Usable guidelines for usable websites? An analysis of five e-government heuristics

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 254-263

  Welle Donker Kuijer, Marieke ^a   de Jong, Menno ^a   Lentz, Leo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Expert evaluation; Formative evaluation; Guidelines; Heuristics; Usability; Websites

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953616759     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Advies Overheid.nl Webrichtlijnen voor de overheid (versie 1.2) Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://webrichtlijnen.overheid.nl/.
2. Anderson S., Bohman P.R., Burmeister O.K., Sampson-Wild G. User needs and e-government accessibility: The future impact of WCAG 2.0. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2004, 3196:289-304.
3. Bertot J.C., Jaeger P.T. The e-government paradox: Better customer service doesn't necessarily cost less. Government Information Quarterly 2008, 25(2):149-154.
4. Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI) Barrierefreies e-government - leitfaden für entscheidungstraeger, grafiker und programmierer. E-Government-Handbuch Retrieved January 31, 2006, from https://www.bsi.bund.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/476832/publicationFile/28055/4_Barriere_pdf.pdf.
5. De Jong M., Van der Geest T. Characterizing web heuristics. Technical Communication 2000, 47:311-326.
6. European Commission (n.d.). Information Providers Guide. Retrieved January 19, 2006, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/ipg/index_en.htm.
7. Evans M.B. Challenges in developing research-based web design guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 2000, 43:302-312.
8. Hale A.R., Swuste P. Safety rules: Procedural freedom or action constraint?. Safety Science 1998, 29(3):163-177.
9. Hart D.P., Teeter M.R. The new e-government equation: Ease, engagement, privacy and protection 2003, Council for Excellence in Government, Washington, DC, Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.cio.gov/Documents/egovpoll2003.pdf.
10. Holden S.H., Norris D.F., Fletcher P.D. Electronic government at the local level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Performance & Management Review 2003, 26:325-344.
11. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
12. Leporini B., Paternò F. Applying web usability criteria for vision-impaired users: Does it really improve task performance?. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 2008, 24:17-47.
13. Mahler J., Regan P.M. Crafting the message: Controlling content on agency web sites. Government Information Quarterly 2007, 24:505-521.
14. Mayhew D.J. A design process for web usability. Handbook of human factors in web design 2005, 338-356. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. R.W. Proctor, K.-P.L. Vu (Eds.).
15. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. Usability inspection methods 1994, 25-62. John Wiley, New York, NY. J. Nielsen, R.L. Mack (Eds.).
16. Office of the e-Envoy Guidelines for UK government websites: Illustrated handbook for web management teams 2003, Stationery Office.
17. Paddison C., Englefield P. Applying heuristics to accessibility inspections. Interacting with Computers 2004, 16:507-521.
18. Schriver K.A. Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 1989, 32:238-255.
19. Tang Z., Johnson T.R., Tindall R.D., Zhang J. Applying heuristic evaluation to improve the usability of a telemedicine system. Telemedicine and e-Health 2006, 12(1):24-34.
20. Uldall-Espersen T., Frokjaer E., Hornbaek K. Tracing impact in a usability improvement process. Interacting with Computers 2008, 20(1):48-63.
21. US Department of Health and Human Services Research-based web design & usability guidelines version 2 2006, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, Available at: http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html.
22. USA Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). (2000). Electronic and information technology accessibility standards, Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 246 / Thursday, December 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations (Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 246 / Thursday, December 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations ed.). Available at: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.pdf.
23. Van der Geest T., Spyridakis J.H. Developing heuristics for web communication: An introduction to this special issue. Technical Communication 2000, 47(3):301-310.
24. Van Deursen A., Van Dijk J., Ebbers W. Why e-government usage lags behind: Explaining the gap between potential and actual usage of electronic public services in the Netherlands. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2006, 4084:269-280.
25. Van Dijk J., Pieterson W., Van Deursen A., Ebbers W. E-services for citizens: The Dutch usage case. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2007, 4656:155-166.
26. W3C. (1999, 1999-5-5). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. Retrieved 2006-02-28, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/.
27. Welle Donker-Kuijer M., De Jong M., Lentz L. Heuristic web site evaluation: Exploring the effects of guidelines on experts' detection of usability problems. Technical Communication 2008, 55:392-404.
28. West D.M. Improving technology utilization in electronic government around the world, 2008 2008, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C, Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/0817_egovernment_west/0817_egovernment_west.pdf.