Specifying Quality Characteristics and Attributes for Websites
In this work, we outline more than a hundred characteristics and attributes for the domain of academic sites in order to analyze the quality requirement tree and a way to specify them. These elements are used in a quantitative methodology for assessment, comparison, and ranking processes. The proposed Web-site Quality Evaluation Methodology (QEM) can be a useful approach to assess the quality in different phases of a Web product life cycle. In the academic study, we have observed three different evaluation audiences regarding visitor users: current and prospective students, academic personnel, and research sponsors. Besides, the aim of this work is to show a hierarchical and descriptive specification framework for characteristics, subcharacteristics and attributes. This framework is a key underlying piece in the construction of a hyperdocumented evaluation tool. Finally, some results are presented and concluding remarks are discussed.
KeywordsQuality Characteristic High Level Characteristic Preference Scale Prospective Student Academic Unit
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Deshpande Y., Hansen S., and Murugesan S., Web Engineering: beyond CS, IS, and SE, Int’l Conference on Software Engineering, Web Engineering Workshop, LA, US, pp. 10–16, 1999.Google Scholar
- 2.Dujmovic J.J., A Method for Evaluation and Selection of Complex Hardware and Software Systems, The 22nd International Conference for the Resource Management and Performance Evaluation of Enterprise Computing Systems. CMG 96 Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp.368–378, 1996.Google Scholar
- 3.Fenton N.E. and Pfleeger S.L., Software Metrics: a Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd Ed., PWS Publishing Company, 1997.Google Scholar
- 4.Gilb T., Weighted Ranking by Levels, IAG Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 7–22, 1969.Google Scholar
- 5.ISO/IEC 9126-1991 International Standard, “Information technology-Software product evaluation-Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use”, 1991.Google Scholar
- 6.Lohse G. and Spiller P., Electronic ShoppingCACM 41,7 (Jul-98); pp.81–86, 1998.Google Scholar
- 7.McCall J, Richards P. and Walters G., Factors in Software Quality, RADC TR-77-369, 1977.Google Scholar
- 8.Miller J.R., Professional Decision-Making, Praeger Publisher, 1970.Google Scholar
- 9.Nielsen J, The Alertbox, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/, 2000.
- 10.Nielsen J., Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity, New Riders Pub., 1999.Google Scholar
- 11.Olsina L., Building a Web-based Information System applying the Hypermedia Flexible Process Modeling Strategy; 1st Int’l Workshop on Hypermedia Development, at ACM Hypertext, Pittsburgh, US, Available at http://www.eng.uts.edu.au/~dbl/HypDev/, 1998
- 12.Olsina L., Web-site Quantitative Evaluation and Comparison: a Case Study on Museums, Workshop on Software Engineering over the Internet, at Int’l Conference on Software Engineering, http://sern.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~maurer/ICSE99WS/ICSE99WS.html, LA, US, 1999.
- 13.Olsina L. and Rossi G., Towards Web-site Quantitative Evaluation: defining Quality Characteristics and Attributes, Proceedings of IV Int’l WebNet Conference, World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Hawaii, USA, Vol.1, pp.834–839, 1999Google Scholar
- 14.Olsina L., Godoy D., Lafuente G.J and Rossi G., Assessing the Quality of Academic Websites: a Case Study, In: New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia (NRHM) Journal, Taylor Graham Publishers, UK/USA Vol. 5, pp. 81–103, 1999.Google Scholar
- 15.Rosenfeld L. and Morville P., Information Architecture for the WWW, O’Reilly, 1998.Google Scholar
- 16.W3C, W3C Working Draft, WAI Accessibility Guidelines: Page Authoring, http://www.w3c.org/TR/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH/, 1999.