Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impacts of navigation structure, task complexity, and users’ domain knowledge on Web site usability—an empirical study

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is essential for designers of Web sites to understand what navigation structure results in better usability for knowledge acquisition tasks of varying complexity and the Web site users with different level of domain knowledge. Literature shows that multiple factors may exert influence on Web site usability. Navigation structure, task complexity, and user domain knowledge level are among of those factors. Hypotheses are developed about the usability of alternative navigation structures, with different task complexity and user domain knowledge level. Experiments are designed and conducted to test these hypotheses in terms of user performance (accuracy, speed) in accomplishing sets of simple and comparatively complex knowledge acquisition tasks. User perceptions of usability are also measured. Two rounds of experimentation are performed, one with participants who have been trained in the domain of production and operations management, the other with participants who have not been trained in this domain. The results show that a usage-oriented hierarchy or a combined hierarchy are navigation structures associated with statistically significantly higher performance usability than a subject-oriented hierarchy, for both simple and relatively complex knowledge acquisition task sets. A statistically significant effect of domain knowledge on the perception aspect of usability is identified. The study contributes to enhancing the comprehension of researchers, practitioners, and educators about design and usability of Web site navigation structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, R., & Venkatesh, V. (2002). Assessing a firm’s web presence: a heuristic evaluation procedure for the measurement of usability. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 168–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belanger, F., Fan, W., Schaupp, L. C., Krishen, A., Everhart, J., Poteet, D., et al. (2006). Web site success metrics: addressing the duality of goal. Communication of the ACM, 49(12), 114–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbunan-Fitch, R. (1999). Methods for evaluating the usability of web-based systems. Proceedings of the AIS (August) 868–870.

  • Benbunan-Fitch, R. (2001). Using protocol analysis to evaluate the usability of a commercial web site. Information & Management, 39, 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, B. B., & Sebrechts, M. M. (1981). Facilitating human-computer communication. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 149–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. (1988). The minimal manual. Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 123–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, R. B., Aquilano, N. J., & Jacobs, F. R. (2001). Production & operations management (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C., & Lin, L. (1998). The effect of navigation map types and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2/3), 177–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., & Kottemann, J. E. (1994). User perceptions of decision support effectiveness: two production planning experiments. Decision Sciences, 25(1), 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G. (1989). Small group research in information systems: theory and method. The information Systems Research Challenge: Experimental research methods.

  • Fang, X., & Holsapple, C. W. (2000a). Web site design for knowledge acquisition: Issues, progress, and needs. Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(3), 255–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, X., & Holsapple, C. W. (2000b). Toward a knowledge acquisition framework for Web site design. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems 146–148.

  • Fang, X., & Holsapple, C. (2007). An empirical study about web site navigation structures’ impact on web site usability. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 476–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J., van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K., & Hughes, J. (1990). Computer graphics: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, J. H., & Kuo, F.-Y. (1991). Understanding human-computer interaction for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 15(4), 527–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghaoui, C. (2006). Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, D. J., Fogas, B. S., Aberasturi, S., & Richards, S. (1995). Cognitive Ability and Computing Experience Influence Interpretation of Computer Metaphors. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, pp. 243–247.

  • Gnisci, A., Papa, F., & Spedaletti, S. (1999). Usability aspects, socio-relational context and learning performance in virtual classroom: a laboratory experiment. Behavior & Information Technology, 18(6), 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, M., Whiteside, J., Wixon, D., & Jones, S. (1984). Building a user-derived interface. Communications of the ACM, 27(10), 1032–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M., Slade, L., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The ‘science of the sophomore’ revisited: from conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, W. D., & Salzman, M. C. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human Computer Interaction, 13, 203–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GVU, “The GVU WWW user survey (1996, 1997, 1998),” http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/, (Accessed: Sep 2, 1999)

  • Hamlin, M. (1991). Knowledge and skill components of expert and novice software users. WA: University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge manipulation activities: results of a Delphi study. Information & Management, 39(6), 477–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, A. (2005). Usability engineering methods for software developers. Communication of the ACM, 48(1), 71–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation format and task complexity of online customers’ product understanding. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 31(3), 475–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klir, G. J. (1985). Architecture of systems problem solving. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthauer, R. D. (1994). An empirical evaluation of knowledge, cognitive style, and structure upon the performance of hypertext tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 6(4), 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottemann, J. E., Davis, F. D., & Remus, W. E. (1994). Computer-assisted decision making: performance, beliefs, and the illusion of control. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 26–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, K. A. (1986). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(4), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machils, S. (1998). Site redesigns keep it simple. Computerworld, 32(43), 43–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors, 40(1), 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M., & Jolley, J. (2001). Research design explained (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, N. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10, 151–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohageg, M. F. (1992). The influence of hypertext linking structures on the efficiency of information retrieval. Human Factors, 34, 351–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M., & Dillon, A. P. (1996). The importance of usability in the establishment of organizational software standards for end user computing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M., & Turner, J. (2001). Assessing users’ subjective quality of experience with the world wide web: an exploratory examination of temporal changes in technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 877–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mozeico, H. (1982). A human/computer interface to accommodate user learning stages. Communications of the ACM, 25(2), 100–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. 2009. “Top 10 Information Architecture Mistakes,” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ia-mistakes.html, (Accessed: June 1, 2009)

  • Nielsen, J., & Levy, J. (1994). Measuring Usability. Communications of the ACM 37(4).

  • Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, J. (2002). Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearrow, M. (2000). Web site usability. Rockland: Charles River Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. (1998). Web site engineering. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. A. (2000). The complete reference for web design. Berkeley: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J. (1994). Human-computer interaction. Workingham: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosevich, L. (1997). Fixing web-site usability. InfoWorld, 19(50), 81–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, J. P. (1998). Easing the learning curve of novice web users. In C. Forsythe, E. Grose, & J. Ratner (Eds.), Human factors and web development. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, G., Khoo, H., & Straub, D. (1999). Current technological impediments to business-to-consumer electronic commerce. Communications of the AIS, 1(16), 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D., & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: three modes of learning. In J. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzinger, J., & Olfman, L. (1998). User interface consistency across end-user applications: the effects on mental models. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 167–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, B. (1997). Designing information-abundant web sites: issues and recommendations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seffah, A., & Metzker, E. (2004). The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackle, B. (1991). Usability-Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation. In B. Shackle & S. Richardson (Eds.), Human factors for Informatics Usability (pp. 21–37).

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). the architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smilowitz, E. D., Darnell, M. J., & Benson, A. E. (1994). Are we overlooking some usability testing methods? A comparison of lab, beta, and forum tests. Behavioral Information Technology, 13(1–2), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. G. (1997). Testing the surf: criteria for evaluating internet information resources. The Public Access Computer Systems Review, 8(3), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., Milberg, S., & Burke, S. (1996). Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. A., Newman, I. A., & Parks, L. M. (1997). Virtual hierarchies and virtual networks: some lessons from hypermedia usability research applied to the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 67–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spool, J. (1997). Web site Usability: A Designers Guide, User Interface Engineering (UIE).

  • Staggers, N., & Norcio, A. (1993). Mental models: concepts for human-computer interaction research. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Watson, R. T., Clapper, D. L., & McLean, E. R. (1998). Computer mediated communication and majority influence: assessing the impact in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture. Management Science, 44(9), 1263–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tractinsky, N., & Meyer, J. (1999). Chartjunk or goldgraph? Effects of presentation objectives and content desirability on information presentation. MIS Quarterly, 23(3), 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wares, L. (2000). Thinking aloud as a method for testing the usability of websites: the influence of task variation on the evaluation of hypertext. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 43(3), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatanasombut, B., Stylianou, A. C., & Igbaria, M. (2004). How to retain online customers. Communications of the ACM, 47(6), 65–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Ramesh, V. (2006). Web and wireless site usability: understanding differences and modeling use. MIS Quarterly, 301(1), 181–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. (1986). Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, F. M., Van Pelt, W., & Srite, M. (2006). Web documents’ cultural masculinity and femininity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1), 87–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

    Xiang Fang

  2. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Clyde W. Holsapple

Authors
  1. Xiang Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clyde W. Holsapple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clyde W. Holsapple.

Appendix: Questionnaire

Appendix: Questionnaire

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fang, X., Holsapple, C.W. Impacts of navigation structure, task complexity, and users’ domain knowledge on Web site usability—an empirical study. Inf Syst Front 13, 453–469 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9227-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9227-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation