1. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-
6367(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May – June (2013), © IAEME
353
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF REDESIGNED WEB SITE BASED ON
COMPLEXITY METRICS
Nagaraju Mamillapally1*
, Trivikram Mulukutla2
, Anitha Bojja3
1
Asst.Professor, Department of Informatics, Adarsh PG College of Computer Sciences,
Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, India
2
Associate Professor, Department of Informatics, Adarsh PG College of Computer Sciences,
Mahabubnagar-509001, Andhra Pradesh, India
3
Assistant Professor, Department of CSE, Jaya Prakash Narayan College of Engineering,
Mahabubnagar-509001, Andhra Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
Web usability is a broad concept which includes with many aspects of design and
especially important in making a site usable. Organizations concentrate on user making them
to spend much more time on their Web sites and access their most relevant needed
information. Keeping this in view evaluation of Web sites became necessary. Certain design
principles can be used by experts to judge usability.
This paper investigates the use of website design complexity and usability metrics
against four frequently visiting web pages of Osmania University in two available versions
and made a comparison to identify whether the redesigned version meets the usability metrics
and how far the usability complexity has been reduced.
Keywords: Design Complexity, Evaluation, Usability Metrices, Usability Complexity, Web
Usability.
1. INTRODUCTION
The primary notion of usability is that an object designed with a generalized users
psychology and physiology in mind is, for example:
• More efficient to use—takes less time to accomplish a particular task
• Easier to learn—operation can be learned by observing the object
• More satisfying to use
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING
& TECHNOLOGY (IJCET)
ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online)
Volume 4, Issue 3, May-June (2013), pp. 353-358
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijcet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 6.1302 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCET
© I A E M E

2. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-
6367(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May – June (2013), © IAEME
354
Complex computer systems find their way into everyday life, and at the same time the
market is saturated with competing brands. This has made usability more popular and widely
recognized in recent years, as companies see the benefits of researching and developing their
products with user-oriented methods instead of technology-oriented methods. By
understanding and researching the interaction between product and user, the usability expert
can also provide insight that is unattainable by traditional company-oriented market research.
For example, after observing and interviewing users, the usability expert may identify needed
functionality or design flaws that were not anticipated. A method called contextual inquiry
does this in the naturally occurring context of the users own environment.
In the user-centered design paradigm, the product is designed with its intended users
in mind at all times. In the user-driven or participatory design paradigm, some of the users
become actual or de facto members of the design team.
The term user friendly is often used as a synonym for usable, though it may also refer
to accessibility. Usability describes the quality of user experience across websites, software,
products, and environments. There is no consensus about the relation of the terms ergonomics
(or human factors) and usability. Some think of usability as the software specialization of the
larger topic of ergonomics. Others view these topics as tangential, with ergonomics focusing
on physiological matters (e.g., turning a door handle) and usability focusing on psychological
matters (e.g., recognizing that a door can be opened by turning its handle).
Usability is also important in website development (web usability). According to
Jakob Nielsen, "Studies of user behavior on the Web find a low tolerance for difficult designs
or slow sites. People don't want to wait. And they don't want to learn how to use a home
page. There's no such thing as a training class or a manual for a Web site. People have to be
able to grasp the functioning of the site immediately after scanning the home page—for a few
seconds at most. Otherwise, most casual users simply leave the site and browse or shop
elsewhere.
2. BACKGROUND
This section reviews some of the previous work in the area of Web site usability
evaluation, including several studies that looked specifically at academic Web sites. Corry
et.al.(1997) conducted a usability evaluation of an existing university Web site. After a need
analysis was used to restructure the information contained in the current Web site, a prototype
was developed and tested against the existing site. Usability was based on the ability of
subjects (such as students, parents, and faculty) to quickly and accurately locates answers to a
set of questions. While the study worked well, the metrics used to measure usability were
limited to task completion time and the number of user errors.
Borges et al. (1996) formed general Web pages design guidelines through a study of
university and college Web sites. To evaluate these guidelines, they tested the original home
page of three sites against a version of the home page revised according to their proposed
guidelines. Usability was measured by task times on the original and revised home pages.
A set of heuristics (usability principles) was created by user interface experts and
systems developers to evaluate a Web site prototype for the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a
study by Levi and Conrad (1996). The heuristics included consistency of pages, aesthetic
design, and navigational feedback.
Kantner and Rosenbaum (1997) gave brief descriptions of several usability studies that
they have conducted. They used combination of heuristics evaluation and laboratory usability

3. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-
6367(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May – June (2013), © IAEME
355
testing. When possible, they recommended an iterative sequence of heuristics evaluation to
find obvious problems, followed by user testing to uncover deeper ones. Their testing seemed
to focus on collecting data on task time, user errors, subjective satisfaction, preferences, and
the path taken through the Web site.
Two versions of a given Web site that differed in terms of their conciseness, scan
ability, and objectivity were evaluated Morkes and Nielsen (1998). The second Web site
consisted of the pages from the first site, except that the pages were rewritten to be shorted,
more readable, and free of buzzwords and extraneous information. The usability of the two
sites were compared based on task time, errors, memory recognition and recall, and subjective
satisfaction.
Misic and Johnson (1999) applied functional benchmarking to the evaluation of a
university Web site against similar sites. The other sites in the study included not only schools
but organizations that were linked to the school through advisory or other supporting roles.
The sites were evaluated based on absolute metrics such as speed and the need for browser
plug-ins, and relative metrics which included the perceived ease of finding information. The
sites were evaluated by a graduate student according to functional, navigational issues, content
and style, and content information metrics.
3. DESIGN PROCESS AND EVALUATION
There are several usability-related issues methods, and procedures that require careful
consideration when designing and developing Web sites. The most important of these are
presented in this chapter, including ’up-front’ issues such as setting clear and concise goals
for a Web site, determining a correct and exhaustive set of user requirements, ensuring that
the Web site meets user’s expectations, setting usability goals, and providing useful content.
To ensure the best possible outcome, designers should consider a full range of user-
interface issues, and work to create a Web site that enables the best possible human
performance. The current research suggests that the best way to begin the construction of a
Web site is to have many different people propose design solutions (i.e., parallel design), and
then to follow up using an iterative design approach. This requires conducting the appropriate
usability tests and using the findings to make changes to the Web site.
This section we identified some of the guidelines to be followed for designing a web site
and to perform its evaluation.
1. Provide the useful content to the audience.
2. Perform the design activity based on the user requirements.
3. Ensure that the web site format meet the user expectations especially navigation,
content and its organization.
4. Make the users to involve in design activity to improve completeness and accuracy of
user requirements.
5. Clearly identify the primary goals of the web site design.
6. Focus on achieving a higher range of user performance based on the appearance of the
web site.
7. Consider as many user interfaces as possible.
8. Set usability goals that include success rate and the time taken to complete in finding
specific information and how far the content is satisfied by the user.

4. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-
6367(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May – June (2013), © IAEME
356
4. COMPARISON OF FREQUENTLY VISITING WEB PAGES
In this section we are going to look at the two different sites most frequently visiting
web pages in terms of complexity metrics. All the metrics shown improvement when going
from the current site to the redesigned site. In this paper we have been considered four
frequently visiting web pages of Osmania University and examine the complexity metrics on
two available versions and such web pages are Examination Time Tables, Syllabus, Almanac
and Distance Education.
Table 1: Examination Time Tables Web Page Complexity Metrics
Complexity Metric
Redesigned
site
Current
site
Number of graphics 161 6
Graphics size total (in
bytes) 164251 153617
Number of words 321 264
Internal links 114 28
External links 0 0
Same page links 01 0
Page height 768 768
Page width 1024 1024
Table 2: Syllabus Web Page Complexity Metrics
Complexity Metric
Redesigned
site
Current
site
Number of graphics 161 18
Graphics size total (in
bytes) 315249 268614
Number of words 208 138
Internal links 117 20
External links 0 0
Same page links 01 0
Page height 768 768
Page width 1024 1024

5. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-
6367(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May – June (2013), © IAEME
357
Table 3: University Library Web Page Complexity Metrics
Complexity Metric
Redesigned
site
Current
site
Number of graphics 161 56
Graphics size total (in
bytes) 273434 43617
Number of words 377 398
Internal links 106 15
External links 01 0
Same page links 01 01
Page height 768 768
Page width 1024 1024
Table 4: Distance Education Web Page Complexity Metrics
Complexity Metric
Redesigned
site
Current
site
Number of graphics 161 01
Graphics size total (in
bytes) 296106 215210
Number of words 423 135
Internal links 118 33
External links 0 01
Same page links 01 0
Page height 768 768
Page width 1024 1024
However these metrics are considered for further experiments, and a better balance of two
versions.
5. FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS
Usability testing includes a range of test and evaluation methods that include automated
evaluations, inspection evaluations, operational evaluations and human performance testing. In
a typical performance test, we assign the users to perform a variety of tasks with a prototype
(or an operational system) while observers note what each user does and says while
performance data are recorded. One of the main purposes of usability testing is to identify
issues that keep users from meeting the usability goals of a Web site. Based on the Table 3
values we will find the efficiency and effectiveness of two different versions of the web site.
Ample size of people belonging to various work grounds is selected.

6. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-
6367(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May – June (2013), © IAEME
358
6. CONCLUSION
No document is perfect or complete, especially a guidelines document in a fast
changing field like information technology. This typically includes guidelines for how the
organization presents its information. Finally, it is important to remember that as helpful as
this paper are, that they do not guarantee that every website will be effective. Individual
designers make thousands of decisions in crafting websites. They have to be knowledgeable
about the content, informed about the user community, in touch with the organizational goals,
and aware of the technology implications of design decisions. Design is difficult, but these
new research-based guidelines are an important step forward in providing assistance to those
who are dedicated to quality.
This paper has made contributions in the areas of Web site design and usability testing.
It has taken steps to improve Web usability by illustrating how design complexity metrics
might be used early on to engineer a more usable Web site, and how an extended set of
metrics might better measure the overall usability of a site once it is created. Creating a Web
site that all people can use effectively is the ultimate goal.
REFERENCES
[1]. Nagaraju Mamillapally. (2013). A Preliminary Investigation into Complexity and Usability
Metrices of a Website. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Competency
Building Strategies in Business and Technology for Sustainable
Development 22nd
February 2013.
[2]. Peter Tarasewich- “An Investigation into Web Site Design Complexity and Usability
Metrices” Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce.
[3]. Amitay, E. (1998). Using common hypertext links to identify the best phrasal description of
target Web documents. Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR’98 Post- Conference Workshop on
Hypertext Information Retrieval for the Web. Retrieved February 20, 2003, from
Mq.edu.au/-einatlpublicat ... sigir-98.ps
[4]. Arasu, A., Cho, J., Garcia-Molina, H., Paepcke, A., & Raghavan, S. (2001). Searching the
Web. ACM Pansactions on Internet Technology, 1(1), 2-43.
[5]. Armstrong, R., Freitag, D., Joachims, T., & Mitchell, T. (1995). Webwatcher: A learning
apprentice for the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the AAAI-95 Spring Symposium on
Information Gathering from Heterogeneous, Distributed Environments, 6-12.
[6]. Borges, J. A., Morales, I. & Rodriguez, N. J. (1996). Guidelines for Designing Usable
World Wide Web Pages. Proceedings of the CHI ’96 Conference Companion on Human
Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground, 277-278.
[7]. Chi, E. H., Pirolli, P. & Pitkow, J. (2000). The Scent of a Site: A System For Analyzing and
Predicting Information Scent, Usage, and Usability of a Web Site. Proceedings of the CHI
2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 161-168.
[8]. Comber, T. & Maltby, J. (1996). Investigating Layout Complexity, in J. Vanderdonckt
(Ed.), Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces (pp. 209-227). Namur, Belgium: Press
Universitaires de Namur.
[9]. L. Chandra Sekaran and Dr. S. Balasubramanian, “Website Based Patent Information
Searching Mechanism”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology
(IJCET), Volume 1, Issue 2, 2010, pp. 180 - 191, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online:
0976 – 6375.