Testing the visual consistency of web sites

Technical Communication

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 27-36

  Van Der Geest, Thea ^a   Loorbach, Nicole ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14544296955     PISSN: 00493155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Coxon, A. P. M. 1999. Sorting data: Collection and analysis. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. de Jong, M., and T. van der Geest. 2000. Characterizing Web heuristics. Technical communication 40:311-326.
3. Dieli, M. 1986. Designing successful documents: An investigation of document evaluation methods. PhD dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
4. Doubleday, A., M. Ryan, M. Springett, and A. Sutcliffe. 1997. A comparison of usability techniques for evaluating design. Proceedings of the ACM/DIS conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 101-110.
5. Faiks, A., and N. Hyland. 2000. Gaining user insight: A case study illustrating the card sort technique. College and search libraries 61:349-357.
6. Fogg, B. J., C. Soohoo, and D. Danielson. 2002. How do people evaluate a Web site's credibility? Results from a large study. New York, NY: Consumer Webwatch. http://www. consumerWebwatch.org/news/report3_credibilityresearch/ stanfordPTL.pdf.
7. Fu, L., G. Salvendy, and L. Turley. 2002. Effectiveness of user testing and heuristic evaluation as a function of performance classification. Behaviour and information technology 21:137-143.
8. Fuccella, J., and J. Pizzolato. 1999. Giving people what they want: How to involve users in site design. Formerly available online from IBM.
9. Gahrmann, S. 2004. De test getest [The test tested]. Master's thesis, University of Twente.
10. Grudin, J. 1989. The case against user interface consistency. Communications of the ACM 32:1164-1173.
11. IBM. n.d. EZSort (beta release), http://www-3.ibm.com/ibm/ easy/eou_ext.nsf/publish/410.
12. Ivory, M. Y., and M. A. Hearst. 2002. Statistical profiles of highly rated Web sites. Paper presented at CHI 2002 conference, Minneapolis MN.
13. Jeffries, R., J. R. Miller, C. Wharton, and K. M. Uyeda. 1991. User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings of the ACM CHI'91 conference. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 119-124.
14. Kessner, M., J. Wood, R. F. Dillon, and R. L. West. 2001. On the reliability of usability testing. Interactive poster presented at the CHI 2001 conference, Seattle, WA.
15. Law, L.-C., and E. T. Hvannberg. 2002. Complementarity and convergence of heuristic evaluation and usability test: A case study of UNIVERSAL brokerage platform. Paper presented at the NordiCHI conference, Aarhus, Denmark.
16. Lentz, L., and M. de Jong. 1997. The evaluation of text quality: Expert-focused and reader-focused methods compared. IEEE transactions on professional communication 40:224-234.
17. Marcus, A., and E. W. Gould. 2000. Crosscurrents: Cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design. Interactions 7(4): 32-46.
18. National Cancer Institute 2004. Research-based Web-design and usability guidelines. http://usability.gov/.
19. Nielsen, J., ed. 1989. Coordinating user interfaces for consistency. Boston, MA: Academic Press; rpt. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2002.
20. _. 2004. Card sorting: How many users to test. Alertbox, 19 July, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ 20040719.html.
21. Ozok, A. A., and G. Salvendy. 2000. Measuring consistency of Web page design and its effects on performance and satisfaction. Ergonomics 43:443-460.
22. _. 2001. How consistent is your Web design? Behaviour and information technology 20:433-447.
23. _. 2004. Twenty guidelines for the design of Web-based interfaces with consistent language. Computers in human behavior 20:149-161.
24. Rosenfeld, L., and P. Morville. 2002. Information architecture for the World Wide Web. 2nd ed. Beijing, China: O'Reilly.
25. Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the user interface. 3rd ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
26. Stanford, J., E. R. Tauber, B. J. Fogg, and L. Marable. 2002. Expert vs. online consumers: A comparative credibility study of health and finance Web sites. New York, NY: Consumer Webwatch. http://www.consumerWebwatch.org/news/ report3_ credibilityresearch/slicedbread.pdf.
27. Trooster, S. 2004. Practices and principles of designing information structures for target audiences. Master's thesis, University of Twente.
28. Tullis, T., and L. Wood. 2004. How many users are enough for a card-sorting study? Paper presented at the Usability Professionals Association conference, Minneapolis, MN.
29. van der Geest, T. 2000. Web design is communication design. Amsterdam, Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
30. _. 2001. De informatiestructuur van Websites. De sorteertaak als hulpmiddel voor de site-architect [The information structure of Web sites. Sorting as an aid for the site architect]. [Tekst]blad 2(1): 36-41.
31. Vischeck. 2003. http://www.vischeck.com.
32. Wood, L.E., J. R. Wood, and J. Anderson. 2002. Web-based card sorting for information architecture. Presentation at the Northern Utah Human Computer Interaction Special Interest Group meeting. http://www.acm.org/chapters/nuchi/ 2002/09mtg.html.