Performance and Evaluations of Websites

1 |
Performance and Evaluations of Websites

2 |
DEDICATED TO
For my father Dr. J. K. Singh, who taught me to read and for my
Uncle Dr. K. K. Singh, who taught me to live with objective.

3 |
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who helped
me in different ways with the written of this book and development
of the thesis. Without their continuous support and guidance, the
completion of my research leading to this thesis book would be
impossible. I wish to express my most sincere thanks to my
supervisor Professors Dr. Ajay Kumar Bharti & Dr. Santosh
Kumar for his invaluable advice, support and encouragement. I
will carry out his guidance throughout my life. This thesis would
not have been possible without the continuous support and
guidance of my parents Jitendra Kumar Singh, Shanti Singh and
all my friends who gave me the strength and will to succeed.

4 |
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................II
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................... .............. V
CHAPTER1....................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1
1.1. Background and Motivation......................................... ................1
1.2. Objectives .................................................... ....................................2
1.3. Contributions............................... ...................................................3
1.4. Theory Structure ......................................... ....................................4
CHAPTER 2................................................................................................5
RELATED WORK........................................................................................5
2.1. Website Quality and Quality Models..............................................5
2.2. Existing Website Quality Models ...................................................7
2.2.1. ISO Quality Model ......................................................................7
2.2.2. Other Web Quality Models .........................................................8
2.3. Websites Quality Metrics ..............................................................10
2.4. Existing Evaluation Methods........................................................12
2.5. Limitations of Existing Web Evaluation Methods.......................14
CHAPTER 3.............................................................................................16
PROPOSED APPROACH .......................................................................16
3.1. Website Evaluation Framework (WEF) ....... .............................16
3.2. Definition of Website Quality Criteria ..........................................18
3.3. Overall Website Evaluation................................. ................19

5 |
3.4. Summary .........................................................................................20
CHAPTER 4...............................................................................................21
WEBSITE QUALITY METRICS.................................................................21
4.1. Aesthetics .......................................................................................21
4.1.1. Background of Aesthetics..........................................................21
4.1.2. Aesthetics Metrics .......................................................... .......23
4.1.2.1. Images ...............................................................................24
4.1.2.2. Page’s Resolution and Standard Table Size......... ......28
4.1.2.3. Color ..................................................................................31
4.1.2.4. Emphasis ..................................................... ....................34
4.2. Ease of Use ....................................................................................35
4.2.1. Background of Ease of Use...................................... ..............35
4.2.2. Ease of Use Metrics .................................................................36
4.2.2.1. Consistency ......................................................... . ........37
4.2.2.2. Navigation ............................................................ ... .........39
4.2.2.3. Annotation......................................................... ...................41
4.3. Multimedia.......................................................................................44
4.3.1. Background of Multimedia............................... ..........................44
4.3.2. Multimedia Metrics ........................................... ..............45
4.4. Rich Content ............................ ..............................................48
4.4.1. Background of Rich Content .............................. ......... .......48
4.4.2. Rich Content Metrics...................................................................4
4.5. Reputation..................................................... ...............................52
4.5.1. Background ofReputation..................... .........................53
4.5.2. Reputation Metrics ..................................... ...... .................55
4.6. Overall Evaluation Calculation........................ ............................62
4.7. Summary ............................................................ ............................64
CHAPTER 5...............................................................................................67
WEBSITE EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION AND CASE STUDY........67
5.1. Toolset Implementation............................ .....................67
5.1.1. Architecture of Website Evaluation Tool ......................... ........67

6 |
5.1.1.1. Tree-Traversal Layer...................... ...........................68
5.1.1.2. Parsing Layer................. ............................................70
5.1.1.3. Data Metrics Layer......................................................71
5.1.1.4. Graphical User Interface ................................... ..............72
5.1.2. Implementation......................................................... ................73
5.2. Case Study.............................................................. ............74
5.2.1. Quality Characteristics Evaluation.................. ...................75
5.2.1.1. Aesthetics Evaluation............................... ...............75
5.2.1.2. Ease of Use Evaluation................................ ................76
5.2.1.3. Multimedia Evaluation....................... ..........................76
5.2.1.4. Rich Content Evaluation......................... .... ..............77
5.2.1.5. Reputation Evaluation..........................................................78
5.2.1.6. Overall Evaluation........................................................... ...79
5.2.2. Validation of Web Evaluation Tool .............................................80
5.3. Summary ........................................................... ..........83
CHAPTER 6..............................................................................................84
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ................................................84
6.1. Conclusions................................................................................84
6.2. Future Work .................................................................................86
REFERENCES ........................................................................................88
APPENDIX A ...........................................................................................96
SELECTED CODE OF WEBSITE EVALUATION TOOL..........................96
APPENDIX B...........................................................................................106
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS BY AUTHOR.................................................106

7 |
Chapter1
Introduction
1.1. Foundation and Inspiration
A remarkable number of new websites have been impelled every day. Ones
with relative substance won't have a comparative dimension of significant
worth. If the quality is poor, the customer will basically leave the site and go
elsewhere. Generally, there is no extra chance to recuperate a customer to the
site. Thus, with the true objective to upgrade the idea of a site. The idea of a
site makes a site helpful, straightforward and open, and it furthermore offers
profitable and strong information, giving extraordinary structure and visual
appearance to address the customers' issues and wants. this ought to be
conceivable by describing the quantifiable site criteria.
Website quality is subject to the nature of the product. In the early years,
nature of programming gave powerful help to build up the Websites'
execution. By and by the quality confirmation process turned into the
difficulties for the new order of Website application. There were various
specialists or associations who explored on various proposition to enhance
Website quality, including quality structures, criteria, assessment procedures,
methodologies and measurements. Truth be told, since the Website quality
process turned into an especially significant point which is progressing and
financially inquired about, particularly in Website quality measurements. An
arrangement of measurements has been proposed for evaluating Website
quality characteristics since the 1990s. Albeit nature of Website has profitable
foundation and been all around created lately, an unavoidable issue is "for
what reason is the nature of Websites still poor and absence of value attributes
cause client disappointment in most websites.” There are a few reasons
demonstrated as follows.
Website programming innovations advance to a great degree quick,
conceivably one hundred new programming devices are created every year.
Sites indiscriminately connected these product apparatuses. Some of them
bolster sites that have turned out to be exceptionally effective (e.g. Youtube,
Blog and Ask.com), yet some are not. So these new sites advancements should

8 |
be confirmed and could possibly be utilized and some may even be killed (e.g.
Auto-invigorate, picture ALT).
Website equipment advancements are constantly overhauled. The
fundamental agent is organize speed, the impediment of system speed isn't
considered as a reason influencing site quality. For instance organize
administrations specialists (BT, Virgin Media, and so on) are giving
broadband administrations up to 2 Mb speeds, even new remote system (3G)
is up to 1 Mb. For this situation, a convoluted site can contain numerous
components: "huge site" is never again exists.
The application areas of websites are growing broadly. Sites are turning into
the favored media instrument for data look, organization introduction,
shopping, diversion, training, and social contacts. Conventional nature of sites
issues does not fit the new different innovation sites application.
In light of the above variables, the new site quality highlights decide to build
up another site quality measurements which will have more handy estimation
criteria and proper methodologies for site quality assessment needs.
1.2. Objectives
The point of this undertaking is to explore the meaning of site quality criteria,
search for a way to deal with do the site assessment that can identify with the
client viewpoint. Particularly building up the handy website quality
measurements and distinguishes every quality trademark, sub-trademark and
quantifiable measures. There are imperative to characterize the style and
notoriety attributes, and execute the site assessment approach. At last, a site
will be estimated by a mechanized procedure instrument.
In particular, this thesis aims to address the following:
Examining the current live websites, ordering new quality highlights or
components, characterizing the crisp website assessment criteria.
Proposing another methodology for site assessment, that can gauge a site well
ordered.
Making an extraordinary website assessment apparatus, it ready to quantify a
wide range of sorts of site naturally.

9 |
However, some relevant quality criteria are deliberately ignored in this study
(e.g. maintainability or time factors). Because this study focus on how well
the website supports user tasks which are mainly related to user access
requirements and expectation.
1.3. Contributions
The commitments of this undertaking include:
An arrangement of new quality criteria (pointers) have been characterized,
which assemble a portion of the new website programming advancements and
new website quality standards. The new quality criteria incorporate the words
accentuation in the website documentation, guidelines of seven hues, stay
away from auto-revive, etc. These criteria are generally utilized in the present
websites. Anyway just couple of analysts have inspected them.
A site assessment computation technique is utilized for the assessment
formulae.
A few formulae are utilized to figure every quality trademark, quality sub-
trademark and quantifiable criteria (pointers). Distinctive attributes are
allotted with various weights in this count. The outcomes will be nearer to the
genuine live website's quality affirmation.
Aesthetics and Reputation are used in main research topic in this website
quality evaluation project. UI and respectability turn out to be an ever
increasing number of imperative quality highlights in live site. For instance
clients see a web based business site since it has an intriguing interface, and
furthermore they trust it.
An explicit assessment issue is set up by computing the root page and kids
pages independently. It is notable that the root page conveys more weight than
the aggregately of all youngsters pages.
Propelled program structure and execution design have been built up. Initially,
this investigation has constructed a website assessment device which has four
layers; Tree-Traversal, Parsing, Data Metrics and Graphical User Interface.
They give an unmistakable engineering and Object-Oriented component
which will make effortlessly for future program reengineering. Also, certain
explicit innovations are utilized in the program structure, for example, Data

10 |
Crawler, Traversal, Recursive calculation, information examination and
transmission. A website assessment apparatus has been built up. It can assess
a website which has "best" or "most noticeably awful" quality by sort or by
sticking a URL into the content box.
1.4. Theory Structure
Chapter 1 gives look into foundation and inspiration, objectives, commitment
and proposal structure.
Chapter 2 presents a diagram of ideas of website quality, quality model, and
site quality measurements from past research specialists or associations. It
likewise depicts the confinements of existing site assessment techniques.
Chapter 3 gives a website quality measurements approach. It is ordered by
three phases: website quality systems, meaning of value criteria and
guidelines and by and large site assessment.
Chapter 4 is the fundamental piece of this examination. It will explicitly speak
to site quality measurements as per the proposed methodology in chapter 3.
Chapter 5 depicts the execution of the website assessment device and a
contextual analysis.
Chapter 6 finishes up this proposition and talks about conceivable future
research.

11 |
Chapter 2
Related Work
There are numerous methods and issues identified with this investigation,
chose research will be talked about in this area.
2.1. Website Quality and Quality Models
“What is quality?” Dr. Tom DeMarco says “Quality is the function of a product that changes
the world for the better.”
Meaning of website quality is the means by which well a site is planned and
how well the structure meets with the client's fulfillment. website Quality (or
Quality of Websites) could be estimated from two points of view:
Programmers, and End-clients [37]. The parts of website quality from
developers center around the level of Maintainability, Security, Functionality,
and so forth. While the end-clients are paying more considerations to
Usability, Efficiency, Creditability, and so on.
Extending these ideas, the uses of website quality may rely upon
1. Task-related factors that influence end clients, for example,
introduction quality and differentiation.
2. Execution related elements that influence the effectiveness for end
clients and the advances of sites, for instance, reaction time, exchange
yield and unwavering quality.
3. "Step by step instructions to unmistakably characterize these
components?" An idea (quality model) will be the main factor in
making website progress and will apply to the larger part of current live
websites.
From past research, the quality website is created from nature of
programming. Gerald Weinberg characterized that the nature of programming
is intrinsically abstract and distinctive individuals who will encounter diverse
quality even in a similar programming. It can likewise apply in a website as
implying that client fulfillment could really compare to anything (This issue
is strengthened in this examination).

12 |
The ISO 9126 definition of quality for software products is
The totality of features and characteristics of a software product that bear on its ability to
satisfy stated or implied needs
Characteristics of programming may incorporate a substantial rundown of
properties, perhaps at the distinctive dimensions of detail. A few qualities are
inside (i.e. can be estimated by looking at the item, separate from its conduct);
others are outer (i.e. can be estimated just regarding how the item identifies
with its condition). For instance, estimate is an interior property, while the
client mistake rate is outer.
A site is much the same as programming (i.e. it applies to some substance, or
some model, or its data design) characterized as far as an arrangement of
properties, e.g. lucidness or coupling. At last an evaluation of the qualities that
is a sure item has. These viewpoints taken together are known as the Quality
Model.
Luisa et.al, presented a site quality model which demonstrates a way to deal
with the definition and estimation of site quality. It portrays the exchange off
between the client's should be settled and adaptable capacities to allow the
web application with different substance.
For the most part the website quality is inclined to emotional elucidations
except if it is evaluated by a web quality model. A web quality model needs
to characterize website quality prerequisites which are recognized by an
arrangement of quantifiable characteristics and meet the clients' desires. At
the end of the day, to assess the nature of website, the suitable measurements
must be characterized.
2.2. Existing Website Quality Models
2.2.1. ISO Quality Model
The first model identifying quality within software was in the mid 1970’s. The
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in cooperation with the
International Electro-technical Commission (IEC) finished the development
of the new standard “ISO 9126 - Information Technology – Software Product
Evaluation – Quality characteristics and guidelines”. It defined the quality
model that can be applied to any kind of software product or service. In the
process of standard revision, two series have been established: series ISO

13 |
9126 defined the quality model and series ISO 14598 described the quality
evaluation process. This standard divided quality into six basic characteristics:
functionality, usability, efficiency, reliability, maintainability and portability.
A subset of qualities from the ISO display is a piece of the second dimension
in the proposed model, where every trademark is separated into an
arrangement of sub-attributes, which are thus additionally separated into an
arrangement of pointers at the third dimension. The selection of markers
depends on an arrangement of web quality rules, W3C norms and the
examination of the current websites.
Figure 1 is speaks to the chain of command of the proposed model. Looking
from the best, the nature of attributes relies upon the nature of its sub-qualities,
which thusly rely upon the nature of their markers. Be that as it may, looking
from the point of view of the pointer, the nature of every marker impacts the
nature of the proper sub-trademark, which thus impacts the nature of the
suitable trademark in the quality model.
Figure 1. Quality Model Hierarchy
In recent years, several experts have worked on different proposals to improve
this website quality model, including methodologies, quality
frameworks,estimation models, criteria, usability guidelines, metrics and web

14 |
evaluation tool. More information about website quality models will be
described in the next section.
2.2.2. Other Web Quality Models
Nakwichian and Sunetnanta introduced a client driven web quality appraisal
show, which empowered them to assess site quality as for access by various
end-client gatherings. They characterized the regular quality highlights as a
rule of site quality appraisal. They structured a summed up evaluation process
that can be connected to various end-client areas. Their quality model is based
on ISO/IEC 9126 and IEEE 1061 principles.
Brajnik expressed that the quality model must be characterized. He
recommended the reception of Goal-Question-Metric worldview as a helpful
system to control the meaning of the quality model.
Fitzpatricket al saw quality models with Human Computer Interaction
guidelines. They characterized a general arrangement of 12 outer and 5
interior quality elements. Outside components included reasonableness,
installability, usefulness, flexibility, usability, learnability, interoperability,
dependability, wellbeing, security, accuracy and proficiency. Inside
characteristics included practicality, testability, adaptability, reusability and
movability. Fitzpatrick later distinguished an extra 5 site explicit attributes:
perceivability, clarity, validity, engagibility and separation. For every one of
the attributes they characterized an arrangement of "empowering influences"
that mirror the presence and significance of the trademark being referred to.
Offutexamined the quality properties of web applications and recognizes
eight traits: dependability, ease of use, security, accessibility, versatility,
viability, execution and time-to-advertise.
Olsina et alportrayed a Quality Evaluation Model which as indicated by a
similar abnormal state quality attributes, sketched out a quality prerequisite
tree containing in excess of 100 qualities that allude to various site spaces,
web based business, scholastic destinations and give an unmistakable
structure to determine these quality attributes. This necessity tree is
established on ISO 9126 standard.

15 |
While there are a wide range of hypotheses and strategies which can be
utilized for inner and outer assessment, anyway they don't have any model
which covers every single quality viewpoint particularly correspondence
perspectives, for example, hypothetical and explicit angles and significantly
more essential, tasteful viewpoints. The field of sites configuration
predominantly centered around the specialized and useful parts of website
composition, yet overlooking the absence of stylish and notoriety
perspectives.
A point of takeoff in LisbethThorlacius' visual, tasteful correspondence
show, she intended for use as a hypothetical model in the development and
investigation of the visual and stylish parts of all media items. The principle
correspondence factors, for example, the specific circumstance, the addresser,
the recipient, the consistency and the medium inside the visual
correspondence, have been thoroughly considered.
Essentially as delineated over, the quality model of a site is controlled by the
system of evaluation, plan, utilization and endorsement including a
combination of strategies and instruments. With the true objective to finish on
these systems, quality estimations ought to be described.
2.3. Websites Quality Metrics
A website quality measurement is characterized by an estimation strategy and
the estimation scale. With the end goal to assess the quantity of quantifiable
physical or unique characteristics for comprehension and streamlining sites
utilization.
Web measurements resemble a guest's adventure once on the site. For
instance, the style qualities will keep individuals on the website; notoriety
attributes increment individuals' trust, and urge individuals to make a buy. Site
measurements survey a website in various areas which incorporate internet
business, scholarly, notice, etc. Every trademark is thought about against key
execution pointers, and used to enhance a site or promoting effort's group of
onlookers reaction.

16 |
In Websites Quality Metrics, Lilburne el al [37] proposed a Quality
Compliance Framework (QCF) comprising of parts, for example, quality
estimation, quality trademark, quality sub-trademark and quantifiable pointer
in.
Figure 2. Quality Compliance Framework (QCF)
Quality estimation is the quality accomplishment as far as a rate esteem that
demonstrates the level of a general quality consistence of the framework.
Quality Characteristics are the high level quality factors of a web application.
A
quality characteristic may have many levels of quality sub-characteristics.
Quality sub-attributes are the lower level quality criteria that separate its
parent trademark to more quantifiable criteria.
Quality markers (criteria) are the quantifiable units of value in QCF. A quality
credit may have a place with one or numerous quality attributes or quality sub-
attributes.

17 |
QCF provides the quality measurement in a simple quality compliance scale.
The scale starts from 0% and ends at 100%, where 0% indicates poor quality
compliance and 100% indicates excellent quality compliance. This is the QCF
score of the web application.
QCF works using bottom up approach. The metric for an attribute is converted
to a
0% to 100% scale. Then the higher-level QCF score is calculated based on the
QCF scores earned by the lower level children attributes, sub-characteristics,
or indicators.
Final score is the quality measurement. The following formulas show how the
quality measurement is calculated for different components of QCF:
Quality measurement
Characteristics and sub-characteristics QCF score
Attribute QCF
score
Here "Children" alludes to the quality attributes, quality sub-attributes, or
quality pointers in the progression.

18 |
It merits recalling that the overall significance of a few highlights changes
relying upon the explicit reason for the site, and furthermore on the motivation
behind the page. Thusly, all the subsequent qualities must be weighted.
2.4. Existing Evaluation Methods
Melody Y. Ivory proposed the Automated Usability Evaluation (AUE)
strategy. The AUE technique expands the quantity of ease of use terms
assessing the framework, and builds the quantity of study members. It gives
the most abnormal amount of robotization and requires no client testing or
casual utilize.
Robotized Usability Evaluation has a few potential focal points over non-
computerized strategies, including revealing different sorts of blunders all the
more reliably, expanding the inclusion of assessed highlights, empowering
examinations between option plans, and foreseeing time and mistake costs
over a whole structure. They ought to lessen the requirement for assessment
ability among individual designers and decrease the expense of ease of use
assessment when contrasted with standard strategies. Some mechanized
assessment systems can be implanted inside the structure period of Usability
Interfaces advancement, rather than being connected after execution. This is
essential since assessment of the more customary strategies should be possible
simply after the interface has been assembled and changes are all the more
exorbitant.
Coral et al. have created a web classification framework to determine how
the classified web metrics can be applied to improve web information access
and use. They have presented the web metrics classification that performed
with 385 metrics using web quality model, a three-dimensional web
quality model which includes Web Features Dimension, Quality
Characteristics Dimension and Life-cycle Processes Dimension. As a
result of this classification, they found that the triplet (usability, operation,
presentation) with 149 metrics and the triplet (usability, maintenance,
presentation) with 93 metrics are those with more defined metrics, and that
most of the triplets that include reuse have no defined metrics.
Luis Olsina et al. proposed a quantitative evaluation approach to assess
the quality of websites called Website Quality Evaluation Method (QEM).
In order to evaluate, compare, and rank the quality of Websites, Luis
Olsina applies a set of activities regarding the proposed methodology. A

19 |
high-level view of major phases and procedures required for quality
assessment is shown below:
The specification of goals and the user standpoint.
The evaluators should define and refine the goals and scope of the
evaluation process. They could evaluate a web development project or a web
application, and could assess the quality of a set of characteristics of a
component, a whole product, or compare characteristics and global
preferences of selected ones.
The definition of website quality requirements.
The evaluators should agree and specify the quality characteristics and
quality criteria, grouping them in a requirement tree.
The definition of elementary criteria and measurement procedures (also called
the determination of the elementary quality preference).
The evaluators should define the basis for elementary evaluation criteria
and perform the measurement and rating process.
The aggregation of elementary preferences to yield the global quality
preferences.
The evaluators should make decisions that prepare and perform the
evaluation process to obtain a global preference indicator for each selected
website.
The analysis, the assessing, and comparison of partial and global
quality preferences.
The evaluators assess and compare elementary, partial and global
quantitative results regarding the established goals and user standpoint.
This methodology is significant for general web quality measurements.
Notwithstanding, it additionally has confinements. Since assessing a site
through site QEM right off the bat requires a quality prerequisite tree that is
made by an explicit assessor who has proficient abilities. Site QEM needs to

20 |
migrate in an alternate area (e.g. web based business, scholarly). Hence,
individuals are searching for a programmed assessment apparatus that can
gauge a site effortlessly. The assessment needs productivity and be basic as
indicated by the most widely recognized quality pointers, for instance the
client can type a web address and after that click a catch; the outcome will
show up in the UI's.
2.5. Limitations of Existing Web Evaluation Methods
With the end goal to make another site quality assessment technique
successfully, some restriction must be considered by existing site assessment
strategies.
Today online application is mind boggling. A significant number of existing
site assessment strategies assesses a site's quality dependent on its areas (e.g.
internet business, training, amusement, and so on). It is important to make a
far reaching site assessment technique that is appropriate to every one of the
sites. As indicated by a standard ISO quality model, an exhaustive site
assessment strategy is required to address normal quality components of the
web application, since the components shift for various types of websites.
Various existing website assessment techniques for the most part requires the
evaluator who has IT foundation to survey the characteristics in a website. It
is hard to apply if the general population don't have any IT aptitudes. An
effortlessly utilized interface and auto-assessment are important in new site
assessment techniques.
Numerous new website programming innovations and guidelines are not
considered in existing site quality assessment techniques. The web engineer
is befuddled by the general image of the assessment criteria. Another site
assessment strategies need to include the all distinguished new programming
innovations as the quantities of new criteria.
The specific quality criteria for a website’s reputation are clarified in many
existing website evaluation methods, however most creditable criteria are
immeasurable. The measurable creditable criteria need to be defined in
a comprehensive web evaluation method (e.g. customer feedback, traffic,
etc).

21 |
“In the end, the strengths and weaknesses of the web evaluation
results should be applied to the user’s expectations, and ease of
understanding”.
Chapter 3
Proposed Approach
With the end goal to successfully survey the nature of a website, it is important
to make a website assessment approach. An all around characterized approach
will give a structure to the site quality system, site quality criteria and quality
assessment count. The outcomes will be a gathering of scores which identify
with a considerable scope of "client needs" highlights and the suitable to the
progressed live-web quality prerequisites.
a. Website Evaluation Framework(WEF)
The fundamental point of this progression is to evoke, order, and gathering
the attributes, sub attributes and markers into a web assessment system,
and after that it is additionally broken down through a quantitative
assessment and examination process.
The quality attributes are separated into the lower dimensions of sub
qualities, and a sub-trademark would then be able to be refined into an
arrangement of quantifiable pointers. Anyway there are some quality
attributes, for example, maintainability and portability that are definitely
not chosen in this examination. The reason is this undertaking centers
around the nature of the UI applicable to meet client get to desire.
Figure 3 shows a particular web evaluation framework below.

23 |
Figure 3. Web Evaluation Framework
It is important to successfully arrange the quality attributes in WEF that ought
to be appropriate in the diverse kinds of sites. This is essential since one of
the principle points in this examination is to assess the any site naturally,
paying little heed to various spaces, types and dialect of plan. There are 28
quantifiable measures and five quality attributes, which might be broadly
secured by all the site's components with respect to the client's perspective.
Henceforth, the WEF work is to compute the quality of the site and decide
great or terrible nature of the site through evaluating the quality attributes,
sub-attributes and markers.
Based on the web evaluation framework, just Esthetics and Ease of Use have
a second level called quality sub-trademark. Since these two explicit quality
attributes both have various highlights, it is hard to successfully arrange the
quantifiable criteria (pointers) straightforwardly. Looking at Esthetics and
Ease of utilization, the others attributes such as Multimedia, Rich Content and
Reputation are straightforwardly separated into the quantifiable pointers.
Since useful site components can be built up by the relative web criteria, they
likewise can be effectively distinguished through the web assessment
apparatus.
There are additionally two sub-attributes which need to give careful
consideration: Emphasis and Consistency. They are represented by strong
evaluation criteria and only a few researchers have done likewise inquire
about as this examination. Additionally Emphasis and Consistency both have
just a single pointer. On the off chance that these highlights are missed, a site
is conceivably not ready to get a high level of nature of assessment.

24 |
b. Definition of Website Quality Criteria
According to the well-defined web evaluation framework, defining the
web quality criteria is the genuine test in this examination. The quality
criteria (pointers) are the base dimension in the system. They are
characterized through inside and out examination of the consequences for
the new site innovations utilized in a site, which have not been completely
inquired about to supplant the more established quality criteria. So these
impacts and emphases are chosen in this investigation, and established by
a few new web quality criteria, which will be found naturally by a web
assessment apparatus.
Every quality basis can take a genuine esteem - the quantifiable and
process able esteem, this esteem speaks to the result quality criteria, which
can be deciphered as the level of fulfillment required. For instance the
"Search Engine" quantifiable marker is gotten from the usability
trademark. It characterizes a quantifiable score 0 or 1 that will result
subsequently in a marker esteem. 0 is low quality, 1 implies magnificent
quality.
How to recognize the quantifiable pointers? A web assessment apparatus
successfully examinations the HTML source codes and concentrate the
codes as per the relative definition for the every quality criteria. Likewise
a site quality rule will be chosen by an explicit variable. A basic case of a
website quality rule "No. of pictures" is gotten from the feel trademark,
and it is effortlessly identified by web assessment instrument and checked
through a semantic code "<img>" and "</img>".
c. Overall Website Evaluation
In this stage the web quality measurements will ascertain the quality
pointers through the assessment formulae, and give an arrangement of web
quality scores.
Initially, the criteria esteems and scoring formulae ought to be
characterized, additionally every relative pointer will be considered by
methods for weights. Utilizing formulae they can make the assessment

25 |
procedure is intelligible and precise. The outcomes will be determined
from 0 to 1. 0 is low quality and 1 is magnificent quality. Following the
meaning of the structure of the web assessment system, the assessment is
determined from base to top. Quality attributes scores speak to the level of
web quality for the every trademark (e.g. style, usability, etc). At long last,
surveying and contrasting the entire quantitative outcomes with respect to
the built up objectives and client stance.
d. Summary
The proposed methodology gave an outline which recorded the
segments of the site quality structure, website quality criteria, the
meaning of value criteria and quality computation formulae.

26 |
Chapter 4
WebsiteQualityMetrics
As per the methodologies in Chapter 3, the web quality evaluation process is
executed by a detail for the web quality criteria (pointers), attributes, sub-
attributes and formulae of figuring that will be appeared in the accompanying
segment. Olsinacharacterized a specific structure in which she thought about
the six essential viewpoints to gauge a site. Following this thought, a site
quality structure is purposed, which incorporates Esthetics, Ease of Use,
Multimedia, Richness of Content and Reputation. At long last, all the
subsequent qualities must be weighted.
4.1. Aesthetics
4.1.1. Background of Aesthetics
Since the sites started to be utilized prominently in the mid 1990's, the style
has turned into a theme of warmed dialog. As the job of style in the sites
progressively turned into an issue of dispute, diverse sentiments with respect
to the connection between the feel and web application were communicated.
One of the proponents JakobNielsen, has contributed the absolute most vital
research with respect to programming improvement and Human-Computer-
Interaction (HCI) in his book "Usability Engineering". Nielsen contended
against utilizing Flash, since more website specialists understood that the
utilization of components, for example, the Flash on the sites made such a
large number of pictures on the screen. This brought about untidy sites with
the Flash components that flickered and moved over the page without making
a tasteful ordeal for the client. Numerous clients couldn't open the pages, or
the downloading time was too long, this lessened the ease of use of the
website.
In any case, toward the start of the 21st century there has been a reestablished
inclination for more useful websites with various components of style which
supplanted the conventional highlights. From one perspective, the quick
improvement in IT-innovation and the expediency of broadband have made it
conceivable to oblige the clients who wish to get their data in a more tasteful

27 |
manner, without essentially giving up substance and capacity. Similarly as
individuals today are progressively anticipated that would be breakthrough on
the IT innovation advancement, it will likewise be normal that individuals
who work with the website get to have the information of the advances, as
well as the attractive aesthetics.
Then again, as indicated by the issue from LisbethThorlacius, "In our current
reality where an image implies more than words, nobody has room schedule-
wise or tries to peruse protracted data publicizing." It implies visual images,
for example, pictures, video, liveliness pictures, and so forth have turned into
a vital piece of web application.
The real research in this investigation concentrated on the tasteful attributes
of the quality assessment. The primary reason is visual feel can assume a
critical quality job in the estimation of sites and this can be distinguished in
the distinctive ways:
The style have a critical job for the a wide range of websites which are worried
about how the clients are seen. For instance the expert style design that pass
on data of the value of the association or the person behind the website.
The aesthetics supports the substance and the utilitarian angles. Websites are
easy to understand when they saw tastefully with the route and intuitive
capacities.
The aesthetic characteristics adapt to any kinds of websites. For example,
people expect the entertainment websites to offer a reasonable amount of
aesthetic content, whereas people also expect the educational websites to have
aesthetic appeal.
The aesthetic classifies the suitable target audience. The presentation of a
website
providing services to the young audiences must be designed with visual
aesthetics in accordance with contemporary ideas and this is different
from a website that targets the general adult population.
Well-defined aesthetics have been used in the most successful websites.
The aesthetic characteristics have been created in accordance with the
above-mentioned issues.
4.1.2. Aesthetics Metrics

28 |
Aesthetic characteristic is a high level quality element of a website’s
measurement. It has two dimensions which incorporate the sub-qualities and
pointers. The sub-qualities were built up by regarding them as an arrangement
of parts, ordering the enhanced impacts including the Resolution and Standard
Table Size, Colors, Images and Emphasis.
The reason these attributes have been chosen is on the grounds that this
investigation is keen on the appealing UIs. This incorporates structure with
the clients' casings, tables, text styles and without being befuddled by complex
hues or format when they show up on the sites. Determining these sub-
qualities are in all actuality like a word structure, a shading decision, or
content showed on the screen, and any visual articulation, regardless of
whether it is purposeful or not.
The primary target of aesthetic evaluation is to ascertain the distinctive score
of the sub– qualities which demonstrate the aftereffect of marker estimation
by utilizing a collection recipe. The significance of sub-attributes is
considered by methods for weights. In view of the exploration, following
recipe demonstrates style determined with "Children" parts:
Aes(Aesthetic) 0.3 Img 0.2 T & S 0.3 Col 0.2 Emp(Emphasis)
Img – the total number of sub-characteristic of Images in whole websites,
0 <= Img<=1.
T&S – the sub-characteristic of Resolution & Standard Table Size,
0 <= T&S <=1.
Col – the sub-characteristic of Colour in quality of websites,
0 <= Col <=1.
Emp – the sub-characteristic of Emphasis,
0 <= Emp<= 1.
0.3, 0.2, 0.3, 0.2 mean the number of weights of each sub-characteristic,
Sum of weights = 1, and 0< weights < 1.
Aes – the characteristic of aesthetics,
0 <Aes<= 1

29 |
These are the four aesthetic characteristics that enhance the quality of
a website interface, however they have different values. Considering the
proportion of each sub-characteristic, image and color (0.3 weights) pay
more attention than others, because people look at the images first when
they view a web page. Both Resolution & Standard Table Size and Emphasis
have the same weight (0.2).
Clearly, the nature of sub-attributes is immense, and they must be determined
through the quality criteria. The accompanying acquaintance is with
determine the sub-attributes and indicators with the end goal to clear up the
site assessment process.
4.1.2.1. Images
Conventional principles of the nature of estimation that characterize the
illustrations don't increase the value of a page's style. The principle reason is
the sites will in general be confounded with regards to designs, for example,
the flickering, glimmering, movement and other embellishments.
In any case, the quick improvement of web-innovation and the broadband in
present occasions has made a transformation in the web composition. It is
conceivable to make the diverse web applications with the various
advancements to fulfill the client desires.
Images are the most every now and again shown trademark in the web
substance. Pictures that incorporate the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF),
Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG), and Flash are prominent in the
most live-sites, and there likewise have diverse organizations, for example,
BMP, TIFF, PNG, etc.
GIF, JPEG and Flash are just talked about in this examination. GIF groups
bolster up to the 256 shading looked over the 24 bits for each pixel RGB
shading space. All in all, GIF is best for the pictures that are utilized in the
line illustrations, high contrast pictures and little content (e.g. logo). JPEG
pictures are most appropriate for the photos and complex illustrations.
Anyway GIF does not function admirably on the photos as the pictures lose

30 |
lucidity and sharpness. Streak is a program by macromedia for making
intuitive, enlivened online substance. What's more, pictures have additionally
been utilized in the sites that join the content and hyperlinks to build the nature
of feel.
The Sub-normal for Images is a lower level quality component called the
Upper Level Sub-gathering. It has four quantifiable indictors. A normal recipe
is utilized for computing these four quantifiable markers to actualize the
pictures assessment process.
ISize – The measurable indicator names Image Size, it has a scoring
0 or 1. 0 expresses as poor quality and 1 is excellent quality.
IinOne – The measurable indicator names One Larger Image in One Page, it
has a scoring 0 or 1. 0 expresses as poor quality and 1 is excellent quality.
IALT - The measurable indicator names Image ALT, it has a scoring
ILink – The measurable indicator names Image Link, it has a scoring
Images –The sub-characteristic of images, the final result of
images is 0<=images<=1.
The Measurable indicators are well established according to the
contemporary website quality criteria and interactive user interfaces that suit
the user’s expectations. Each indicator is specifically described below.
A.Metric Name: Image Size
Name of Variable:ISize
Higher Level Metric Group: Aesthetics

31 |
Upper Level Sub-Group: Images
Description:Image size is restricting the width and height of the images
that display in a web page. Most websites use images to improve their
aesthetics, using width and height attributes on the images can ensure the fast
web page display, and limiting the size of image appearance. However not all
web pages apply width and height to the size of their graphics.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Every image should be coded by width and
height tags.
Algorithms:It is a binary criterion: if the images have width and height in a
page then. ISize = 1, otherwise ISize = 0.
B.Metric Name: One Larger Image in One Page
Name of Variable:IinOne
Description: One web page should have only one large image. If a page
needs to display more than one, it should instead show the images on the web
page by using a link to display in a new browser window. Another choice is
to display a thumbnail or a smaller version of the image which can be
made by a clickable link and the larger image can load in a new browser
window.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects:One web page is only allowed to have
only one larger image, the maximum size is width = 360, height = 360.
Algorithms:Checking every size of image in a page, If X and Y >= 360 then
Larger One= Large One + 1.
If Larger <=1 then IonOne = 1, otherwise IonOne = 0.
C. Metric Name: Image ALT (Alternative Text)

32 |
Name of Variable: IALT
Description: Image ALT attribute is applicable when a web page cannot
display the images, forms, or applets, this attribute will specify the alternative
text [60]. In general it assigns the text to the images alternative needs,
because sometimes the website users cannot understand the images, but they
would rather read aloud the alternative text assigned to them. Every user
can see this ALT text, simply by pointing over the image and looking at
the yellow tooltip that appears.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Every image should code in image ALT
attribute.
Algorithms: Checking every image code,
If alt <>“ “ then ImageALT = ImageALT + 1, If ImageALT = Total Images
then
IALT = 1, otherwise IALT = 0.
D. Metric Name: Image Link
Name of Variable:ILink
Description: An image link is a hyperlink which interacts with a specific
image, and the user can click this image to point it at the relevant link
destinations. More and more people are accustomed to clicking the images
to seek the hyperlink. This is an easy way to link an object but without a
specification.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Images should have image link attribute.

33 |
Algorithms: Checking image code,
If X<> “ “ then ImageLink = ImageLink+ 1. If ImageLink = Total
Images thenILink = 1, otherwise ILink = 0.
4.1.2.2. Page’s Resolution and Standard Table Size
With the end goal to recognize the page goals and standard table size as the
vital criteria in the assessment of feel, a meaning of appearance must be
indicated. Appearance is the principle quality component for a visual web
interface. Mac's iMac promoted as the "tasteful unrest in figuring," a paradigm
of appearance that has turned into a noteworthy thought for buying PCs. This
issue can likewise be utilized in the web application area.
Be that as it may, the customary websites have authorized their appearance
over the changed programs. This is a case of how past thoughts in the nature
of web composition are presently outdated. Early sites demanded that
appearance ought to be indistinguishable over the all programs, to guarantee
they gave the comparable goals, text dimensions, table, and so forth on the
each program. The inquiry today is "the reason?" Do clients profit by
indistinguishable appearance? Not so much. The most clients are utilized to a
solitary program and seldom change to other people. It doesn't make a
difference to them how the site looks in different programs.
Conventional appearances are currently streamlined and changed to meet the
new quality criteria utilized in this investigation to assess the style. Page's
goals and standard table size underline the page show that ought to have the
settled table and higher goals, centering intelligibility onto the screen. For
instance an adaptable table and lower goals will change the page estimate, it
will turn out to be too wide or too long, implying that it is important to look
all over.
Aaverageequation is proposed by registering this rate of sub-trademark, which
have two quantifiable indictors: Optimize the Page Resolution and Standard
Table Size.
PR&RT
STablePResolution
2

34 |
STable – The measurable indicator names Standard Table Size, it has a
scoring 0 or1. 0 expresses as poor quality, and 1 is excellent quality.
PResolution – The measurable indicator names Optimise the Page
Resolution, it has a scoring 0 or 1. 0 expresses as poor quality, and 1 is
excellent quality.
PR&RT means Page’s Resolution & Standard Table Size sub-
characteristic, the final result: 0 <= PR&RT <= 1.
Each measurable indictor is further clarified by the following attributes.
A. Metric Name: Standard Table Size
Name of Variable: STable
Upper Level Sub-Group: Page’s Resolution & Standard Table Size
Description:Some websites have a settable width at 100%. The reason
is the table is able to fit in with any size of browsers whatever the resolution
of the screen.
This makes it easy for the users, because the users can view the information
on the screen without scrolling horizontally.
However, does the resizable table actually satisfy the user’s expectation? It
does according to the relative researches on the 100 most popular
websites such as IBM.com, Microsoft.com, uk.yahoo.com and so on.
A lot of websites still set the table width as pixels. Because resizable table
can avoid horizontal move scroll, but the layout of content (e.g. text) are also
changed. Users will be confused by looking for the same information or words
because they are not always in the same position once browser size has been
charged.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: The width attribute should set fixed number
in the table code.

35 |
Rules of Scoring:Checking attribute of every image,If every width <> 100%
then STable = 1, otherwise STable = 0.
B. Metric Name: Optimise the Page Resolution
Name of Variable: PResolution
Higher Level Metric Group:Aesthetics
Upper Level Sub-Group: Page’s Resolution & Standard Table Size
Description: The most common computer display the resolution is
1024 x 768 [18]. The optimisation resolution from the previous 800 x600
format to the higher1024x768 that the many websites and multimedia
products were re-designed. However there are so many higher resolutions
released such as inexpensive LCD monitors which have made 1280x1024
resolution more popular for the desktop user,1400x1050 SXGA+, 1280x720
WXGA, 1920x1200 WUXGA and so on. Old monitors such as 800 x600
are thrown away in the real computer market.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: The resolution of a page should be
higher than 1024x768.
Algorithms:If the page resolution is higher than 1024x768 then PResolution
= 1 otherwise PResolution =0.
4.1.2.3. Colour
Outwardly engaging website pages require a reliable shading plan. Shading is
an extremely notable boost, which is known to influence the visual intrigue of
websites. When opening a website the foundation hues are generally shown
well before the substance shows up. Without shading, a page can be missing
stylishly. Thus, site quality should demonstrate a reliable and adjusted shading
plan. An excessive amount of shading, or whimsical shading, gives the page
befuddled feel.
Assessing the nature of shading can be extremely troublesome. Be that as it
may, as indicated by research from a thousand relative examinations, three
quantifiable indicators are chosen inside the sub-normal for shading, which

36 |
incorporate Using Multiple Colors, Using Safe Colors and Limitation of
Colors. They commonly influence the nature of visual hues and couple of
scientists have referenced them. More data about each indictor is
demonstrated as follows.
Color is a lower level characteristic within the website quality
framework. Its evaluation is calculated by the three measurable indicators,
and the result of the calculation will be an average rate of the total
number of indicators. The following formula has shows the expression for
the calculation:
Color
CMultipleCSafeCLimitation
3
CMultiple – The Measurable indicator names Using Multiple Colors, it
has a scoring 0 or 1. 0 expresses as poor quality and 1 is excellent quality.
CSafe – The Measurable indicator names Using Safe Colors, it has a scoring
0 or 1.
0 expresses as poor quality, and 1 is excellent quality.
CLimitation – The Measurable indicator names Limitations of Colors for
Color Blindness People, it has a scoring 0 or 1. 0 expresses as poor
quality, and 1 is excellent quality.
Color – Means color sub-characteristic, the final result: 0 <= Color <= 1.
The following information is specifies each measurable indicator and the
important rules. They are automatically calculated by the web evaluation
tools.
A.Metric Name: Using Multiple Colors
Name of Variable: CMultiple
Upper Level Sub-Group: Color

37 |
Description: A web page using too little color looks boring or inert, whereas
too much color can be garish. Color is good way for identifying,
grouping or differentiating the website’s elements. Evaluating a web page
that uses simple or complex color, it may not be able to clearly represent
the meaning of website’s elements and draw user’s eyes, and is a poor
aesthetics quality website.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: The recommendation for a web page is that
it uses no more than seven colors.
Algorithms: Checking code of color, calculating the number of colorIf
Color > = 7 then CMultiple = 1, otherwise CMultiple = 0.
B. Metric Name: Using Safe Color
Name of Variable: CSafe
Upper Level Sub-Group:Color
Description: The safe color palette of websites commonly applies a set of
216 color values . It developed at a time when many computer displays were
only
256 colors. As of 2009, company and personal PCs typically have at least the
32
Deep Colors, even mobile devices have at least the 16-bit color. The
application of web safe colors has reduced, however it is still an important
feature for the most website designs.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Each web page should specify the number of
color components according to RGB triplet, such as read: FF0000.
Algorithms: Checking color code, if the color code matches the list
of RGBvalue then CSafe = 1, otherwise CSafe = 0.
C. Metric Name :Limitations of Colors for Color Blindness People
Name of Variable:CLimitation
Upper Level Sub-Group: Color
Description:Some people (mainly males) have impaired ability to tell
the certain colors apart. There are several types of color-blindness, the most
common affecting red & green (they appear very much the same).

38 |
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A web page should not use color
(particularly red and green) to build the important elements such as titles,
documentations, fonts, links in a website because the user needs to
differentiate the colors to be able to use the interface successfully.
Algorithms: Checking the color code, if background and font color is
008000,
00FF00 and FF0000 then CLimitation = 0, otherwise CLimitation = 1.
4.1.2.4. Emphasis
A web page made up totally of content is hard for individuals' eyes to check.
An on-line report includes central focuses that will give the milestones to
coordinate the per user through the substance structure. Central focuses must
decide the most essential piece of the page and give it the best accentuation.
Emphasis is to give a method for making the component that is most
imperative emerge in the website architecture [31]. Accentuation contains
Italics, Bold, Underline, Color, Size, Capitals, even Space and Indentation.
On the off chance that a site endeavors to emphasize everything on a page, the
per user would get befuddled and lose the intrigue. The most critical substance
of the page ought to be organized and introduced in like manner. A decent
principle when working with the site content is to include the diverse
accentuation one at the time. For instance if a segment has a similar size of
content, the headings inside this area ought to be expanded or made intense.
Just a little variety is required to set up a visual differentiation.
Fortunately, W3C has well established the relevant criteria about the
emphasizing structure of text in a web page, with the criteria such as
EM (emphasis), STRONG (stronger emphasis), white space, line and so on.
This aspect will not be discussed in this study.
In any case, a contention has been proposed about utilizing the underlining of
content to underscore the web content. More data talking about this specific
issue is demonstrated as follows.
A.Metric Name: Underline of Text
Name of Variable: Underline
Upper Level Sub-Group:Emphasis

39 |
Description: Underlining is used for emphasizing the important points
of web content and also acts for the highlighting hyperlinks (whether visited
or not).
However a question is whether the underlining is needed to emphasis.
According to the correlative researches, the thirty five popular websites
have been analyzed, which include IBM.com, Microsoft.com,
Wikipedia.org, BBC.co.uk, etc. these websites do not use the underlining
to emphasize the focal points within them.
Today’s computer users are used to looking for a hyperlink by moving the
cursor onto the text which has been underlined. They can be confused if an
underline is not a hyperlink. Underline of text has lost the function of
emphasis. For this reason, an Underline means and only means a hyperlink.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Avoid mixing the underlined text
for the emphasis, it only appears as a hyperlink.
Algorithms:If the texts have underline, they must be hyperlinks， then
Underline= 1, otherwise Underline = 0.
Sub-characteristic of emphasis is an immeasurable criterion, and it has
only one measurable indicator: underline of text. The goal of an indicator
directly indicates its parent level. Therefore the sub-characteristic only has as
a calculation score. Emphasis = 1, or Emphasis = 0.
4.2. Ease of Use
4.2.1. Background of Ease of Use
In the early days of web applications, people realized that using the most
websites were really difficult, therefore the diffusive quality issues
“usability” are researched. Usability has been proposed as a concept by
watching real people using the websites which meet their expectations.
Hong Xie reedited a brand-new definition of usability – ease of use from
website quality: “ease of use recommends a clear definition for the web-
credible usability but it is more explicit and tangible, and researches from
other authors have also mentioned that the ease of use is the capability of
the website to be used with ease by the users.
According to well-defined the aspects of ease of use and comparing the
usability, ease of use is the common feature for website quality evaluation.It

40 |
is all the more explicitly centered around client fulfillment, offering guests a
decent client involvement with a snappy available website. At that point they
are bound to like the association behind the website.
4.2.2. Ease of Use Metrics
A definition by Whitney Quesenbery about evaluation of ease of use is:
“Ease of use can be used to understand user requirements,
formulate characteristic goals and decide on the best techniques for ease of
use evaluations”.
The characteristic of ease of use is a high level web quality element.
It has a youngsters level – three sub-qualities, and every one of them has at
least one quantifiable pointers. Sub-qualities contain Consistency, Navigation
and Annotation. The purpose behind picking these elements is on the grounds
that they are more suited to the easy to understand parts of interfaces and
Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and furthermore to break down powerful
sites where the clients can rapidly and effectively get to the coveted snippets
of data.
Moreover with the end goal to successfully quantify the nature of
convenience, a recipe is proposed by figuring the total of sub-qualities and
thinking about the methods for weights for every one of them.
The following formula shows the calculation of ease of use:
EoU 0.4Consis 0.4 Nav 0.2 Anno
Consis – the sub-characteristic of Consistency, 0 <= Consis<= 1.
Nav – the sub-characteristic of Navigation, 0 <= Nav<=1.
Anno – the sub-characteristic of Annotation, 0 <= Anno <= 1.
0.4, 0.4 and 0.2 represent the weights of each number of sub-characteristics.
Sum of weights = 1 and 0< each weights <1.
EoU – the characteristic of Ease of Use, 0 <EoU< 1.
Each sub-characteristic has an alternate esteem. The Consistency and
Navigation give careful consideration than explanation on the grounds that

41 |
actually they are intended to be an adaptable web interface that enables
individuals to utilize it as effectively as possible.
Additionally each sub-characteristic has at least one quantifiable markers,
they give a normal recipe to compute the consequence of the assessment of a
sub-trademark. The accompanying data is a presentation for sub-qualities and
quantifiable indicators.
4.2.2.1. Consistency
The basic thought regarding consistency is that individuals can move around
the website from page to page and locate the comparative substance or data
showed in the comparable ways. All pages ought to give the reliable UIs that
present similar alternatives similarly over the entire website. With regards to
web composition, individuals require consistency so they can discover the
things a lot faster.
Further discussion about the importance of consistency in a website is
necessary. Everyone agrees that well-defined consistency which keeps the
same design style across the entire website makes the easier and more
comfortable to the users.
For the most part the assessment of a sub-characteristic is determined through
an equation that is the normal of various quantifiable pointers. Be that as it
may, consistency just has one pointer, which is Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)
Attributes. So the aftereffect of consistency is specifically characterized by 0
or 1. 0 speaks to low quality of consistency and 1 speaks to fantastic nature of
consistency. This is an approach to demonstrate that CSS trait is a
fundamental component of web quality. A site missing CSS traits implies it
has a solid possibility of losing an extensive score for quality.
A.Metric Name: CSS Attributes
Name of Variable: CSSA
Higher Level Metric Group:Ease of Use
Description:One well-defined web page interface, must have a consistent
layout to allow the users easy navigation. The number of attributes should all
remain the consistent throughout a website. They include Mouse over
effects, Color, Layout, Style and Font. When a user navigates from one
page to another page in a website, he/she should see a page layout similar to
the previous one. For example, Microsoft’s Download website has a very

42 |
good consistent page layout that makes it easy for the user to find the
information they need.
One of the most common methods of ensuring consistency in the website is
to use Cascading Style Sheets. The CSS attribute is able to define the page
layout for each element in the entire website and helps to keep the
similar features and behaviors for each web page that uses the same style
sheet.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A website should have a well-defined
CSS attribute, and this CSS attribute should have Mouse over effects,
Colour, Layout, Style and Font elements.
Algorithms: If the CSS attribute is exists and CSS has defined the above
elements, then CSSA = 1, otherwise CSSA= 0.
4.2.2.2. Navigation
Numerous highlights meet up to make a quality site. One of the fundamental
segments is the website route. The website route is the demonstration of
moving around from the page to page inside a website, and a decent website
gives individuals the simple approaches to explore through to get to the web
content. On the off chance that the route has not been planned well it can
likewise effectively obstruct the clients and they won't utilize the site once
more.
Website route is critical as it makes the stream for the site's client to go around
the site. A decent site ought to incorporate the unmistakable and clear route
components, which contain the menu bar, images, text content, and so on.
They are made out of the inner connections and outer connections gathered
together and give a managing of a client's area inside the site consistently.
Navigation is a sub-characteristic under the Ease of Use called Up
Level. It has three measurable indicators. Obviously navigation is an
immeasurable characteristic. An average formula is calculated by using these
three indicators and is shown below.

43 |
Frames – The indicator of Use of Frames, Frames = 0 or 1, 0 expresses
as poor quality, and 1 is excellent quality.
Lhome – The indicator of Link to Home, Lhome = 0 or 1, 0 expresses
Menubar – The indicator of Navigation Menu Bar, Menubar = 0 or 1, 0
expresses as poor quality, and 1 is excellent quality.
Navigation – The sub-characteristic of navigation. The final result:
0 <= Navigation <= 1.
The information below includes more discussion about the each indicator and
their
metric. A website evaluation tool is used by computing them automatically.
A. Metric Name: Use of Frames
Name of Variable: Frames
Upper Level Sub-Group: Navigation
Description:Frames is the use of multiple, independently, controllable
windows or sub-windows on a website. This effect is achieved by building a
number of sections as a separate HTML file and having a master indentify all
of the sections. For example, in the same window it should have three
frames, they include first frame which is a display static banner, second
frame which is a navigation menu, and third frame represents the main
document that can be scrolled and replaced by a second navigational frame.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: The frames should be designed in a website
and each element (e.g. Frameset, Frame, NoFrames) should contain the
equivalent navigation options.
Algorithms: If Frame attribute is used and its relevant elements are well
defined then Frames = 1, otherwise Frames = 0.
B. Metric Name: Link to Home
Name of Variable: Lhome
Description:This is the most essential link for the every web page. The
homepage should be the central hub which connects to all the other
parts of the website.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Each web page should contain a link to the
home page.

44 |
Algorithms: If a home link or several home links are used in every web
page thenLhome = 1, otherwise Lhome= 0.
C.Metric Name: Navigation Menu Bar
Name of Variable: Menubar
Description:The navigation menu bar is aggregated by a number of
links together. It is commonly placed on the top of the page. It is important
because once the page has loaded from top to bottom, the user can see the
page content without having to scroll down.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A website should have a navigation
bar and it should be placed at the top of the page.
Algorithms: If a navigation bar is used and it is placed at the top of the page
thenMenubar = 1, otherwise Menubar= 0.
4.2.2.3. Annotation
Numerous highlights meet up to make a quality website. One of the basic
segments is the website route. The website route is the demonstration of
moving around from the page to page inside a website, and a decent website
furnishes individuals with the simple approaches to explore through to get to
the web content. In the event that the route has not been structured well it can
likewise effectively impede the clients and they won't utilize the site once
more.
Website route is vital as it makes the stream for the website's client to go
around the website. A decent website ought to incorporate the unmistakable
and clear route components, which contain the menu bar, pictures, content
substance, etc. They are made out of the interior connections and outer
connections gathered together and give a directing of a client's area inside the
site consistently.
Route is a sub-characteristic under the Ease of Use called Up Level. It has
three quantifiable markers. Clearly route is a boundless trademark. Annormal
recipe is determined by utilizing these three markers and is demonstrated as
follows.

45 |
Frames – The indicator of Use of Frames, Frames = 0 or 1, 0 expresses
Lhome – The indicator of Link to Home, Lhome = 0 or 1, 0 expresses
Menubar – The indicator of Navigation Menu Bar, Menubar = 0 or 1, 0
Navigation – The sub-characteristic of navigation. The final result:
0 <= Navigation <= 1.
The information below includes more discussion about the each indicator and
their
metric. A website evaluation tool is used by computing them automatically.
A. Metric Name: Use of Frames
Name of Variable: Frames
Higher Level Metric Group: Ease of Use
Upper Level Sub-Group:Navigation
Description: Frames is the utilization of different, freely, controllable
windows or sub-windows on a site. This impact is accomplished by building
various areas as a different HTML document and having an ace identify the
majority of the segments. For instance, in a similar window it ought to have
three edges, they incorporate first casing which is a presentation static
standard, second casing which is a route menu, and third edge speaks to the
fundamental report that can be looked over and supplanted by a second
navigational edge.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: The edges ought to be planned in a website
and every component (e.g. Frameset, Frame, NoFrames) ought to contain the
identical route alternatives.
Algorithms: If Frame attribute is used and its relevant elements are well
defined then Frames = 1, otherwise Frames = 0.
B.Metric Name: Link to Home

46 |
Name of Variable: Lhome
Upper Level Sub-Group:Navigation
Description: This is the most essential link for the every web page.
The homepage should be the central hub which connects to all the other
parts of the website.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Each web page should contain a link to the
home page.
Algorithms: If a home link or several home links are used in every web
page then Lhome = 1, otherwise Lhome= 0.
C.Metric Name: Navigation Menu Bar
Name of Variable: Menubar
Description: The route menu bar is amassed by various connections together.
It is usually put on the highest point of the page. It is critical in light of the
fact that once the page has stacked through and through, the client can see the
page content without looking down.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A website ought to have a route bar and it
ought to be put at the highest point of the page.
Algorithms: If a navigation bar is used and it is placed at the top of the page
thenMenubar = 1, otherwise Menubar= 0.
4.2.2.3. Annotation
Annotation is generally used in the newspapers or magasines, for example
where another reader has written down the notes about the quality of a
document, or annotated information which give a description about a paper or
argument. An annotation can also be prominent in a lot of features in a website
domain.
The website annotation can be described as an aggregation of text attributes
for a key element in a web page. These attributes include tag, caption, label,
summary, etc.

47 |
This examination proposes the possibility that the website ought to give
comments to the each component, which contain the connections, frames,
tables, pictures, or other web components, these components are imperative
properties for the collaboration between the clients and web interface, Well-
characterized comments can assist clients with understanding the elements of
a website, they can perceive what they like, and bolster client get to practices.
Annotation is a sub-characteristic under the ease of use characteristic. It has
two
quantifiable pointers. A normal equation is determined by utilizing the
pointers.
Annotation
LabelLTF META
2
LabelLTF represents the indicator of Label and Caption for Link and
Form, LabelLTF = 0 or 1, 0 expresses as poor quality, and 1 is excellent
quality.
META - The indicator of Description of META, META = 0 or 1, 0
Annotation means the annotation sub-characteristic, the final result:
0 <= Annotation <=1
A. Metric Name: Label of Link and Form
Name of Variable: LabelLTF
Upper Level Sub-Group: Annotation
Description: Links associated with the web resources (e.g., an image,
HTML document, a video clip, etc.). Users frequently identify what they
want to visit before clicking the link resources. Well-defined links must
be very specific with their instructions.
Tables include a group of attributes of which the most important is
“caption”that provides the short description of the tables’ purpose. A longer
description mayalso need to be provided (via the “summary” attribute)
for the benefit of people using the speech or Braille-based software in a web
page.

48 |
The form is a section of a document which contains the mark-up,
normal content and a number of special elements such as the checkboxes,
buttons, menus, etc. Generally users need to modify or complete the whole
thing (e.g., entering text, clicking button, etc), before they submit the form. In
order to help users understand what they are about to do, a form should specify
the label and description on each element, for example text input fields should
have the labels and summary.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects:
The links should specify the titles of the link attributes.
The tables in web pages must have the “caption” elements.
The form elements should have the well-defined Labels and Summary.
Algorithms: Checking source code,
If X = “LINK”, Y= “TABLE”, Z = “FORM” then Total = Total +1
If Link = “title”, Table= “caption”, Form = “label” and “summary” then
Attrib = Attrib +1
If Total = Attrib then LabelLTF = 1 otherwise LabelLTF = 0.
B. Metric Name: Description of META
Name of Variable: META
Upper Level Sub-Group:Annotation
Description:META is information about a website specified in a variety of
ways. For example, specifying information of author or a short description of
website. A website should have the appropriate META information to
be searchable bysearch engines, and this information must contain “author”,
“copyright”, “keywords” and “date”.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Every web page should involve a META
element, and be well-defined by the attributes (“author”, “copyright”,
“keywords” and “date”).
Algorithms: If every page has a META element and the key attributes <>“ ”
then
META = 1, otherwise META = 0.
4.3. Multimedia

49 |
4.3.1. Background of Multimedia
In July 2009 it was reported by the Pew Internet Life Study that somewhere
in the range of 57 percent of grown-ups were web clients in the U.K. They are
watching or downloading the video content, 19 percent do as such on a normal
day, fundamentally at the YouTube, news and web TV websites. These
numbers swell to 75 percent and 31 percent for the youthful grown-up (18 to
multi year old) advertise, obviously illustrating the significance of video and
sight and sound substance in both today and future.
In the previous five years, the data transfer capacity to the clients has
extended. Web mixed media has been accepting close exponentially
expanding consideration. The blast of YouTube, and the development of
Internet TV are making huge enthusiasm for the utilization of online
correspondence, for example, video and publicizing medium. An ever
increasing number of clients expect the dynamic and intuitive substance. Sight
and sound makes an outlet for this interest. This is the reason it is so critical
to fuse a successful sight and sound structure conspire.
According to these reasons, multimedia has become an important
characteristic for the quality of websites. The elements of multimedia contain
the animation images – the user can hear or see: music, sounds, videos, flash,
and more. Without this integration of web attributes, the quality of website to
connect with the customers will ultimately suffered.
4.3.2. Multimedia Metrics
With the end goal to assess mixed media, the parts of sight and sound must be
recognized by what are fundamental. An imperative article by Gibbs et al.
passed on an investigation taking a gander at how the nature of video or
sounds are enhancing the pages and making the pages more appealing. The
quality trademark ought to be deliberately chosen, and every characteristic
must be characterized by speaking to an explicit estimation of web media that
fulfills the clients' necessities.
Multimedia is a high level quality characteristic and it is directly calculated
from the measurable indicators through an aggregation formula. This is
different from Aesthetics and Ease of Use. The main aim of multimedia
evaluation is to show the degree of multimedia quality in the live website and
important indicators are considered by the means of weights. The formula can

50 |
be expressed as follows:
Media 0.2 Plugin 0.2 Attri 0.3 MinOne 0.3 Thum
Plugin represents the measurable indicator called Plug-in Support, its scoring
is 0 or
1. 0 means poor quality and 1 is excellent quality.
Attri represents the measurable indicator called Attributes of Multimedia
Components, its scoring is 0 or 1. 0 means poor quality and 1 is excellent
quality.
MinOne represents the measurable indicator called One Media in One Page,
its scoring is 0 or 1. 0 means poor quality and 1 is excellent quality.
Thum represents the measurable indicator called Using Thumbnails, its
scoring is 0 or 1. 0 means poor quality and 1 is excellent quality.
The weights proposed for each indicator are 0.2, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.3. Sum of
weights =
46, 1 and 0< each weights <1.
Media produces Multimedia characteristic, 0 <= Media <=1.
Considering the differences between the degrees of each indicator, One Media
in One Page and Using Thumbnails take more weights than others, because
they strongly affect the quality of a website. A website may lose the customers
if they are poor.
The information below includes more discussion about each indicator and
their algorithms.
A.Metric Name: Plug-in Support
Name of Variable: Plugin
Higher Level Metric Group: Multimedia
Description: Plug-in (add-in, plugin or snap-in) is a program that interacts
with a web browser to extend the web browser’s specific functional supports.
There are a lot of different presentation formats (e.g., Flash, QuickTime,
Microsoft Silverlight,
3DMLW, etc) and they all interact with the web browsers by using plug-in
support.

51 |
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A website with a multimedia element should
provide appropriate browser plug-in support.
Algorithms: If multimedia components are involved and plug-in = true, then
Plugin = 1, otherwise Plugin = 0.
B. Metric Name: Attributes of Multimedia Components
Name of Variable: Attri
Description: Multimedia components (e.g. video, audio, and flash) are
becoming increasingly common elements on the websites. They are widely
used in entertainments, newscasts, distance learning materials and so on.
However, there are 47 number of challenges when presenting the dynamic
multimedia, especially for people misunderstands a multimedia element that
has no description. For this reason a well-defined description is necessary for
the every multimedia component, and this description includes “title”, “alt”
and “abstract”.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Every multimedia component such as flash
animation, video, and audio must have a well-defined description.
Algorithms: If multimedia components are involved then “title”, “alt” and
“abstract” = true, Attri = 1, otherwise Attri = 0.
C. Metric Name: One Media in One Page
Name of Variable: MinOne
Description: Each web page should have only one multimedia component.
Unprofessional websites normally have more animation components which
can cause the page disturbance and confuse the users.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A web page should have only one multimedia
element.
Algorithms: If X = video or flash or audio, then Multimedia = Multimedia +
1. If
Multimedia <=1 then MinOne = 1, otherwise MinOne = 0.

52 |
D. Metric Name: Using Thumbnails
Name of Variable: Thum
Description: A thumbnail is a small image preview on a web page. It usually
contains a hyperlink to a full-size version of the multimedia components or
images.
According to the issue (One media in one page) in this study, only one
multimedia can be used in a page and therefore any others should be
represented with a number of thumbnails, so that the users can view other
relevant multimedia components by clicking the thumbnails. Also using
thumbnails can speed up the page load time. Thumbnail should be well-
defined by using the “title” and “alt” attributes and specifying the size
equivalent with “width” and “height”.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: Every thumbnail should have “title” and “alt”
attributes and maximum size is 240x240 pixels.
Algorithms: If thumbnail = true then Total = Total+1
If “title”, “alt” <>“ ” and size < = 240 then attribute = attribute +1
If Total = attribute then Thum = 1, otherwise Thum = 0.
4.4. Rich Content
4.4.1. Background of Rich Content
Generally content aims to benefit the reader by providing the information,
relevant to their search query, whether it be educational, objective
entertaining, amusing or exciting information.
Rich content can be described as a gathering of many elements such as a
search engine, bulletin board, information guide, Graphics and so on. These
complete the website’s functionality and accessibility requirements to meet
the user’s expectation. Today web content is the best tool for building
relations between the potential customers and suppliers. For this reason,
content is selected as an important characteristic in this study.

53 |
The growing importance of content can be best judged from the following
indicators, and they can add positive features to the quality of a website.
4.4.2. Rich Content Metrics
The rich content characteristic can be classified into the various elements and
each element should have its own purpose and target. Some elements increase
the quality of website, whilst others do not. It is very important to know which
elements of content can add the high marks for the websites quality
evaluation.
Rich content is a high level characteristic which has four measurable
indicators in this study. In order to evaluate the quality of content, the rich
content characteristic is calculated through an average formula by using the
four measurable indicators. Comparing the difference for each indicator,
important is considered by means of weights.
The following formula shows the regular expression.
➢ Rcontent
➢ 0.2 Bulletin
➢ 0.2 Guide
➢ 0.4 SeEngine
➢ 0.2 AutoRefsh
• Bulletin represents the measurable indicator called Bulletin Boards, its
• Guide represents the measurable indicator called Information Guide,
its scoring is 0 or 1. 0 means poor quality and 1 is excellent quality.
• SeEngine represents the measurable indicator called Search Engine, its
• AutoRefsh represents the measurable indicator called Avoiding Auto-
refresh, its scoring is 0 or 1. 0 means poor quality and 1 is excellent
quality.
• The weights proposed for each indicator are 0.2, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.2. Sum
of weights =
• 1 and 0< each weights <1.
• Rcontent produces Rich Content characteristic, 0 <= Rcontent<=1.

54 |
The search engine has a higher weighting than others, because it is an essential
element in page content and using a search engine is second nature to users.
The Measurable indicators are well established and more information about
each indicator is described below.
A. Metric Name: Bulletin Boards
Name of Variable: Bulletin
Higher Level Metric Group: Rich Content
Description: The bulletin board has turned into a typical component in the
greater part of live website and it gives the snappiest method to build up online
association between the client's advantages and the network's occasions or
news. An announcement board can be utilized to fulfill the various web
applications. The most widely recognized utilizations are for the exchange
discussions, yet it is additionally utilized effectively for the applications, for
example, the network websites, client administration and specialized help
websites, University websites and much pamphlet websites.
From a book “Community Building on the Web" by Amy Jo Kim, adding a
bulletin board to the website is only about 10% of the battle, the other 90%
deals with promoting the bulletin board and building a community around it.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A quality website should use a bulletin board.
Algorithms: If bulletin board are used or =true then Bulletin = 1, otherwise
Bulletin = 0.
B. Metric Name: Information Guide
Name of Variable: Guide
Description: An information guide provides the assistances for people
wishing to navigate a website. It must include all the information about the
entire website’s domain and be able to be used by the people with different
knowledge levels,backgrounds, etc. They should contain the information
about the summary, stretchable text, customizable information and a guided
tour for the first time visitors.

55 |
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A well-defined information guide can benefit
a website by providing the good quality of service that meets user’s
requirement.
Algorithms: If information guide are used or information guide = true then
Bulletin = 1, otherwise Bulletin = 0.
C. Metric Name: Search Engine
Name of Variable: SeEngine
Description: A web search engine is a tool for searching information on the
World Wide Web. The search results present the information from both
internal and external websites. Comparing a general website (excluding global
search engine providers such as Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc) gives an internal
search which is often more specific than an external search service. When
people use a search engine on a website they want very specific information
from that website, and usually do not need the external information.
Currently people are used to searching for specific information by using a
search engine. It is the easiest and quickest way to find whatever the
information they want.
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A quality website should have a search
engine. Algorithms: If search engine = true then SeEngine = 1, otherwise
SeEngine = 0.
D. Metric Name: Avoiding Auto-refresh
Name of Variable: AutoRefrsh
Description: Auto-refresh is a web technology that prompts a web browser
to automatically refresh the current web page or specific frame according to a
given time interval. Auto-refresh makes it easier for the users especially when
the users expect the information instantly (e.g., stocks and shares, exchange
rate, etc).
However, the auto-refresh has weaknesses and should not be used, because
when a page reloads without the user’s request, it can be confusing to the
users.

56 |
Proposed Evaluation Aspects: A website should avoid auto-refresh function.
Algorithms: If the X<> “refresh” then OthersB = 1, otherwise OthersB= 0.
4.5. Reputation
A website’s reputation is much like that of an individual or organization. It
validates through the positive previous experiences, through the third-party
endorsements such as the ranking services that are shown on the websites, or
indirectly through the recommendation from another websites’ link.
For example the potential customer wants to shop on an e-commerce website
which has a well-known or established domain name and he/she will always
be asking themselves the question “Can I trust this website and its
products/services?” [8] On the other hand, reputation is an important
personal/company asset for protecting a strategic value of public and the
private organizations.
Why is reputation important in website evaluation? Firstly reputation is an
essential feature to make people purchase, register, download and so on.
Secondly when people talk about the reputation of websites, its value is a
general term concerned with many factors e.g. security, usability, efficiency,
search engine ranking etc. Therefore, website reputation can be identified to
some extent with the criterion of a successful web application. Reputation is
the most important key to make the users return.
Very few people have researched reputation to the any degree of websites.
Some issues are represented in the next section.
4.5.1. Background of Reputation
An ongoing report from Stanford University shows that the essential
supporters of the site notoriety are not the conventional components, e.g.
Protection Policies, outsider supports, grants, etc.
The Stanford study goes on to describe that the average consumer now pays
far more attention to the superficial aspects of a website, such as visual cues,
than to its content. For example, nearly half of all consumers (46.1%) in the
study assessed the reputation of websites based on the appeal of the overall
visual design of a website, including the layout, typography, font size and

57 |
color schemes. The others factors, according to the study, were Information
Design/Structure (28.5%) and Information Focus (25.1%).
Here are some other application strategies specific to singular sites that have
been produced on the web to pass judgment and assess the notoriety; eBay
gives an arrangement of positioning clients, whereby purchasers and
merchants give the client input on those from whom they purchase and move.
Here, purchasers and venders build up the notoriety that each can utilize while
thinking about whether to take part in the exchanges. Amazon gives an
administration whereby book and other item surveys can be examined by
different clients, consequently giving a notoriety framework to the
commentators.
As per the relative research about the quality of reputation, they are
proposed the eight rules for contributing and gathering the highlights of
website notoriety from different scientists. They decide how legitimate a
website is seen.
1. Information should easily verify the accuracy on the website.
Resources (e.g. source materials, references and citations) indicate the
trust worthiness of information on the website. Websites use references
to persuade and achieve their purposes.
2. Updating websites on a regular basis.
People trust a website because it updates regularly. Adding some new
information or icons with signs “new”, shows the user that this website
is actually controlled by the author behind it.
3. Highlight the expertise of web supplier and services details.
The website has to be sure to give the credentials from experts and
authorities and make clear it is affiliated with a respected organization.
Conversely, don't link to the outside websites that are not credible. A
website becomes less credible by the association.
4. Publish photos of real people behind the website.
The website provides photos, name, email address, etc from real people
to convey their trustworthiness to the customers.
5. Ease of contact.
A simple way to boost a website's reputation is by making the contact
information clear in a sub-webpage or sub-section, such as phone
number, physical address, and public email address.
6. Design the website so it looks professional (or is appropriate for
website’s purpose).

58 |
Stanford study presented that people quickly evaluate the reputation by
visual the design alone. A professional website layout indicates the
strong organization behind it.
7. People are visiting high-reputation websites more than once.
Re-visit is an indicator of loyalty. If a user is willing to re-visit a
website, then it can be argued that the website has good creditability.
Especially in the e-commerce, repeat visits to a website directly affect
the value of the business.
8. People will recommend a creditable website to others.
Recommendation is an indicator of reputation. People will only
recommend a website which they are already trusted. Otherwise they
might lose their personal reputation.
The reason that these rules were explicitly depicted is on the grounds that the
quantifiable pointers are closed and condensed from these issues in this
examine. They were acknowledged by nearly the exploration associations.
Anyway a few issues are so hard to quantify, some just remained as the
hypothesis and barely made it into practice. With the end goal to consequently
assess the nature of notoriety, these issues have been painstakingly reflection.
This is critical in light of the fact that the criteria of notoriety assessment can't
be proposed without these issues. More talks about markers are determined
later on data.
The quality of reputation is one of the major features in this study, the
website quality metrics produce the new reputable indicators which have
been mentioned in only few researchers. On the other hand, the evaluation
process for doing this study has created a metric to measure the user
perceptions of reputation, one that could be used for other studies.
4.5.2. Reputation Metrics
From previous work examined, evaluation of reputation can be classified in
to five measurable criteria (indicators), which are Customer Feedback,
Web Traffic, Domain Name and Information Publicity respectively.
The reason these criteria are selected, because they have been used in a
number of
good reputations websites (e.g. IBM.com, Microsoft, Wikipedia, etc),
and also according to the studies at Stanford University previously noted.
Optimisingthese immeasurable issues need transforming into the
measurable criteria aspects. For example people recommendation is

Performance and Evaluations of Websites

Performance and Evaluations of Websites

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Performance and Evaluations of Websites

Similar to Performance and Evaluations of Websites (20)

More from imdurgesh

More from imdurgesh (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Performance and Evaluations of Websites