Identifying relevant dimensions for the quality of web mashups: An empirical study

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 9731, Issue , 2016, Pages 396-407

  Orehovački, Tihomir ^a   Cappiello, Cinzia ^b   Matera, Maristella ^b  

^a Juraj Dobrila University of Pula   (Croatia)

^b POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Empirical study; Model validation; Quality evaluation; Relevance identification; Web mashups

Indexed keywords

QUALITY CONTROL;

ANALYSIS OF DATA; COMPONENT BASED; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; MODEL VALIDATION; PERFORMANCE VARIABLES; QUALITY EVALUATION; QUALITY MODELING; WEB MASHUPS;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 84978890721     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39510-4_37     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Alonso-Ríos, D., Vázquez-García, A., Mosqueira-Rey, E., Moret-Bonillo, V.: Usability: a critical analysis and a taxonomy. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 26(1), 53-74 (2010).
2. Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: an expectationconfirmation model. MIS Quart. 25(3), 351-370 (2001).
3. Bovee, M., Srivastava, R., Mak, B.: A conceptual framework and belief-function approach to assessing overall information quality. Int. J. Intel. Syst. 18(1), 51-74 (2001).
4. Calero, C., Ruiz, J., Piattini, M.: Classifying Web metrics using the Web quality model. Online Inf. Rev. 29(3), 227-248 (2005).
5. Cappiello, C., Daniel, F., Koschmider, A., Matera, M., Picozzi, M.: A quality model for mashups. In: Auer, S., Díaz, O., Papadopoulos, G. A. (eds.) ICWE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6757, pp. 137-151. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).
6. Cappiello, C., Daniel, F., Matera, M.: A quality model for mashup components. In: Gaedke, M., Grossniklaus, M., Díaz, O. (eds.) ICWE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5648, pp. 236-250. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).
7. Cappiello, C., Daniel, F., Matera, M., Pautasso, C.: Information quality in mashups. IEEE Internet Comput. 14(4), 14-22 (2010).
8. Cappiello, C., Matera, M., Picozzi, M., Daniel, F., Fernandez, A.: Quality-aware mashup composition: issues, techniques and tools. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 10-19. IEEE, Lisbon (2012).
9. Cedillo, P., Fernandez, A., Insfran, E., Abrahão, S.: Quality of Web mashups: a systematic mapping study. In: Sheng, Q. Z., Kjeldskov, J. (eds.) ICWE Workshops 2013. LNCS, vol. 8295, pp. 66-78. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).
10. Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112(1), 155-159 (1992).
11. Daniel, F., Matera, M.: Mashups: Concepts, Models, and Architectures. Data-Centric Systems and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).
12. DeLone, W. H., McLean, E. R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 9-30 (2003).
13. Fenton, N. E., Peeger, S. L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. PWS Publishing, Boston (1997).
14. Insfran, E., Cedillo, P., Fernández, A., Abrahão, S., Matera, M.: Evaluating the usability of mashups applications. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 323-326. IEEE, Lisbon (2012).
15. ISO/IEC 25010: Systems and software engineering-Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)-System and software quality models (2011).
16. ISO/IEC 25012: Systems and software engineering-Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)-Data quality model (2008).
17. Ivory, M. Y., Megraw, R.: Evolution of Web site design patterns. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 23, 463-497 (2005).
18. Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience-a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91-97 (2006).
19. Kan, S. H.: Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Boston (2002).
20. Koschmider, A., Hoyer, V., Giessmann, A.: Quality metrics for mashups. In: Proceedings of the Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, pp. 376-380. ACM, Bela-Bela (2010).
21. Law, E. L.-C., Van Schaik, P.: Modelling user experience-an agenda for research and practice. Interact. Comput. 22(5), 313-322 (2010).
22. Lawshe, C. H.: A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 28(4), 563-575 (1975).
23. Lewis, J. R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Inter. 7(1), 57-78 (1995).
24. Liao, C., Palvia, P., Chen, J.-L.: Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT). Int. J. Inf. Manage. 29(4), 309-320 (2009).
25. Mavromoustakos, S., Andreou, A. S.: WAQE: a Web Application Quality Evaluation model. Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. 3, 96-120 (2007).
26. Nielsen, J., Mack, R. L.: Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York (1994).
27. Olsina, L., Covella, G., Rossi, G.: Web quality. In: Mendes, E., Mosley, N. (eds.) Web Engineering: Theory and Practice of Metrics and Measurement for Web Development, pp. 109-142. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).
28. Olsina, L., Lew, P., Dieser, A., Rivera, B.: Updating quality models for evaluating new generation Web applications. J. Web Eng. 11(3), 209-246 (2012).
29. Olsina, L., Rossi, G.: Measuring Web application quality with WebQEM. IEEE Multimedia 9, 20-29 (2002).
30. Orehovački, T.: Perceived quality of cloud based applications for collaborative writing. In: Pokorny, J., et al. (eds.) Information Systems Development-Business Systems and Services: Modeling and Development, pp. 575-586. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).
31. Orehovački, T.: Proposal for a set of quality attributes relevant for Web 2. 0 application success. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 319-326. IEEE Press, Cavtat (2010).
32. Orehovački, T., Babić, S.: Predicting students' continuance intention related to the use of collaborative Web 2. 0 applications. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems Development, pp. 112-122. Faculty of Organization and Informatics, Varaždin (2014).
33. Orehovački, T., Babić, S., Jadrić, M.: Exploring the validity of an instrument to measure the perceived quality in use of Web 2. 0 applications with educational potential. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8523, pp. 192-203. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).
34. Orehovački, T., Bubaš, G., Kovačić, A.: Taxonomy of Web 2. 0 applications with educational potential. In: Cheal, C., Coughlin, J., Moore, S. (eds.) Transformation in Teaching: Social Media Strategies in Higher Education, pp. 43-72. Informing Science Press, Santa Rosa (2012).
35. Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Evaluating the perceived and estimated quality in use of Web 2. 0 applications. J. Syst. Softw. 86(12), 3039-3059 (2013).
36. Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Exploring the quality in use of Web 2. 0 applications: the case of mind mapping services. In: Harth, A., Koch, N. (eds.) ICWE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7059, pp. 266-277. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).
37. Orehovački, T., Granollers, T.: Subjective and objective assessment of mashup tools. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8517, pp. 340-351. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).
38. Pang, M., Suh, W., Hong, J., Kim, J., Lee, H.: A new Web site quality assessment model for the Web 2. 0 Era. In: Murugesan, S. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2. 0, 3. 0, and X. 0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications, pp. 387-410. IGI Global, Hershey (2010).
39. Rio, A., Brito e Abreu, F: Websites quality: Does it depend on the application domain? In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 493-498. IEEE, Porto (2010).
40. Redman, T. C.: Data Quality for the Information Age. Artech House, Norwood (1996).
41. Sassano, R., Olsina, L., Mich, L.: Modeling content quality for the Web 2. 0 and follow-on applications. In: Murugesan, S. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2. 0, 3. 0, and X. 0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications, pp. 371-386. IGI Global, Hershey (2010).
42. Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R. B., Padda, H. K.: Usability measurement and metrics: a consolidated model. Software Qual. J. 14(2), 159-178 (2006).
43. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273-315 (2008).
44. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157-178 (2012).
45. Webb, H. W., Webb, L. A.: SiteQual: an integrated measure of Web site quality. J. Enterp. Inf. Manage. 17(6), 430-440 (2004).
46. World Wide Web Consortium: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2. 0 (2008). http://www. w3. org/TR/WCAG20/.