Website Evaluation - Essay Example

EVALUATION OF A DESTINATION WEBSITE (URL http www.kualalumpur.gov.my) I. This paper ventured to perform an evaluation of the destination website situated at URL http://www.kualalumpur.gov.my with the end in view of offering recommendations for its enhancement and increased visitor retention. Using descriptive research and a survey questionnaire as the main research instrument, a judgemental sampling of 20 respondents, all with travel experience or are bound for one in the very near future, were requested to act as website evaluators. Descriptive and inferential measures were used to analyse data. Findings revealed that the best attribute of the site is its usability, while much is yet to be desired of its interactivity. Recommendations were focused on further reinforcement of its strengths and fortification of its limitations to improve traffic towards the site. Updates of the website information, improvement of navigation links, provision of user-search functions and inclusion of a FAQ section were profoundly suggested. II. Introduction As the Internet transcended the realm of every possible sector of human interest, numerous benefits have been spawned to business and industry. To wit, E-commerce has brought new business opportunities for travel and tourism organizations worldwide. The increased use of the Internet has encouraged travel and tourism industries to exploit the potential market (People’s Daily Online. 2000). In 2006 alone, Malaysia welcomed 17.55 million overseas visitors, with total spending pegged at USD 36.2 million (Tourism Malaysia. 2008). With E-commerce technology, tourism businesses now have an assortment of applications at their disposal to meet their customers’ requirements. However, this industry still has members which are not yet taking advantage of emerging technology, denying them the hype of a global presence. The challenge therefore, is to encourage the whole tourism industry to harness ICT tools with the goal of bringing in new clients and maintaining customer loyalty (Opportunity Wales. 2007). Internet-based technologies and applications such as online reservations and e-tickets have broken the time and geographic barriers that imposed limitations on traditional tourism business operations. Establishing an online presence through websites allowed the tourism industry to reach out to a wider global audience (Law and Bai. 2006). Hence, this evaluation is necessary to ascertain whether the rationale for the Malaysian destination website is, indeed, serving its purpose. III. Theories Related to the Evaluation of a Destination Website Tierney (2000) proposed the necessity of measuring the effectiveness of tourism and hospitality websites due to the amount to resources it entails. He argued that despite the fact that online transactions are excellent indicators of website effectiveness, majority of tourism websites and organizations had chosen not to offer this feature due to its limited income-generating capability. He noted that website evaluations have the potential of identifying possible areas for improvement as well as a basis for comparison among rivals and peers in the industry. Moreover, website evaluations can be utilized by tourism organizations to check website performance over a certain period of time (Mills and Law. 2005). Kasavana (2002) lamented on the complexity of developing a standard scorecard for the evaluation of website effectiveness. Despite the fact that there are thousands of tourism websites in existence, there is no standard system of evaluation available for the industry to utilize. In the early days of e-commerce, the tourism industry depended on information such as server logs, page views and hits to acquire information about its target market. However, these methods do not offer information from a technical or design standpoint. As a result, the tourism industry had set its sights on utilizing financial information such as return of investment and number of reservations. Unfortunately, these methods are deemed insufficient because it does not reflect the customers’ opinion regarding the different features of the website (Law and Bai. 2006). In an attempt to address the situation, Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1993) developed the Balanced Scorecard as a tool for measuring organizational performance. An outstanding feature of this tool was the addition of non-financial performance indicators with financial measures which, in turn, provided managers and executives a more impartial perception of organizational performance. The main objectives of the Balanced Scorecard are: (1) to align business operations based on organizational vision and strategy; (2) to enhance internal and outside communications; and (3) to observe performance against organizational goals and strategies (Balanced Scorecard Institute. 2007). The Modified Balanced Scorecard was developed based on the premise that a website evaluation should focus on the different dimensions of a website. Morrison, Taylor, Morrison and Morrison (1999) identified four perspectives for evaluation: customer, technical, marketing and internal. Each perspective was associated to a set of critical success factors (CSFs) wherein each objective is required to be met to ensure the success of the organization. IV. Methodology The study utilised the descriptive method of research in performing the evaluation of the destination website. A self-made 32-item questionnaire was developed by the researcher to address the concerns of the study. The questionnaire consists of two parts : the Respondent’s Profile and the Website Evaluation Questionnaire proper, with 7 and 25 questions, respectively. A sample of the research instrument is shown in the Appendix. The evaluation questionnaire consists of four criteria : content [8 questions]; usability [6 questions]; design [6 questions]; and interactivity [5 questions]. The evaluation is carried out by the expression of agreement or disagreement to 21 questions and rating 4 over-all questions using equivalent Likert scales shown on the next page: Statistical Limits Numerical Descriptor Quantitative Descriptor Questions 8 - 28 Questions 29 - 32 4.50 – 5.00 3.50 – 4.49 2.50 – 3.49 1.50 – 2.49 1.00 – 1.49 5 4 3 2 1 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Slightly Disagree Strongly Disagree Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor In analysing the results of the evaluation , expressions of agreement or disagreement in the third column (for Questions 8 – 28) are equivalent to the quality of the criterion or website in the fourth column (for Questions 29 – 32). The participants were selected using judgemental sampling, a non-probability type of sampling, which is the most appropriate technique since the respondent – evaluators need to be chosen based on a criteria which includes : interest in out-of-country travel and has experience in out-of-country travel or are bound to travel in the very near future. Most of the questionnaires were floated personally to friends and associates in the Greater London area. Possible participants, which can not be reached personally were sent the questionnaires using e-mail. Retrieval was done personally by the researcher except the questionnaires sent though e-mail. Data gathered were processed and electronically encoded in Microsoft Excel (2007) for the graphs and descriptive statistics, which were mainly averages. Inferential statistics were administered using the software Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS, 2001). Significant differences in the ratings given for the 25 evaluation criteria and the 7 profile variables were observed using the t-test (for gender) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the rest of the six other profile variables. V. Results and Findings As shown in Figure 1, seven out of 20 respondents (35%) belong to the 31-40 years old age bracket, representing majority of the participants in the survey. The youngest respondent is 26 years old while the oldest respondent is 62 years of age. Their mean age is 43.25 with a standard deviation of 11.756. Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents According to Age It is interesting to note that for Question 25, the oldest group of respondents, those 61 years old and above (average rating = 1.50) scored the website lower than the rest of the other 4 age groups: 30 years old and below (average rating = 4.67 ), 31-40 years old (average rating = 4.71), 41-50 years old (average rating = 5.00), 51-60 years old (average rating = 4.60). Figure 2 presents the frequency distribution of respondents when they are grouped according to gender. Twelve out of 20 (60%) or majority of the respondents are male, while the rest are female (40%). Figure 2: Distribution of Respondents According to Gender For Question 25, the mean rating of the male respondents (mean rating = 4.92) were significantly higher than the mean rating of the female respondents (mean rating = 3.63). Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents According to Ethnicity As presented in Figure 3, eight Caucasians made up 40% of the total number of participants. Blacks, Asians and Hispanic ethnicities are represented by 4 respondents (20%) each. For Question 29, the mean scores given by the Black (mean score = 4.75) were significantly higher than the mean ratings of the respondents of Caucasian (mean score = 4.13) and Hispanic ethnicity (mean score = 3.75); and the mean ratings of the respondents of Hispanic ethnicity were significantly lower than the mean scores of the respondents of Black and Asian ethnicity (mean score = 4.50). For Question 26, the mean ratings of the Blacks (mean rating = 2.00) were significantly lower than the mean rating of the Caucasians (mean rating = 4.31) and Asians (mean rating = 4.00). Figure 4: Internet Usage Experience As illustrated in Figure 4, seven out of 20 or majority (35%) of the participants have been using the Internet for 3 to 4 years. Only 2 respondents have been surfing the net for the past 5 years. For Question 10, the mean rating of the respondents with at least one year of Internet usage (mean rating = 4.17) were significantly lower than the mean of the respondents who have been using the Internet for 3-4 years (mean rating = 4.86) and for five years or longer (mean rating = 5.00). It is interesting to note that on Question 13, the mean rating of the respondents with 3 – 4 years of Internet usage experience (mean rating = 1.29) were significantly lower than the mean of the respondents who have less amount of experience in using the Internet at less than 1 year (mean rating = 2.50) and 1-2 years (mean rating = 2.60). For Question 27, the mean rating of the respondents with less than 1 year of Internet usage experience (mean rating = 4.67) were significantly higher than the mean of the respondents who have 1 - 2 years (mean rating = 2.40) and 3 - 4 years (mean rating = 3.14). Figure 5: Frequency of Internet Usage As exhibited in Table 5, 60% or 12 out of 20 respondents access the Internet everyday. No significant differences were noted in the means of the evaluation ratings of the respondents when they were grouped according to their frequency of internet usage. Figure 6: Main Purpose in Using the Internet As shown in Figure 6, 11 out of 20 respondents use the Internet for travel-related purposes, comprising the majority (55%) of participants. No significant differences were noted in the means of the evaluation ratings of the respondents when they were grouped according to the purpose of internet usage. Out of country travel experience, where the respondents are classified into the following groups: (1) first time travellers (2) travelled twice or thrice in 5 years (3) travels once a year and (4) travels more than once a year, is presented in Figure 7. Seven out of 20 (or 35%), a majority of the respondents and at the same time evaluators travel out of the country more than once a year, while three out of 20 (or 15%) of the respondents are first time travellers. Figure 7: Travel Experience Significant differences among the means of the respondents when they were grouped according to travel experience were observed in their evaluation in a design criteria regarding website attractiveness (Question 24) and in terms of over-all design of the website (Question 31). As to Website Content Figure 8: Evaluation Results for Website Content It may be gleaned from Figure 8 that the highest rated component of the website in terms of its content is its clearly written and easy to understand text (Question 10), which accounted for an average of 4.55 and qualitatively interpreted as excellent. The second and third highest rated components are appropriate illustrations (Question 9), with an average of 4.50 and is likewise, excellent; and appropriate vocabulary (Question 8) and accuracy of information (Question 12), with identical average ratings of 4.45, interpreted as very good. The two lowest ratings were given on timely and up-to-date information garnering an average rating of 2.00 and interpreted as fair and sufficiency of information (Question 14) and over-all content (Question 29), with the same average ratings at 4.25 which is interpreted as very good. On the whole, content of the website scored 4.11 equivalent to very good. As to Website Usability Figure 9: Evaluation Results for Website Usability The highest rated usability factor of the website are its quick download of the site’s web pages (Question 19) and over-all usability (Question 30) which accounted for an average of 4.55 and qualitatively interpreted as excellent. The second highest scored factors are well-defined navigation path which allows the user to see clearly where he/she is on the website (Question 16), and well-organized links which provides the users ease of navigation from the site to a desired location (Question 17) with identical averages of 4.50 and are likewise judged as excellent. The lowest scores were given on the ease of information retrieval (Question 17), which posted an average rating of 4.20 and still interpreted as very good. On the whole, the mean of the 6 questions for the assessment of the usability of the website is 4.45 or very good. As to Website Design While all the average ratings for the all the questions under website design (20 – 24 and 31) still fall under the very good scale, not one among the 6 items posted an average of at least 4.00. The highest score under the design criteria was given for consistency of design (Question 20) with a mean of 3.95, while the lowest scores were given for background colors (Question 21) and interestingness of the site (Question 24) with identical average ratings of 3.55. In summary, the mean of rating of the website design is 3.68 and is interpreted as very good. Figure 10: Evaluation Results for Website Usability As to Website Interactivity All but one of the average ratings for the 5 questions under website interactivity fall under the very good level, and only one of the 5 items scored an average rating of at least 4.00. The highest score under the interactivity criterion was given for the website’s current and working links (Question 25) with a mean of 4.40, while the lowest score was given for information about scenic spots (Question 28) with an average rating of 3.25 or good. On the whole, the mean rating for interactivity is 3.58 or very good. Figure 11: Evaluation Results for Website Interactivity The Website, Overall Overall, the highest rated criterion based on the mean of all the questions or items under each of the four criteria is usability at 4.45 or very good. Content was the second highest rated criterion at 4.11 or very good, while website design is on the third spot with a mean rating of 3.68 or very good. The lowest rated criterion was interactivity with a mean score of 3.58. All in all, the average evaluation rating for the website is 3.95 or very good. Figure 12: Overall Evaluation Results for Website VI. Conclusion Based on the results of the evaluation and the analysis of the findings, the following conclusions are presented : 1. The respondents who acted as evaluators of the given website are middle aged (43.25 ± 11.756), predominantly male Caucasian who travels more than once every year out of the country, and on the average have Internet usage experience of 3 to 4 years and practically surfs the net everyday for travel information. 2. The overall average evaluation rating of the website at URL http://www.kualalumpur.gov.my is 3.95 or very good. 3. The highest rated attribute of the website is its usability. 4. The lowest rated attribute of the website is its interactivity. 5. The greatest strengths of the website are : (a) its clearly written and easy to understand text (b) quickly downloadable web pages (c) over-all ease of use (d) appropriate illustrations (e) well-defined navigation paths and (f) ease of navigation to any desired location in the sight. 6. The foremost limitations of the website are : (a) recency of information on the website (b) lack of information about the scenic spots of the destination (c) over-all interactivity of the site (d) information search capabilities (e) absence of a Frequently Asked Questions page (f) lacks user-retention capabilities [since it is not interesting, according to the evaluators] (g) color scheme (h) text readability due to size (i) visuals /graphics are very small and (j) over-all look of the site, which connotes design. 7. The following influences on the ratings were most notable : (a) the oldest age group gave the lowest scores (b) males tend to rate higher (c) Black evaluators tend to give higher scores than the Caucasians or the Hispanics (d) evaluators with the least Internet usage experience tend to give lower scores (e) evaluators with more Internet usage experience tend to be more keen on the timeliness of information. VII. Recommendations Grounded on the findings revealed by the study and the conclusions drawn, the following recommendations are suggested : 1. The strengths of the website should be maintained and further reinforced to improve user retention and the probability of attracting more tourists to the hospitality industry of Malaysia. 2. The entity in charge of maintaining the website should exert further effort to fortify the ten attributes which came out as limitations of the site based on the mean ratings which are lower than the over-all website average of 3.95. With more limitations than strengths, the over-all attractiveness of the website is prejudiced. Hence, the web designer and the content writer who will be assigned to enhance the site should focus their efforts in the ten limitations specified in item 6 of the conclusion. 3. Bolster the interactivity of the site by allowing users to perform keyword-activated search, which is currently not provided. Further, the About Us link should be improved such that it always navigates user to the desired link. It is also imperative that the FAQ section is provided. 4. It will also be practical that the programmers in charged of web maintenance to see to it that all links in navigation, especially from the website to sections which will be helpful to possible tourists, be translated in a popular language like English. 5. Enhancements for the website should consider that there are very old users (61 years old or more), users who do not yet have Internet savvy, and users who are very keen on the timeliness and relevance of information on the website. Preference of these groups of users were found to have profound influences in the noted significant differences in the evaluation ratings of some site attributes. References BALANCED SCORECARD INSTITUTE. What is the Balanced Scorecard? [Online]. [Accessed 19th May 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: KAPLAN, R.S. & NORTON D.P. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. January/February, 71-79. KAPLAN, R.S. & NORTON D.P. 1993. Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard Business Review. September/October, 134-142. KASAVANA, M. 2002. eMarketing: Restaurant Websites That Click. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing: The International Forum for Research, Theory and Practice. 9 (2002), 3-4. LAW, R. & BAI, B. 2006. Website Development in Tourism: A Retrospective Analysis. In: Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, 2006, Lausanne, Switzerland. Vienna, Germany: Springer Vienna, p. 1. MICROSOFT EXCEL 2007. 2007. [CD-ROM] Redmond, Washinton, USA: Microsoft Corporation. MILLS, J. & LAW, R. 2005. Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Tourism and the Internet. Pennsylvania, USA: Haworth Press. MORRISON, M.A., TAYLOR, S., MORRISON, J.A., MORRISON, D.A. 1999. Marketing Small Hotels on the World Wide Web. Information technology and Tourism. 2(2), 97-113. OPPORTUNITY WALES. 2007. Tourism for the 21st Century. [Online]. [Accessed 18th May 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: PEOPLE’S DAILY ONLINE. 2000. E-commerce Brings Tourism with New Opportunities. [Online]. [Accessed 18th May 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (SPSS). 2001. Chicago, Illinois, USA: SPSS, Inc. TIERNEY, P. 2000. Interned-based evaluation of tourism web site effectiveness: Methodological issues and survey results. Journal of Travel Research. 39, 212-219. TOURISM MALAYSIA. 2008. Tourism Malaysia. [Online]. [Accesssed 19th May 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: EVALUATION OF A DESTINATION WEBSITE (URL http://www.kualalumpur.gov.my) Appendix A Website Evaluation Questionnaire Dear Respondent : My warmest felicitations! May I enjoin your kind assistance in evaluating the website located at URL http://www.kualalumpur.gov.my? The assessment is being conducted as a purely academic exercise for my course in Hospitality Management. Please rest assured that all responses that you will provide will be treated with utmost confidentiality and anonymity. Your submittal of this questionnaire upon retrieval will be considered as your permission to be included as an evaluator of the aforementioned website. Thank you for your cooperation. THE RESEARCHER Part 1. RESPONDENT’S PROFILE. Please indicate the following information by writing your response on the space provided for or by checking the given choices, where applicable. Name (Optional) _______________________________ 1. Gender:  Male  Female 2. Age : _______ 3. Ethnicity:  Caucasian  Black  Asian  Hispanic  Others (pls. specify ___________ ) 4. Length of time as an Internet user:  Less than a year  1 to 2 years  3 to 4 years  5 years or more 5. Frequency of Internet use:  1-2 times a week  3-5 times a week  Everyday  Others : Please specify:__________ 6. Major Purpose of using the Internet:  Education  Research  Work  Recreation  Travel 7. Travel experience (Out-of-country)  First-time traveler  Twice in 5 years  Once a year  More than once in a year Part 2. WEBSITE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE. Kindly express your assessment of the website http://www.kualalumpur.gov.my in terms of the applicable scale : Content Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Slightly Disagree Disagree 8. The vocabulary on the website is appropriate for the intended audience.  5  4  3  2  1 9. The visual elements used are appropriate.  5  4  3  2  1 10. The textual content is clearly written and easy to understand.  5  4  3  2  1 11. There are no grammar or spelling errors.  5  4  3  2  1 12. The information on the website is accurate.  5  4  3  2  1 13. The information is timely and current.  5  4  3  2  1 14. The information is adequate for the intended audience.  5  4  3  2  1 Usability 15. The organization of the website is logical and clear.  5  4  3  2  1 16. The user can clearly see where he/she is on the site.  5  4  3  2  1 17. The user can easily navigate through the website to a desired location.  5  4  3  2  1 18. The information is easy to retrieve.  5  4  3  2  1 19. The pages download without delay.  5  4  3  2  1 Design 20. The website observes consistency of style.  5  4  3  2  1 21. The colour scheme is pleasing to the eye.  5  4  3  2  1 22. Visuals enhance rather than deviate from the message of the website.  5  4  3  2  1 23. The size of the text is easy to read.  5  4  3  2  1 24. The site grabs the attention of the visitor.  5  4  3  2  1 Interactivity 25. Links are updated and working.  5  4  3  2  1 26. The website allows the user to search for information.  5  4  3  2  1 27. The website has a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page.  5  4  3  2  1 28. The website allows the user to know more about the scenic/tourist spots of Malaysia  5  4  3  2  1 Overall Impression Please rate the website with respects to its: Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor 29. Overall content  5  4  3  2  1 30. Ease of use  5  4  3  2  1 31. Overall look  5  4  3  2  1 32. Interactivity  5  4  3  2  1 What suggestions do you propose for improving the website? __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Read More