The Nature and Role of User Beliefs Regarding a Website's Design Quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers and practitioners have long been interested in identifying the criteria that users consider important in assessing whether a system is worth using. However, past research in this domain has not taken into account the characteristics of a system's design and their quality in a systematic and comprehensive manner, which is likely to have limited the development of actionable design guidelines. The article addresses this issue by suggesting a research model that links user beliefs—which have traditionally been used in IT acceptance and success research (i.e., information quality, system quality, usefulness, and ease of use)—to their beliefs regarding the quality of three categories of a system's design (i.e., visual quality, page layout quality, and navigation quality) and testing it in the context of organizational intranets. The analysis of data collected from 159 intranet website users in three organizations supported the model, suggesting that the three categories of design quality beliefs significantly influenced users' assessment of their system's information quality and system quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it