Web Site Interface Design: External and Internal Factors

  • Ahmed Mahfouz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1903)


There has been tremendous growth in electronic commerce over the past few years. This growth is expected to sustain momentum in the future. Hence, the Internet has become an essential tool for business and customers. However, unlike traditional retailers, it lacks key aspects of a shopping experience like interacting with customer sales people and being physically in a store. A well-designed user interface can overcome some of these limitations and aid customers in their search of products and services. This paper examines both the internal (to the web design) and external (to the user’s environment) factors that affect user interface design on the World Wide Web. These five factors are the user’s mental model, level of expertise of the user, the user’s learning style, richness of the media used, and the organizational image and message. Since all factors are external with the exception of the richness of the media used, the emphasis in the paper is on external factors.


User Interface Mental Model Interface Design Electronic Commerce Traditional Retailer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. K. Kannan, A. Chang, A. B. Whinston. Marketing Information on the I-way, Communications of the ACM, 41,3 (March 1998) 35–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “GVU’s 8th WWW User Surveys,” (November 16, 1997),
  3. 3.
    G. L. Lohse, and P. Spiller. Electronic Shopping: How Do Customer Interfaces Produce Sales on the Internet, Communications of the ACM, 41,7 (July 1998) 81–87.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. J. Mayhew. Principles and Guidelines in Software User Interface Design, Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ (1992).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Barki, and J. Hartwick. Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude, MIS Quarterly, 18,1 (March 1994) 59–82.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. J. Parons and D. Oja. Computer Concepts, Course Technology, Cambridge, MA (1998).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. H. Gerlach, and F. Kuo. Understanding Human-Computer Interaction for Information Systems Design, MIS Quarterly, 15,4 (December 1991) 526–549.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Foley, and A. van Dam. Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1982).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. W. Satzinger, and L. Olfman. User Interface Consistency Across End-User Applications: The Effects on Mental Models, Journal of Management Information Systems, 14,4 (Spring 1998) 167–193.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Grudin. The Case Against User Interface Consistency, Communications of the ACM, 32,10 (October 1989) 11-64-1173.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Card, T. Moran, and A. Newell. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbuam Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1983).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Shneiderman. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1998).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Tufte. Visual Explanations, Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT, (1997).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Tractinsky and J. Meyer. Chartjunk or Goldgraph? Effects of Presentation Objectives and Content Desirability on Information Presentation, MIS Quarterly, 23,3 (September 1999).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. H. Ashcraft. Human Memory and Cognition, HArperCollins College Publishers, NY (1994).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. E. Kendall, and Kenneth E. Kandall. Metaphors and Methodologies: Living Beyond the Systems Machine, MIS Quarterly, 17,2 (June 1993) 149–171.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. H. Madsen. A Guide to Metaphorical Design, Communications of the ACM, 37,12 (December 1994) 57–62.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Raksin. Looking for a Humane Interface: Will Computers Ever Become Easy to Use?, Communications of the ACM, 40,2 (February 1997) 81–101.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Hamlin. Knowledge and Skill Components of Expert and Novice Software Users, University of Washington, WA (1991).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. J. Gillan, B. S. Fogas, S. Aberasturi, and S. Richards. Cognitive Ability and Computing Experience Influence Interpretation of Computer Metaphors, in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (1995) 243–247.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. P. Ratner. Easing the Learning Curve of Novice Web Users, in C. Forsythe, E. Grose, and J. Ratner (Eds.), Human Factors and Web Development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (1998).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. A. Davis, and R. Bostrom. Training End Users: An Experimental Investigation of the Roles of Computer Interface and Training Methods, MIS Quarterly, 17,1 (March 1993) 61–85.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. A. Kolb. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1984).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. P. Bostrom, L. Olfman, and M. K. Sein. The Importance of Leaning Style in End-User Training, MIS Quarterly, 14,1 (March 1990) 101–119.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Eighmey. Profiling User Responses to Commercial Web Sites, Journal of Advertising Research, 37,3 (May/June 1997) 59–66.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. L. Daft, and R. H. Lengel. A Proposed Integration Among Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design, Management Science, 32, (1986) 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O. K. Ngwenyama, and A. S. Allen. Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning, MIS Quarterly, 21,2 (June 1997) 145–167.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. W. Palmer, and D. A. Griffith. An Emerging Model of Web Site Design for Marketing, Communications of the ACM, 41,3 (March 1998) 44–51.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. D. Wells. Coupling User and Source Domains in Interface Metaphors: A Comparative Analysis, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University (1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Mahfouz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Operations Management, Mays College and Graduate School of Business AdministrationTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations