Adapting e-gov Usability Evaluation to Cultural Contexts

Usablity in Government Systems User Experience Design for Citizens and Public Servants

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 331-344

  Clemmensen, Torkil ^a   Katre, Dinesh ^b  

^a Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics   (Denmark)

^b Human Centered Design and Computing Group at C DAC   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882543128     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-391063-9.00053-5     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. Atagloglou M.P., Economides A.A. Evaluating European ministries' websites. International Journal of Public Information Systems 2009, 3:147-177.
2. Baker D.L. Advancing E-Government performance in the United States through enhanced usability benchmarks. Elsevier's Government Information Quarterly 2009, 26(2009):82-88.
3. Bargas-Avila J.A., Hornbæk K. Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: A critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. CHI2011 2011, 2689-2698. ACM, NY.
4. Bourges-Waldegg P., Scrivener S.A.R. Meaning, the central issue in cross-cultural HCI design. Interacting with Computers 1998, 9(3):287.
5. Clemmensen T., Roese K. An overview of a decade of journal publications about culture and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Human work interaction design: Usability in social, cultural and organizational contexts 2010, Vol. 316:98-112. Springer, Hamburg.
6. Clemmensen T. Designing a Simple Folder Structure for a Complex Domain. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT 2011, 7(3):216-249.
7. Clemmensen T. Usability problem identification in culturally diverse settings. Information Systems Journal 2011, 22(2):151-175.
8. 2007, Danish e-government strategy 2007-2010 - Towards better digital service, increased efficiency and stronger collaboration, (2007). Retrieved 8 November 2011 from. http://modernisering.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Projekter/digita liseringsstrategi/Danish_E-government_strategy_2007-2010.pdf.
9. Dominic P., Jati H., Sellappan P., Nee G.K. A comparison of Asian e-government websites quality: Using a non-parametric test. International Journal of Business Information Systems 2011, 7(2):220-246.
10. Ford D.P., Connelly C.E., Meister D.B. Information systems research and Hofstede's culture's consequences: An uneasy and incomplete partnership. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2003, 50(1):8-25.
11. Frandsen-Thorlacius O., Hornbæk K.A.S., Hertzum M., Clemmensen T. Non-universal usability?. CHI 2009-Designing for other cultures 2009, 41-50. ACM, New York.
12. Heeks R. Success and failure rates of eGovernment in developing/transitional countries: Overview 2003, IDPM, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, Retrieved 8 November 2011 from. http://www.egov4dev.org/sfoverview.htm.
13. Hertzum M., Clemmensen T. How do usability professionals construe usability?. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 2012, 70(1):26-42.
14. Hertzum M., Clemmensen T., Hornbæk K., Kumar J., Shi Q., Yammiyavar P.G. Personal usability constructs: How people construe usability across nationalities and stakeholder groups. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction 2011, 27(8):729-761.
15. Hofstede G. Culture's consequence: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations 1980, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
16. Kappos A., Rivard S. A three-perspective model of culture, information systems, and their development and use. MIS Quarterly 2008, 32(3):601-634.
17. Latif M.H.A., Masrek M.N. Accessibility evaluation on Malaysian e-government websites. Journal of E-Government 2010, 1-11. 2010.
18. Leidner D.E., Kayworth T. Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly 2006, 30(2):357.
19. Liu Y., Chen X., Wang X. Evaluating government portal websites in China 2010, Paper 88. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2010/88.
20. Marcus A. Fast forward: Culture class vs. culture clash. Interactions 2002, 9(3):25-28.
21. Paul C., Morse E., Zhang A., Choong Y.Y., Theofanos M. A field study of user behavior and perceptions in smartcard authentication 2011, 1-17. 2011, Springer, Lisboa.
22. Pedersen A.B. Usability evaluation of NemID (in Danish, usability-evaluering af NemID) 2011, Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Retrieved 8 November 2011 from. http://www.andersbp.dk/studier/dat/SPECIALE/speciale.pdf.
23. Sidi J., Junaini S.N. Credibility review of the Malaysian states e-government web sites. Public Sector ICT Management Review 2007, 1(1):41-45. Retrieved 8 November 2011 from. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.137.8229 amp;rep=rep1 amp;type=pdf.
24. Stowers G.N.L. The state of federal websites: The pursuit of excellence. E-government 2003 2003, 17-52. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Oxford. M.A. Abramson, T.L. Morin (Eds.).
25. E-government toolkit for developing countries 2005, UNESCO, UNESCO Office New Delhi National Informatics Centre (India), New Delhi, India, (209 pages).
26. Verma N., Joshi L. Guidelines for Indian government websites: Standards for enhancing web usability 2009, 281-286. ACM, Bogota, Colombia.
27. Wangpipatwong S., Chutimaskul W., Papasratorn B. Factors influencing the adoption of Thai eGovernment websites: Information quality and system quality approach 2005, 141-147. November 19-20, 2005, Bangkok, Thailand, Special Issue of the International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, Vol. 13 No.SP3, pp. 141-147.
28. Fede Android app.!!!! 2011, Wicked & DanielPT, Retrieved 28 October 2011 from. http://www.mobildebat.dk/archive/index.php?t-152146-p-31.
29. NemID eller? 2011, November 2, www.ANDEN.dk (Producer), Retrieved 8 November 2011 from. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE-bbRoSrR4.