Post on 27-Jan-2023
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
M©MM a a s t r i c h t s c h o o l o f M a n a g e m e n t
ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION
AND PROCESSES FOR ELECTRONIC RETAILING:
A STUDY BASED ON USABILITY AND
CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
CHAN Kah Sing
(Malaysia)
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
awarded by the Maastricht School of Management (MSM),The Netherlands (30 Aug 2001).
©2001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
UMI Number: 3024399
____ <ft
UMIUMI Microform 3024399
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Doctoral Supervisors (Promoters)
1. Prof. dr. Dragan A. Nikolik, PhD
2. Prof. dr. Jan C. van Dalen, PhD
Evaluation Committee
1. Prof. dr. Luc Soete, DPhil
2. Prof. dr. Rita M. Walczuch, PhD
MSM
Universiteit Wageningen
MSM/Universiteit Maastricht
Universiteit Maastricht
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
PREFACE
Background and Motivations for this Study. Before entering the academic profession, I
spent just over ten years working in the information technology line. During this period, I
was involved in computer hardware and software development work ranging from
mainframes to personal computers. Subsequently, I was involved in developing software
solutions for business. It was here that I worked with users, and I learned to understand
their frustrations towards computer applications and technology.
Then came the Internet. The emergence of the Web as a business mechanism
generated much hype. However, it is very frustrating to note that businesses are not
making proper use of the Web. It is even more frustrating to note the way computer
technology is changing, which I believe, is bringing more stress to users than ever.
Although I will not deny that the Web will continue to have a huge impact on the
way consumers shop, I embarked on this study to contribute, in some way or other,
towards a less stressful electronic shopping experience.
Acknowledgements. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor and main
promoter, Prof. dr. Dragan A. Nikolik (of the Maastricht School of Management), my co
promoter, Prof. dr. Jan C. van Dalen (of Universiteit Wageningen); and the Associate
Dean for DBA studies, Prof. dr. Kami S. P. Rwegasira (of the Maastricht School of
Management) for their guidance, encouragement, and support throughout this study.
Their broad range of knowledge and insightful critiques provided excellent guidance for
shaping the ideas of this study.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Preface
I also wish to thank Prof. dr. Rajiv Jayashankar, Prof. dr. Leo M. J. H. van Geffen,
and Prof dr. Harald Sander (all of the Maastricht School of Management) for their
guidance and advice throughout the doctoral seminars held in 1999; Prof. dr. Sirkka L.
Jarvenpaa (of the University of Texas at Austin) and Assoc Prof dr. Jane E. Klobas (of
the Curtin University of Technology, Australia) for providing me copies of their research
papers; Prof. dr. Leonie Still (of the University of Western Australia), Prof. dr. Douglas
R. Harvey (of Charles Sturt University, Australia), and Dr. Tan Check Meng (of the
Singapore Polytechnic) for their help in the initial stages of this study; the 400 students of
the School of Business, Singapore Polytechnic, for carrying out the pilot tests and
usability test exercise held from Aug 1999 to Sep 2000; and to Mdm. Lee Wai Leng and
Mr. Joel Loh for assisting in the supervision of the tests.
Finally, my warmest appreciation and gratitude goes to my wife Tang Wai Ling, my
daughter Chan Wing Yi, my father Chan Kam Loon, and my mother Mong Kwai Chee.
Their support, encouragement, and belief in me have been very important in assisting my
completion of this study. 1 am grateful for the sacrifices that they have made on my
behalf, and I dedicate this dissertation to them.
CHAN Kah Sing 12 June 2001Maastricht, The Netherlands
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
CONTENTS
PREFACE.......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS............................................................................................x
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT....................................................................... xiii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1
I. I Overview of this Study........................................................................... 1
1.2 Major Definitions......................................................................................2
1.3 Background of the Phenomenon................................................................3
1.4 Problem Definition................................................................................... 9
1.5 Major Assumptions.................................................................................10
1.6 Research Questions and Hypotheses........................................................11
1.7 Scope of this Study..................................................................................13
1.8 Significance of this Study....................................................................... 15
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................17
2.1 Overview of this Chapter.........................................................................17
2.2 Review o f Usability Concepts.................................................................. 18
2.3 Review of Consumer Behaviour Concepts...............................................24
3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................52
3.1 Overview of this Chapter........................................................................ 52
3.2 Formation of Research Hypotheses...........................................................52
3.3 Formation of Research Objectives............................................................56
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Contents
Chapter Page
4. RESEARCH METHOD.................................................................................... 60
4.1 Overview of this Chapter....................................................... 60
4.2 Major Definitions................................................................................... 60
4.3 Research Design and Method for RO1 .................................................... 61
4.4 Research Design and Method for R 0 2 .................................................... 62
4.5 Research Design and Method for R 0 3 .................................................... 63
4.6 Research Design and Method for R 0 4 .................................................... 65
4.7 Research Design and Method for R 0 5 .................................................... 68
4.8 Research Design and Method for R 0 6 .....................................................75
4.9 Research Design and Method for R 0 7 .....................................................78
4.10 Research Design and Method for R 08 .....................................................81
5. RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION................................................................... 82
5.1 Overview of this Chapter........................................................................82
5.2 Preliminary Work....................................................................................82
5.3 Usability Test Exercise............................................................................86
5.4 Examination of Measurement Method and Observations........................ 90
6. RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 96
6.1 Overview of this Chapter........................................................................96
6.2 Variations in Usability Scores................................................................. 96
6.3 Variations in Site Architectures (Part 1: Organization of Information)...104
6.4 Variations in Site Architectures (Part 2: Organization of Processes) 115
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Contents
Chapter Page
7. DISCUSSIONS...............................................................................................119
7.1 Overview of this Chapter......................................................................119
7.2 Discussions on R 07..............................................................................120
7.3 Discussions on R08 (Part I: Discussion Framework)........................... 127
7.4 Discussions on R08 (Part 2: Information Search).................................129
7.5 Discussions on R08 (Part 3 : Evaluation of Alternatives)...................... 144
7.6 Discussions on R08 (Part 4: Conclusions from the Discussions)..........154
7.7 Integration of the Findings from RO I, R07, and R08.......................... 155
7.8 Implications of the Results.................................................................... 166
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 171
8.1 Overview of this Chapter...................................................................... 171
8.2 Conclusions...........................................................................................171
8.3 Recommendations................................................................................. 176
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Contents
Appendix....................................................................................................................Page
A. PRODUCT GROUPS.....................................................................................180
A. 1 Overview of this Appendix.................................................................. 180
A.2 Method................................................................................................ 180
A.3 Results of Product Groupings................................................................180
B. TEST USER PROFILE...................................................................................183
B. 1 Overview of this Appendix.................................................................. 183
B.2 Test User Profiles.................................................................................183
C. USABILITY TASKS.......................................................................................187
C. 1 Overview of this Appendix.................................................................. 187
C.2 Usability Task Concept........................................................................ 187
C.3 Usability Tasks.....................................................................................187
D. USABILITY TASK QUESTIONNAIRE.........................................................201
D. 1 Overview o f this Appendix.................................................................. 201
D.2 Questionnaire Design Concept............................................................. 201
D.3 Review of Statistical Analyses............................................................. 202
D.4 Method................................................................................................ 203
D.5 Questionnaire Set “A” (for Pilot Test 1)...............................................206
D.6 Questionnaire Set “B” (for Pilot Test 2 ) ...............................................209
D.7 Questionnaire Set “C” (for Usability Tests).......................................... 212
D.8 Validity and Reliability of Measurement.............................................. 218
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Contents
Appendix.................................................................................................................... Page
E. USABILITY TEST EXERCISE...................................................................... 227
E. I Overview of this Appendix............................................................... 227
E.2 Usability Test Plan........................................ 227
E.3 Determination of Sample Size...............................................................230
E.4 Data Integrity........................................................................................ 232
E.5 Variations of Results due to Tasks and Test Users............................... 234
F. USABILITY TEST RESULTS FOR STORES................................................ 243
F. I Overview o f this Appendix...................................................................243
F.2 Variations in Usability Scores...............................................................243
G. USABILITY TEST RESULTS FOR PRODUCTS.......................................... 251
G. I Overview of this Appendix...................................................................251
G.2 Variations in Usability Scores............................................................... 251
H. USABILITY TEST RESULTS FOR INFORMATION ITEMS....................... 302
H.l Overview of this Appendix................................................................... 302
H.2 Multiple Regression Analysis............................................................... 302
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 309
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Assumed Chain of Events contributing to the Slow Proliferation andConsumer Acceptance of Electronic Stores as a Business Mechanism............. 10
2. Sample of Site Architecture (walmart).............................................................. 64
3. Test User Profile Questionnaire......................................................................... 67
4. Usability Task Questionnaire............................................................................ 72
5. Example of Product Details (bluelight)............................................................ 122
6. Example of Product Categories (shopsports) ....................................................129
7. Example of a Browse Mechanism (proflowers) ................................................132
8. Example of a Browse Process (jcpenney)......................................................... 133
9. Examples of Basic Search Mechanisms (barnesandnoble and borders)............136
10. Examples of Search Outcomes (vitamins and vitaminconnection).................... 138
11. Example of an Advance Search Mechanism (800.com).................................... 141
12. Example of Consumer Education (vitamin-planet) ...........................................142
13. Example of Product Specifications (I-800-electro)..........................................145
14. Example of a “Compare” Feature (gateway).....................................................148
15. Example of Product Reviews (amazon) ............................................................149
16. Example of a Help Page (us.buy)......................................................................151
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Usability Components......................................................................................19
2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Product Assortment Strategies................... 35
3. Variations in Consumer Decision Processes.................................................... 38
4. Relationships between Product Categorization, Consumer Involvement,and the Stages and Categories of Decision-Making Processes..........................39
5. Major Types of Decision-Making Criteria for Products....................................44
6. Summary of Basic Consumer Decision-Making Rules.....................................46
7. Sample Usability Task............................................................... 69
8. Experimental Design Forms for Usability Test Exercise.................................. 76
9. List of Products and Electronic Stores selected for Usability Testing...............83
10. Test User Profile: Gender and Age Group of Respondents............................... 85
11. Profile of Usability Test Exercise..................................................................... 88
12. Issues on the Conduct of Usability Tests.......................................................... 89
13. Threats to Internal Validity and Measures taken to Minimize their Effects 91
14. The Effects of Products and Sites on Usability Scores...................................... 97
15. Usability Scores from Tests on Different Products on a Specific Store.............99
16. Usability Scores from Tests on Different Sites for a Specific Product.............101
17. Implementations o f Home Pages: Major Items............................................... 104
18. Implementations o f Home Pages: Visible Areas..............................................106
19. Implementations o f Common Navigation Bars: Major Items.......................... 107
20. Implementations of Site Maps.........................................................................108
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
List of Tables
Table Page
21. Implementations of Help Pages: Major Items.............................................. ..109
22. Implementations of Search Mechanisms........................................................ 111
23. Implementations of Product Details Pages: Major Items................................ 112
24. Implementations of Shopping Carts: Major Items...........................................113
25. Items that affect Usability Scores Significantly..............................................115
26. Implementations of Search Processes..............................................................116
27. Implementations of Browse Processes..................... ..................................... 117
28. Selected Items with Low Adoption Rates.......................................................124
29. Distinctive Items in “High Usability” Stores...................................................125
30. Framework for Discussing R 08..................................................................... 128
31. Examples for Product Group PG1 (Knowledge and Entertainment Products).. 156
32. Examples for Product Group PG2 (Technical Equipment).............................. 158
33. Examples for Product Group PG3 (Non-Technical Equipment).......................159
34. Examples for Product Group PG4 (Wearable Products).................................. 160
35. Examples for Product Group PG5 (Medicinal and Beauty Products)............... 161
36. Examples for Product Group PG6 (Perishable, Non-Edible Products)............. 163
37. Examples for Product Group PG7 (Perishable, Edible Products).....................164
38. Examples for Product Group PG8 (Toys and Souvenir-type Products)............ 165
xii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
ABSTRACT
This study was an applied research conducted to determine how the perceived usability of
an electronic retail store could be improved by the organization of information and
processes. This came about in the wake of an unexpected slow proliferation of Web-based
electronic retailing in the late 1990s.
An inter-disciplinary approach was taken, which involved the basic principles of
why and how consumers shop (as addressed by consumer decision-making) and how
people interact with computer interfaces (as addressed by usability). The focus was on the
organization of information and structure of processes programmed in electronic stores.
Specifically, the problem defined in this study was as follows:
“As consumers encounter inconsistent processes in electronic stores, they need to put in additional efforts to leam and understand these processes. The learning process is further aggravated when the processes consumers need to go through are significantly different from conventional purchase and decision-making processes that they are used to in the physical marketplace. This contributes to the negative perception consumers have towards Web shopping.”
The research hypotheses of this study were as follows:
HI: ‘The perceived usability of an electronic store is affected by its organizationof information and processes.”
H2: “The perceived usability of an electronic store is explained by thecompatibility of its organization of information and processes with theories of consumer decision-making.”
Twenty-five products were selected and they were categorized into eight product
groups based on the nature of the information required for consumer decision-making.
From these products, seventy-one stores were selected. The information items, features,
xiii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Abstract
and site architecture of each store were documented in the form of models of electronic
processes.
The preparation work involved the creation of usability tasks for each product and
the development of the usability task questionnaire to capture quantitative indicators for
the perceived usability construct. The usability test exercise involved 334 test users,
which resulted in 3518 valid observations. The observations were inspected for integrity
and appropriateness for statistical analysis.
The preliminary investigation of the observations revealed that usability scores
were not significantly affected by the use of different tasks for testing, and the test users’
age and gender. However, differences in the competence of test users with respect to
computer and Internet use, familiarity with the product, conventional shopping process
and site operations, significantly affected the results.
Statistical analyses revealed that there were significant differences in usability
scores between stores, and that the usability of stores was dependent on the product.
Collectively, the results were used to investigate how the variations in the organization of
information and processes influenced usability scores. For this purpose, the concept of
“relative usability” was introduced.
The stores for each product were divided into two categories termed “high
usability” and “low usability” stores. The organization of information and processes of
the stores were compared within and across these categories. Descriptive and inferential
evidences showed that usability scores were, to a certain extent, influenced by the
presence of certain information items or features, and by the organization o f processes.
As usability scores have been established as the quantitative measure of the perceived
usability construct, these results provided sufficient evidence to HI.
xiv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Abstract
Having established the evidences for HI, theories of consumer decision-making
and related practices were used to analyze and explain the findings. The information
items identified as distinctive to “high usability” stores were investigated and their
contribution to “high usability” could be explained by theories and related practices from
the physical marketplace. The discussion was on the relevance of the organization of
information and processes to the consumer’s decision-making tasks at the stages of
information search and evaluation of alternatives. On the overall, the discussions
provided sufficient evidences to H2.
Following this, the evidences from HI and H2 were integrated with the proposed
product groups. By analyzing the characteristics of each product group, this study
suggested that it is possible to adopt common store designs for the different products
within a product group.
On consolidating the findings and discussions, several recommendations were
outlined. Basically they were practical extensions derived from the research method of
this study. It was built on the concept that an understanding of consumer decision-making
in the physical marketplace can effectively influence design to an extent that electronic
stores are usable to consumers. By promoting usability, this could change the current
negative perception of consumers towards electronic retailing.
xv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of this Study
This study was an applied research conducted to determine how the perceived usability of
an electronic retail store could be improved by the organization of information and
processes. It was based on the primary research hypothesis (HI), which states that “the
perceived usability of an electronic store is affected by its organization of information and
processes.”
An empirical process was developed to study whether such relationships existed for
a sample of electronic stores. Usability tests were carried out by a sample o f consumers
from a particular demographic group. This process can be replicated in practice for
evaluating existing stores or designing new ones for other consumer groups. In effect, this
serves as a basis for improving the perceived usability of electronic stores so that they are
more acceptable by consumers as a business mechanism.
This empirical process was supported by analyses using appropriate theories and
practices from the disciplines of usability and consumer behaviour. Theories were used
here to provide explanatory backing for decisions on organizing information and
processes. It was based on the secondary research hypothesis (H2), which states that “the
perceived usability of an electronic store is explained by the compatibility of its
organization of information and processes with theories of consumer decision-making.”
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
1.2 Major Definitions
The definitions of major terms used in this study are as follows:
“Electronic Commerce ” refers to the strategic integration and deployment of
business methodologies, electronic and information technologies to satisfy business
objectives.
“Electronic Retailing" refers to business activities conducted through a computer
interface leading to the acquisition of products or services by consumers for their
personal, family, or household use. This is also known as business-to-consumer electronic
commerce.
“Consumer, ” “Customer,, ” "Buyer, ” and “Purchaser ” refer to an individual who is
involved in the acquisition of a product or service. Specifically, the term “consumer” is
sometimes taken to mean an individual who consumes a product or uses a service,
whereas a “customer,” a “buyer,” or a “purchaser” is the one who carries out the purchase
process. Depending on the context, these terms were used interchangeably. Generally, the
term “consumer” has been often taken to mean “customer,” “buyer,” or “purchaser,”
probably because of its use in the established terms of “consumer behaviour” and
“consumer decision-making.”
“User” refers to an individual who uses a computer system. In this case, this term is
also taken to mean “consumer” when referring to the use of a computer system for the
purchasing process.
“ Web ” refers to the World Wide Web service of the Internet, where a user interacts
with a computer application through a multimedia computer interface.
“Electronic Store," “Electronic Retail Store," and “Store " refer to Web sites
implemented primarily for electronic retailing. Such sites typically consist o f a series of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Chapter I. Introduction 3
interconnected Web pages. In contrast, the terms “Web site” or “site” are usually used in
a more general context that is not confined to electronic retailing applications.
‘Web Shopping" refers to consumer shopping through electronic stores, covering
purchase activities and related interactions. This is the electronic equivalent of physical
shopping at retail outlets.
"Process" refers to the electronic transactions and navigation sequences
programmed on electronic stores to facilitate Web shopping.
“Usability" refers to the capability of a system that allows users to fulfill a
specified range of tasks easily and effectively, within a specified range of environmental
scenarios (adapted from Shackel (1984)).
1.3 Background of the Phenomenon
This study arose from a problem expressed by many businesses on the unexpected slow
proliferation of electronic retailing in the late 1990s. Typically known as business-to-
consumer electronic commerce, its take-off was considered slow compared to the
reported success of similar husiness-to-business initiatives around the same period. This
phenomenon came into being a few years after the mid-1990s’ worldwide hype of the
Web being a key facilitator of global consumer business.
The Web was touted to have the potential of radically changing the characteristics
of direct marketing (Hoffman and Novak 1996) and retail store patronage (Peterson,
Balasubramanian, and Bronnenberg 1997) as it is a global, direct, and interactive
multimedia channel that is not bounded by time or geography. It was also argued as being
able to provide greater shopping convenience, greater consumer control, and is potentially
more sense stimulating than traditional retail channels (Hoffman and Novak 1996). In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
many countries, interest in the Web picked up rapidly with increasing number of users.
Many businesses were convinced of the Web’s potential and low entry costs for reaching
out to a global marketplace. Therefore, they made increasingly large investments in Web-
based technologies (Palmer and Griffith 1998).
However, many consumers were not readily accepting the Web as a preferred
business mechanism as much as businesses had hoped. As an indication, research in the
USA in 1997, showed that browsing and information search occur relatively frequently in
over 60 percent of Web users, but only 17 percent engaged in actual buying activity
(Jarvenpaa and Todd 1999). Common consumer concerns were the limited range and
higher prices of products and services, problems and unfamiliarity with computer
hardware and software, accessibility, response speed, security risks, lack of anonymity,
and lack of confidence in the system. Such negative perceptions contributed to the
consumers’ reluctance to readily accept Web shopping.
Of particular interest to this study were four observations described below.
Consolidation of these observations led to the formation of two research questions that
were addressed by this study.
Inconsistencies in the Design and Quality o f Electronic Stores. Although Web shopping
reduces physical effort and provides flexibility and access, it is not necessarily perceived
to save time spent on shopping or to reduce levels o f aggravation (Jarvenpaa and Todd
1999). For instance, consumers complained about the many steps to locate a specific item
and were particularly frustrated in situations of goal-directed shopping. Lohse and Spiller
(1998) cited common design problems as limited and inconsistent menus, poorly designed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Chapter I. Introduction 5
navigation, no facilities for product comparisons, poor quality images, and major delays
in delivering audio, animation, graphics, and video.
There is a general perception that Web application development is fast, easy and
decentralized (Gupta and Pitkow 1995; Levi and Conrad 1997). For a quick start to Web
applications, recommendations and “best practices” are found in Web design guidebooks
for beginners and practitioners. However, many of such recommendations lack evidence
o f having being derived from established knowledge or theories. From an academic point
o f view, such recommendations are suspect because they could be based on
unsubstantiated practice. This could lead to ineffective designs.
There is also very little control over the quality of Web content and applications.
Many developers seemed to be more concerned with physical attractiveness and user
enjoyment rather than usability. As a result, it is common to see the expression of design
creativity through features like fanciful graphics and multimedia being misused at the
expense o f usability. On the whole, many electronic stores are poorly designed,
aggravated with inconsistencies and variations, and this confuses and frustrates
consumers.
Many Electronic Stores do not meet User Expectations. According to Schwartz (1997,
19), a study by the IT research organization, Gartner Group, found that 90 percent of first-
generation Web sites were created “without asking existing consumers what they
wanted.” In fact, there is more to just addressing user requirements, and that is to meet
their expectations. In the established practice of developing conventional computer
systems, developers usually determine user requirements by interviewing them and
studying their existing tasks. This is then translated into computer systems following
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW
Chapter I. Introduction 6
established structured systems analysis and design methods. However, this is not
practically possible for electronic stores because, considering the global audience of the
Web, their users are no longer limited to a manageable and easily definable group. The
user base covers people with a wide variety of interests, concerns, skills, culture, socio
economic and educational levels.
Notably, most of the development and implementation of electronic stores are
spearheaded by technologists. According to Rubin (1994,4), developers are traditionally
more comfortable working with the seemingly scientific and concrete aspects of systems
than with the more ambiguous aspects of humans. Also, there is an underlying
assumption that since humans are so inherently flexible and adaptable, it is easier to let
them adapt to the machine rather than the other way round. As a result, many computer
applications do not fit the way people think or work. This makes computer tasks more
frustrating than they need be (Norman 1998,99).
Humans tend to fight change. They thrive best in a predictable environment that is
responsive to their needs, and one which keeps life as uncomplicated as possible.
However, technology interferes with human nature on this very basic level (Weil and
Rosen 1997,8). As wonderful as technology can be, it takes time and patience for users to
acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to use them properly and efficiently. The
effect of unusable technology, coupled with the tendency of humans to resist change, will
result in user frustrations and failures (Weil and Rosen 1997,4-5). The frustrations that
people experience have a cumulative negative impact on psychological and physical
health. This effect has been referred to as “technostress,” a term coined by Brod (1984) to
mean “a modem disease of adaptation caused by an inability to cope with new computer
technologies.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREVIEW