1990
DOI: 10.1016/0378-7206(90)90063-n
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of the quality of user documentation on user satisfaction with information systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Information timeliness was highligh ed in about 47.7% of the studies followed by information format (45.5%) and information relevancy (43.2%). [ 2 , 5 , 7 - 16 , 18 - 20 , 23 - 27 , 31 , 32 , 34 - 36 , 39 - 47 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Information timeliness was highligh ed in about 47.7% of the studies followed by information format (45.5%) and information relevancy (43.2%). [ 2 , 5 , 7 - 16 , 18 - 20 , 23 - 27 , 31 , 32 , 34 - 36 , 39 - 47 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, information systems scholars have been concerned with definitions of quality in information systems research. Information systems researchers have attempted to define data quality [21], information quality [23], software/system quality [35], documentation quality [14], information systems function service quality [22], and global information systems quality [31]. More recently, there has been some effort to define quality in the context of the Internet [25].…”
Section: The Concept Of Quality In Is Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because researchers have posited various criteria to reflect document quality, providing a consensual definition of document quality has not been accomplished (Schriver, 1993; Smart, Seawright, & DeTienne, 1995). According to our review of the document quality literature, a quality document should be accessible, accurate, well‐written, aimed at a specific audience, appropriate, complete, concise, flexible, functional, legible, neither too technical nor too simple, organized, readable, retrievable, straightforward, understandable, and should have clear content, a useable structure, consistent terminology, and appropriate images and diagrams (Ganier, 2004; Gemoets & Mahmood, 1990; Gudknecht, 1982; Perryman, 1985; Smart & Whiting, 2002; TCeurope, 2004; Toms, 1982; van Duyn, 1985). Guillemette (1990) viewed document quality as a multidimensional construct: document quality is the extent to which the consumer perceives the document as being comprehensible, fit, task relevant, credible, demonstrative, and systematically arranged.…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the existence of problems with the linguistic level of documents (TCeurope, 2005), the dimension of language quality has received little attention in empirical work. For instance, Gemoets and Mahmood (1990) indicated that a quality document should be well written . Similarly, Wright (1981) asserted that incomprehensible information entails serious problems in instruction guides.…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%