaluation of academic website, taking into account perspectives of different user groups. A literature review was conducted on the existing models, and a list of the factors affecting the quality of academic websites was identified. A framework was developed based on the identified quality factors, to evaluate the new framework, a questionnaire was devised, and a survey was conducted on the reliability of this questionnaire. To assess the effectiveness of the framework, an experiment was conducted, considering six academic websites and 6300 people from different user groups. The threats encountered during the study were also discussed with recommendations for future work.


Website quality Academic website Framework Quality evaluation 



We thank all the numerous participants who participated in evaluating the different websites, and thank those reviewers for suggesting changes to the questionnaires. No data was collected regarding the details of participants for website evaluations and all of the participants were anonymous.


  1. 1.
    Mendes, E. 2006. Web Engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, J., and M. Tale. 1999. Web Wisdom: How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality in the Web. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Inc.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dragulenscu, Nicolae-George. 2002. Website Quality Evaluations: Criteria and Tools. The International Information & Library Review 34 (3): 247–254. ISSN 1057-2317.
  4. 4.
    Wu, Y., and J. Offutt. 2002. Modeling and Testing Web-based Applications. George Mason University.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krug, S. 2006. Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability, 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abran, A., A. Khelifi, A. Seffah, and W. Suryn. 2003. Usability Meanings and Interpretations in ISO Standards. Software Quality 11: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dyba, Tore, Erik Arisholm, Dag I. K. Sjoberg, and Jo E. Hannay. Are Two Heads Better than One? On the Effectiveness of Pair Programming. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitchen ham, B.A., and S. Charters. 2007. Procedures for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. In EBSE Technical Report, Software Engineering Group, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University, UK and Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, UK. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Web link to Social Research.
  10. 10.
    Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, Second.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olsina, L., and G. Rossi. 2002 Measuring Web application quality with WebQEM, vol. 9, no. 4, 20–29. Multimedia, IEEE.
  12. 12.
    Longstreet, P. 2010. Evaluating Website Quality: Applying Cue Utilization Theory to WebQual. In: 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). vol. no., 1–7, 5–8 Jan. 2010.
  13. 13.
    Olsina, L., D. Godoy, G. Lafuente, and G. Rossi. 1999. Source: Assessing the Quality of Academic Websites: A Case Study. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 5: 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yip, C.L., and E. Mendes. 2005. Web Usability Measurement: Comparing Logic Scoring Preference to Subjective Assessment. In ICWE: International Conference on Web Engineering, vol. 3579, 53–62. Sydney, Australia: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, J. 2000. Is Navigation useful?. In Jakob Nielsen’s Alert Box.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen, J. 2002. Introduction to Usability.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Micali, F., and S. Cimino. 2008. Web Q-Model: A New Approach to the Quality. In The 26th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burris, E. 2007. Software Quality Management.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Web link to IIT- D
  21. 21.
    Web link to MST
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Web link to UVP
  24. 24.
    Web link to UNSW
  25. 25.
    Web link to Times Higher Education Rankings.
  26. 26.
    Web link to KTH.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Trochim, W. 2000. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd ed. Cincinnati OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sairam Vakkalanka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reddi Prasadu
    • 1
  • V. V. S. Sasank
    • 1
  • A. Surekha
    • 1
  1. 1.ANITSVisakhapatnamIndia

Personalised recommendations