Advertisement

A Framework for Defining Acceptance Criteria for Web Development Projects

  • David Lowe
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2016)

Abstract

Despite the rapid evolution of Web technologies and development tools and skills, most Web sites fail (to varying degrees) to achieve their true business goals. This is at least partially due to our inability to effectively define Web acceptance criteria (from both a client perspective and a developers perspective). These criteria cover those characteristics that the final system must possess, and against which the development can be carried out. Examples include broad business objectives, and detailed content and functional descriptions, but also navigability, user engagement, site evolvability, and especially site maintenance. In this paper we consider the need for an improved ability to define acceptance criteria for Websites as a target for the design and maintenance process. We describe a framework that includes dimensions covering both product criteria and organisational elements. We also discuss how the various dimensions within this framework can be represented using various existing techniques.

Keywords

Acceptance Criterion Landscape Gardening Information Architecture Software Requirement Specification Client Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lowe D.B.; “Engineering The Web” In WebNet Journal Vol. 1, No. 1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowe D.B. and Hall W.; Hypermedia and the Web: An Engineering Approach; Wiley, 1999Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bieber, M. & Isakowitz, T. “Designing Hypermedia Applications”, CACM, August 1995, 38(8):26–29Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W. Software Engineering Economics, 1981, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basili, V.R. & Rombach, H.D. “The TAME project: Towards Improvement-Oriented Software Environments”, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1988, 14(6):758–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garzotto F and Matera M (1997) “A Systematic Method for Hypermedia Usability Inspection”, The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, Vol 3, pp39–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, F.D. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13(3):319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowe D, Webby R and Bucknell A (1999) “Improving Hypermedia Development: A Reference Model-Based Process Assessment Method”, ACM Hypertext’ 99: 10th International Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Darmstadt, Feb 21-25Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenfeld L and Morville P (1998) Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, O’Reilly and Associates.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hammer & Champy (1993) Reengineeing the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garzotto F., Mainetti L., and Paolini P.; “Hypermedia Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Issues”. Communications of the ACM, 38(8).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mukhopadhyay T., Vicinanza, S. & Prietula M.J. “Estimating the Feasibility of a Case-Based Reasoning Model for Software Effort Estimation”, MIS Quarterly, 1992, 16(2): 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen J. and Mack R.L.; “Usability Inspection Methods”, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lowe
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of TechnologyBroadwayAustralia

Personalised recommendations