mustafa degerli - 2016 - web evaluation

WEB EVALUATION Summary: In this report, two websites having the same domain were evaluated with

respect to static, dynamic, and content analyses. Selected websites are library web sites of Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University

[library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB). This report includes the following parts: 1. Introduction, 2.

Static Analysis Results, 3. Dynamic Analysis Results, 4. Content Analysis Results for the selected websites evaluated.

Mustafa Değerli METU Informatics Institute

April 2016

Ankara, Turkey

WEB EVALUATION

Mustafa Değerli – 2016 1

Contents:

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Definitions and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 2

1.3 References ........................................................................................................................... 2

2. Static Analysis Results ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Static Analysis Results by Areas ....................................................................................... 4

2.2 Static Analysis Results - Overall ...................................................................................... 12

2.3 Conclusion for Static Analysis Results ............................................................................ 30

3. Dynamic Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 31

3.1 Dynamic Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 32

3.2 Conclusion for Dynamic Analysis Results ...................................................................... 35

4. Content Analysis Results .................................................................................................. 37

4.1 Search Capability ............................................................................................................... 37

4.2 E-Sources ........................................................................................................................... 37

4.3 Library Account ................................................................................................................. 38

4.4 Remote Access to Library Sources ................................................................................. 38

4.5 Information for the Users ................................................................................................ 38

4.6 Forms .................................................................................................................................. 39

4.7 Collections .......................................................................................................................... 39

WEB EVALUATION


1. Introduction

1.1 Scope

In this report, two websites having the same domain were evaluated with respect to

static, dynamic, and content analyses by using the Web SCADA approach proposed by

Erdal (2012).

Selected websites are library web sites of Middle East Technical University

[lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-

LIB).

1.2 Definitions and Abbreviations

HU-LIB Hacettepe University Library Website

METU-LIB Middle East Technical University Library Website

1.3 References

Erdal, F. Web Market Analysıs: Static, Dynamıc and Content Evaluation (M.Sc.

Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2012.

WEB EVALUATION


2. Static Analysis Results

This part of the report gives the results of static analysis applied for library web sites of

Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University

[library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB).

In this context;

Static Analysis Identity – Results are given in Table 2.1,

Static Analysis Loading and Viewing - Results are given in Table 2.2,

Static Analysis Navigation - Results are given in Table 2.3,

Static Analysis Interactivity - Results are given in Table 2.4,

Static Analysis Comprehensibility - Results are given in Table 2.5,

Static Analysis Personalization & Content - Results are given in Table 2.6,

Static Analysis Information Quality & Up-to-dateness - Results are given in Table

2.7,

Static Analysis Security & Miscellaneous - Results are given in Table 2.8,

Static Analysis Areas – Comparative Results are given in Table 2.9,

Static Analysis Results for METU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and Open

to Improvement) Matrix are given in Table 2.10,

Static Analysis Results for HU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and Open to

Improvement) Matrix are given in Table 2.11, and

Comparative Static Analysis Results – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and Open

to Improvement) Numbers are given in Table 2.12.

WEB EVALUATION


2.1 Static Analysis Results by Areas

Table 2.1 Static Analysis Identity - Results

Questions – Identity

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Includes a corporate / brand logo 10 10 10

2 Includes an organization chart 10 10 10

3 Includes e-mail addresses of the staff 10 10 10

4 Includes mailing addresses of the staff 15 0 0

5 Includes telephone/fax numbers for

the staff 15 15 15

6 Includes Web Master address 15 15 15

7 Includes a site map 10 10 7

8 The site has been reviewed by an

agency 10 0 0

9 Terms of service available 10 0 0

10 Includes aids, tools and help resources 10 8 8

11 Domain’s (e.g. edu, com, gov)

influence on the evaluation 5 5 5

Green: Fully satisfies the criterion

Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion

Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied

Total

120

Total

83

Total

80

WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.2 Static Analysis Loading and Viewing - Results

Questions – Loading and Viewing

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Pages load quickly 15 15 15

2 Site is platform and browser

independent 10 10 10

3 Has 24x7x365 user access 5 5 5

4 Dynamic accessibility is fast 10 10 10

5 Page formats are standard 10 10 10

6 Usage of Graphical user interface

standards 10 10 10

7 Consistency, clarity and relevancy of

Colors, pictures and images 5 5 5

8 Easy to read 10 7 9

9 Visual elements are used consistently 10 9 9

10 Audio available 5 0 0

11 Multimedia is downloaded effectively 10 5 5

12 Includes animations 10 0 0

13 Graphics and animations attract

attention 5 2 2

14 Screen resolution sensitivity

information available 5 0 0

15 Text is downloadable 5 5 5



Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied

Total

125

Total

93

Total

95

WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.3 Static Analysis Navigation - Results

Questions - Navigation

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Menu structure is present 10 10 10

2 Vertical scrolling is minimized 10 8 7

3 Horizontal scrolling is minimized 15 15 15

4 All pages include standard navigation

options (back, forward, main page) 15 0 0

5 Navigation options are consistent and

standardized on all pages 10 5 5

6 Links are meaningful and relevant to

the subject 10 8 8

7 Explanations available for link titles 10 8 9

8 Links are not broken 10 10 8

9

On main page, it is possible to judge

how the web site is organized and

what options are available

10 8 8

10 Icons clearly represent what is

intended 10 8 8

11 Navigation is fast 10 10 10

12 Navigation options give an impression

of a professional design 5 3 3



Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied 125 93 91

WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.4 Static Analysis Interactivity - Results

Questions – Interactivity

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Multimedia usage is effective 10 7 7

2 Printer-friendly version available 10 0 0

3 Access to required information requires

minimum clicking 15 13 13

4 Keyword searching is available 15 15 0

5 Well programmed advanced search

options are available 10 8 0

6 Dynamic information is available 10 10 10

7 Dynamic access to data is possible 10 10 10

8 User defined preferences are available 10 0 0

9 E-mail communication is present 5 5 5

10 Comments forum is available 10 0 0

11 Chat room is present 10 0 10

12 Questions bulletin board is present 10 0 0

13 Queries or complaints are resolved

within 24 hours 10 10 10

14 FAQ pages are available 15 15 0




WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.5 Static Analysis Comprehensibility - Results

Questions – Comprehensibility

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Cultural, artistic and traditional issues

are covered 15 0 0

2 Number and type of links are

meaningful 15 10 10

3 Forms to enter personal details are self

explanatory 15 10 10

4 Turkish language is well used, spelling

and grammar is correct 10 10 10

5 Font sizes are appropriate / Lets user

control font size 10 8 8

6 Website is worth spending time 15 15 15

7 Website presentation is eye-catching 10 8 7

8 Website occupies the user and attracts

attention/interest 10 8 7




WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.6 Static Analysis Personalization & Content - Results

Questions – Personalization & Content

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Website offers user specific services 10 10 10

2 Registration is simple 10 0 0

3 Main page contains options for new

and registered users 10 10 10

4 Customization is possible 10 0 0

5 User interface can be personalized 10 0 0

6 Subscription to a particular content is

possible 15 0 0

7 Offers one-entry-one-exit option 10 10 10

8 Received information is helpful 10 8 8

9 Received information guides the user

to other helpful sources 10 8 8

10 Users can easily reach the experts

within the organization 15 5 5

11 The system alerts the users for

updates 10 5 5

12 Do not Include pages under

construction 10 10 8

13 On-line information is available 10 10 10

14 Includes an e-library 10 10 10




WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.7 Static Analysis Information Quality & Up-to-dateness - Results

Questions – Information Quality & Up-

to-dateness

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 No incorrect information available 10 10 10

2 Information is up-to-date and date of

recent revision is given 10 8 8

3 Content is appropriate for the intended

audience 15 13 13

4 Original information is supplied 15 13 13

5 Links to other related sources are

present 10 10 10

6 Links are given in a logical order 15 10 10

7 Links are up-to-date 10 10 10

8 Links are revised regularly 10 10 10

9 Date of information is given 10 0 0

10 Date of current version/last revision is

given 10 0 0

11 Information about any planned

updates or revisions is given 10 0 0




WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.8 Static Analysis Security & Miscellaneous - Results

Questions – Security & Miscellaneous

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Includes privacy statement 10 0 0

2 Authentication ability available 10 10 10

3 Authorization ability available 10 10 10

4 SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is used 20 20 20

5 Digital signature is used 10 0 0

6 Website has received an award 15 0 0

7

Information can be printed without the

need to change the original system

configuration of the user

10 5 5

8 Page layout is suitable for printing in

small segments 10 5 5

9 Website is available in more than one

language 10 10 10




WEB EVALUATION


2.2 Static Analysis Results - Overall

Table 2.9 Static Analysis Areas – Comparative Results

Areas

Weight

Top

Score

METU-LIB

Score

HU-LIB

Score

1 Identity 120 83 80

2 Loading and viewing 125 93 95

3 Navigation 125 93 91

4 Interactivity 150 93 65

5 Comprehensibility 100 69 67

6 Personalization and Content 150 86 84

7 Information Quality and Up-to-

datedness 125 84 84

8 Security and Miscellaneous 105 60 60

Green: Fully satisfies the criterion set

Orange Light: Largely satisfies the criterion set 1000 661 626

WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.10 Static Analysis Results for METU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and

Open to Improvement) Matrix

# Areas Criterion

Status

Strong

(Fully

Satisfies

the

Criterion)

Weak

(The

Criterion

Not

Satisfied)

Open to

Improve

ment (The

Criterion

Not Fully

Satisfied)

1. Identity Includes a corporate / brand logo X

2. Identity Includes an organization chart X

3. Identity Includes e-mail addresses of the

staff X

4. Identity Includes mailing addresses of the

staff X

5. Identity Includes telephone/fax numbers

for the staff X

6. Identity Includes Web Master address X

7. Identity Includes a site map X

8. Identity The site has been reviewed by an

agency X

9. Identity Terms of service available X

10. Identity Includes aids, tools and help

resources X

11. Identity Domain’s (e.g. edu, com, gov)

influence on the evaluation X

12.

Loading

and

Viewing

Pages load quickly X

WEB EVALUATION


13.

Loading

and

Viewing

Site is platform and browser

independent X

14.

Loading

and

Viewing

Has 24x7x365 user access X

15.

Loading

and

Viewing

Dynamic accessibility is fast X

16.

Loading

and

Viewing

Page formats are standard X

17.

Loading

and

Viewing

Usage of Graphical user interface

standards X

18.

Loading

and

Viewing

Consistency, clarity and relevancy

of Colors, pictures and images X

19.

Loading

and

Viewing

Easy to read X

20.

Loading

and

Viewing

Visual elements are used

consistently X

21.

Loading

and

Viewing

Audio available X

22.

Loading

and

Viewing

Multimedia is downloaded

effectively X

23.

Loading

and

Viewing

Includes animations X

24.

Loading

and

Viewing

Graphics and animations attract

attention X

25.

Loading

and

Viewing

Screen resolution sensitivity

information available X

WEB EVALUATION


26.

Loading

and

Viewing

Text is downloadable X

27. Navigat

ion Menu structure is present X

28. Navigat

ion Vertical scrolling is minimized X

29. Navigat

ion Horizontal scrolling is minimized X

30.

Navigat

ion

All pages include standard

navigation options (back, forward,

main page)

X

31. Navigat

ion Navigation options are consistent

and standardized on all pages X

32. Navigat

ion Links are meaningful and relevant

to the subject X

33. Navigat

ion Explanations available for link titles X

34. Navigat

ion Links are not broken X

35.

Navigat

ion

On main page, it is possible to

judge how the web site is

organized and what options are

available

X

36. Navigat

ion Icons clearly represent what is

intended X

37. Navigat

ion Navigation is fast X

38. Navigat

ion Navigation options give an

impression of a professional design X

39. Interact

ivity Multimedia usage is effective X

40. Interact

ivity Printer-friendly version available X

41. Interact

ivity Access to required information

requires minimum clicking X

WEB EVALUATION


42. Interact

ivity Keyword searching is available X

43. Interact

ivity Well programmed advanced search

options are available X

44. Interact

ivity Dynamic information is available X

45. Interact

ivity Dynamic access to data is possible X

46. Interact

ivity User defined preferences are

available X

47. Interact

ivity E-mail communication is present X

48. Interact

ivity Comments forum is available X

49. Interact

ivity Chat room is present X

50. Interact

ivity Questions bulletin board is present X

51. Interact

ivity Queries or complaints are resolved

within 24 hours X

52. Interact

ivity FAQ pages are available X

53.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Cultural, artistic and traditional

issues are covered X

54.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Number and type of links are

meaningful X

55.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Forms to enter personal details are

self explanatory X

56.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Turkish language is well used,

spelling and grammar is correct X

WEB EVALUATION


57.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Font sizes are appropriate / Lets

user control font size X

58.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Website is worth spending time X

59.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Website presentation is eye-

catching X

60.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Website occupies the user and

attracts attention/interest X

61.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Website offers user specific

services X

62.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Registration is simple X

63.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Main page contains options for

new and registered users X

64.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Customization is possible X

65.

Persona

lization

&

Content

User interface can be personalized X

66.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Subscription to a particular content

is possible X

67.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Offers one-entry-one-exit option X

WEB EVALUATION


68.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Received information is helpful X

69.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Received information guides the

user to other helpful sources X

70.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Users can easily reach the experts

within the organization X

71.

Persona

lization

&

Content

The system alerts the users for

updates X

72.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Do not Include pages under

construction X

73.

Persona

lization

&

Content

On-line information is available X

74.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Includes an e-library X

75.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

No incorrect information available X

76.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Information is up-to-date and date

of recent revision is given X

WEB EVALUATION


77.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Content is appropriate for the

intended audience X

78.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Original information is supplied X

79.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links to other related sources are

present X

80.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links are given in a logical order X

81.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links are up-to-date X

82.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links are revised regularly X

83. Informa

tion Date of information is given X

WEB EVALUATION


Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

84.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Date of current version/last

revision is given X

85.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Information about any planned

updates or revisions is given X

86.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Includes privacy statement X

87.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Authentication ability available X

88.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Authorization ability available X

89.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is used X

90.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Digital signature is used X

91.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Website has received an award X

WEB EVALUATION


92.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Information can be printed without

the need to change the original

system configuration of the user

X

93.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Page layout is suitable for printing

in small segments X

94.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Website is available in more than

one language X

Totals 42 23 29

WEB EVALUATION


Table 2.11 Static Analysis Results for HU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and

Open to Improvement) Matrix

# Areas Criterion

Status

Strong

(Fully

Satisfies

the

Criterion)

Weak

(The

Criterion

Not

Satisfied)

Open to

Improve

ment (The

Criterion

Not Fully

Satisfied)

1. Identity Includes a corporate / brand logo X

2. Identity Includes an organization chart X

3. Identity Includes e-mail addresses of the

staff X

4. Identity Includes mailing addresses of the

staff X

5. Identity Includes telephone/fax numbers

for the staff X

6. Identity Includes Web Master address X

7. Identity Includes a site map X

8. Identity The site has been reviewed by an

agency X

9. Identity Terms of service available X

10. Identity Includes aids, tools and help

resources X

11. Identity Domain’s (e.g. edu, com, gov)

influence on the evaluation X

12.

Loading

and

Viewing

Pages load quickly X

WEB EVALUATION


13.

Loading

and

Viewing

Site is platform and browser

independent X

14.

Loading

and

Viewing

Has 24x7x365 user access X

15.

Loading

and

Viewing

Dynamic accessibility is fast X

16.

Loading

and

Viewing

Page formats are standard X

17.

Loading

and

Viewing

Usage of Graphical user interface

standards X

18.

Loading

and

Viewing

Consistency, clarity and relevancy

of Colors, pictures and images X

19.

Loading

and

Viewing

Easy to read X

20.

Loading

and

Viewing

Visual elements are used

consistently X

21.

Loading

and

Viewing

Audio available X

22.

Loading

and

Viewing

Multimedia is downloaded

effectively X

23.

Loading

and

Viewing

Includes animations X

24.

Loading

and

Viewing

Graphics and animations attract

attention X

25.

Loading

and

Viewing

Screen resolution sensitivity

information available X

WEB EVALUATION


26.

Loading

and

Viewing

Text is downloadable X

27. Navigat

ion Menu structure is present X

28. Navigat

ion Vertical scrolling is minimized X

29. Navigat

ion Horizontal scrolling is minimized X

30.

Navigat

ion

All pages include standard

navigation options (back, forward,

main page)

X

31. Navigat

ion Navigation options are consistent

and standardized on all pages X

32. Navigat

ion Links are meaningful and relevant

to the subject X

33. Navigat

ion Explanations available for link titles X

34. Navigat

ion Links are not broken X

35.

Navigat

ion

On main page, it is possible to

judge how the web site is

organized and what options are

available

X

36. Navigat

ion Icons clearly represent what is

intended X

37. Navigat

ion Navigation is fast X

38. Navigat

ion Navigation options give an

impression of a professional design X

39. Interact

ivity Multimedia usage is effective X

40. Interact

ivity Printer-friendly version available X

41. Interact

ivity Access to required information

requires minimum clicking X

WEB EVALUATION


42. Interact

ivity Keyword searching is available X

43. Interact

ivity Well programmed advanced search

options are available X

44. Interact

ivity Dynamic information is available X

45. Interact

ivity Dynamic access to data is possible X

46. Interact

ivity User defined preferences are

available X

47. Interact

ivity E-mail communication is present X

48. Interact

ivity Comments forum is available X

49. Interact

ivity Chat room is present X

50. Interact

ivity Questions bulletin board is present X

51. Interact

ivity Queries or complaints are resolved

within 24 hours X

52. Interact

ivity FAQ pages are available X

53.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Cultural, artistic and traditional

issues are covered X

54.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Number and type of links are

meaningful X

55.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Forms to enter personal details are

self explanatory X

56.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Turkish language is well used,

spelling and grammar is correct X

WEB EVALUATION


57.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Font sizes are appropriate / Lets

user control font size X

58.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Website is worth spending time X

59.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Website presentation is eye-

catching X

60.

Compre

hensibil

ity

Website occupies the user and

attracts attention/interest X

61.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Website offers user specific

services X

62.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Registration is simple X

63.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Main page contains options for

new and registered users X

64.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Customization is possible X

65.

Persona

lization

&

Content

User interface can be personalized X

66.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Subscription to a particular content

is possible X

67.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Offers one-entry-one-exit option X

WEB EVALUATION


68.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Received information is helpful X

69.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Received information guides the

user to other helpful sources X

70.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Users can easily reach the experts

within the organization X

71.

Persona

lization

&

Content

The system alerts the users for

updates X

72.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Do not Include pages under

construction X

73.

Persona

lization

&

Content

On-line information is available X

74.

Persona

lization

&

Content

Includes an e-library X

75.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

No incorrect information available X

76.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Information is up-to-date and date

of recent revision is given X

WEB EVALUATION


77.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Content is appropriate for the

intended audience X

78.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Original information is supplied X

79.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links to other related sources are

present X

80.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links are given in a logical order X

81.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links are up-to-date X

82.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Links are revised regularly X

83. Informa

tion Date of information is given X

WEB EVALUATION


Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

84.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Date of current version/last

revision is given X

85.

Informa

tion

Quality

& Up-

to-

datenes

s

Information about any planned

updates or revisions is given X

86.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Includes privacy statement X

87.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Authentication ability available X

88.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Authorization ability available X

89.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is used X

90.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Digital signature is used X

91.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Website has received an award X

WEB EVALUATION


92.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Information can be printed without

the need to change the original

system configuration of the user

X

93.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Page layout is suitable for printing

in small segments X

94.

Securit

y &

Miscella

neous

Website is available in more than

one language X

Totals 39 25 30

Table 2.12 Comparative Static Analysis Results – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and

Open to Improvement) Numbers

Library

Status #

Strong

(Fully

Satisfies

the

Criterion)

Weak

(The

Criterion

Not

Satisfied)

Open to

Improve

ment (The

Criterion

Not Fully

Satisfied)

METU-LIB 42 23 29

HU-LIB 39 25 30

2.3 Conclusion for Static Analysis Results

In prior parts (2.1 and 2.2) of the report, the results of static analysis applied for library

web sites of Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe

University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB) are provided.

It is seen that both METU-LIB and HU-LIB have average performance regarding the static

analyses results. Themes those can be partially/fully improved are elaborated for each

site in the preceding parts. Nevertheless, when compared to the HU-LIB, the METU-LIB

have slightly better performance; yet both can be improved in many ways as listed above.

WEB EVALUATION


3. Dynamic Analysis Results

Selected websites are library web sites of Middle East Technical University

[lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-

LIB). The web pages evaluated in the scope of this report are subdomains. Subdomains

are not ranked separately from their domains*. Therefore, for dynamic analysis

metu.edu.tr and hacettepe.edu.tr addresses are used as the Alexa does not allow using

subdomains. This part of the report gives the results of dynamic analysis applied by Alexa,

Competitive Intelligence, Site Comparison.

In this context;

Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Rank Last Three-year) are given

in Figure 3.1,

Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Reach Percent Last Three-year) are

given in Figure 3.2,

Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews Percent (Last Three-year)

are given in Figure 3.3,

Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Rank (Last Six-month) are given in

Figure 3.4,

Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews/User (Last Six-month) are


Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Time on Site (Last Six-month) are given

in Figure 3.6,

Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Sources (Last Six-month) are


Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Sites Linking In (Last Six-month) are


Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Likes (Last Six-month) are


Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Shares (Last Six-month) are


Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Gender (Last Six-month) are


Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Education (Last Six-month)

are given in Figure 3.12,

Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Age (Last Six-month) are

given in Figure 3.13, and

Figure 3.14 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Income (Last Six-

month) are given in Figure 3.14.

* https://support.alexa.com/hc/en-us/articles/200461930-Subdomains-Where-do-visitors-go

WEB EVALUATION


3.1 Dynamic Analysis Results

Figure 3.1 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Rank (Last Three-year)

Figure 3.2 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Reach Percent (Last Three-year)

Figure 3.3 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews Percent (Last Three-

year)

WEB EVALUATION


Figure 3.4 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Rank (Last Six-month)

Figure 3.5 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews/User (Last Six-month)

Figure 3.6 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Time on Site (Last Six-month)

Figure 3.7 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Sources (Last Six-month)

WEB EVALUATION


Figure 3.8 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Sites Linking In (Last Six-month)

Figure 3.9 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Likes (Last Six-month)

Figure 3.10 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Shares (Last Six-

month)

Figure 3.11 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Gender (Last Six-

month)

Figure 3.12 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Education (Last Six-

month)

WEB EVALUATION


Figure 3.13 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Age (Last Six-month)

Figure 3.14 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Income (Last Six-

month)

3.2 Conclusion for Dynamic Analysis Results

In the previous part (3.1) of the report comparative dynamic analysis results are provided

in detail, in Figure 3.1 to 3.14. For sure, these figures shall be interpreted by taking into

account the many factors. However, these main conclusions can be drawn to summarize

the whole picture. As noted before, all these conclusions shall be taken into account

together with other factors that may influence the results.

Regarding last three years’ traffic rank, metu.edu.tr is dominantly more popular

when compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,

Regarding last three years’ reach percent, metu.edu.tr is more prevalent when

compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,

Regarding last three years’ pageviews percent, metu.edu.tr is slightly more

prevailing when compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,

Regarding last six moths’ rank, metu.edu.tr is superior when compared to

hacettepe.edu.tr, and metu.edu.tr is getting better with respect to world and

TR contexts,

Regarding last six moths’ pageviews/user ratio, both web sites (metu.edu.tr

and hacettepe.edu.tr) performs approximately similar performances,

Regarding last six moths’ time on site, metu.edu.tr is by and large higher when


Regarding last six moths’ traffic sources from search, hacettepe.edu.tr is by and

large higher when compared to metu.edu.tr,

Regarding last six moths’ traffic sources from direct, metu.edu.tr is on the

whole greater when compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,

Regarding last six moths’ sites linking in, metu.edu.tr is superior when


Regarding last six moths’ Facebook likes, metu.edu.tr is greater when


Regarding last six moths’ Facebook shares, metu.edu.tr is higher when


WEB EVALUATION


Regarding last six moths’ visitor genders, more male visited hacettepe.edu.tr

when compared to metu.edu.tr,

Regarding last six moths’ visitor genders, more female visited metu.edu.tr when

compared to hacettepe.edu.tr, and

Regarding last six moths’ data, metu.edu.tr and hacettepe.edu.tr remarkably

diverges with respect to visitors’ ages, educations, and incomes.

WEB EVALUATION


4. Content Analysis Results

This part of the report gives the results of content analysis applied for library web sites

of Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe

University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB). In this study, content analysis is evaluated

with respect to seven dimensions. These mostly content related dimensions are: Search Capability

E-Sources

Library Account

Remote Access to Library Sources

Information for the Users

Forms

Collections

In this context; Search Capability feature is elaborated in part 4.1,

E-Sources feature is elaborated in part 4.2,

Library Account feature is elaborated in part 4.3,

Remote Access to Library Sources feature is elaborated in part 4.4,

Information for the Users feature is elaborated in part 4.5,

Forms feature is elaborated in part 4.6, and

Collections feature is elaborated in part 4.7.

4.1 Search Capability

Both library sites have search capability to browse the library materials. METU-LIB calls

it as “Find,” and HU-LIB calls it as “Search.” METU-LIB uses “METUnique Search” engine

for search, yet HU-LIB uses “eds.a.ebscohost.”

In both search capabilities, users can easily find what they look for. They can easily

extend or limit their searches. There are also advance search options available for each

website.

For the search capability content context, I find both websites useful and easy-to-use.

4.2 E-Sources

METU-LIB provides “Databases,” “Reference Management Tool,” “E-Theses,” “E-

Journals,” and “Online Trial Resources” as e-sources.

HU-LIB provides “A-Z Index,” “Databases by Subject,” and “Databases by Material Type”

as e-sources.

I evaluate that content of e-sources of METU-LIB is richer than the one of HU-LIB, as

more options and contents are seem to be available at METU-LIB website.

WEB EVALUATION


4.3 Library Account

Both web sites have a part for users to log-in. There is no option to create new users by

using the regarding systems.

For library account log-in METU-LIB uses the University Student ID and Pass pairs, yet

HU-LIB uses National Identity Number and assigned password.

Both library account systems provides holding, review and renew capabilities which are

mostly required for most of the users.

I found METU-LIB’s log-in and account management mechanisms more reliable, user

friendly, and easy-to-use.

4.4 Remote Access to Library Sources

Both web sites have directions defined for remote access to library sources. METU-LIB

names it as “Remote Access” and HU-LIB names it as “Off-Campus Access”.

METU-LIB uses two ways for remote access. These are: Off Campus Access Login Form

and Virtual Private Network. HU-LIB uses just the proxy mechanism for off-campus

access.

Overall, I found METU-LIB’s remote access mechanisms richer and more convenient as

there are more than one option.

4.5 Information for the Users

Both websites have some information for their users. METU-LIB provides following

information in detail:

About Us

Quality Management System

Departments & Staff

Rules & Policies

More...

User Training

User Training Program

Orientation & User Training

Guides for Library Users

For Librarians

F.A.Q.

How to

Plan Your Visit

Retrieve Lost Items

Find Locations

Make a Donation

WEB EVALUATION


Contact Us

Address

Library Hours

HU-LIB provides following information in detail:

General Information

Strategic Plan

Guidelines for Library Use

Organization Scheme

Personnel

Internship Opportunities

Library Hours

Contact

Generally, I found METU-LIB’s information for users part more extensive and beneficial

as it has more information provided.

4.6 Forms

METU-LIB has a devoted forms tab for use. Following forms are integrated into METU-

LIB. This makes METU-LIB more technologically advanced when compared to HU-LIB

pertaining to content analysis.

Request Forms

Book Stacks Request Form

Journal Stacks Request Form

Inter-Library Loan Request Form

Recommend Forms

Recommend a Book/Textbook

Recommend a New Electronic Journal/Database

E-Theses Submission Form

Photocopying Permission Form for Thesis

Move a Book from Main Library to Reserve

Evaluation Form for Trial Databases

4.7 Collections

Both web sites have collections parts regarding their contents and contexts.

Collections part of METU-LIB is composed of the following materials:

Book Collection

Periodicals Collection

Electronic Resources Collection

Reference Collection

Reserve Collection

Audio Visual Materials Collection

Theses

WEB EVALUATION


New Arrivals

Publications of METU Faculty

Donated Books of This Month

Turkish Labor History (Virtual Collection)

Media Gallery

Videos

Collections part of HU-LIB is composed of the following materials:

Catalog

Frequently Used E-Resources

Electronic Resources

Trial Databases

Free Electronic Resources

By and large, I found METU-LIB’s collections part more extensive and well-organized for

users.

mustafa degerli - 2016 - web evaluation

Engineering