Characteristics of Good Design

 

Galitz (1997)	IBM (2006)	APPLE (2006)	Wroblewski& Rantanen (2001)
Aesthetically Pleasing	Simplicity	Metaphors	Open the browser window in which weblication interaction occurs to full screen size.
Clarity	Support	Reflect the User’s Mental Model	Minimize the use of windows.
Compatibility	Familiarity	Explicit and Implied Actions	Make the windows' content visually dominate window borders
Comprehensibility	Obviousness	Direct Manipulation	Use constant values for fonts, tables, and other visual elements.
Configurability	Encouragement	User Control	Use rollovers.
Consistency	Satisfaction	Feedback and Communication	Use ALT-overs when the immediacy of a rollover is not needed
Control	Availability	WYSIWYG	Avoid double clicks.
Directness	Safety	Forgiveness	Use the conventions of link selection in web.
Efficiency	Versatility	Perceived Stability	Use inherent functionality of visual elements.
Familiarity	Personalization	Aesthetic Integrity	Use both saturated and unsaturated link colors.
Flexibility	Affinity	Modelessness	Use underlined fonts as hot-spots.
Forgiveness		Managing Complexity	Use pull-down menus, radio buttons, and checkboxes as utilized online.
Predictability			Use plug-ins and frames as tools for weblication design.
Recovery			Use motion cues and animation as a feedback mechanism.
Responsiveness			Use common functionality between a weblication and web browsers.
Simplicity			Exploit the similarities in the basic functionality of all weblications.
Transparency			Utilize the resource potential of the web in the design of a weblication.
Trade-offs			Manage time and workflow within a weblication.
			Consider the aesthetic integrity of the interface.

 

 

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox

 

 

#	The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines (2003)	Top Ten Mistakes in Web Design (2007)
1	Emphasize what your site offers that's of value to users and how your services differ from those of key competitors	Bad Search
2	Use a liquid layout that lets users adjust the homepage size	PDF Files for Online Reading
3	Use color to distinguish visited and unvisited links	Not Changing the Color of Visited Links
4	Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage	Non-Scannable Text
5	Include a tag line that explicitly summarizes what the site or company does	Fixed Font Size
6	Make it easy to access anything recently featured on your homepage	Page Titles With Low Search Engine Visibility
7	Include a short site description in the window title	Anything That Looks Like an Advertisement
8	Don't use a heading to label the search area; instead use a "Search" button to the right of the box	Violating Design Conventions
9	With stock quotes, give the percentage of change, not just the points gained or lost	Opening New Browser Windows
10	Don't include an active link to the homepage on the homepage	Not Answering Users' Questions

 

[More]

Characteristics of Good Design

 

Galitz (1997)	IBM (2006)	APPLE (2006)	Wroblewski& Rantanen (2001)
Aesthetically Pleasing	Simplicity	Metaphors	Open the browser window in which weblication interaction occurs to full screen size.
Clarity	Support	Reflect the User’s Mental Model	Minimize the use of windows.
Compatibility	Familiarity	Explicit and Implied Actions	Make the windows' content visually dominate window borders
Comprehensibility	Obviousness	Direct Manipulation	Use constant values for fonts, tables, and other visual elements.
Configurability	Encouragement	User Control	Use rollovers.
Consistency	Satisfaction	Feedback and Communication	Use ALT-overs when the immediacy of a rollover is not needed
Control	Availability	WYSIWYG	Avoid double clicks.
Directness	Safety	Forgiveness	Use the conventions of link selection in web.
Efficiency	Versatility	Perceived Stability	Use inherent functionality of visual elements.
Familiarity	Personalization	Aesthetic Integrity	Use both saturated and unsaturated link colors.
Flexibility	Affinity	Modelessness	Use underlined fonts as hot-spots.
Forgiveness		Managing Complexity	Use pull-down menus, radio buttons, and checkboxes as utilized online.
Predictability			Use plug-ins and frames as tools for weblication design.
Recovery			Use motion cues and animation as a feedback mechanism.
Responsiveness			Use common functionality between a weblication and web browsers.
Simplicity			Exploit the similarities in the basic functionality of all weblications.
Transparency			Utilize the resource potential of the web in the design of a weblication.
Trade-offs			Manage time and workflow within a weblication.
			Consider the aesthetic integrity of the interface.

 

 

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox

 

 

#	The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines (2003)	Top Ten Mistakes in Web Design (2007)
1	Emphasize what your site offers that's of value to users and how your services differ from those of key competitors	Bad Search
2	Use a liquid layout that lets users adjust the homepage size	PDF Files for Online Reading
3	Use color to distinguish visited and unvisited links	Not Changing the Color of Visited Links
4	Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage	Non-Scannable Text
5	Include a tag line that explicitly summarizes what the site or company does	Fixed Font Size
6	Make it easy to access anything recently featured on your homepage	Page Titles With Low Search Engine Visibility
7	Include a short site description in the window title	Anything That Looks Like an Advertisement
8	Don't use a heading to label the search area; instead use a "Search" button to the right of the box	Violating Design Conventions
9	With stock quotes, give the percentage of change, not just the points gained or lost	Opening New Browser Windows
10	Don't include an active link to the homepage on the homepage	Not Answering Users' Questions

 

[More]

Introduction

 

e-Government implementations worldwide have gone through several phases since their inception in the late 1990s (Gronlund & Horan, 2004).  The initial stage of e-government initiatives witnessed governments across the globe starting to create their presence on the net through the creation of online services, followed by campaigns to promote the uptake of e-Government online services by the citizens and businesses and then, the thrust of enhancing service delivery (Accenture, 2006; West,2006).

 

With governments being very enthusiastic about providing better service delivery (Accenture, 2006) to the citizen; alongside, the government counterpart, the business sector in attracting more online customers, the advancement of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the Internet have been eminent as the most appropriate channels for the delivery of services.  However, there are factors limiting the utilization of these systems such as the level of trust, system being too complicated as well as the unattractive, cluttered user interface.   Contrary to earlier literature which has focused on the functionality in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of the websites; nowadays, there are many literature being written to address the subject matter of user interface design, particularly addressing the hedonic component of the web machinery.  The aesthetic attribute of the user interface, other than its element of usability, has gained much interest among researchers and practitioners, particularly exploring how this aesthetic attribute can attract the user to utilize the systems (Gait, 1985; Galitz, 1997; Karvonen, 2000; Hong and Kim (2004); Lavie & Tractinsky, 2004; Cyr, Head & Ivanov, 2006).  These research works have been focused predominantly on the online businesses environment, exploring the appealing factor to lure customers to purchase online.  In the public sector landscape, this phenomenon of good design, however, has not been appropriately addressed.  The question of whether e-governmental systems meet the requirements of good user interface design and what the users have to say about e-governmental systems have not been widely highlighted.  

 

This conceptual analysis study draws upon the methodologies of literature review and pilot surveys to address the significance of good design and to assess these characteristics of good design in user interface of e-governmental systems vis-à-vis government websites.  The outcome of this conceptual analysis has shown that literatures in the forms of articles, books and guidelines on good design are plentiful, all addressing how design can elevate the user’s experience with websites. Coupled with a simple pilot survey, this study revealed that the reality of user’s experiences with e-governmental systems via the user interface are not aesthetically luring.

  

Background

e-Government

In this 21st century, the ICT and the Internet have become the delivery channels for government to provide services to the citizens, and this phenomenon has been termed as e-government.  West (2006) has defined e-government as the delivery of government information and services online through the Internet or other digital means.   Governments across the globe have undergone phases of transformation in its endeavor to provide better service delivery.  Accenture (2006) defined the Governments’ progress toward leadership in customer service has been marked by clearly defined stages, beginning with the 1st era (1999-2001) of establishing e-Government with the creation of online services and followed by the 2nd era (2001 – 2005) of ensuring the uptake of e-Government by the citizen and businesses.  The 3rd era (2005-2008) focus on providing Government services delivered cross channel and cross-government for one-stop/end-to-end services, and finally the 4th era (starting 2007) ascertaining citizen trust their government implicitly.  West (2006) depicted the transformation of e-government in four stages : (1) the billboard stage; (2) the partial-service-delivery stage; (3) the portal stage, with fully executable and integrated service delivery; and (4) interactive democracy with public outreach and accountability enhancing features.  The governments’ efforts to improve the presentation of websites are evidenced by the number of online guidelines (Leavitt & Shneiderman, 2006; NHS, 2007; Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2006; Office of the State CIO, 2004; State Services Commission, 2007; National Informatics Center, 2004).  

 

The way forward for government is to reap the benefits of ICT and the Internet by making its presence ubiquitous to the citizens, and the e-Government initiatives have brought about much change in the way government conducts its businesses.  With the advancement of the ICT and the Internet, citizen have rising expectations for government to provide better and quality services, which also signifies fast and efficient and ubiquitous delivery.  Studies have shown that citizens do have the inclination to use e-governmental systems to facilitate the need to get services from the government (Navarrete, 2006; Horan & Abhichandani, 2006).  However, the provision of online services has not been fully taken advantage by the citizen.  The lukewarm response can be due to the feeling of insecurity to use the online services for fear of losing data or information while doing the transaction, the inability to use complex online systems, the slow transmission rate and the poorly designed, unattractive user interface.   The research conducted by Accenture in 2006 highlighted that government must recognized that being true citizen-centric encompasses making the system simple and making the process as painless as possible for the citizen.   Hence, this implies that the system must be appealing as well as meet the user’s need. 

The Aesthetic Values of User Interface Design

The user interface is the component of computer systems or information systems that the user encounters first.   This first impression is critical to the acceptance of the system.  This statement is supported by studies conducted by Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek, Brown (2006) to ascertain how quickly people form an opinion about web page visual appeal.   The researchers demonstrated that first impressions form quickly and are consistent.  Their data suggested that a reliable decision can be made in 50 ms and that the notion of visual appeal may be closely related to other concepts concerning overall impressions of design layout and color.  

 

The importance of good design cannot be emphasized enough if the system is to be appealing to the user.  The user interface design is the window to view the capabilities of the system and the screen layout and appearance have an effect on the user in a variety of ways (Galitz, 1997), which can be the determining factors for the user to use or abandon the system.  Hence, the incorporation of human behavior factors into the design process where issues such as user requirements, task analysis, environment analysis and audience analysis were emphasized in the development of system so as to meet both the social and functional standards (Chen, 2001).     It is apparent that user interface design has to cater to users from all walks of life as the users come from many different backgrounds with different capabilities, and this is where a good interface design will have a lasting impact on the user and will increase the utilization rate of the computer or information systems. 

 

Simplicity has been identified as one of the characteristics of good user interface design (Karvonen, 2000; Galitz, 1997; IBM, 2007; Apple Developer Connection, 2006).   According to Jakob Nielsen (in Karvonen, 2000), “simplicity” means, first and foremost, that users on the Web are able to get what they came for, where the users are very much goal-driven, and simplicity, for users signify lack of obstruction and lack of complexity.  Extending this notion of simplicity,  Karvonen (2000) also explored the notion of beauty and its aesthetic characteristic, which in her opinion, is important for understanding just how effective beauty can be for the Web and that beauty may be the decisive factor when wondering whether or not to trust a service enough to conduct business online.  She also pointed out that simplicity, design quality and pleasantness are aesthetic notions and that these aesthetic values have different impacts on novice users and technically experienced users.  Novice users would evaluate the application in its simplest way, of either “likes it” or “dislikes it” without putting much intrinsic meaning to the emotion.  For the technically experienced users, she argued that the beauty of the application is more than just the user interface but how the system functions to deliver its services.    

 

Thüring & Mahlke (2007) has defined aesthetics as the sensual experience a product instills, and to the extent to which this experience fits individual goals and preferences.  This aspect of aesthetic value is further established by the study conducted by Tractinsky, Katz, and Ikar (2000) where there were evidence of tight relationships between users' initial perceptions of interface aesthetics and their perceptions of the system's usability.   This phenomenon further defines the role of aesthetics in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) design and its effects on how users experience their interaction with computerized systems.  They also acknowledged that the facade of an information system is what users experience first and that facade is what cues users about the inside of the system.

 

Hong and Kim (2004) relate the idea of architectural characteristics to that of the websites, where they pointed out that from the aesthetic perspective, a building should be enjoyable enough to provide a pleasant feeling to the inhabitants.  In the same way, they have quoted Moran (1981) in saying that aesthetic appeal in websites refers to the user interface, because the user interface is the aspect of computer systems that users actually see and hear.   Hong and Kim (2004) hypothesized that aesthetic appeal is an important architectural dimension for websites because it enhances a customer’s pleasure.   Another interesting note on the aesthetic values of user design is the ability to create a sense of place, relating to the functions and aesthetic of the place to the user where the design is cognizant of the relationships between physical and virtual space (Horan, 2000), hence instilling the good feeling to use the systems via the interface.

 

Galitz (1997) characterized the graphical computer as an extension of a person where the system should be able to reflect the person’s capabilities and also to respond to the specific need of the user, that is, to be a tool that is useful for providing faster and efficient transactions.   The characteristics of good graphical user interface have been acknowledged in many literatures by researchers and practitioners as the critical requirements for the acceptability criteria of the websites (Galitz, 1997; IBM, 2007; Apple Developer Connection, 2006; Wroblewski & Rantanen, 2001).    Based on the guidelines derived from their research works well as from experience working on the design and development of numerous Web-based applications,  Wroblewski & Rantanen (2001) made 19 recommendations for weblication interface design, which include the aesthetic integrity of the interface that would provide users enjoyment or familiarity, and a sense of trust and professionalism.   With the continuous ignorance of these basic criterions of good user interface design, Jakob Nielsen (through the articles published in his website) revealed  “The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines” (Nielsen, 2003) and most recently, “The Top Ten Mistakes In Web Design” (Nielsen, 2007).   The summary of good characteristics and the Jakob Nielsen’s articles are attached in Appendix 1.

All the literature is evidently coherent on the role of good design to enhance user’s experience on their encounters with the interface of the systems or websites.   Nielsen & Tahir (2001) alleged that one of the oldest guidelines for usable interaction design is to increase the user's sense of control and freedom, and web sites that provide better user experiences empower their consumers to reap the benefits of the Web.

 

The Instruments for Measuring Aesthetic and Usability Values

The intriguing aspect of aesthetic values in relation to the success of the user interface design in creating a conducive milieu for website users has encouraged researchers to explore and identify suitable constructs as a means to measure the browsing experience of a website.  These aesthetic values relate to the sensual experience of the user with the artifact (Thüring & Mahlke, 2007) and this sensual experience can be described as a sense of pleasure, which connotes a state of gratification or a source of delight or joy (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).   Pleasure, according to De Wulf, Schillewaert, Muylle & Rangarajan (2006) is the extent to which the visitor perceives the web site visit to be enjoyable and is considered a prerequisite for a successful site.  In a study conducted to assess the role of pleasure in web site success, De Wulf et al (2006) have identified 15 constructs as the measure for establishing the state of pleasure.   These constructs (relevance, credibility, currentness, sufficiency, design, interactivity, speed, navigation, readability, reliability, progressiveness, pleasure, satisfaction, commitment and trust) share the aspects of good user interface design as recommended by other researchers and practitioners in the same domain (Galitz, 1997; IBM, 2007; Apple Developer Connection, 2006; Wroblewski & Rantanen, 2001).

 

For the measurement of usability attributes, the System Usability Scale (SUS), which is a simple, ten-item Likert scale, which gives a global view of subjective assessments of usability (Brooke, 1996), has been identified as appropriate.  The selected statements in SUS cover a variety of aspects of system usability, such as the need for support, training, and complexity, and thus have a high level of face validity for measuring the usability of a system.  The 10 constructs in SUS are adequate to capture the usability experiences of websites. 

 

Learning Objectives

Our learning objective is to understand how conceptual analysis can be used to access good design of e-governmental systems.   The initial step for this conceptual analysis began with the literature reviews on the subject matters of e-Government, user interface design with reference to the usability and aesthetic values and the instruments for measuring these values.  The next step was identifying the right instruments and using these instruments to rate the aesthetic and usability experiences of different e-government websites.  The government websites were selected based on different layouts as well as services.   The analysis step involved the use of a free online survey application to collect the experiences of participants.  Each participant was assigned a government website to browse and these experiences were evaluated, based on the instruments used to measure the aesthetic and usability values.  The outcomes of this analysis were used to define whether e-governmental systems have met the requirements of good design practice and to advocate a way forward for better utilization of the systems in the future.

 

Analysis and Evaluation

The analysis phase of this study began with the literature review on identifying instruments for measuring the aesthetic and usability values which are to be applied to e-governmental systems.  For the purpose of determining the aesthetic values, the questionnaires composed by De Wulf et al (2006) to assess the role of pleasure in website success, has been identified as being appropriate for this study as the 15 constructs defined were sufficient to address the aesthetic component of the system or website.  As for the measurement of the usability component of the e-governmental system, the 10 constructs of the System Usability Scale (SUS) was used.   Once the instruments had been determined, the next step taken was to identify the government websites to be accessed.  The criteria used to establish the websites were based on the layout as well as the services rendered by the e-governmental system, for the intent of the survey was to gather the different aesthetic and usability experiences of the participant. 

 

For the purpose of analyzing the perception that good design is crucial for e-governmental systems, a pilot survey was conducted among the five course participants.  Each participant was assigned to experience a government website and was required to record their experiences using SurveyMonkey (a free online survey application) based on the 15 item Likert scale for aesthetic values and the 10 item Likert scale for the usability values.  The survey instrument and the URLs of the website are attached as Appendix 2.   

 

The individual evaluations indicated that one participant was more on the strongly disagree and disagree of the scales, while two participants were on the scale of disagree, undecided and agree.  The other two participants were on the scale of undecided and agree.  These findings showed that the aesthetic and usability values experienced by the user are very much influenced by the websites assigned, for some websites will induce good aesthetic and usability values while others will induce otherwise.

 

From the overall summary of the outcome for the pilot survey, the following findings can be deduced based on the percentage of strongly agree and agree, undecided and disagree to strongly disagree.  The overall summary of the outcome of the pilot survey is attached as Appendix 3. 

 

Aesthetic Values

(i)                 None of the participants strongly agree on any of items for the aesthetic values.

(ii)               The participants agree that the information in the web site is relevant, credible, sufficient, easy to navigate and that the surfing time is acceptable.

(iii)             The participants were undecided on whether the web site is up-to-date or the text is presented in an easy-to-read manner.

(iv)              The participants disagree/strongly disagree that the web site has no technical problems, it contains a lot of modern web technology, the web site is visually appealing, it takes into account personal information, and that the web site makes them feel good.

(v)                There were a range of agree, undecided and disagree on the point of whether the web sites give a feeling of satisfaction and trust as well as the high chances of visiting the website again.

 

Usability Values

(i)                 Only one participant strongly agrees on the inconsistency of the website.

(ii)               The participants agree that it would be quick to learn to use the website.

(iii)             The participants were undecided on whether the web site was cumbersome to use.

(iv)              The participants disagree/strongly disagree that the web site was complex, that there is a need for technical support to use the website, inconsistency of the website and the need to learn before using the website, as well as the frequency of using the web site.

(v)                There were a range of agree, undecided and disagree on the point of whether the web sites were easy to use, the confidence on using the website and the integration of the functions of the website.

 

The above findings showed that none of the participants strongly feel that government websites are aesthetically appealing and that the participants are generally between agreeing and being undecided on the usability of the website.  Hence, on the part of aesthetic values which are relevant for good design, it seems that e-governmental systems have not fully conceptualized the characteristics of good design.

 

Lesson Learnt and Extension

The literature on good design of user interface sets the foundation for the discussion on the subject matter of good design in e-governmental systems. The literature review gave insights into the importance of good design on online systems as well as the works that have been done such as identification of good design characteristics as well as guidelines on implementing good designs. Researchers have also started to view aesthetic values in good design seriously as they believed that these aesthetic values will create a positive impact on the utilization of online systems. However, there is lack of literatures on the measurement of aesthetic values. The instrument used for measuring aesthetic values this study was introduced by De Wulf, Schillewaert, Muylle & Rangarajan (2006) for evaluating the role of pleasure in web site success. The other instrument used was the System Usability Scale (SUS) introduced by Brooke, (1996).

 

The pilot survey was conducted using a free online survey application, SurveyMonkey, which provided the basic to conduct a survey. Having used the application for the first time, there were a few hiccups such as the inability of the participants to enter more than one response per column. This was due to the action of ticking the box for "Allow Only One Response per Column (Forced Ranking)". Since each participant was assigned different website to evaluate, and when they input their evaluations into the survey application, the outcome of that survey was not on individual basis evaluation but the application gave an overall evaluations. It was not possible to get the individual's evaluation, so another paper survey was issued for each participant to fill in so as to gauge the individual's evaluation.

 

The other lesson learnt was the survey instrument. Some of the items in the survey instruments were found to be not appropriate for assessing aesthetic values. The 10-item likert scale used in SUS was having both positive and negative items which created some difficulties in the analysis process.  Overall, the whole process was a good experience in doing a simple conceptual analysis study comprising of literature reviews and a pilot survey. The mistakes made have created awareness to the details and requirements of conducting a conceptual analysis study.

 

Through the literature review and the pilot survey, it is evident that good design interface has been a major issue in the implementation of online services, particularly in the private sector environments.  Good design is essential in creating the right atmosphere and sense of place to empower and engage users to utilize the online systems.  The purpose of this conceptual study was to establish the significance of good design on e-governmental systems, by means of literature review, as well as the implementation of a pilot survey by using the instruments identified, hence, it is fundamental to extend this study to the actual environment, so as to be able to gauge the extent  e-governmental systems meet the characteristics of good design, and this could provide new insights to the e-government implementers to upgrade the existing systems.  However, for future research work on this subject matter, the instruments used in the pilot survey can be further refined so as to capture the precise aesthetic values of website experiences. 

 

Conclusion

The literatures have acknowledged that good design is a significant element of a website that has the capability of creating the aesthetic sense of good feeling which in turn, induces a sense of wanting to use the system within a user.  Through the literature review and the simple pilot survey, this study has established that the user interface of a website can either create a sense of appeal or reject on the part of the user.  Hence, e-Governmental systems should embrace all these characteristics of good user interface design if government implementers are legitimate in their endeavor to provide effective and noteworthy online services and in empowering and engaging the citizens to utilize the systems accordingly. 

 

 

Related Readings

Apple Developer Connection (2006), Human Interface Design Principles.  Retrieved November 14, 2007 from  http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines/XHIGHIDesign/chapter_5_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000353-TPXREF130

Accenture (2006), Leadership in Customer Service : Building the Trust,  Retrieved November 1, 2007 from http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/industries/government/can_2006_govt_report_FINAL2.pdf

Brooke, J. (1996) SUS: A "Quick And Dirty" Usability Scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester & A. L. McClelland (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. London.  Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.usabilitynet.org/trump/documents/Suschapt.doc

Chen, Q. (2001), Human Computer Interaction : Issues and Challenges, Idea Group Publishing.

Cyr, D., Head, M. & Ivanov, A (2006), Design Aesthetics Leading to M-Loyalty in Mobile Commerce, Information & Management, Volume 43, Issue 8, December 2006, Pages 950-963

Department of Premier and Cabinet (2006) Websites Guideline and Standards, Western Australia.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/wovgwebsiteguidelines

De Wulf, K.,  Schillewaert,  N., Muylle, S. & Rangarajan, D. (2006),  The Role Of Pleasure In Web Site Success, Information & Management 43 (2006) 434–446

Gait, J (1985), An Aspect of Aesthetics in Human-Computer Communications : Pretty Windows, Ieee Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. Se-11, No. 8, August 1985

Galitz, W. O. (1997) The Essential Guide to User Interface Design.  John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Grimsley, M & Meehan, A. (2007) e-Government Information Systems : Evaluation-led Design For Public Value And Client Trust, European Journal Of Information Systems, 16, 134–148

Grönlund, A. & Horan, T.A. (2004) Introducing E-Gov : History, Definitions, And Issues.  Communications of the Association for Information Systems (Volume 15, 2004) 713-729.

Hong, S. & Kim, J. (2004), Architectural Criteria For Website Evaluation – Conceptual Framework And Empirical Validation, Behaviour & Information Technology, September–October 2004, Vol. 23, No. 5, 337–357

Horan, T. A. (2000) Digital Places : Building Our City of Bits. ULI – the Urban Land Institute.

Horan, T. & Abhichandani, T. (2006), Evaluating User Satisfaction In An E-Government Initiatives : Result Of Structural Equation Modeling And Focus Group Discussion, Journal of Information Technology Management, Vol. XVII, Number 4, 2006.

IBM, Ease of Use – Design.  Retrieved on November 14, 2007 from http://www-03.ibm.com/easy/page/6

Karvonen, K (2000), The Beauty Of Simplicity, ACM Conference on Universal Usability, Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability.  Retrieved November 23, 2007 from http://www.tml.tkk.fi/Research/TeSSA/Papers/Karvonen/CUU2000_Karvonen_K.pdf

Lavie, T & Tractinsky, N (2004), Assessing Dimensions Of Perceived Visual Aesthetics Of Web Sites, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
Volume 60, Issue 3, March 2004, Pages 269-298

Leavitt, M.O.& Shneiderman, B. (2006), Research-based Web Design and Usability Guidelines, US Department of Health and Human Services.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html

Lindgaard, G, Fernandes, G., Dudek, C. & Brown, J. (2006), Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds To Make A Good First Impression!, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 25, No. 2, March-April 2006, 115 – 126

Merriam Webster Online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pleasure

Navarrete, C. A. (2006), Utilization of Electronic Government Services in Mexico: A Matter of Trust, School of Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University.

Nielsen, J (2003), Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox : The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines, Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html

Nielsen, J (2007), Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox : Top Ten Mistakes in Web Design, Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html

National Informatics Center (2004), Management of Government of India Websites – Guidelines for IT Managers.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from nicsu.up.nic.in/guidelines.pdf

NHS (2007) Website Guidelines, National Health Service. UK.  Retreived on December 3, 2007 from http://www.nhsidentity.nhs.uk/websites/

Nielsen, J. and Tahir, M. (2001) Building Web Sites With Depth, New Architect Daily, Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/02/nielsen/

Office of the State CIO (2004), Website Development Guidelines, State of North Carolina.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from http://www.ncsta.gov/docs/White%20papers/general/Web%20Site%20Development%20Guidelines.pdf

State Services Commission (2007), NZ Government Web Standards and Recommendations v1.0.  Retrieved December 3, 2007 from  http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/web-guidelines/

Thüring, M. & Mahlke, S. (2007), Usability, Aesthetics And Emotions In Human–Technology Interaction, International Journal Of Psychology, 2007, 42 (4), 253–264

Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What Is Beautiful Is Usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127–145.

West, D. M. (2006) E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review January/February 2006/Vol.64 No. 1

Wroblewski, L. & Rantanen, E.M. (2001), Design Considerations For Web-Based Applications, Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. 2001.

 

 

 

[More]

Introduction

 

e-Government implementations worldwide have gone through several phases since their inception in the late 1990s (Gronlund & Horan, 2004).  The initial stage of e-government initiatives witnessed governments across the globe starting to create their presence on the net through the creation of online services, followed by campaigns to promote the uptake of e-Government online services by the citizens and businesses and then, the thrust of enhancing service delivery (Accenture, 2006; West,2006).

 

With governments being very enthusiastic about providing better service delivery (Accenture, 2006) to the citizen; alongside, the government counterpart, the business sector in attracting more online customers, the advancement of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the Internet have been eminent as the most appropriate channels for the delivery of services.  However, there are factors limiting the utilization of these systems such as the level of trust, system being too complicated as well as the unattractive, cluttered user interface.   Contrary to earlier literature which has focused on the functionality in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of the websites; nowadays, there are many literature being written to address the subject matter of user interface design, particularly addressing the hedonic component of the web machinery.  The aesthetic attribute of the user interface, other than its element of usability, has gained much interest among researchers and practitioners, particularly exploring how this aesthetic attribute can attract the user to utilize the systems (Gait, 1985; Galitz, 1997; Karvonen, 2000; Hong and Kim (2004); Lavie & Tractinsky, 2004; Cyr, Head & Ivanov, 2006).  These research works have been focused predominantly on the online businesses environment, exploring the appealing factor to lure customers to purchase online.  In the public sector landscape, this phenomenon of good design, however, has not been appropriately addressed.  The question of whether e-governmental systems meet the requirements of good user interface design and what the users have to say about e-governmental systems have not been widely highlighted.  

 

This conceptual analysis study draws upon the methodologies of literature review and pilot surveys to address the significance of good design and to assess these characteristics of good design in user interface of e-governmental systems vis-à-vis government websites.  The outcome of this conceptual analysis has shown that literatures in the forms of articles, books and guidelines on good design are plentiful, all addressing how design can elevate the user’s experience with websites. Coupled with a simple pilot survey, this study revealed that the reality of user’s experiences with e-governmental systems via the user interface are not aesthetically luring.

 

 

Background

 

e-Government

In this 21st century, the ICT and the Internet have become the delivery channels for government to provide services to the citizens, and this phenomenon has been termed as e-government.  West (2006) has defined e-government as the delivery of government information and services online through the Internet or other digital means.   Governments across the globe have undergone phases of transformation in its endeavor to provide better service delivery.  Accenture (2006) defined the Governments’ progress toward leadership in customer service has been marked by clearly defined stages, beginning with the 1st era (1999-2001) of establishing e-Government with the creation of online services and followed by the 2nd era (2001 – 2005) of ensuring the uptake of e-Government by the citizen and businesses.  The 3rd era (2005-2008) focus on providing Government services delivered cross channel and cross-government for one-stop/end-to-end services, and finally the 4th era (starting 2007) ascertaining citizen trust their government implicitly.  West (2006) depicted the transformation of e-government in four stages : (1) the billboard stage; (2) the partial-service-delivery stage; (3) the portal stage, with fully executable and integrated service delivery; and (4) interactive democracy with public outreach and accountability enhancing features.  The governments’ efforts to improve the presentation of websites are evidenced by the number of online guidelines (Leavitt & Shneiderman, 2006; NHS, 2007; Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2006; Office of the State CIO, 2004; State Services Commission, 2007; National Informatics Center, 2004).  

 

The way forward for government is to reap the benefits of ICT and the Internet by making its presence ubiquitous to the citizens, and the e-Government initiatives have brought about much change in the way government conducts its businesses.  With the advancement of the ICT and the Internet, citizen have rising expectations for government to provide better and quality services, which also signifies fast and efficient and ubiquitous delivery.  Studies have shown that citizens do have the inclination to use e-governmental systems to facilitate the need to get services from the government (Navarrete, 2006; Horan & Abhichandani, 2006).  However, the provision of online services has not been fully taken advantage by the citizen.  The lukewarm response can be due to the feeling of insecurity to use the online services for fear of losing data or information while doing the transaction, the inability to use complex online systems, the slow transmission rate and the poorly designed, unattractive user interface.   The research conducted by Accenture in 2006 highlighted that government must recognized that being true citizen-centric encompasses making the system simple and making the process as painless as possible for the citizen.   Hence, this implies that the system must be appealing as well as meet the user’s need. 

 

The Aesthetic Values of User Interface Design

The user interface is the component of computer systems or information systems that the user encounters first.   This first impression is critical to the acceptance of the system.  This statement is supported by studies conducted by Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek, Brown (2006) to ascertain how quickly people form an opinion about web page visual appeal.   The researchers demonstrated that first impressions form quickly and are consistent.  Their data suggested that a reliable decision can be made in 50 ms and that the notion of visual appeal may be closely related to other concepts concerning overall impressions of design layout and color.  

 

The importance of good design cannot be emphasized enough if the system is to be appealing to the user.  The user interface design is the window to view the capabilities of the system and the screen layout and appearance have an effect on the user in a variety of ways (Galitz, 1997), which can be the determining factors for the user to use or abandon the system.  Hence, the incorporation of human behavior factors into the design process where issues such as user requirements, task analysis, environment analysis and audience analysis were emphasized in the development of system so as to meet both the social and functional standards (Chen, 2001).     It is apparent that user interface design has to cater to users from all walks of life as the users come from many different backgrounds with different capabilities, and this is where a good interface design will have a lasting impact on the user and will increase the utilization rate of the computer or information systems. 

 

Simplicity has been identified as one of the characteristics of good user interface design (Karvonen, 2000; Galitz, 1997; IBM, 2007; Apple Developer Connection, 2006).   According to Jakob Nielsen (in Karvonen, 2000), “simplicity” means, first and foremost, that users on the Web are able to get what they came for, where the users are very much goal-driven, and simplicity, for users signify lack of obstruction and lack of complexity.  Extending this notion of simplicity,  Karvonen (2000) also explored the notion of beauty and its aesthetic characteristic, which in her opinion, is important for understanding just how effective beauty can be for the Web and that beauty may be the decisive factor when wondering whether or not to trust a service enough to conduct business online.  She also pointed out that simplicity, design quality and pleasantness are aesthetic notions and that these aesthetic values have different impacts on novice users and technically experienced users.  Novice users would evaluate the application in its simplest way, of either “likes it” or “dislikes it” without putting much intrinsic meaning to the emotion.  For the technically experienced users, she argued that the beauty of the application is more than just the user interface but how the system functions to deliver its services.    

 

Thüring & Mahlke (2007) has defined aesthetics as the sensual experience a product instills, and to the extent to which this experience fits individual goals and preferences.  This aspect of aesthetic value is further established by the study conducted by Tractinsky, Katz, and Ikar (2000) where there were evidence of tight relationships between users' initial perceptions of interface aesthetics and their perceptions of the system's usability.   This phenomenon further defines the role of aesthetics in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) design and its effects on how users experience their interaction with computerized systems.  They also acknowledged that the facade of an information system is what users experience first and that facade is what cues users about the inside of the system.

 

Hong and Kim (2004) relate the idea of architectural characteristics to that of the websites, where they pointed out that from the aesthetic perspective, a building should be enjoyable enough to provide a pleasant feeling to the inhabitants.  In the same way, they have quoted Moran (1981) in saying that aesthetic appeal in websites refers to the user interface, because the user interface is the aspect of computer systems that users actually see and hear.   Hong and Kim (2004) hypothesized that aesthetic appeal is an important architectural dimension for websites because it enhances a customer’s pleasure.   Another interesting note on the aesthetic values of user design is the ability to create a sense of place, relating to the functions and aesthetic of the place to the user where the design is cognizant of the relationships between physical and virtual space (Horan, 2000), hence instilling the good feeling to use the systems via the interface.

 

Galitz (1997) characterized the graphical computer as an extension of a person where the system should be able to reflect the person’s capabilities and also to respond to the specific need of the user, that is, to be a tool that is useful for providing faster and efficient transactions.   The characteristics of good graphical user interface have been acknowledged in many literatures by researchers and practitioners as the critical requirements for the acceptability criteria of the websites (Galitz, 1997; IBM, 2007; Apple Developer Connection, 2006; Wroblewski & Rantanen, 2001).    Based on the guidelines derived from their research works well as from experience working on the design and development of numerous Web-based applications,  Wroblewski & Rantanen (2001) made 19 recommendations for weblication interface design, which include the aesthetic integrity of the interface that would provide users enjoyment or familiarity, and a sense of trust and professionalism.   With the continuous ignorance of these basic criterions of good user interface design, Jakob Nielsen (through the articles published in his website) revealed  “The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines” (Nielsen, 2003) and most recently, “The Top Ten Mistakes In Web Design” (Nielsen, 2007).   The summary of good characteristics and the Jakob Nielsen’s articles are attached in Appendix 1.

All the literature is evidently coherent on the role of good design to enhance user’s experience on their encounters with the interface of the systems or websites.   Nielsen & Tahir (2001) alleged that one of the oldest guidelines for usable interaction design is to increase the user's sense of control and freedom, and web sites that provide better user experiences empower their consumers to reap the benefits of the Web.

 

The Instruments for Measuring Aesthetic and Usability Values

The intriguing aspect of aesthetic values in relation to the success of the user interface design in creating a conducive milieu for website users has encouraged researchers to explore and identify suitable constructs as a means to measure the browsing experience of a website.  These aesthetic values relate to the sensual experience of the user with the artifact (Thüring & Mahlke, 2007) and this sensual experience can be described as a sense of pleasure, which connotes a state of gratification or a source of delight or joy (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).   Pleasure, according to De Wulf, Schillewaert, Muylle & Rangarajan (2006) is the extent to which the visitor perceives the web site visit to be enjoyable and is considered a prerequisite for a successful site.  In a study conducted to assess the role of pleasure in web site success, De Wulf et al (2006) have identified 15 constructs as the measure for establishing the state of pleasure.   These constructs (relevance, credibility, currentness, sufficiency, design, interactivity, speed, navigation, readability, reliability, progressiveness, pleasure, satisfaction, commitment and trust) share the aspects of good user interface design as recommended by other researchers and practitioners in the same domain (Galitz, 1997; IBM, 2007; Apple Developer Connection, 2006; Wroblewski & Rantanen, 2001).

 

For the measurement of usability attributes, the System Usability Scale (SUS), which is a simple, ten-item Likert scale, which gives a global view of subjective assessments of usability (Brooke, 1996), has been identified as appropriate.  The selected statements in SUS cover a variety of aspects of system usability, such as the need for support, training, and complexity, and thus have a high level of face validity for measuring the usability of a system.  The 10 constructs in SUS are adequate to capture the usability experiences of websites. 

 

 

Learning Objectives

Our learning objective is to understand how conceptual analysis can be used to access good design of e-governmental systems.   The initial step for this conceptual analysis began with the literature reviews on the subject matters of e-Government, user interface design with reference to the usability and aesthetic values and the instruments for measuring these values.  The next step was identifying the right instruments and using these instruments to rate the aesthetic and usability experiences of different e-government websites.  The government websites were selected based on different layouts as well as services.   The analysis step involved the use of a free online survey application to collect the experiences of participants.  Each participant was assigned a government website to browse and these experiences were evaluated, based on the instruments used to measure the aesthetic and usability values.  The outcomes of this analysis were used to define whether e-governmental systems have met the requirements of good design practice and to advocate a way forward for better utilization of the systems in the future.

 

Analysis and Evaluation

The analysis phase of this study began with the literature review on identifying instruments for measuring the aesthetic and usability values which are to be applied to e-governmental systems.  For the purpose of determining the aesthetic values, the questionnaires composed by De Wulf et al (2006) to assess the role of pleasure in website success, has been identified as being appropriate for this study as the 15 constructs defined were sufficient to address the aesthetic component of the system or website.  As for the measurement of the usability component of the e-governmental system, the 10 constructs of the System Usability Scale (SUS) was used.   Once the instruments had been determined, the next step taken was to identify the government websites to be accessed.  The criteria used to establish the websites were based on the layout as well as the services rendered by the e-governmental system, for the intent of the survey was to gather the different aesthetic and usability experiences of the participant. 

 

For the purpose of analyzing the perception that good design is crucial for e-governmental systems, a pilot survey was conducted among the five course participants.  Each participant was assigned to experience a government website and was required to record their experiences using SurveyMonkey (a free online survey application) based on the 15 item Likert scale for aesthetic values and the 10 item Likert scale for the usability values.  The survey instrument and the URLs of the website are attached as Appendix 2.   

 

The individual evaluations indicated that one participant was more on the strongly disagree and disagree of the scales, while two participants were on the scale of disagree, undecided and agree.  The other two participants were on the scale of undecided and agree.  These findings showed that the aesthetic and usability values experienced by the user are very much influenced by the websites assigned, for some websites will induce good aesthetic and usability values while others will induce otherwise.

 

From the overall summary of the outcome for the pilot survey, the following findings can be deduced based on the percentage of strongly agree and agree, undecided and disagree to strongly disagree.  The overall summary of the outcome of the pilot survey is attached as Appendix 3. 

 

Aesthetic Values

(i)                 None of the participants strongly agree on any of items for the aesthetic values.

(ii)               The participants agree that the information in the web site is relevant, credible, sufficient, easy to navigate and that the surfing time is acceptable.

(iii)             The participants were undecided on whether the web site is up-to-date or the text is presented in an easy-to-read manner.

(iv)              The participants disagree/strongly disagree that the web site has no technical problems, it contains a lot of modern web technology, the web site is visually appealing, it takes into account personal information, and that the web site makes them feel good.

(v)                There were a range of agree, undecided and disagree on the point of whether the web sites give a feeling of satisfaction and trust as well as the high chances of visiting the website again.

 

Usability Values

(i)                 Only one participant strongly agrees on the inconsistency of the website.

(ii)               The participants agree that it would be quick to learn to use the website.

(iii)             The participants were undecided on whether the web site was cumbersome to use.

(iv)              The participants disagree/strongly disagree that the web site was complex, that there is a need for technical support to use the website, inconsistency of the website and the need to learn before using the website, as well as the frequency of using the web site.

(v)                There were a range of agree, undecided and disagree on the point of whether the web sites were easy to use, the confidence on using the website and the integration of the functions of the website.

 

The above findings showed that none of the participants strongly feel that government websites are aesthetically appealing and that the participants are generally between agreeing and being undecided on the usability of the website.  Hence, on the part of aesthetic values which are relevant for good design, it seems that e-governmental systems have not fully conceptualized the characteristics of good design.

 

Lesson Learnt and Extension

The literature on good design of user interface sets the foundation for the discussion on the subject matter of good design in e-governmental systems. The literature review gave insights into the importance of good design on online systems as well as the works that have been done such as identification of good design characteristics as well as guidelines on implementing good designs. Researchers have also started to view aesthetic values in good design seriously as they believed that these aesthetic values will create a positive impact on the utilization of online systems. However, there is lack of literatures on the measurement of aesthetic values. The instrument used for measuring aesthetic values this study was introduced by De Wulf, Schillewaert, Muylle & Rangarajan (2006) for evaluating the role of pleasure in web site success. The other instrument used was the System Usability Scale (SUS) introduced by Brooke, (1996).

 

The pilot survey was conducted using a free online survey application, SurveyMonkey, which provided the basic to conduct a survey. Having used the application for the first time, there were a few hiccups such as the inability of the participants to enter more than one response per column. This was due to the action of ticking the box for "Allow Only One Response per Column (Forced Ranking)". Since each participant was assigned different website to evaluate, and when they input their evaluations into the survey application, the outcome of that survey was not on individual basis evaluation but the application gave an overall evaluations. It was not possible to get the individual's evaluation, so another paper survey was issued for each participant to fill in so as to gauge the individual's evaluation.

 

The other lesson learnt was the survey instrument. Some of the items in the survey instruments were found to be not appropriate for assessing aesthetic values. The 10-item likert scale used in SUS was having both positive and negative items which created some difficulties in the analysis process.  Overall, the whole process was a good experience in doing a simple conceptual analysis study comprising of literature reviews and a pilot survey. The mistakes made have created awareness to the details and requirements of conducting a conceptual analysis study.

 

Through the literature review and the pilot survey, it is evident that good design interface has been a major issue in the implementation of online services, particularly in the private sector environments.  Good design is essential in creating the right atmosphere and sense of place to empower and engage users to utilize the online systems.  The purpose of this conceptual study was to establish the significance of good design on e-governmental systems, by means of literature review, as well as the implementation of a pilot survey by using the instruments identified, hence, it is fundamental to extend this study to the actual environment, so as to be able to gauge the extent  e-governmental systems meet the characteristics of good design, and this could provide new insights to the e-government implementers to upgrade the existing systems.  However, for future research work on this subject matter, the instruments used in the pilot survey can be further refined so as to capture the precise aesthetic values of website experiences. 

 

Conclusion

The literatures have acknowledged that good design is a significant element of a website that has the capability of creating the aesthetic sense of good feeling which in turn, induces a sense of wanting to use the system within a user.  Through the literature review and the simple pilot survey, this study has established that the user interface of a website can either create a sense of appeal or reject on the part of the user.  Hence, e-Governmental systems should embrace all these characteristics of good user interface design if government implementers are legitimate in their endeavor to provide effective and noteworthy online services and in empowering and engaging the citizens to utilize the systems accordingly. 

 

 

Related Readings

Apple Developer Connection (2006), Human Interface Design Principles.  Retrieved November 14, 2007 from  http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines/XHIGHIDesign/chapter_5_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000353-TPXREF130

Accenture (2006), Leadership in Customer Service : Building the Trust,  Retrieved November 1, 2007 from http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/industries/government/can_2006_govt_report_FINAL2.pdf

Brooke, J. (1996) SUS: A "Quick And Dirty" Usability Scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester & A. L. McClelland (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. London.  Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.usabilitynet.org/trump/documents/Suschapt.doc

Chen, Q. (2001), Human Computer Interaction : Issues and Challenges, Idea Group Publishing.

Cyr, D., Head, M. & Ivanov, A (2006), Design Aesthetics Leading to M-Loyalty in Mobile Commerce, Information & Management, Volume 43, Issue 8, December 2006, Pages 950-963

Department of Premier and Cabinet (2006) Websites Guideline and Standards, Western Australia.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/wovgwebsiteguidelines

De Wulf, K.,  Schillewaert,  N., Muylle, S. & Rangarajan, D. (2006),  The Role Of Pleasure In Web Site Success, Information & Management 43 (2006) 434–446

Gait, J (1985), An Aspect of Aesthetics in Human-Computer Communications : Pretty Windows, Ieee Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. Se-11, No. 8, August 1985

Galitz, W. O. (1997) The Essential Guide to User Interface Design.  John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Grimsley, M & Meehan, A. (2007) e-Government Information Systems : Evaluation-led Design For Public Value And Client Trust, European Journal Of Information Systems, 16, 134–148

Grönlund, A. & Horan, T.A. (2004) Introducing E-Gov : History, Definitions, And Issues.  Communications of the Association for Information Systems (Volume 15, 2004) 713-729.

Hong, S. & Kim, J. (2004), Architectural Criteria For Website Evaluation – Conceptual Framework And Empirical Validation, Behaviour & Information Technology, September–October 2004, Vol. 23, No. 5, 337–357

Horan, T. A. (2000) Digital Places : Building Our City of Bits. ULI – the Urban Land Institute.

Horan, T. & Abhichandani, T. (2006), Evaluating User Satisfaction In An E-Government Initiatives : Result Of Structural Equation Modeling And Focus Group Discussion, Journal of Information Technology Management, Vol. XVII, Number 4, 2006.

IBM, Ease of Use – Design.  Retrieved on November 14, 2007 from http://www-03.ibm.com/easy/page/6

Karvonen, K (2000), The Beauty Of Simplicity, ACM Conference on Universal Usability, Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability.  Retrieved November 23, 2007 from http://www.tml.tkk.fi/Research/TeSSA/Papers/Karvonen/CUU2000_Karvonen_K.pdf

Lavie, T & Tractinsky, N (2004), Assessing Dimensions Of Perceived Visual Aesthetics Of Web Sites, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
Volume 60, Issue 3, March 2004, Pages 269-298

Leavitt, M.O.& Shneiderman, B. (2006), Research-based Web Design and Usability Guidelines, US Department of Health and Human Services.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html

Lindgaard, G, Fernandes, G., Dudek, C. & Brown, J. (2006), Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds To Make A Good First Impression!, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 25, No. 2, March-April 2006, 115 – 126

Merriam Webster Online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pleasure

Navarrete, C. A. (2006), Utilization of Electronic Government Services in Mexico: A Matter of Trust, School of Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University.

Nielsen, J (2003), Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox : The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines, Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html

Nielsen, J (2007), Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox : Top Ten Mistakes in Web Design, Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html

National Informatics Center (2004), Management of Government of India Websites – Guidelines for IT Managers.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from nicsu.up.nic.in/guidelines.pdf

NHS (2007) Website Guidelines, National Health Service. UK.  Retreived on December 3, 2007 from http://www.nhsidentity.nhs.uk/websites/

Nielsen, J. and Tahir, M. (2001) Building Web Sites With Depth, New Architect Daily, Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/02/nielsen/

Office of the State CIO (2004), Website Development Guidelines, State of North Carolina.  Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from http://www.ncsta.gov/docs/White%20papers/general/Web%20Site%20Development%20Guidelines.pdf

State Services Commission (2007), NZ Government Web Standards and Recommendations v1.0.  Retrieved December 3, 2007 from  http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/web-guidelines/

Thüring, M. & Mahlke, S. (2007), Usability, Aesthetics And Emotions In Human–Technology Interaction, International Journal Of Psychology, 2007, 42 (4), 253–264

Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What Is Beautiful Is Usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127–145.

West, D. M. (2006) E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review January/February 2006/Vol.64 No. 1

Wroblewski, L. & Rantanen, E.M. (2001), Design Considerations For Web-Based Applications, Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. 2001.

 

 

 

[More]

[More]