Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites

Orhun Uğur; Semanur Öztemiz

doi:10.33721/by.1578190

TR EN

Sokak Sanatı Web Sitelerinin Kullanılabilirlik Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sokak sanatı web sitelerinin kullanılabilirlik açısından değerlendirilmesidir. İlk aşamada incelenen 31 web sitesi, ArtCrimes’in “en iyi liste” başlığı altındaki 700 graffiti web sitesi arasından ve ilgili anahtar kelimeler kullanılarak yapılan aramalar sonucunda seçilmiştir. Kullanılabilirlik değerlendirmesi, Dyson ve Moran kullanılabilirlik ölçeğinden türetilen önceden belirlenmiş kriterler doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilmiş, ardından en yüksek kullanılabilirlik puanına sahip web sitesi konu uzmanları tarafından sezgisel değerlendirme (heuristic evaluation) yöntemiyle detaylı bir şekilde analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, incelenen web sitelerinin eserlerin yeniden üretimi ve telif hakkı ile ilgili kurumsal bilgi ve politikalar açısından yetersiz olduğunu, ayrıca sanat eserleri hakkında sınırlı düzeyde tanımlayıcı veri sunduğunu göstermektedir. İnceleme sonucunda, en yüksek puana sahip platformun estetik ve minimalist tasarım, tutarlılık ve standartlar açısından güçlü olduğu; ancak kullanıcı kontrolü ve özgürlüğü, esneklik ve verimlilik özellikleri açısından zayıf kaldığı belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma, sokak sanatına erişimde kullanılabilir web sitelerinin önemini vurgulamakta ve bu alanda yapılacak çalışmalara katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Sokak Sanatı, Kullanılabilirlik, Sokak Sanatı Web Siteleri

Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate street art websites in terms of usability. In the first stage, 31 websites were selected from among 700 graffiti websites listed under the “best list” title of ArtCrimes and through searches using relevant keywords. The usability evaluation was conducted based on predefined criteria derived from the Dyson and Moran usability scale, and the website with the highest usability score was further analyzed in detail using the heuristic evaluation method by subject matter experts. The findings indicate that the evaluated websites lack institutional information and policies regarding reproduction and copyright and provide limited descriptive data about the artworks. The analysis revealed that the platform with the highest score is strong in terms of aesthetic and minimalist design, consistency, and standards but weak in user control and freedom as well as flexibility and efficiency features. This study highlights the importance of usable websites for access to street art and aims to contribute to future research in this field.

Keywords

Street Art, Usability, Street Art Websites

References

+90 (2020, September 25). Grafiti ve sokak sanatı nedir? “Vandalizm mi yoksa bir sanat mı? [What is graffiti and street art? “Vandalism or an art?”] [Video]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0X2R0LfOuk&ab_channel=%2B90
Bates, L. (2014). Bombing, tagging, writing: an analysis of the significance of graffiti and street art. (Master's thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/570/
Blanche, U. (2018). Street art and photography: documentation, representation, interpretation. Nuart Journal, 1, 23-29. Retrieved from: https://nuartjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/05_Blanche_Nuart-Journal-1-1-2018.pdf
Bonadio, E. (2017, April 4). Copyright protection of street art and graffiti under UK law. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2, 1-39. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2946360
Brumm, A., Oktavia, A. A., Burhan, B., Hakim, B., Lebe, R., Zhao, J., Sulistyarto, P. H., Ririmasse, M., Adhityatama, S., Sumantri, I. and Aubert, M. (2021, January 13). 150 Oldest cave art found in Sulawesi. Science Advances, 7, 1-12. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd4648
Carletti, L. (2016). Participatory Heritage: Scaffolding citizen scholarship. International Information & Library Review, 48, 196-203. doi: 10.1080/10572317.2016.1205367
Conklin, T. R. (2012). Street Art, Ideology, and Public Space (MA thesis). Doi: 10.15760/etd.761
Cowick, C. (2015). Preserving Street Art: Uncovering the Challenges and Obstacles. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 34, 29-44. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/680563
Daichendt, G. J. (2013). Artist-Driven initiatives for art education: what we can learn from street art. Art Education, 66(5), 6-12. doi: 10.1080/00043125.2013.11519234
Davies, J. (2012). Art crimes?: theoretical perspectives on copyright protection for illegally-created graffiti art. Maine Law Review, 65, 27-35. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol65/iss1/3/

Dunn, S. and Hedges, M. (2013) Crowds and content: crowd-sourcing primitives for digital libraries. T. Aalberg, C. Papatheodorou, M. Dobreva, G. Tsakonas, CJFarrugia (eds.) Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. TPDL 2013. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8092. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40501-3_41
Dyson, M. C. and Moran, K. (2000) Informing the design of web interfaces to museum collections. Museum Management and Curatorship, 18, 391-406. doi: 10.1080/0964777000501804
Fotakis, T. and Economides, A. (2008). Art, science/ technology and history museums on the web. International Journal on Digital Culture and Electronic Tourism, 1, 37-63. doi:10.1504/IJDCET.2008.020134
Garzotto, F., Matera, M., and Paolini, P. (1998). To use or not to use? Evaluating museum websites. Proc Museums and the web 1998. J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Archives and Museum Informatics, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from: https://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/garzotto/garzotto_paper.html
Gottlieb, L. (2008). Graffiti art styles a classification system and theoretical analysis. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Graf, A. M. (2018, May). Facets of graffiti art and street art documentation online: a domain and content analysis (PhD thesis). Retrieved from the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10810618)
Iglesia, M. (2015). Towards the scholarly documentation of street art. SAUC - Street Art & Urban Creativity Scientific Journal, 1, 40-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.25765/sauc.v1i1.15
Isaac, J. (2017, June 19). Pics or it didn't happen: The artwork formerly known as heritage in Google Street Art. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 2019, 25 , 374–392. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517714169
Kabassi, K. (2017). Evaluating websites of museums: state of the art. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 24, 184-196. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.10.016
Lederman, A. and Jindani, F. (2016, July). Drips gallery: a community-driven graffiti library & archive. Research paper presented at the Society of American Archivists – 2015 Research Forum. Retrieved from: https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/LedermanJindani-ResearchForumPaper2015.pdf
Lexico (2023). Street art. Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/definition/street_art .
MacDowall, L. (2006). In Praise of 70K: Cultural heritage and graffiti style. Continuum, 20, 471-484. doi: 10.1080/10304310600987320
MacDowall, L. (2015). Graffiti, street art and theories of stigmergy. J. Lossau and Q. Stevens (Eds.). In The uses of art in public space (p. 33-48). New York: Routledge
Merrill, S. (2015). Keeping it real? Subcultural graffiti, street art, heritage and authenticity. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21, 369-389. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2014.934902
Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: introduction to usability. Retrieved from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/ .
Nilsson, M. (2015). BT media and broadcast research paper ultra high definition video formats and standardisation. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331488190_Ultra_High_Definition_Video_Formats_and_Standardisation
Nogel, C. N. (2015). Decolonial arts pedagogy and the visual metaphor: the great wall of Los Angeles mural project. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/99m0v13q
Nomeikaite, L. (2017). Street art, heritage, implementation. Street Art and Creativity, 3, 43-53, doi: https://doi.org/10.25765/sauc.v3i1.62
Novak, D. (2014). Methodology for the measurement of graffiti artworks: focus on the piece. World Applied Sciences Journal, 32, 40-46. doi: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.32.01.301
Novak, D. (2015). Photography and classification of information. SAUC - Street Art & Urban Creativity Scientific Journal, 1, 13-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.25765/sauc.v1i1.22
Olsina Santos, L. (1999). Website quality evaluation method: a case study on museum. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Software Engineering. USA: ICSE. Retrieved from: http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~maurer/icse99ws/Submissions/santos/SantosSubmission.pdf
Oomen, J. and Aroyo, L. (201). Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: opportunities and challenges. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T '11) Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 138–149). New York, USA. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2103354.2103373
Özen Çınar, N. (2015). Usability evaluation of mobile and desktop websites: a study of comparing usability evaluation methodologies (Master Thesis). Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/11511/25018
Poole, K. (2020). Arts organizations engaging audiences through street art. (Master's thesis). The ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 27999258).
Poon, S. (2016). Street murals as a unique tangible cultural heritage: a case study of artifact value preservation. International Journal of Cultural and Creative Industries, 04, 48-61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310329387_Street_Murals_as_a_Unique_Tangible_Cultural_Heritage_A_Case_Study_of_Artifact_Value_Preservation
Roued-Cunliffe, H. (2017). Collection building amongst heritage amateurs. Collection Building , 36, 108-114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-01-2017-0003
Ridge, M. (2014). Crowdsourcing our cultural heritage: introduction. In M. Ridge (Ed.), Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Heritage (pp. 1-13). Farnham: Ashgate.
Signore, O. (2005). A comprehensive model for web sites quality. Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Web Site Evolution, Budapest, 2005, 30-36. doi: 10.1109/WSE.2005.1
Taş, O. and Taş, T. (2015). Ankara’da sokak sanatı: kent hakkı, protesto ve direniş. [Street art in Ankara: right to the city, protest and resistance]. Mülkiye Dergisi, 39, 85-114. Retrieved from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1093
Tehrani, S. E. M., Zainuddin, NMM, and Takavar, T. (2014). Heuristic evaluation for virtual museum on smartphone. In the 3rd International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr) (pp. 227-231). Shah Alam, Malaysia. doi: 10.1109/IUSER.2014.7002707
Terras, M. (2015). Crowdsourcing in Digital Humanities. S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, J. Unsworth (Eds). In A New Companion to Digital Humanities (p. 420-438). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118680605.ch29
Tulke, J. (2020). Archiving Dissent: (Im)material Trajectories of Political Street Art in Istanbul and Athens. In A. McGarry, I. Erhart, H. Eslen-Ziya, O. Jenzen , and U. Korkut (Eds.), The Aesthetics of Global Protest: Visual Culture and Communication (pp. 121-140). doi :10.2307/j.ctvswx8bm.11
van der Hoeven, A. (2020). Valuing urban heritage through participatory heritage websites: citizen perceptions of historic urban landscapes. Space and Culture, 23, 129–148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331218797038
Vanderveen, G. and van Eijk, G. (2016). Criminal but beautiful: a study on graffiti and the role of value judgments and context in perceiving disorder. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22, 107–125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9288-4
Wacławek, A. (2011). Graffiti and street art. London: Thames & Hudson

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Information Systems User Experience Design and Development, Archival, Repository and Related Studies, Digital Heritage, Cultural Heritage Management (Incl. World Heritage)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Orhun Uğur ^*
0000-0002-9274-0414
Türkiye

Semanur Öztemiz
0000-0003-1560-8062
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 31, 2024

Submission Date

November 2, 2024

Acceptance Date

December 24, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 7 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1578190

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA35PX96AA

APA

Uğur, O., & Öztemiz, S. (2024). Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites. Bilgi Yönetimi, 7(2), 305-324. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1578190

AMA

1.Uğur O, Öztemiz S. Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites. IM. 2024;7(2):305-324. doi:10.33721/by.1578190

Chicago

Uğur, Orhun, and Semanur Öztemiz. 2024. “Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites”. Bilgi Yönetimi 7 (2): 305-24. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1578190.

EndNote

Uğur O, Öztemiz S (December 1, 2024) Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites. Bilgi Yönetimi 7 2 305–324.

IEEE

[1]O. Uğur and S. Öztemiz, “Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites”, IM, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 305–324, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.33721/by.1578190.

ISNAD

Uğur, Orhun - Öztemiz, Semanur. “Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites”. Bilgi Yönetimi 7/2 (December 1, 2024): 305-324. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1578190.

JAMA

1.Uğur O, Öztemiz S. Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites. IM. 2024;7:305–324.

MLA

Uğur, Orhun, and Semanur Öztemiz. “Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites”. Bilgi Yönetimi, vol. 7, no. 2, Dec. 2024, pp. 305-24, doi:10.33721/by.1578190.

Vancouver

1.Orhun Uğur, Semanur Öztemiz. Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites. IM. 2024 Dec. 1;7(2):305-24. doi:10.33721/by.1578190

Sokak Sanatı Web Sitelerinin Kullanılabilirlik Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Keywords

Usability Evaluation of Street Art Websites

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite