 | |  |  | 

This paper discusses website usability issues. Specifically, it assumes that the usability of a website depends more on the perception of the user than on the objectively assessable usability criteria of the website. Two pilot studies, based on theoretical notions of uses
and gratifications theory and similar theories, are presented. In the first study, experts
evaluated three websites on the national park Mesa Verde in a more formal approach
based on criteria defined in the literature. In the second study, non-experts evaluated the
same three websites in a more informal and personal approach, using concurrent, or
“thinking aloud,” verbal protocol methods. Results show that overall assessment of the
websites differs between experts and non-experts. Specifically, overall the website
assessed as worst by the experts was liked most by the non-experts. Cognitive and
emotional needs as defined by uses and gratifications seemed to make more of a
difference with regard to website use, and less with regard to website evaluation. Results
from these studies provide the basis for a user-centered website analysis model that may
make use of but not depend on usability criteria defined by the literature. View all 3 works published by Rutgers University |
 Usability and Gratifications -- Towards a Website Analysis Model A user has reported that the URL we had indexed no longer works properly. This link is offline until a volunteer finds a new, valid URL for the work and updates our site.
Bunz, Ulla K. Rutgers University 2001
Abstract: This paper discusses website usability issues. Specifically, it assumes that the usability of a website depends more on the perception of the user than on the objectively assessable usability criteria of the website. Two pilot studies, based on theoretical notions of uses
and gratifications theory and similar theories, are presented. In the first study, experts
evaluated three websites on the national park Mesa Verde in a more formal approach
based on criteria defined in the literature. In the second study, non-experts evaluated the
same three websites in a more informal and personal approach, using concurrent, or
“thinking aloud,” verbal protocol methods. Results show that overall assessment of the
websites differs between experts and non-experts. Specifically, overall the website
assessed as worst by the experts was liked most by the non-experts. Cognitive and
emotional needs as defined by uses and gratifications seemed to make more of a
difference with regard to website use, and less with regard to website evaluation. Results
from these studies provide the basis for a user-centered website analysis model that may
make use of but not depend on usability criteria defined by the literature.
|
 |
 |  |