Quality, Quality in Use, Actual Usability and User Experience as Key Drivers for Web Application Evaluation

Abstract

Due to the increasing interest in Web quality, usability and user experience, quality models and frameworks have become a prominent research area as a first step in evaluating them. The ISO 25010/25012 standards were recently issued which specify and evaluate software and data quality requirements. In this work we propose extending the ISO 25010 standard to incorporate new characteristics and concepts into a flexible modeling framework. Particularly, we focus on including information quality, and learnability in use characteristics, and actual usability and user experience concepts into the modeling framework. The resulting models and framework contribute towards a flexible, integrated approach to evaluate Web applications. The operability and particularly the learnability of a real Web application are evaluated using the framework.

Exploring the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications: The Case of Mind Mapping Services

“…[3], [6], [11], [13] along with the latest quality standard [10], have still not agreed on attributes which reflect the "real quality" of software application. Moreover, it is not clear how the concept of the quality in use in the context of Web 2.0 applications should be defined.…”

“…To encompass the overall user experience, satisfaction needs to be concerned with both pragmatic and hedonic user goals. Lew et al [11] propose extending the ISO 25010 standard to incorporate new characteristics, specifically information quality and learnability. They also argue for including usability and user experience concepts into the modelling framework.…”

Quality of semantic standards

“…Current quality standards include CMMi and ISO 9126 family where the latter has been superseded by the ISO 25000 family, but many more standards that are not always coherent (Abran, Khelifi, & Suryn, 2003). Also many extensions to these standards for usage in specific situations exists (Lew, Olsina, & Zhang, 2010;Moraga, Moraga, Calero, & Caro, 2009;Van Zeist, Hendriks, Paulussen, & Trienekens, 1996;Van Zeist & Hendriks, 1996).…”

“…(ISO/IEC, 2007) Again, just as with ISO 9216, several studies have led to extensions to the ISO quality model, for instance for specific software products. For instance the example of the extension in particular for web sites (Lew et al, 2010), as presented in Figure 61. (Lew et al, 2010) Related to the development processes CMM presents process maturity levels (Humphrey, 1989(Humphrey, , 1997; initial, repeatable, defined, managed and optimizing.…”

“…For instance the example of the extension in particular for web sites (Lew et al, 2010), as presented in Figure 61. (Lew et al, 2010) Related to the development processes CMM presents process maturity levels (Humphrey, 1989(Humphrey, , 1997; initial, repeatable, defined, managed and optimizing. CMM is focused on making thins measurable, and has been replaced by the CMMI since 2002 on which several other maturity models have been build like for software evaluation (Heck, Klabbers, & van Eekelen, 2010;Heck & Van Eekelen, 2008) or enterprise interoperability (Guedria et al, 2009).…”