Exploring the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications: The Case of Mind Mapping Services

  • Tihomir Orehovački
  • Andrina Granić
  • Dragutin Kermek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7059)


Research in Web quality has addressed quality in use as the most important factor affecting a wide acceptance of software applications. It can be conceived as comprising two complementary concepts, that is, usability and user experience, which accounts for the employment of more user-centred evaluations. Nevertheless, in the context of Web 2.0 applications, this topic has still not attracted sufficient attention from the HCI community. This paper addresses the quality in use of Web 2.0 applications on the case of mind mapping services. The evaluation methodology brings together three complementary methods. The estimated quality in use is measured by means of the logging actual use method, while the perceived quality in use is evaluated by means of the retrospective thinking aloud (RTA) method and a questionnaire. The contribution of our work is twofold. Firstly, we provide empirical evidence that the proposed methodology in conjunction with the model, set of attributes, and measuring instruments is appropriate for evaluating quality in use of Web 2.0 applications. Secondly, the analysis of qualitative data reveals that performance and effort based attributes considerably contribute to mind mapping services success.


Web 2.0 Quality in Use Evaluation Methodology Study Results 


  1. 1.
    Almeida, J.M., Gonçalves, M.A., Figueiredo, F., Pinto, H., Belém, F.: On the Quality of Information for Web 2.0 Services. IEEE Internet Computing 14(6), 47–55 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Bevan, N.: Extending Quality in Use to Provide a Framework for Usability Measurement. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 13–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bevan, N., Macleod, M.: Usability measurement in context. Behaviour & Information Technology 13, 132–145 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cappiello, C., Daniel, F., Matera, M.: A Quality Model for Mashup Components. In: Gaedke, M., Grossniklaus, M., Díaz, O. (eds.) ICWE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5648, pp. 236–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiou, W.-C., Lin, C.-C., Perng, C.: A strategic framework for website evaluation based on a review of the literature from 1995-2006. Information & Management 47, 282–290 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K.: Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In: Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 345–352. ACM, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lew, P., Olsina, L., Zhang, L.: Quality, Quality in Use, Actual Usability and User Experience as Key Drivers for Web Application Evaluation. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Kappel, G., Rossi, G. (eds.) ICWE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6189, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olsina, L., Sassano, R., Mich, L.: Specifying Quality Requirements for the Web 2.0 Applications. In: Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Web-oriented Software Technology (IWWOST 2008), pp. 56–62. CEUR, Bratislava (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orehovački, T.: Development of a Methodology for Evaluating the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6949, pp. 382–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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, pp. 575–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tihomir Orehovački
    • 1
  • Andrina Granić
    • 2
  • Dragutin Kermek
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Organization and InformaticsUniversity of ZagrebVaraždinCroatia
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of SplitSplitCroatia

Personalised recommendations