<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title>Rutgers University</title>	<link>http://tc.eserver.org/publisher/Rutgers_University</link>
	<description>A listing of works published by Rutgers University in the field of technical communication.</description>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<copyright>Copyright (c) 2005-08 by the EServer. All rights reserved.</copyright>
	<managingEditor>tclib-editorial@eserver.org (TC Library Editorial Board)</managingEditor>
	<webMaster>webmaster@eserver.org (Geoffrey Sauer)</webMaster>
	
	<item>
		<title>Usability and Gratifications -- Towards a Website Analysis Model</title>
		<link>http://tc.eserver.org/19213.html</link>
		<guid>http://tc.eserver.org/19213.html</guid>
		<description>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&#xD;and gratifications theory and similar theories, are presented. In the first study, experts&#xD;evaluated three websites on the national park Mesa Verde in a more formal approach&#xD;based on criteria defined in the literature. In the second study, non-experts evaluated the&#xD;same three websites in a more informal and personal approach, using concurrent, or&#xD;“thinking aloud,” verbal protocol methods. Results show that overall assessment of the&#xD;websites differs between experts and non-experts. Specifically, overall the website&#xD;assessed as worst by the experts was liked most by the non-experts. Cognitive and&#xD;emotional needs as defined by uses and gratifications seemed to make more of a&#xD;difference with regard to website use, and less with regard to website evaluation. Results&#xD;from these studies provide the basis for a user-centered website analysis model that may&#xD;make use of but not depend on usability criteria defined by the literature.</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Web Interface Design: Learning from our Past</title>
		<link>http://tc.eserver.org/19017.html</link>
		<guid>http://tc.eserver.org/19017.html</guid>
		<description>The advent of World Wide Web authoring has led to a plethora of graphics rich web pages. But where&apos;s the beef? In addition to placing marketing information on a company&apos;s home page the strength of the web lies in its flexibility to link to corporate databases and processes running on a variety of machines, both web and non-web servers. Tasks such as, creating transaction systems for commerce, creating graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for legacy systems, and doing queries against corporate databases require the web designer to take into account more than HTML code and imagemaps. The heritage of interactive design for network-based solutions has helped interface designers understand how to apply their craft to create effective World Wide Web solutions.</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Guide to Grammar and Style</title>
		<link>http://tc.eserver.org/13316.html</link>
		<guid>http://tc.eserver.org/13316.html</guid>
		<description>These notes are a miscellany of grammatical rules and explanations, comments on style, and suggestions on usage I put together for my classes. Nothing here is carved in stone, and many comments are matters of personal preference — feel free to psychoanalyze me by examining my particular hangups and bêtes noires. Anyone who can resist turning my own preferences into dogma is welcome to use this HTML edition.</description>
	</item>
	<atom:link href="http://tc.eserver.org/publisher/Rutgers_University.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
</channel>
</rss>