首页> 外文OA文献 >Evaluating municipal Web sites.A methodological comparison of three think-aloud variants.
【2h】

Evaluating municipal Web sites.A methodological comparison of three think-aloud variants.

机译:评估市政网站。三种思维方式的方法比较。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Usability methods have received relatively little methodological attention within the field of E-Government. This paper aims to address this gap by reporting on a usability test of the municipal website of Deventer (the Netherlands), carried out by means of three variants of the think-aloud method (concurrent/retrospective think-aloud protocols and constructive interaction). These three methods had proved successful in a previous evaluation of a different municipal website, yet we decided to replicate our study in order to investigate whether the three methods would reveal different results when applied to another municipal website with a different information architecture. The results of our study showed that, as in the previous municipal website evaluation, the three evaluation methods were largely comparable in terms of output. Nevertheless, we did find a number of differences between the present and previous municipal website evaluation regarding the workings of the three methods—differences that could be explained by the different information architectures of the municipal websites tested. This suggests that the three evaluation methods might indeed work differently depending on the nature of the website that is being evaluated, and calls for more research into the effect of task type on the validity of evaluation methods.
机译:在电子政务领域,可用性方法受到的方法论关注相对较少。本文旨在通过报告Deventer市政网站(荷兰)的可用性测试来解决这一差距,该测试通过三种思考方式(并发/回顾性思考协议和建设性互动)进行。这三种方法在先前对不同市政网站的评估中被证明是成功的,但是我们决定重复我们的研究,以调查当这三种方法应用于具有不同信息架构的另一市政网站时是否会显示不同的结果。我们的研究结果表明,与以前的市政网站评估一样,这三种评估方法的输出结果大致可比。但是,我们确实在当前和以前的市政网站评估之间发现了关于这三种方法的工作方式的许多差异,这些差异可以通过所测试的市政网站的不同信息体系结构来解释。这表明这三种评估方法的确可能会因所评估网站的性质而有所不同,因此需要对任务类型对评估方法有效性的影响进行更多研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号