CHAPTER 4: Analysis of Results and Discussion - DSpace@UM ...

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.1.1 Performance of Malaysian Academic Institution Web Site: Designand Analysis – Using 2QCV2Q ModelIn this section, in order to generate the results, analysis and evaluation on currentperformance of Malaysian academic institutions web sites, the survey appliedclassical rhetorical principles based on ciceronian loci or argumentum, which can beused to check the completeness of an exposition (Mich & Farnch, 2000). Once thestatistical values have been generated, the 2QCV2Q model is applied based on thosevalues.4.1.1.1 Determining Academic Institution Web Site Ciceronian LociAccording to the rhetorical model of argumentations, the expositions of a document,or in this case, academic web sites, may be viewed as a series of answers to thequestions comprised in the Ciceronian model (Mich & Farnch, 2000). The firstversion of the analysis and evaluation contained six main dimensions, correspondingto six loci in relevance to Malaysian institutions academic web site. The detailexplanation is in section 3.4 of chapter three.4.1.1.2 Performance of Malaysian Academic Institution Survey ResultThe first step in application of the model is its personalization to take account of thegoals of owner, of users and category to which it belongs. On the basis of theseelements a weight must be assigned to the various sub-attributes.For this purpose, the designer or the personnel involve in developing academic website may ask for help from the organization and interact with a certain number ofrelevant and potential users. The execution of this study is done on 100correspondences, mainly academic staff and university and college students.In the research context, the study of evaluating the performance of academic web sitesis done using survey on group of academic audiences mentioned earlier.Correspondences are asked to scaled every single attributes listed in thequestionnaires. The results of the survey are shown below.55

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis(e) MONASH UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA – http://www.monash.edu.myTable 4.2(e) Survey Results for Monash University Malaysia using 2QCV2Q ModelWeight ScoresIDENTITY Does the site have strong brand identity of 0.40 2.94Does the site convey an adequate corporate image? 0.20 2.76Does the site have good graphical and functionalcharacterization?0.20 2.59Is the site able to adapt to the user? 0.20 2.652.78CONTENT Does the information match the aims of the site? 0.25 3.18Are the information and links useful? 0.25 3.24Is the information accurate? 0.25 3.29Are the sources of the information given? 0.25 2.473.05SERVICES Do the functions match the aims of the site owner? 0.25 2.82Do the functions match the aims of the user? 0.25 2.71Are the functions free of errors? 0.30 2.94Are transactions secured and is privacy respected? 0.20 2.122.68LOCATION Is the site’s URL intuitive and easy to remember? 0.30 3.35Does the site have good visibility look to find with asearch engine?0.30 2.59Is it possible to contact the owner or the webmaster? 0.30 2.82Is it possible to interact with other users of site? 0.10 0.652.71MANAGEMENT Is the information up-to-date? 0.30 3.47Do the dates of the last updating and creation of thesite appear?0.20 3.29Is the site well maintained? 0.25 2.76Does the site use adequate technology? 0.25 2.353.16USABILITY Does using the site require standard HW and SW? 0.20 2.29Are there devices to help the disabled? 0.20 0.82Are page downloading times satisfactory? 0.20 3.00Is it easy to navigate through the site? Is there a sitemap or help online?0.10 2.88Is it possible to choose among languages? 0.20 1.23Are the terms and symbols easy to understand? 0.10 2.061.9661

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis(f) KDU KOLEJ – http://www.kdu.edu.myTable 4.2(f) Survey Results for KDU Kolej using 2QCV2Q ModelWeight ScoresIDENTITY Does the site have strong brand identity of 0.40 3.18Does the site convey an adequate corporate image? 0.20 3.35Does the site have good graphical and functionalcharacterization?0.20 3.06Is the site able to adapt to the user? 0.20 2.943.14CONTENT Does the information match the aims of the site? 0.25 3.53Are the information and links useful? 0.25 2.94Is the information accurate? 0.25 3.12Are the sources of the information given? 0.25 2.593.05SERVICES Do the functions match the aims of the site owner? 0.25 3.06Do the functions match the aims of the user? 0.25 3.06Are the functions free of errors? 0.30 3.35Are transactions secured and is privacy respected? 0.20 2.293.06LOCATION Is the site’s URL intuitive and easy to remember? 0.30 3.47Does the site have good visibility look to find with asearch engine?0.30 3.41Is it possible to contact the owner or the webmaster? 0.30 3.08Is it possible to interact with other users of site? 0.10 0.883.10MANAGEMENT Is the information up-to-date? 0.30 3.18Do the dates of the last updating and creation of thesite appear?0.20 2.18Is the site well maintained? 0.25 2.94Does the site use adequate technology? 0.25 2.712.88USABILITY Does using the site require standard HW and SW? 0.20 2.47Are there devices to help the disabled? 0.20 1.00Are page downloading times satisfactory? 0.20 3.47Is it easy to navigate through the site? Is there a sitemap or help online?0.10 2.88Is it possible to choose among languages? 0.20 1.12Are the terms and symbols easy to understand? 0.10 2.062.162

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.1.1.3 Analysis of The SurveyGeneral AnalysisOnce the result of the survey compiled and place in the respective table, analysis isdone in order to get a clearer view of the performance. The result is shown below intable 8.4.Table 4.3: 2QCV2Q Model Evaluation Scale0 = nonexistent 1 = poor 2 = adequate 3 = good 4 = excellentTable 4.4: The Performance of selected academic institutions web siteA T T R I B U T E SIdentity Content Services Location Mngt Usability AverageUM 2.91 3.05 2.52 2.70 2.88 2.21 2.57UPM 2.74 3.09 2.72 2.87 2.93 2.06 2.74UKM 2.90 2.89 2.63 2.87 2.69 2.11 2.68OUM 3.44 2.98 2.97 2.35 3.42 2.09 2.88Monash 2.78 3.05 2.68 2.71 3.16 1.96 2.72KDU 3.14 3.05 3.06 3.10 2.88 2.10 2.89Analysis shown that performance of those web sites are at the alarming stage – all ofthe web sites well placed in the range between adequate and good level. However,most web site performed acceptably in tackling issues such identity, content,management and also services.Spider Chart AnalysisBased on the results for each attribute gathered from statistical evaluation method, agraphical representation of the website using the 6 major elements of the 2QCV2Qmodel is generated.The graphical representation used by the 2QCV2Q model is the spider chart. Spiderchart provides a better representation of statistical data in graphical form. Strengthand weaknesses based on the attributes selected identified and compared easily.Furthermore representation of data in this manner allows differences betweenacademic web sites more evident.63

Chapter 4: Discussion and AnalysisUNIVERSITI MALAYAUNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIAUNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIAUNIVERSITI TERBUKA MALAYSIAMONASH UNIVERSITY MALAYSIAKDU KOLEJFigure 4.1: Analysis of survey result using Spider Web chart64

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.2 Survey 2: Determining User Needs SurveyAfter the first survey is done, it is clear that most of the web site evaluated did notreach user satisfaction’s level. In order to achieve this, a survey is executed to gain theidea of user needs. The numbers of correspondences involved is 197. The numbers aregrouped and shown in a pie chart below.7% 7% 15-25 years old26-30 years old86%Above 30 yearsoldFigure 4.2 Number of Correspondences involved in Determining User Needs SurveyPie Chart4.2.1 Grouping the StakeholdersOnce the surveys are collected and analyzed, it is vital to understand their stake in theacademic institutions since every stakeholder has his or her own unique role. Theresult of the analysis is shown in a pie chart below.11%7%StudentsAcademiciansPersonnel82%Figure 4.3 Percentage of Stakeholders involved in Determining User Needs SurveyPie Chart65

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.2.2 Frequency of Browsing Respective Academic Web SiteThe numbers of users visiting their respective academic institutions web site arestaggering. Ninety percent visit the web site in a daily basis. This calls for the need ofeffective web site.2%7%1%0%90%Almost EverydayOnce a w eekOnce a monthSeldomNeverFigure 4.4 Percentage of Frequency in Browsing Respective Academic Web Site4.2.3 Frequency of Browsing Other Academic Web siteEven though the frequency of visiting other academic portals is not alarming, thenumbers are still there. The reasons given by the stakeholders are going to bediscussed in later sections.0%10%21%3%66%Almost EverydayOnce a w eekOnce a monthSeldomNeverFigure 4.5 Percentage of Frequency in Browsing Other Academic Web Site66

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.2.4 Reasons on Browsing Respective Web SiteStakeholders have various reasons to visit their web site. Understanding their reasonsis vital in gathering information on what information need to be publish and displayedto the user. From the information achieved below, it is clear that the students are thekey player in using the academic web site bandwidth.Number of Students140120100806040200109Registration orFees130Lecture Notes88Information orAnnouncements77Research andAssignments70OthersReason(s)Figure 4.6 Reasons in Browsing Respective Web Site4.2.5 Reasons on Browsing Other Academic Web SitesIn comparisons, the number of students visiting other academic web site is smallerthan the number of students visiting their respective academic web sites.Number of Students12010080604020052Registration orFees105Lecture Notes70Information orAnnouncements88Research50OthersReason(s)Figure 4.7 Reasons in Browsing Other Academic Web Sites67

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.2.6 Satisfactory Level of Respective Academic Web SiteIn the last part section of the survey, stakeholders were asked the level of satisfactionon their respective web site. In general, the analysis shows that the percentage ofsatisfaction is still low. There is a need in increasing the level of stakeholders’satisfactions.19%21%33%ExcellentGoodAveragePoor27%Figure 4.8 Satisfaction Level in Browsing Respective Web Site Pie Chart4.2.7 Stakeholder Needs in Browsing Academic Web SiteAnalysis is also done on the user needs in any academic web sites. The results areshown below. There are high numbers of request from every angle.Number of Students200180160140120100806040200173 181153121132Registration orFeesEasy AccessOnLecture NotesInformation orAnnouncementsResearchMaterialsOthersUser NeedsFigure 4.9 Stakeholders Need in Browsing Academic Web Sites68

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.3 Survey 3: Evaluating the performance of the FCSIT prototype website – using 2QCV2Q Model and Spider ChartThe final part of the analysis involves executing surveys on evaluating the prototypeweb site. The numbers of correspondences involved are 100. The modus operandi ofthis survey is similar as survey no 1. The correspondences are gathered in one placeand were asked to evaluate the web site in the same span of time.4.3.1 Performance of Prototype FCSIT Web Site – Design and Analysis –Using The 2QCV2Q ModelThe performance measurement of this survey is done using the 2QCV2Q Model. Forjustification please refer to section 4.1.4.3.1.1 Determining the prototype web site Ciceronian LociThe first version of the analysis and evaluation contained six main dimensions,corresponding to six loci in relevance to the prototype web sitea. Identity – Quis? (Who)Attributes of the Identity (Quis) are divided into two major groups:i. IdentificationIt has a very strong brand identity – using official colors,“academic” backgroundInformation in name, term, sign, symbol or design, or acombination of these intended are well-defined.ii.Characterization.The web site truly reflects an academic web site – Simple and butdid not eliminate simple graphics.Less information on the first page makes the display not crowded –It creates ease of use for the user (s)69

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysisb. Content – Quid? (What)The coverage of the web site is well defined. The contents are well definedaccording to the original FCSIT web site. Information on programs is welldefined.c. Services – Cur? (Why)The XML search engine provides scoring system. It is easier to select the moreaccurate pages. The services reflect usability, reliability, performance andaccessibility, comparing partial and global preferences.d. Location – Ubi? (Where)Vital information such as mailing address, postal address, emails, andtelephone and fax numbers are included.e. Management – Quando? (When)This web site is designed using XML templates. The updating andmanagement of the files are easy. No Database Management System required.f. Usability – Quomodo? (How)The design of the web site also concentrates on the Information System (IS)expects. XML provide faster download time since no DBMS is required inrunning the system. Because of this, system crashing may be minimize70

Chapter 4: Discussion and AnalysisProposed Prototype Academic Web SiteTable 4.5 Survey Results for Proposed Academic web site using 2QCV2Q ModelWeight ScoresIDENTITY Does the site have strong brand identity of 0.40 3.58Does the site convey an adequate corporate image? 0.20 3.80Does the site have good graphical and functionalcharacterization?0.20 3.35Is the site able to adapt to the user? 0.20 3.533.57CONTENT Does the information match the aims of the site? 0.25 3.53Are the information and links useful? 0.25 3.35Is the information accurate? 0.25 3.12Are the sources of the information given? 0.25 3.113.28SERVICES Do the functions match the aims of the site owner? 0.25 3.88Do the functions match the aims of the user? 0.25 3.45Are the functions free of errors? 0.30 3.23Are transactions secured and is privacy respected? 0.20 3.153.43LOCATION Is the site’s URL intuitive and easy to remember? 0.30 3.47Does the site have good visibility look to find with asearch engine?0.30 3.99Is it possible to contact the owner or the webmaster? 0.30 3.53Is it possible to interact with other users of site? 0.10 2.113.51MANAGEMENT Is the information up-to-date? 0.30 3.55Do the dates of the last updating and creation of thesite appear?0.20 3.35Is the site well maintained? 0.25 3.11Does the site use adequate technology? 0.25 3.883.48USABILITY Does using the site require standard HW and SW? 0.20 3.55Are there devices to help the disabled? 0.20 1.53Are page downloading times satisfactory? 0.20 3.88Is it easy to navigate through the site? Is there a sitemap or help online?0.10 3.52Is it possible to choose among languages? 0.20 2.11Are the terms and symbols easy to understand? 0.10 3.452.9271

Chapter 4: Discussion and Analysis4.4 SummaryAll the surveys done are an effective tool in order to generate the prototype website.Results shown are essential since they provide the developer with a clearer picture onwhat is needed on a academic website.72