 |
 |
Hello Everybody, Apologies in advance if this seems like an inappropriate or OT question. I am currently engaged in a PhD concerned with constructing metrics to measure the quality of web systems. As a part of my work I would like to ask some web development professionals who have responsibility for web site development on a larger scale how they would judge quality in their projects. This would be used in conjunction with some work I have already done to identify some possible candidate metrics, in order to see if they are useful. I have to qualify this slightly as I am not particularly interested in the experience from the end user's point of view (Neilsen and others have done lots of this already), but from the point of view of those who build the sites - the developers and project managers. This is rather like asking an electrical engineer or electrician how well wired a house is, as opposed to asking those who live there if it's a nice house I am interested in how you would classify a project as being either well or badly constructed, for instance in terms of file organisation, use of repeated or included elements, document validity and doctypes used to consider a few. From a purely anecodtal point of view I am interested in what list members would judge to be important criteria in making the decision as to whether a site or project is "well-engineered" or not. I would also appreciate questions as to whether my approach is too widely ranged and whether clarification would be needed. ================================ Darren Stephens BSc MSc MBCS Centre for Internet Computing University of Hull http://www.cic.hull.ac.uk mail: [log in to unmask] ================================