From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond:
Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music
sites as case studies
Ganesh Viswanathan
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Guwahati-781039
ganesh.iyer.viswanathan@gmail.com
Punit Dutt Mathur
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Guwahati-781039
punit@iitg.ernet.in
Pradeep Yammiyavar
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Guwahati-781039
pradeep@iitg.ernet.in
Abstract. The simple sites of the past web environment (termed as web 1.0) have given way to complex
sites with confusing content in today’s Web 2.0 environment. Usability issues surrounding Web 2.0
emphasize simplifying content on the GUIs, which need to be presented as infotainment – a combination of
information and entertainment. Web 3.0 is already emerging on the horizon. The massive amount of usergenerated content on Web 3.0 needs to be continuously and dynamically organized. Designers are still
using heuristics of Web 1.0 to cope with the requirements of complex Web 3.0 environments. Questions
arise as to whether Nielsen’s original set of heuristics continue to be valid for Web 2.0 environments. Web
2.0 category sites like YouTube are found to obey only two of the ten Nielsen heuristics but yet continue to
be one of the most popular websites in the world today [1]. What possibly can explain this is the starting
point of this paper’s posit. This paper makes an attempt to examine the relevance of Web 1.0 heuristics in
the Web 2.0 environment, in the context of Indian users of music sharing sites. The bottom of the pyramid
paradigm can be used to explain the user behavior of the large mass of Indian users [9]. This paper also
attempts to project what kind of heuristics are likely to evolve for Web 3.0 environment based on the
analysis of qualitative user behavior data collected on a music website.
Keywords: heuristic evaluation, web 2.0, cultural context, usability testing, music sites
problems. These features fulfilled user needs such as
collective intelligence, collaborated work, learning and
community behaviour as well as social interactions. In
addition to these features, the set of people who could
generate and publish content is no longer fixed. This
set is dynamic and is heterogeneous in space (parsing
through different cultures) and time (moving through
technological advances and new user needs).
1. INTRODUCTION
The first websites of the World Wide Web (labelled
today as Web 1.0 environment) were a platform where
the privilege of creating content rested with a chosen
set of people related to the website creation. Hence,
the structure of the websites in Web 1.0 was unilateral
and inflexible with homogenous information. The
information framework of Web 1.0 sites was simple and
user‟s involvement in terms of interaction was highly
restricted [16]. Web 1 and Web 2 are labels indicating
different generations of sites depending upon the
evolution of the technologies used. However, in the
current scenario of what is termed as Web 2.0, the
information is no longer homogenous in terms of
whose point of view (users or producers) has been
represented. Users have been empowered with the
right to create content and publish it on the web, all by
themselves. Therefore the framework of web 2.0 has
extended the user‟s role as a creator and editor of
content besides being a consumer of the content.
Websites made in the Web 2.0 environment turned out
to be quite complex with additional features, compared
to those made in Web 1.0 resulting in usability
Social networking sites which are a significant part of
web 2.0 encourage social interaction by emphasizing
connections through shared interests or causes such
as music which is a widely accessed product among
users worldwide. YouTube [10] that allows users to
store and share personal videos, subsequently, linked,
searched and/or rated by other users. YouTube is quite
popular among users worldwide and it is consistently
high in popular website rankings by country [6]. Other
examples of Web 2.0 sites interspersed with music
include MySpace [11] and Muziboo [12]. MySpace is a
social networking site with an emphasis on popular
culture and music and Muziboo which is a platform for
up-and-coming musicians who could publish the music
1
Viswanathan • Dutt Mathur • Yammiyavar
user‟s needs, requirements and depth of involvement.
It had built-in features that fulfilled deeper needs such
as collective intelligence, collaborated work, learning
and community behaviour as well as social
interactions. The difference can be understood from
table 1 which is adapted from [3]
that they compose and receive feedback from other
users.
When creating web sites, as with any software product,
it is important to ensure that a high level of usability is
attained. If sites are not usable, users will leave and
find others which better cater to their needs [5]. As a
result, effective evaluation criteria are required to
determine the usability of web sites. One of the most
used techniques is termed as „heuristic evaluations
based on criteria developed by Jakob Nielsen [4].
Despite many sets of heuristics used by designers all
over the world, Nielsen‟s heuristics are discussed most
often, so for the purpose of this paper, only Nielsen‟s
heuristics are considered. [14]
2.2 Features of Web 1.0: Typical web design
elements of that initial phase of Web 1.0 can be listed
as follows:
Static pages instead of dynamic user content
The use of framesets (feature of web 1.0 where
content can be organised in frames)
Proprietary HTML extensions such as the <blink>
and <marquee> tags introduced during the first
browser war in 1995 between Netscape Navigator
and Microsoft Internet Explorer [7].
Online guest books (feature of web 1.0 where a
logging system allows visitors of a website to leave
a public comment.)
GIF buttons, typically 88x31 pixels in size [7]
promoting web browsers and other products.
HTML forms sent via email. A user would fill in a
form, and upon clicking submit their email client
would attempt to send an email containing the
form‟s details.
Heuristic Evaluation is a popular usability technique
which is used to inspect websites through focus on
user needs, user trends and how websites could be
better tailored to meet these needs. Despite, the nature
of user data being second-hand in Heuristic Evaluation,
the method is effective in highlighting key issues which
have obvious remedies [15]. The empirical study of
user data in this paper revolves around young music
listeners in India who constitute a great number of
users of websites like YouTube, MySpace and
Muziboo. It is important to know that in our study we
have focused on the evaluation and design of a similar
website of an existing company, ABC (name altered to
protect commercial interests). Towards the end, we
have speculated possible usability evaluation heuristics
based on user interaction patterns which could help
web design in the future web 3 environments. We
consider this paper to be the beginning of an
understanding of trend variation from Web 1.0, to 2.0
and beyond and that concerning web usability
evaluation and inspection methods over this variation.
Being static pages in which users have no control over
the content of the website, unless they are the authors
of the website themselves, Web 1.0 trends included
worries over privacy concerns resulting in a one-way
flow of information.
Table 1: Comparing Web 1.0 and Web 2.0[3]
2. WEB 1.0 AND WEB 2.0
2.1 Definitions:
a) Web 1.0: Web 1.0 environment or the initial World
Wide Web environment was where the web was an
information portal and content was owned by a few
people. The whole of the World Wide Web was divided
into linked directories. Web 1.0 was all about read only
content and static HTML sites. This period was
dominated by the likes of Geocities (one of the oldest
web-hosting service) and Hotmail (one of the first webbased email services). [3]
b) Web 2.0: The change in the framework of the Web
1.0 environment brought in what is called as the Web
2.0 environment which was about user-generated
content and the read-write web. Web 2.0 also followed
a loose form of user-generated classification in the
form of “tags”. Web 2.0 not only involved the user, but
also had the intelligence to adapt and adjust to the
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
“the mostly read-only
web”
focused on companies
“read and write web”
homepages/purchased
websites
owning content
Blogs
HTML, portals
XML, RSS
Netscape
Google
Web forms
Web applications
Directories (defined
taxonomy)
Web was an information
portal
Tagging (user-generated
folksonomy)
Web is a platform for users
to create
focused on communities
sharing content
2.3 Features of Web 2.0: The leap from Web 1.0 to
Web 2.0 is not only characterised by redefining the
users‟ role on the World Wide Web, but also involved a
technological improvement. These technological
refinements included such adaptations as “broadband,
improved browsers, and AJAX, to the rise of Flash
2
From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies
application platforms and the mass development of
widgetization, such as Flickr and YouTube badges”.
recognising Web 3.0, would bring us closer to a newer
framework of World Wide Web, newer technological
features possible in a browser and of course, newer
patterns of user behaviour and needs [3]. For the sake
of convenience, we conceptualise Web 3.0 as a new
platform which would include the following features:
Use of technological features like AJAX and Flash
players has given rise to popular websites like Google
Maps and YouTube [17]. Flash is capable of doing
many things which are not currently possible in HTML,
the language used to construct web pages.
Portability (infotainment anywhere, anytime)
Personal (focused on the individual, as opposed to
community)
Dynamic and Contextual content (handling the
aspect of Semantic Web)
It could be argued that the term Web 2.0 does not
represent a major change from Web 1.0, but it is true
that there is a visible change in use of web
applications, their technology and the user
involvement. With the enhancement of the web
technology, users are presented with an altogether
different web experience like total immersion,
anonymity etc which resulted in a new set of user
behaviours and user expectations. The change in the
role of users in the World Wide Web can also be
responsible for the change in their behaviour and
expectations.
Due to the high competition between various websites
for users, it is very important for a website to be usable.
If websites are not usable, then users would find
another website which fulfils their needs better. With
changing user needs and new technological demands,
how do we evaluate Web 3.0? What are the methods
currently available to us? Is it sufficient to keep track of
changing user needs?
Based on the discussions so far we can state that
among other features, the change from Web 1.0 to
Web 2.0 involved the following significant aspects:
Table 2: Current set of heuristics [4]
change in user role from passive recipients to
active contributors and producers of information
change in user behaviour, user demands and
needs
technological advances which the new framework
allowed (like AJAX, Flash platforms, widgets etc.)
2.3 Emergence of Web 3.0: After the start of Web 2.0,
not much time has passed since we have seen the
emergence of the term “Web 3.0”. Web 1.0 focused on
the web being a pool of information, Web 2.0 focused
on the web being a platform for the community to
create and validate information, so what could Web 3.0
mean?
Semantic web is poised to become the face of “Web
3.0”. Semantic Web is a feature of the World Wide
Web where the meaning of information and of services
is defined, allowing the web to match and satisfy the
requests of people and machines while they are
dynamically interactive [8]. In simpler terms, the effect
of Semantic Web on a search engine for example,
would be that the search engine would understand who
you are, what you‟ve been doing and what you are
going to do next all by itself in an intelligent way and
also remember it next time you use the web. However,
elements of Semantic Web are either only in the form
of formal specifications or expressed as a possibility in
the future, but are yet to be implemented.
It is uncertain that Semantic Web is Web 3.0. Web 3.0
is in some contexts, considered where the web can be
accessed from anywhere, bringing mobile web to the
forefront. It is certain though that these attempts at
3
Heuristic/Usability
Principle
Visibility of system status
Description
Match between system
and the real world
The system should speak the
users‟ language, with words,
phrases and concepts
familiar to the user, rather
than system-oriented terms.
User control and freedom
Users should be free to
choose the sequence of
functions they would want to
follow and also should be
provided with marked
“emergency exits”, undo and
redo.
Consistency and
standards
Users should not have to
wonder whether different
words, situations, or actions
mean the same thing.
Error prevention
Even better than good error
messages is a careful design
which prevents a problem
from occurring in the first
place.
The system should always
keep users informed about
what is going on, through
appropriate feedback within
reasonable time.
Viswanathan • Dutt Mathur • Yammiyavar
Recognition rather than
recall
Flexibility and efficiency
of use
The system should cater to
both inexperienced and
experienced users. Allow
users to tailor frequent
actions.
Aesthetic and minimalist
design
Dialogues should not contain
information which is
irrelevant or rarely needed.
Error messages should be
expressed in plain language
(no codes), precisely indicate
the problem, and
constructively suggest a
solution.
Help users recognize,
diagnose, and recover
from errors
Help and documentation
not hold true for such a user group in context of the
experience [9]. To design for such a large user group, it
is important to take into account, their behaviours and
their needs and most importantly, the cultural context,
while designing the web experience and evaluating
usability issues of a music sharing interface.
The user should not have to
remember information from
one part of the dialogue to
another. Instructions for use
of the system should be
visible or easily retrievable
whenever appropriate.
2.6 Existing Gaps: In our literature study, we found
that some user requirements in context of Web 2.0
sites are not concurrent with the heuristics laid down by
Nielsen for Web 1.0. A study conducted in [1] also has
questioned the use of traditional usability evaluation
techniques for Web 2.0 websites like YouTube which
have been designed for a ludic web experience.
YouTube, when examined through conventional
heuristics was found to obey only two of ten criteria
while being one of the most popular websites
according to Alexa‟s List [6]. This was also found in the
case of Facebook,[13] a social networking site, wherein
the heuristic techniques undermined the web
experience [1]. So the experience is apparently more
important than the “usability in the conventional sense”
and this is more or less similar throughout the pyramid.
In this paper, we report on an empirical study through
web analytics, in an attempt to understand the gaps
that conventional heuristic evaluation faces when
inspecting Web 2.0 sites. We hope that the analysis of
these findings would lead to a set of heuristics
concurrent with increasing user needs.
Any such help information
should be easy to search,
focused on the user‟s task,
list concrete steps to be
carried out, and not be too
large.
Table 2 (continued)
2.4 Evaluation techniques and Nielsen’s heuristics:
According to Nielsen, the changes in the web
experience brought about by “Web x.o” are only
secondary issues which may compromise the central
usability issues. One of the evaluation techniques for
inspecting a site for usability issues is Heuristic
Evaluation where the interface is examined by a small
set of evaluators who judge the compliance of a site
with recognised usability principles. The advantage is
that it is cheap, quick and easy to conduct and the
usability problems identified can be both major and
minor, which is why heuristic evaluation is also
supplemented by a severity rating of every problem.
Current heuristics which are popularly in use (shown in
table 2), are a set of 10 recognised usability principles
recommended by Nielsen J [4].
Fig 1: Facebook Interface
2.5 User background: The large user group of Indian
music listeners have a particular set of expectations
and behaviours and this trend is seen throughout the
user pyramid and not just in any specific section. In
simpler words, terms like “bottom-of-the-pyramid” do
4
From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies
3. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Our paper highlights certain key questions during the
course of our research like “If conventional heuristics
do not hold true for Web 2.0 sites, what could be the
reason(s)?”, “What is the change in user behaviour and
need that need to be accommodated in usability
inspection techniques?” and “Going by the current
pattern, what could be the likely heuristics for Web
3.0?”. Our study attempts to plot a change in patterns
of web features which have changed user experience
and match them against the change in pattern of user
behaviour and the analysis of this transposition would
help us predict the new usability heuristics for the next
framework of the World Wide Web.
4. DATA/METHODOLOGY
Our research methodology consisted of detailed
analysis of an online survey of 120 people, carried out
by an existing company ABC (name altered to protect
commercial interests), on its music sharing interface
which is a community based audio-sharing site. The
user group which it focuses on are Indian users of
music sites. The survey contained a set of 11 openended questions where the participants expressed their
opinion about various aspects of the site. Some of the
questions look like the following:
Fig 2: YouTube Interface
How did you discover ABC?
What does the site do?
Is there any aspect of the site that confused you? If
so, what?
Does the place look credible enough for you to pay
for some of the premium services offered?
What are the aspects of the website would you like
us to improve?
Through this data and its analysis we attempted to
classify the findings and observed a pattern of user
behaviour. Our literature study also included
references which involved the heuristic evaluation of
other Web 2.0 sites like Facebook and YouTube.
Fig 3: MySpace Interface
In addition to the online survey, we have also
conducted a qualitative user test with a set of tasks
which the user had to perform. The base of the test
was 10 users and the tasks revolved around the three
Web 2.0 sites - YouTube, MySpace and Muziboo which formed the basis of our case study.
The questions were of a simple nature regarding
finding various services on these websites and the
participants expressed their opinion as they were
performing the tasks.
Fig 4: Muziboo Interface
5
Viswanathan • Dutt Mathur • Yammiyavar
search would provide. Secondly, it is also
necessary that the search is compatible with the
tags and classifications people set for their media
so that the search results match user expectations
better.
5. FINDINGS
We now report the findings after analysing the online
survey results. The participant is quoted wherever
required.
“Could use a few more options in searching for
music to listen to.”
Achieving the right balance between clutter and
minimalist design: Minimalist design was not well
appreciated since the user did not know what the
site did. The user is now more than just a “reader”
or a “visitor” to the website. So, it is imperative that
the user knows how his/her content would be used
on the website or on any of the site‟s partner
websites like Facebook and Twitter. Minimalism
defeats the purpose of the design because there is
not just the data from the developers‟ side, but also
the large amount of content that would fill the page
from the users‟ side. However, it is also important
that the array of user content is organised well and
visual clutter is avoided. It is also important that
there be a mixture of logical and chronological
sequence of user events (like comments, posts,
replies to any previous comments etc.) so that a
new reader of the entire sequence is provided with
a convenient direction and flow for reading.
“The homepage did not really clarify that the site is
a place for people to upload and disseminate their
own music. Based on the homepage, I initially
assumed it was a free music site like Kazaa. I had
to dig around in the getting started/help section to
understand the site. Most users might not take that
time.”
Importance of the top horizontal menu and the
vertical alignment: In the user testing that was
carried out on the case study sites, it was found
that 8 out of the 10 users resorted to the topmost
horizontal menu as a starting point or as a place
that they could use, to go to their desired
destination in case, they got lost or confused. The
top horizontal menu in the sites that were tested
involved 4-5 menu items with a search bar. Since,
the users attributed enough importance to the top
menu, it was not necessary for them to recognise
or to recall in order to find their way in the site. To
get to any kind of dynamic page, user-generated or
just user-filled, the top menu was deemed as
sufficient and trustworthy.
All the users had little/no problem in pages which
required vertical scrolling. However, due to the
large amount of content in some pages which was
also contained within a small vertical space, finding
the right option was difficult. This could be
attributed to two reasons. The large amount of user
content to be included in a small vertical space
resulted in a large information density which made
it difficult for users to navigate and find their right
choices. The second reason can be the highly
commonplace use of the mouse wheel which
makes it easy for vertical scrolling. The vertical
scrolling is also considered an important feature of
the touch pad of a laptop, which is replacing
desktops
all
over
the
world.
“The homepage was a little bit basic for me, so I
was a bit confused about the process of using the
site since I don‟t have enough information to
completely understand how the whole process of
uploading/sharing/downloading songs works.”
“If information in the homepage is a bit clearer,
then it is a good starting point.”
“Artist can get lost in the shuffle.”
“I didn‟t like how you couldn‟t find the type of music
you like or belong with right away.”
“Graphical sense cluttered. Not attractive.”
Bringing the right set of search results in the
right order to the user: In an ordinary search
through a Web 1.0 website, since the content was
static, it was limited. However, since the content in
such a Web 2.0 site such as ABC, where the users
are the creators of content, where new user
profiles are being made at a rapid rate, the content
is quantitatively huge. Thereby, a search engine
which is tailored to the needs of a Web 1.0 site will
give a large set of results even within one Web 2.0
site. Therefore, the search has to be as close as to
the users‟ preference as possible because it is
inconvenient for the user to go through each and
every search result that a conventional Web 1.0
Element of active playfulness/leisure: In the
websites which were part of the research, there
was a sense of playfulness and of leisure, wherein,
the user would visit the site for personal
amusement and engage himself with the site as an
active participant in collaborative activities. The site
was rich with media (like photographs, videos,
audio, and widgets) and there was a visible
difference between a Web 2.0 site and a simple
read-only Web 1.0 site. The look of the site was
considered an important element of the web
experience as users treated a professional look as
trustworthy and secure.
“The photos used in the About Us section are not
professional. About Us section and Getting started
section look different than the homepage.”
6
From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies
“The other sections apart from homepage look
„homemade‟, and don‟t inspire confidence,
especially if there is a charge for the service.”
6. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the six findings of our research, we propose
a modified list of heuristics for a web 2.0 site and
based on the patterns, we attempt to propose a set of
heuristics for web 3.0 as well. It is worth mentioning
that the idea emerged as a result of a project based on
design of music websites wherein a case study of not
more than three popular websites was taken. If a firmer
set of heuristics are to emerge, then the number of
websites to be considered and analysed must be
increased for consistency and verification of results.
Added importance of help and documentation:
With the increasing complexity and the rising
number of possibilities with a Web 2.0 site, it is
inevitable that the user would be faced with a lot
more tasks than a Web 1.0 site. For a web 1.0 site,
the help and documentation heuristic was not
mandatory for all kinds of website but in a web 2.0
site, since the user is contributing as a contentcreator, it is important that he be assisted by an
efficient help section. In web 2.0 sites, help section
are part-user-managed with the use of forums and
with sufficient help from the developers of the site‟s
framework. The users were able to identify with the
responses and needs of other users and
sometimes have found solutions to previously
asked user-queries.
The aspect of balance between clutter and minimalist
design indirectly contradicts the conventional heuristic
“Aesthetic and Minimalist Design” because the system
is no longer in control over the quantity of information
because of which we propose a new heuristic which
focuses on a neat organisation and a logical sequence
of events in the system. We call this “Sequential
Organisation of Events” wherein the sequence of
events in any kind of page follows a logic understood
by the user.
An advantage of these user-managed forums for
help is the keywords that user uses are the basis
for such a search. In web 1.0 sites, the terminology
and the jargon used by the developers were the
basis for a static search which gives them links to a
particular page. A second advantage is that since
the helpdesk is forum-based, further queries to the
same problem can be addressed at the same post,
instead of facing a static HTML solution page.
Disadvantages of a user-managed help include the
lack of control over some irrelevant replies.
However, some forums being moderated (generally
by the site developer themselves) and with a
separate FAQ section provided, the problem is
effectively
solved.
For example: a video searched in YouTube, follows
many kinds of sequences (like relevance, rating,
chronology) or a list of posts in a blog under a tag “xyz”
would yield a chronological sequence of posts which
would be clear to the user despite the high quantity of
content.
The importance of an effective search engine within the
website is an important feature of web 2.0 sites which
has not been touched upon by conventional Web 1.0
heuristics. We combine this heuristic with the
previously
proposed
heuristic
of
“Sequential
Organisation of Events” wherein the right kind of
search results would be displayed in the right order.
Importance of Information privacy: Since the
user is publishing his own media, it is important
that he be given tools as to how he wants his
content to appear to the billions of other users of
the same site. The user must be made aware of
how his new music video, say would appear to his
friend, or to a friend of a friend, because the user
would be concerned about the privacy of his
content. He must be given visibility tools as to what
kind of people would be allowed to view his content
or sometimes even edit. This has given rise, in
various collaborative authoring sites, to user roles
like administrator, moderator, contributor and
viewer. He also needs to be notified when an
external application or a third party software would
be using the details of the user‟s profile. The user,
now in an advanced role compared to one in the
Web 1.0 days, needs to have the experience of
being „in control‟ of his content.
The elements of the top menu and the vertical
alignment (which is no longer considered a hindrance,
provided the page is not too long), comes into contrast
with the heuristic “Recognition rather than recall” which
specifies that the user should not have to look for his
information and should recognise his options easily.
With the availability of a concise top menu and scrolling
no longer considered an issue, this heuristic can be
replaced by “Standard Web 2.0 alignment” which
involves a set of 3-5 standardised horizontal menu
items at the top of the page with a search bar and
which would be available to the user in every page and
it acts as a detour in case the user wants to withdraw
the current task.
The finding related to the Help feature in the web 2.0
sites should receive added importance to what it was
during the web 1.0 era. So the heuristic “Help and
Documentation” should be modified to “User-managed
and moderated Help” which should include the
7
Viswanathan • Dutt Mathur • Yammiyavar
intervention of other users and of the developers in an
interactive way to help the users.
Importance of information privacy can be combined
with “Visibility of system status” since both relate to
informing the users about the status of the system.
However, since the user also needs to be informed and
be given controlling tools simultaneously - to alter the
privacy of his content and media, “Visibility of user
status” needs to be included.
The aspect of playfulness and engagement form a very
important aspect of the web experiences of the web 2.0
sites which were part of the research. For example, the
user must be provided with options which are related to
the media he is viewing or which are published by the
same author to keep the user engaged in the
experience. The aspect of a professional look can be
included in the proposed heuristic “Standard Web 2.0
alignment” but the overall look and feel of the website
should invoke playfulness and a ludic experience. We
call this heuristic “Engaging user activity” which is a
holistic and not an elemental aspect of the site. This
heuristic would inspect how actively the user stays and
interacts on the website.
We summarise our new and proposed set of heuristics
for web 2.0 sites in table 3 as shown.
We could observe a pattern going from web 1.0 to 2.0
and extrapolate it to web 3.0 to propose new heuristics
for the future web framework. In table 4, we have
extrapolated the aspects related to technology and
user needs from web 1.0 and web 2.0 to web 3.0; while
in table 5, we propose a newer set of heuristics based
on the outcome of table 4.
User control and
freedom
User control and
freedom
The user should
be provided with
options regarding
his content and
also be allowed to
change his
decision using
“undo” and “redo”
Consistency and
standards
Consistency and
standards
Users should not
have to wonder
whether different
words, situations,
or actions mean
the same thing.
Error prevention
Error prevention
Even better than
good error
messages is a
careful design
which prevents a
problem from
occurring in the
first place.
Recognition
rather than recall
Standard Web
2.0 alignment
A vertically
scrollable
alignment is
acceptable
Flexibility and
efficiency of use
Flexibility and
efficiency of use
The system
should cater to
both
inexperienced
and experienced
users. Allow
users to tailor
frequent actions.
Aesthetic and
minimalist design
Sequential
Organisation of
events
The information
must be
organised neatly
in a logical
sequence which
can be
understood or set
by the user.
Help users
recognize,
diagnose, and
recover from
errors
Help users
recognize,
diagnose, and
recover from
errors
Error messages
should be
expressed in
plain language
(no codes),
precisely indicate
the problem, and
constructively
Table 3: Proposed list of heuristics
Original
heuristic
Visibility of
System Status
New heuristic
Description
Visibility of User
status
Informing the
users about the
status of the
system and about
their media and
content
Match between
system and real
world
Match between
system and real
world
The system
should speak the
users‟ language,
with words,
phrases and
concepts familiar
to the user, rather
than systemoriented terms.
8
From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies
the web would be very important. Personal
requirements would require the web to adapt to user
needs and hence, this involves an even bigger test of
conventional usability evaluation techniques because
the user‟s role as a customer is being highlighted yet
again, but not as a content viewer, but as a contentbenefactor. In simpler terms, not just the textual
content but also the other elements inside the browser
or even the browser would have to adapt according to
this new user demand to be a part of this web 3.0
environment.
suggest a
solution.
Help and
documentation
User-managed
and moderated
help
Interactive help
interface which
involves a forum
consisting of
other users and
the developers.
Provide an FAQ if
needed.
NA
Engaging user
activity
The system
should provide
options which are
related to the
media which the
user is using in
order to provide
an engaging
experience.
Table 5: Proposed list of heuristics for web 3.0
Heuristic
Description
Visibility of User status
and history
This heuristic should be
expanded to include the kind
of data that the user wishes
the web to use. If the user is
unwilling to use some of
his/her personal preferences
in web activity, then that data
should not be used by the
web to provide the data that
the user would need in the
future.
Solution to errors
Error pages must provide the
user with options regarding
the possible solutions that
the user needed which
caused the error in the first
place. Based on user,
preferences the right options
must be displayed.
User-defined terminology
The user should be able to
edit and define various
elements of the system what
it means according to him.
This is in contrast to Match
between System and Real
world and eliminates the
need of Consistency and
Standards heuristic
User-defined alignment
The “Standard Web 2.0
alignment” would also be
replaced by this heuristic
which involves drag and drop
elements so that the
alignment as defined by the
user would be universal and
in sync with his preferences.
Learnability
The system must be capable
to learn and adapt to user
preferences.
.
Table 3 (continued)
7. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the pattern generated from table 4, we
tabulate (in table 5) a list of what possibly - heuristics
for web 3.0 could be. From table 4, we observe that
the changes involve a shrinkage of the entire web
world around the user to his/her own confines and for
the individual the web is everything that he/she needs,
from a personal point of view.
Table 4: Patterns from web 1.0 to web 3.0
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
Web 3.0
read-only web
read-write web
portable, personal
web
focused on
companies
focused on
communities
focused on
individual
owning content
sharing content
lifestream
directories
tags
personal web
tags
HTML
AJAX, Flash
dynamic
web forms
web applications
iGoogle,
NetVibes
The potential use of this web 3.0 environment in the
future by the massive group of users within the pyramid
could see a homogenising of the pyramid since there
The transition from web 1.0 to web 2.0 to web 3.0 can
be simply put as global -> community -> personal and
the input of technology to achieve such a standard of
9
Viswanathan • Dutt Mathur • Yammiyavar
would be no such terms such as bottom of the pyramid.
To any kind of user, the web would have to adapt
meaning divisions within the pyramid would vanish in
Web 3.0. Evaluation techniques would therefore have
to tend to an even bigger user group, because every
user by him/her self becomes a new and unique user
group. Hence, evaluation techniques and heuristics
should be aimed at making the system very universal
adaptable and sustainable.
Framework.
Online
Communities
and
Social
Computing. Volume 5621/2009, page numbers 354363.
17. Madden N. (2008) Portals in a Web 2.0 world.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/61820.html
(retrieved February 14th, 2010)
8. REFERENCES
1. Silva, P.A & Dix, A. (2007). Usability – Not as we
know it! HCI07 Conference on People and Computers
XXI (p. 26) ACM.
2. Nielsen, J. (1999) Designing Web Usability: The
Practice of Simplicity. New Riders, Indianapolis,
Indiana.
3. Strickland M. (Presentation: Nov.1, 2007). What is
Web 3.0? http://www.slideshare.net/mstrickland/theevolution-of-web-30 . Organic Inc.
4. Nielsen, J. (2005) 10 Heuristics for User Interface
Design.
http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html
(retrieved December 14th, 2009).
5. Thompson, AJ & Kemp, EA (2009) Web 2.0:
extending the framework for heuristic evaluation,
CHINZ'09, Auckland, New Zealand, 6-7 July 2009, (pg.
29), ACM.
6. Alexa Internet Inc. Alexa Top 500 Global Sites.
http://www.alexa.com/topsites (retrieved December
14th, 2009)
7. O'Reilly, Tim. (2005). "What is Web 2.0: Design
Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation
of
Software".
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/0
9/30/what-is-web-20.html (retrieved 3 September,
2008)
8. Berners-Lee, Tim; James Hendler and Ora Lassila
(May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web". Scientific
American Magazine.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semanticweb&print=true. (retrieved March 26, 2008.)
9. Prahlad C. K. & Hart S. L. (2004). The Fortune at the
Bottom of the Pyramid. Content – Strategy and
Competition.
10. www.youtube.com
11. www.myspace.com
12. www.muziboo.com
13. www.facebook.com
14. Molich R. & Nielsen J. (2009) Heuristic Evaluation:
Use and Abuse. UPA 2009: Bringing Usability to Life,
Oregon, USA, 8-12 June 2009.
15. Nielsen J. “How to conduct a Heuristic Evaluation”.
http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluat
ion.html (retrieved Feb 14th, 2010)
16. Isaías P., Miranda P. & Pífano S.(2009) Critical
Success Factors for Web 2.0 – A Reference
10
