skip to main content
research-article

Not quite the average: An empirical study of Web use

Published:03 March 2008Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In the past decade, the World Wide Web has been subject to dramatic changes. Web sites have evolved from static information resources to dynamic and interactive applications that are used for a broad scope of activities on a daily basis. To examine the consequences of these changes on user behavior, we conducted a long-term client-side Web usage study with twenty-five participants. This report presents results of this study and compares the user behavior with previous long-term browser usage studies, which range in age from seven to thirteen years. Based on the empirical data and the interview results, various implications for the interface design of browsers and Web sites are discussed.

A major finding is the decreasing prominence of backtracking in Web navigation. This can largely be attributed to the increasing importance of dynamic, service-oriented Web sites. Users do not navigate on these sites searching for information, but rather interact with an online application to complete certain tasks. Furthermore, the usage of multiple windows and tabs has partly replaced back button usage, posing new challenges for user orientation and backtracking. We found that Web browsing is a rapid activity even for pages with substantial content, which calls for page designs that allow for cursory reading. Click maps provide additional information on how users interact with the Web on page level. Finally, substantial differences were observed between users, and characteristic usage patterns for different types of Web sites emphasize the need for more adaptive and customizable Web browsers.

References

  1. Abrams, D., Baecker, R., and Chignell, M. 1998. Information archiving with bookmarks: personal Web space construction and organization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'98), Los Angeles, CA, ACM Press, 41--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Baker, K. R. 2003. The impact of paging vs. scrolling on reading online text passages. Usability News 5, 1. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/51/paging_scrolling.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, R., Maglio, P. P., and Kellem, D. C. 1997. How to personalize the Web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '97), Atlanta, GA: ACM Press, 75--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bernard, M., Baker, K. R., and Fernandez, M. 2002. Paging vs. scrolling: Looking for the best way to present search results. Usability News 4, 1. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/paging.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Capra, R. and Pérez-Quiñones, M. 2003. Re-finding found things: An exploratory study of how users re-find information. Tech. Rep. cs.HC/0310011, Computing Research Repository (CoRR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Catledge, L. D. and Pitkow, J. E. 1995. Characterizing browsing strategies in the World-Wide Web. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 27, 6, 1065--1073. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., and Jacobs, I. 1999. Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho, J. and Garcia-Molina, H. 2000. The evolution of the Web and implications for an incremental crawler. In Proceedings of 26th International Conference on Very Large Databases. Cairo, Egypt. 200--209. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cho00evolution.html. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., and Turnbull, D. 2000. Information seeking on the Web: An integrated model of browsing and searching. First Monday Online J. 5, 2. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_2/choo/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Cockburn, A. and Mckenzie, B. 2001. What do Web users do? An empirical analysis of Web use. Inter. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 54, 6, 903--922. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Cockburn, A., Mckenzie, B., and Jasonsmith, M. 2002. Pushing back: Evaluating a new behavior for the back and forward buttons in Web browsers. Inter. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 57, 5, 397--414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Conklin, J. 1987. Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Comput. 20, 9, 17--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Cunha, C. R., Bestavros, A., and Crovella, M. E. 1995. Characteristics of WWW client-based traces. Tech. Rep. BU-CS-95-010, Computer Science Departments, Boston University. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/44710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. ECMA-262. 1999. ECMAScript language definition. ECMA International. http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ecma-st/ECMA-262.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Fetterly, D., Manasse, D., Najork, D., and Wiener, J. 2003. A large-scale study of the evolution of Web pages. In Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference. Budapest, Hungary, 669--678. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Greenberg, S. and Cockburn, A. 1999. Getting back to back: Alternate behaviors for a Web browser's back button. In Proceedings of 5th Human Factors and the Web Conference, Austin, TX.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Haas, S. W. and Grams, E. S. 1998. A link taxonomy for Web pages. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Information Access in the Global Information Economy (ASIS'98). Information Today, Medford, NJ, 485--495.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Halasz, F. G. 1988. Reflections on notecards: Seven issues for the next generation of hypertext systems. Commun. ACM 31, 7, 836--852. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Herder, E. 2006. Forward, back and home again---analyzing user behavior on the web. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffman, M. 1997. Enabling extremely rapid navigation in your web or document, 2nd Version, (Dec.) http://www.hypertextnavigation.com/infoaxcs.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyams, J. and Sellen, A. 2003. Gathering and sharing web-based information: Implications for ePerson concepts. HP Labs: Tech. rep. HPL-2003-19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyatt, D. 2001. XML user interface language (XUL) 1.0. technical specification, Mozilla project. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/xul.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO 9241/110. 2006. Ergonomics of human-system interaction---Part 110: Dialogue principles. International Standards Organization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jansen, B. J. and Pooch, U. W. 2000. A review of Web searching studies and a framework for future research. J. ASIS 52, 3, 235--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jansen, B. J., Spink, A., and Saracevic, T. 2000. Real life, real users and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the Web. Inform. Proc. Manag. 36, 2, 207--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jansen, B. J. and Spink, A. 2005. How are we searching the World Wide Web? A comparison of nine search engine transaction logs. Inform. Proc. Manag. 42, 248--263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jones, W., Bruce, H., and Dumais, S. 2001. Keeping found things found on the Web. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), 119--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kaasten, S. and Greenberg, S. 2001. Integrating back, history and bookmarks in Web browsers. In Extended Abstracts of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'01), Seattle, WA. 379--380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Kehoe, C., Pitkow, J., Sutton, K., Aggarwal, G., and Rogers, J. 1998. 10th GVU WWW user survey. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kellar, M., Watters, C., and Inkpen, K. M. 2007. An exploration of Web-based monitoring: Implications for design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'07), San Jose, CA, 377--386 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Knight, A., Pyrzak, G., and Gree, C. 2007. When two methods are better than one: Combining user study with cognitive modeling. In (CHI'07) Experience Reports, ACM Press, 1783--1788 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Lynch, P. J. and Horton, S. 2002. Web Style Guide: Basic Design Principles for Creating Web Sites. Yale University Press, Yale. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. McKenzie, B. and Cockburn, A. 2001. An empirical analysis of Web page revisitation. In Proceedings of Howai International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'01), Maui, Hawaii. IEEE Computer Society Press, 501--509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Meschkat, S. and Mittleman, J. 2007. Keeping the Web in Web 2.0: An HCI approach to designing Web applications. CHI 2007 Course, http://ajaxchi.googlepages.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Milic-Frailing, N., Jones, R., Rodder, K., Smyth, G., Blackwell, A., and Sommerer, R. 2004. Smartback: Supporting users in back navigation. In Proceedings of 13th International World Wide Web Conference. ACM Press, 63--71. http://www2004.org/proceedings/docs/1p63.pdf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Morkes, J. and Nielsen, J. 1997. Concise, SCANNABLE, and objective: How to write for the web, Sun Microsystems. http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Moyle, M. and Cockburn, A. 2003. The design and evaluation of a flick gesture for “back” and “forward” in Web browsers. In Proceedings of the 4th Australasian User Interface Conference. Adelaide, Australia. 39--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R. and Tenopir, C. 2006. What deep log analysis tells us about the impact of big deals: Case study OhioLINK, J. Document. 62, 4, 482--508Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Nielsen, J. 1997. The tyranny of the page: Continued lack of decent navigation support in version 4 browsers. Useit Alertbox, Nielsen Norman Group. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9711a.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Nielsen, J. 2004. The need for Web design standards. Useit Alertbox, Nielsen Norman Group. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040913.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen, J. 2005. Ten best intranets of 2005. Useit Alertbox, Nielsen Norman Group. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050228.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Nielsen, J. 2006. F-shaped pattern for reading web content. Useit Alertbox, Nielsen Norman Group. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Nielsen, J. 2006b. Screen resolution and page layout. Useit Alertbox, Nielsen Norman Group. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Obendorf, H., Weinreich, H., and Hass, T. 2004. Automatic support for Web user studies with SCONE and TEA. In Extended Abstracts of CHI'04. Vienna, Austria. 1135--1138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Obendorf, H., Weinreich, H., Herder, E., and Mayer, M. 2007. Web page revisitation revisited: Implications of a long-term click-stream study of browser usage. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'07). San Jose, CA. 597-- 606. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Ottaway, M. 2004. Nielsen/Netratings data support TVNZ's widescreen Web decision. Nielsen/Netratings. http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_040504_nz.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Outing, S. and Ruel, L. 2004. The best of Eyetrack III: What we saw when we looked through their eyes. Eyetrack III, http://www.poynterextra.org/eyetrack2004/main.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Peterson, E. 2004. Which screen resolution should you be using? Jupiterresearch Analyst Weblogs. http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/peterson/archives/003965.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Pitkow, J. E. 1998. Summary of WWW characterizations. The Web J. 2, 1, 3--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Rose, D., and Levinson, D. 2004. Understanding user goals in Web search. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM Press. 13--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Schmidt-Maenz, N. and Koch, M. 2006. A general classification of (search) queries and terms. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. Las Vegas, NV. IEEE Xplore, 375--381. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Sellen, A. J., Murphy, R. M., and Shaw, K. 2002. How knowledge workers use the Web. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'02), Minneapolis, MN. ACM Press, 227--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Shrestha, S. and Lenz, K. 2007. Eye gaze patterns while searching vs. browsing a Website. Usability News 9, 1, January 2007, Software Usability Research Lab, Wichita State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Spiliopoulou, M., Mobasher, B., Berendt, B., and Nakagawa, M. 2003. A framework for the evaluation of session reconstruction heuristics in Web usage analysis. INFORMS J. Comput. 15, 2, 171--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Spool, J., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C., and Deangelo, T. 1998. Web Site Usability: A Designer's Guide. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Tauscher, L. and Greenberg, S. 1997. How people revisit Web pages: Empirical findings and implications for the design of history systems. Inter. J. Hum. Comput. Studies 47, 1, 97--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Teevan, J., Alvarado, C., Acherman, M., and Karger, D. 2004. The perfect search engine is not enough: A study of orienteering behavior in directed search. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'04). Vienna, Austria. ACM Press, 415-- 422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Teevan, J., Adar, E., Jones, R., and Potts, M. 2006. History repeats itself: Repeat queries in Yahoo's logs. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (SIGIR'06). (Poster Sessions), Seattle, WA, 703--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. The Counter, 2007. Global Screen Resolution Statistics. Jupitermedia Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. University of Southern California. 2007. Digital Future Report. Annenberg School, Center for the Digital Future. http://www.digitalcenter.org/pages/current_report.asp?intGlobalId=19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Weinreich, H. and Lamersdorf, W. 2003. Eine Umfrage zu Link- und Objekt-Attributen im Web. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer. Stuttgart, Germany. Teubner Verlag, 387--390. http://vsis-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/getDoc.php/publications/121/weinreich-umfrage-2003.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Weinreich, H., Obendorf, H., and Herder, E. 2006. Data cleaning methods for client and proxy logs. In Proceedings of the Workshop of the World Wide Web Conference. Edinburgh, UK. http://torch.cs.dal.ca/~www2006/Workshop_submissions.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. White, R. W. and Drucker, S. M. 2007. Investigating behavioral variability in Web search. In Proceedings of 16th International World Wide Web Conference 2007. Banff, Canada. ACM Press, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Not quite the average: An empirical study of Web use

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on the Web
          ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 2, Issue 1
          February 2008
          280 pages
          ISSN:1559-1131
          EISSN:1559-114X
          DOI:10.1145/1326561
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2008 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 3 March 2008
          • Accepted: 1 August 2007
          • Revised: 1 July 2007
          • Received: 1 September 2006
          Published in tweb Volume 2, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader