-

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to explain the main requirements for websites and investigatethe functionality of Faculty of Education websites in Turkey based on content, usability, accessibility, and search engine optimization. A total of ninety-four websites were scored with the ‘Web SiteFunctionality Evaluation Form’, which was consisted of 23 items. Descriptive statistics, t-test andANOVA analyses were used to interpret the obtained data. In general the web sites were satisfactory based on the content. However, they had some drawbacks regarding to accessibility. The websites’ quality did not differ based on the types of the institutions. On the other hand, it was foundthat when the ages of institutions were considered, the websites’ content of new institutions aresignificantly less satisfactory than the institutions that are more than 10 years old. Finally, suggestions were reported to increase the quality of websites

Keywords

• Faculty of Education, web site, functionality, usability, accessibility

Eğitim Fakültesi Web Sitelerinin İşlevselliklerinin İncelenmesi: Sorunlar ve Öneriler

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı; web sitelerinde bulunması gereken özellikleri açıklayarak Türkiye’de bulunan eğitim fakültesi web sitelerinin işlevselliklerinin içerik, kullanılabilirlik, erişilebilirlik ve arama motoru uyumluluğu yönünden incelenerek eksikliklerinin tespit edilip çözüm önerilerinin sunulmasıdır. Araştırmanın verileri, 94 adet eğitim fakültesi web sitesi incelenerek elde edilmiştir. Web sitelerinin puanlamasında, 23 maddeden oluşan ‘Web Sayfalarının İşlevselliğini Değerlendirme Formu’ kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen verilerin anlamlandırılmasında betimsel istatistikler, t-testi ve ANOVA analizleri kullanılmıştır. Genel olarak web siteleri içerik yönünden olumlu bulunurken, en fazla erişilebilirlik yönünden eksiklikleri olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Analiz sonuçları eğitim fakültesi web sitelerinin işlevselliklerinin kurum türüne göre farklılaşmadığını göstermektedir. Ancak 10 yaşından küçük olan eğitim fakültesi web sitelerinin daha önceki dönemde kurulan fakültelere göre içerik yönünden daha fazla eksiklikleri bulunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, elde edilen veriler ışığında web sitelerinde bulunan eksiklikler tartışılarak çözüm önerileri sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğitim fakültesi, web sitesi, işlevsellik, kullanışlılık, erişilebilirlik

References

1. Astani, M., ve Elhindi, M. (2008). An empirical study of university websites.Issues in Information Systems, 9(2), 460-465.
2. Ateş, V. ve Karacan, H. (2009) Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Web Sitesi Kullanılabilirlik Analizi, International Journal of Informatics Technologies , 2 (2), 33-38.
3. Atterer, R., Wnuk, M., & Schmidt, A. (2006, May). Knowing the user's every move: user activity tracking for website usability evaluation and implicit interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web ( 203-212). ACM.
4. Brophy, P. and Craven, J., (2007). Web Accessibility. Library Trends. 55(4), 950-972.
5. Chiew, T. K., ve Salim, S. S. (2003). Webuse: Website usability evaluation tool. Malaysian Journal of Com-puter Science, 16(1), 47-57.
6. Çoban S., Tüfekçi S. (2015) Kurumsal İletişim Bağlamında Türkiye'deki Devlet Üniversitelerinin Web Sayfaları Üzerine Bir İnceleme, International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/6, 387-402.
7. Dal, N. E. ve Dal, V. (2015). Kişilik Özellikleri Ve Sosyal Ağ Sitesi Kullanım Alışkanlıkları: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma-Personality Traits And Social Network Sites Usage Habits: A Research On University Students. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(11), 144-162.
8. Elges, M (2002, July 1). Web site redesign knowing when it's time. The Secured Lender, 74-76.

9. Elges, M (2004, November 15). Why worry about web site usability?. Credit Union Executive Newsletter, p. 8.
10. Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., ve Gurrea, R. (2006). The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Information & Management, 43(1), 1-14.
11. Gullikson, Shelley, ve diğerleri. (1999). The impact of information architecture on academic Web site usability. The Electronic Library. 17 (5), 293–304.
12. Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2004, October). Accessibility of Internet websites through time. In ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 77-78, 32-39. ACM.
13. Hillier, M. (2003). The role of cultural context in multilingual website usability. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2(1), 2-14.
14. Khazaal, Y., Chatton, A., Zullino, D., ve Khan, R. (2012). HON label and DISCERN as content quality indicators of health-related websites. Psychiatric Quarterly, 83(1), 15-27.
15. Kyleschaeffer (2015). Screenfly / Test Your Website at Different Screen Resolutions, Homepage, (05.Haziran 2015).
16. Lawrence, S., ve Giles, C. L. (1999). Accessibility of information on the web. Nature, 400, 107-107.
17. Lazar, J., Beere, P., Greenidge, K., ve Nagappa, Y. (2003). Web accessibility in the mid-Atlantic United States: a study of 50 web sites. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2(4), 1–11
18. Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., ve Greenidge, K. D. (2004). Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 269-288.
19. Liu, G. Z., Liu, Z. H., ve Hwang, G. J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors. Computers & Education, 56(1), 65-79.
20. Mankoff, J., Fait, H., ve Tran, T. (2005, April). Is your web page accessible?: a comparative study of methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (41-50). ACM.
21. Morkes, J., ve Nielsen, J., (1997). Concise, scannable and objective: How to write for the Web, Retrived from: http://useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html.
22. Nielsen, J (2000). Designing Web Usability. Indianapolis, Indiana: New Riders.
23. Nielsen, J. (1999). User interface directions for the web. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 65-72.
24. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Doubleday, New York: Basic Books.
25. Richards, J. T., ve Hanson, V. L. (2004, May). Web accessibility: a broader view. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web (72-79). ACM.
26. Sohn, T., Li, K. A., Griswold, W. G., ve Hollan, J. D. (2008, April). A diary study of mobile information needs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 433-442). ACM.
27. Spindler, T. (2002). The accessibility of web pages for mid-sized college and university libraries. Refer-ence & User Services Quarterly, 42(2), 149-154.
28. Stover, M., ve Zink, S. D. (1996). World Wide Web home page design: patterns and anomalies of higher education library home pages. Reference Services Review, 24(3), 7-20.
29. Sullivan, T., ve Matson, R. (2000, November). Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the Web's most popular sites. In Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability (pp. 139-144). ACM.
30. Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., ve Comden, D. (2003). Research on web accessibility in higher educa-tion.Journal of Information Technology and Disabilities, 9(2).
31. Zhang, J., ve Dimitroff, A. (2005). The impact of webpage content characteristics on webpage visibility in search engine results (Part I). Information Processing & Management, 41(3), 665-690