Theoretical Constructs: Usability and Museum Websites

Usability is defined as the “extent to which a product can be used by specified users to

achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of

use.” (Karat 1997, p. 34). Usability was first studied by HCI or Human Computer Interaction

researchers in the process of their field trying to make artifacts more usable (Venkatesh and

Agarwal 2006). Recently, Information Systems (IS) researchers have also investigated

usability and issues linked to the design of systems. Given that the Internet has gained so

much in importance (Palmer 2002), usability criteria are regularly developed and applied to

online interfaces. Our research also studies usability of websites.

Most of prior research on website usability has been conducted on commercial or

business websites (i.e., Benbunan-Fich 2001; Everard and Galletta 2005/2006; Flavian et al.

2006). Indeed, the most frequent research outcome has been purchasing behavior.

Researchers, for example, argue that usability can increase on-line sales (Kuan et al. 2003;

Venkatesh and Agarwal 2006). Only rarely do they focus on non-monetary outcomes.

However, Hoffman and Novak (1996) encourage researchers to study non-commercial

activities. Offering a complementary point of view, Pavlou and Fygenson (2006) suggest that

purchasing is not the only behavior that should be taken into account in online environment.

Their study highlights an additional behavioral variable, namely, acquiring information.

Bélanger et al. (2006) also emphasize the fact that most IS research has been focused on e-

commerce websites. Consequently, they scope out a taxonomy of website goals that takes into

account the wide variety of websites available on the Internet. In addition, Bélanger et al.

(2006) explain that the success of each type of website should be assessed via specific criteria.

had to browse an Information Specific Search (ISS) website and an Online Community (OC)

website. Their results indicate that success measures are context dependent.

According to the aforementioned literature, we tried first to determine specificities or

unique features of museum websites before selecting and proposing a set of measures to

evaluate their quality. Museum websites are more related to the “Internet presence websites”

in Hoffman et al.’s (1995) typology. Indeed, the primary goal is not sales, even if some

museum interfaces support purchasing through online boutiques. By way of contrast to

commercial sites, “Internet presence websites,” like museum sites, aim at advertising and

providing information to visitors (Hoffman et al. 1995). This advertising is intended to draw

more people to the museum. This supposition is supported by Lagrosen (2003) who looked at

how the use of Internet by Swedish museums provided valuable online services to visitors.

Indeed, Lagrosen (2003) explains that “it is the visit and the experiences that the visitors have

that are the product [of museums]” (p. 134). Consequently, encouraging future visits is an

important goal for museum websites. Using Belanger et al.’s (2006) typology, we can

elaborate further goals for museum websites. They are “life enrichment, knowledge

enhancement, online learning and entertainment”. Indeed, these goals are consistent with

museum missions of education and entertainment (ICOM 2002).

Based on this logic, the current research does not consider purchase intentions. Rather

we investigate the behavioral intentions of returning to the website or a physical museum after

visiting a museum website. Going to the physical museum clearly involves more effort than

returning to a website since it implies physical travel. But, this outcome is interesting because

IS research has not really investigated the link between websites and intentions to visit

physical places. Similarly, few IS researchers have paid attention to the design of museum

Now that we have determined the specificities and goals of museum websites, we need

to select a metric to evaluate the usability of these interfaces. We note that website design has

been evaluated via a wide variety of metrics. However, Treiblmaier (2007, p. 820) notices that

“the same scales are developed over and over again” in website design research. Hence, the

current research does not propose a new usability scale, but rather will rely on the

conceptualization of usability developed by Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002) and adapted from

Microsoft Usability Guidelines (MUG). This conceptualization employs five categories:

content, ease-of-use, promotion, made-for-the-medium and emotion. We chose to use this

instrument for two principal reasons. First, its five constructs have acceptable good content

validity, as demonstrated by Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002). Second, this metric also provides

several dimensions and sub-dimensions which enable a straight-forward assessment of

different aspects of website usability. We define each of these dimensions in Appendix 4A

and the categories will be also further presented in the hypothesis section. Table 4.1 below

introduces prior research that was conducted with MUG and their key findings.

Prior research on MUG has shown that this set of variables play a major role in the

overall assessment of a website design (Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002; Venkatesh and Ramesh

2006). We also notice that several studies have been conducted with MUG but they were

mainly applied to commercial websites (Massey et al. 2007; Venkatesh and Agarwal 2006).

Table 4.1 Presentation of Previous Studies with MUG

References Purposes Types of IS Key findings

Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002)

Propose a methodology to assess website usability.

21 websites from four different industries (online bookstores, automobile

manufacturers, airlines, car rental agencies)

The authors develop and validate the MUG scale composed of five constructs.

Venkatesh and Agarwal (2006)

Predict purchase behaviors in electronic channels

21 websites from four different industries (online bookstores, automobile

manufacturers, airlines,

Website evaluation (weights and ratings) is dependent on the type of website. MUG predicts website use and

car rental agencies) purchase behaviors. Venkatesh and Ramesh

(2006) Extend the generalizability of MUG to new settings (new country, new research model and new type of IS)

Study 1:

Three websites from the airline industry

Study 2:

Eight wireless sites and websites from four industries (banking, news, shopping, tourism)

MUG is generalizable to Finland.

Weights assigned to the MUG categories in a website setting are different from the ones assigned in a wireless site setting.

Massey et al. (2007) a) Better understand online customer needs b) Identify the factors influencing the success of online services

Two hedonic websites and two utilitarian websites Access modes: computer and pocket PC

Customer characteristics (their attitude towards Technology Readiness) influence usability perceptions.

Additionally, the access mode and the type of website influence user evaluations of usability.