The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Usability evaluation methods for the web: A systematic mapping study
Open accessAbstract
Context: In recent years, many usability evaluation methods (UEMs) have been employed to evaluate Web applications. However, many of these applications still do not meet most customers' usability expectations and many companies have folded as a result of not considering Web usability issues. No studies currently exist with regard to either the use of usability evaluation methods for the Web or the benefits they bring. Objective: The objective of this paper is to summarize the current knowledge that is available as regards the usability evaluation methods (UEMs) that have been employed to evaluate Web applications over the last 14years. Method: A systematic mapping study was performed to assess the UEMs that have been used by researchers to evaluate Web applications and their relation to the Web development process. Systematic mapping studies are useful for categorizing and summarizing the existing information concerning a research question in an unbiased manner. Results: The results show that around 39% of the papers reviewed reported the use of evaluation methods that had been specifically crafted for the Web. The results also show that the type of method most widely used was that of User Testing. The results identify several research gaps, such as the fact that around 90% of the studies applied evaluations during the implementation phase of the Web application development, which is the most costly phase in which to perform changes. A list of the UEMs that were found is also provided in order to guide novice usability practitioners. Conclusions: From an initial set of 2703 papers, a total of 206 research papers were selected for the mapping study. The results obtained allowed us to reach conclusions concerning the state-of-the-art of UEMs for evaluating Web applications. This allowed us to identify several research gaps, which subsequently provided us with a framework in which new research activities can be more appropriately positioned, and from which useful information for novice usability practitioners can be extracted.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008) · Electronic Workshops in Computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/ease2008.8 · Cited by 3,239 · cited 2×
“This synthesis method is useful to provide a map and giving a quick overview of a research field (Petersen et al. [30]).”
MethodCurrent practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research
Hornbæk, K. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 · Cited by 1,123
Web evaluation: Heuristic evaluation vs. user testing
Tan, W.-S., Liu, D., & Bishu, R. (2009) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.012 · Cited by 170
Developing usable Web sites – a review and model
Cunliffe, D. (2000) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662240010342577 · Cited by 126
Heuristic evaluation of paper-based Web pages: a simplified inspection usability methodology
Allen, M., Currie, L. M., Bakken, S., Patel, V. L., & Cimino, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2005.10.004 · Cited by 95
Cited by
Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007 · Cited by 2,669
Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review
Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163477 · Cited by 2,317
Empirical Studies on Usability of mHealth Apps: A Systematic Literature Review
Zapata, B. C., Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Idri, A., & Toval, A. (2015) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-014-0182-2 · Cited by 585
Blockchain applications–Usage in different domains
Abou Jaoude, J., & George Saade, R. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2902501 · Cited by 376
Ampatzoglou, A., Bibi, S., Avgeriou, P., Verbeek, M., & Chatzigeorgiou, A. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.10.006 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Fernandez, A., Insfran, E., & Abrahão, S.
- Venue
- Information and Software Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 789-817
- ISSN
- 0950-5849 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055000704
- Cited by
- 497
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 40.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Usability evaluation methods for the web: A systematic mapping study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.02.007
- The paper
- Fernandez, A., Insfran, E., & Abrahão, S. (2011). Usability evaluation methods for the web: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.02.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.