IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbisy/v12y2013i2p123-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analytic hierarchy process model for evaluating and comparing website usability

Author

Listed:
  • Adrien Presley
  • Paul Fellows

Abstract

User acceptance of websites is a critical success factor for e-commerce firms. Usability has long been recognised as a major factor in the acceptance of websites but has been problematic in terms of formal analysis. This paper presents a usability analysis model based on the Microsoft usability guidelines (MUG). The model employs the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a decision-making methodology that allows importance ranking to be determined and alternatives compared based on a set of multi-level criteria. AHP decomposes complex decisions into a hierarchy consisting of increasingly more detailed but easily comprehended sub-problems. The MUG provides a conceptualisation of usability based on five high-level criteria that are then broken down into 14 sub-criteria. It is proposed that the MUG naturally presents a hierarchy for system evaluation that can be structured and analysed using the AHP. This paper presents a model and demonstrates its use by comparing three financial information portals.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrien Presley & Paul Fellows, 2013. "An analytic hierarchy process model for evaluating and comparing website usability," International Journal of Business Information Systems, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(2), pages 123-139.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbisy:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:123-139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=52047
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijbisy:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:123-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=172 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.