Users' Abilities to Review Web Site Pages

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 171-201

  Elling, Sanne ^a   Lentz, Leo ^a   de Jong, Menno ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

feedback; informational Web sites; usability; user review; Web site evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859236376     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: 15524574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651911429920     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Baker L.Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader.Educational Psychology Review. 1989;1:3-38.
2. Barkas-Avila J.A.,Oberholzer G.,Schmutz G.,DeVito M.,Opwis K.Usable error message presentation in the World Wide Web: Do not show errors right away.Interacting With Computers. 2007;19:330-341.
3. Boren M.T.,Ramey J.Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 2000;43:261-278.
4. Brown P.,Levinson S.C.Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1987:.
5. Bruun A.,Gull P.,Hofmeister L.,Stage J.Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Boston, MA: ACM Press; 2009:1619-1628.
6. Castillo J.C.,Hartson H.R.,Hix D.In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors on Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press; 1998:253-254.
7. Cunliffe D.Developing usable Websites: A review and model.Internet Research. 2000;10:295-307.
8. De Jong M.Reader feedback in text design: Validity of the plus-minus method for the pretesting of public information brochures. Atlanta, GA: Rodopi; 1998:.
9. De Jong M.,Lentz L.Focus: Design and evaluation of a software tool for collecting reader feedback.Technical Communication Quarterly. 2001;10:387-401.
10. De Jong M.,Schellens P.J.Readers' background characteristics and their feedback on documents: The influence of gender and educational level on evaluation results.Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 2001;31:267-281.
11. Elling S.,Lentz L.,De Jong M.Website evaluation questionnaire: Development of a research-based tool for evaluating informational Web sites.Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2007;4656:293-304.
12. Elling S.,Lentz L.,De Jong M.Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press; 2011:1161-1170.
13. Elling S.,Lentz L.,De Jong Government Information Quarterly. 2012:.
14. Faulkner L.Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing.Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers. 2003;35:379-383.
15. Hassenzahl M.Prioritizing usability problems: Data-driven and judgement-driven severity estimates.Behaviour & Information Technology. 2000;19:29-42.
16. Hertzum M.,Jacobsen N.E.The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2003;15:183-204.
17. Hertzum M.,Jacobsen N.E.,Molich R. Paper presented at the Interactive Poster CHI 2002; Minneapolis, MN;
18. Hornbæk K.Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods.Behavior & Information Technology. 2010;29:97-111.
19. Jansen C.,Balijon S.How do people use instruction guides? Confirming and disconfirming patterns of use.Document Design. 2002;3:195-204.
20. Karahasanovíc A.,Nyhamar Hinkel U.,Sjǿberg D.I. K.,Thomas R.Comparing of feedback-collection and think-aloud methods in program comprehension studies.Behavior Information Technology. 2009;28:139-164.
21. Kramer A.F.,Hahn S.,Gopher D.Task coordination and aging: Explorations of executive control processes in the task switching paradigm.Acta Psychologica. 1999;101:339-378.
22. Lewis J.R.Sample sizes for usability studies: Additional considerations.Human Factors. 1994;36:368-378.
23. Molich R.,Dumas J.S.Comparative usability evaluation (CUE-4).Behaviour & Information Technology. 2008;27:263-281.
24. Monsell S.Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003;7:134-140.
25. Moon Y.Don't blame the computer: When self-disclosure moderates the self-serving bias.Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2003;13:125-137.
26. Neerincx M.A.,Lindenberg J.,Pemberton S.In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web. Hong Kong: ACM Press; 2001:119-128.
27. Nichols D.M.,McKay D.,Twidale M.B.Proceedings of 4th ACM SIGCHI NZ, Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction. Dunedin, New Zealand: SIGCHI; 2003:63-68.
28. Nielsen J.Estimating the number of subjects needed for a thinking aloud test.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 1994a;41:385-397.
29. Nielsen J.Usability inspection methods. Nielsen J.Mack R.L., ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1994b:25-62.
30. NielsenJ. (1995). Severity ratings for usability problems. Retrieved fromhttp://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/severityrating.html.
31. NielsenJ. (2001). Alertbox: First rule of usability? Don't listen to users. Retrieved fromhttp://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html.
32. Ormrod J.E.Educational psychology: Developing learners. 2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2006:.
33. SauroJ. (2010). Can users self-report usability problems?Retrieved fromhttp://www.measuringusability.com/blog/self-reporting.php.
34. Schriver K.A.Dynamics in document design: Creating text for readers. New York, NY: Wiley; 1997:.
35. Serenko A.Are interface agents scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human-agent interaction.Interacting With Computers. 2007;19:293-303.
36. Sienot M.Pretesting Web sites: A comparison between the plus-minus method and the think-aloud method for the World Wide Web.Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 1997;11:469-482.
37. Spool J.,Schroeder W.CHI Extended Abstracts. New York, NY: ACM Press; 2001:85-286.
38. Spyridakis J.H.,Wei C.,Barrick J.,Cuddihy E.,Maust B.Internet-based research: Providing a foundation for Web design guidelines.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 2005;48:242-260.
39. Tullis T.,Albert B.Measuring the user experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kaufmann; 2008:.
40. Uldall-Espersen T.,Frøkjær E.,Hornbæk K.Tracing impact in a usability improvement process.Interacting With Computers. 2008;20:48-63.
41. Van den Haak M.Haak M.J.,De Jong M.D. T.,Schellens P.J.Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue.Behaviour & Information Technology. 2003;22:339-251.
42. Van den Haak M.J.,De Jong M.D. T.,Schellens P.J.Employing think-aloud protocols and constructive interaction to test the usability of online library catalogues: A methodological comparison.Interacting With Computers, 16. 2004;:1153-1170.
43. Van Dijk J.,Pieterson W.,Van Deursen A.,Ebbers W.E-services for citizens: The Dutch usage case.Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2007:155-166.
44. Virzi R.A.Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough?.Human Factors. 1992;34:457-468.
45. 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.