2016 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/ccaa.2016.7813698
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

E-commerce website quality assessment based on usability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this sense, according to Aladwani & Palvia (2002), the construction of quality measures in the context of websites is a challenging task, since it is a complex and multidimensional concept. Most studies involve technical characteristics such as download speed (Palmer, 2002;Galletta, et al, 2004, Gata & Gilang, 2017, security Braz et al, 2007), usability (Bangor et al, 2008;Fang & Holsapple, 2007;Singh et al, 2016), the quality of the content (Agarwal & Venkatesh, 2002;Goldberg & Allen, 2008;Stoyanov et al, 2015) and non-technical features such as aesthetics (Pandir & Knight, 2006;Lindgaard et al, 2006;Stoyanov et al, 2015), reliability (Seffah, et al, 2006; and visual appeal (Kulviwat et al, 2007;Lindgaard, 2007). However, few studies have explored the hierarchy of dimensions of these elements, so little is known about the relationships between the various scales or the overall construction of a scale for measuring website quality.…”
Section: /934mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this sense, according to Aladwani & Palvia (2002), the construction of quality measures in the context of websites is a challenging task, since it is a complex and multidimensional concept. Most studies involve technical characteristics such as download speed (Palmer, 2002;Galletta, et al, 2004, Gata & Gilang, 2017, security Braz et al, 2007), usability (Bangor et al, 2008;Fang & Holsapple, 2007;Singh et al, 2016), the quality of the content (Agarwal & Venkatesh, 2002;Goldberg & Allen, 2008;Stoyanov et al, 2015) and non-technical features such as aesthetics (Pandir & Knight, 2006;Lindgaard et al, 2006;Stoyanov et al, 2015), reliability (Seffah, et al, 2006; and visual appeal (Kulviwat et al, 2007;Lindgaard, 2007). However, few studies have explored the hierarchy of dimensions of these elements, so little is known about the relationships between the various scales or the overall construction of a scale for measuring website quality.…”
Section: /934mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the first dimension groups items with characteristics directed to the user's guidance on the website, also classified by some authors, such as navigability and usability (González & Palacios, 2004;Nusair & Kandampully, 2008;Singh et al, 2016). This dimension contains items with secondary loading mainly in dimension four, which is characterized by items related to information display.…”
Section: Dimensionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Portability means the ability to move the website from one host platform to another and the platform that runs the site will work on the new host. Tanya Singh et al [5], have used quality factors that include Usability, Privacy and Security, Adequacy of information and Appearance. Usability is the ease of use and learn ability of a human-made object such as a tool or device.…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of this study concluded that those had positive impact on customer intention to purchase in e-commerce transactions on social media. T. Singh [15] identified factors related to usability of e commerce website which are: user satisfaction simplicity, attractiveness, speed, efficiency, and searching product information. A survey used these factors as a valuable input from user for assessing the usability of e-commerce website.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%