Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating user experience assessment in Re-CRUD console framework development

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Wireless Networks Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The worldwide expansion of internet technologies and the World Wide Web (WWW) has witnessed a booming rise in popularity and adoption of Web Applications (WA). The current technological advancement has allowed web applications to become more innovative and practical in managing born-digital content. This requires developers to continue to expand their assessment repertoire to provide valuable and actionable feature coverage. This study demonstrates User Experience Assessment (UXA) as part of the Re-CRUD console framework formative assessment. Re-CRUD console framework is a code automation tool for web application development containing integrated records management features that help the information professional manage the digital content effectively. The assessment's primary goal was to get detailed feedback from information professionals on the Re-CRUD feature coverage to make Re-CRUD more pleasant for developers and content friendly. We conducted contextual discussions using the think-aloud protocol and usability testing with experts in WA development and information professionals. The findings revealed a positive review of Re-CRUD features coverage and code generation procedure but a less favourable review of authentication policy and audit trail. The feedback is used to improvise Re-CRUD feature coverage and increase code automation productivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murugesan, S. & Ginige, A. (2005). Introduction and perspectives. In Web Engineering, India. Idea Group Inc.

  2. Murugesan, S. (2007). Web application development: challenges and the role of web engineering. In Web Engineering: Modelling and Implementing Web Applications. Springer London (pp. 7–32).

  3. Li, X., Karnan, S., & Chishti, J. A. (2018). An empirical study of three PHP frameworks. In 2017 4th International Conference on Systems and Informatics, ICSAI 2017, 2018, vol. 2018-Janua (pp. 1636–1640).

  4. Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental development: A brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Asikin-Garmager, A., Dowd, P., George, S., & Afifi, R. A. (2022). Integrating user experience evaluation in the development of a web-based Community Engagement Toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning, 91, 102048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anuar, A. W., Kama, N., Azmi, A., & Rusli, H. M. (2022). Multivocal literature review on records management potential components in CRUD operation for web application development. International Journal of Modeling, Simulation, and Scientific Computing.

  7. Mitzner, K. (2019). Component information system. In Complete PCB Design Using OrCAD Capture and PCB Editor, 2nd ed., USA: Newnes (pp. 507–541).

  8. Mohamadi, M., & Bahrini, A. (2020). A Nash-Stackelberg equilibrium model for internet and network service providers in the demand market—A scenario-based approach. Wirel. Networks, 26(1), 449–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang, P., & Von Dran, G. M. (2000). Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: A two-factor model for website design and evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(14), 1253–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bondarenko, M., Kudryk, I., Levkovskyi, B., Utesch, M., Krcmar, H. (2022). Learning by gaming: Improvement of User Experience of a Simulation Game for Teaching the Digital Transformation and its Administration Cockpit. IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON, vol. 2022-March (pp. 1858–1867).

  11. Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions, vol. 3 (p. 11).

  12. van Schaik, P., & Ling, J. (2008). Modelling user experience with web sites: Usability, hedonic value, beauty and goodness. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 419–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feng, L., & Wei, W. (2019). An empirical study on user experience evaluation and identification of critical UX issues. Sustainability, 11(8), 2432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fan, M., Li, Y., & Truong, K. N. (2020). Automatic detection of usability problem encounters in think-aloud sessions. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 10(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Knijnenburg, B. P., et al. (2012). Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(4), 441–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dewi, R. K., Priandani, N. D., Brata, K. C., & Fanani, L. (2018). Usability evaluation of mobile-based application for javanese script learning media. Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, 3(1), 88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pal, D., & Vanijja, V. (2020). Perceived usability evaluation of Microsoft Teams as an online learning platform during COVID-19 using system usability scale and technology acceptance model in India. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pageh, I. M., Permana, A. A. J., & Suranata, K. (2021). Usability testing and the social analysis on online counselling system for recommendations in technical vocational schools. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1810(1), 12022.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brooke, J. (2020). SUS: A Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale. In Usability Evaluation In Industry, United Kingdom, 2020, (pp. 207–212).

  20. Lewis, J. R. (2018). The system usability scale: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nielsen, J. (1993). What is Usability? In Usability Engineering, 1st ed. Morgan Kaufmann (pp. 23–48).

  22. Park, J., et al. (2018). Development of a web-based user experience evaluation system for home appliances. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 216–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harte, R., et al. (2018). Enhancing home health mobile phone app usability through general smartphone training: Usability and learnability case study. JMIR Human Factors, 5(2), e7718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Quiñones, D., Rusu, C., & Rusu, V. (2018). A methodology to develop usability/user experience heuristics. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 59, 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Deng, L., Turner, D. E., Gehling, R., & Prince, B. (2010). User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Aizpurua, A., Harper, S., & Vigo, M. (2016). Exploring the relationship between web accessibility and user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 91, 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Baker, D. L. (2009). Advancing E-Government performance in the United States through enhanced usability benchmarks. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 82–88.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Filippi, S. (2020). PERSEL, a ready-to-use PERsonality-based user selection tool to maximize user experience redesign effectiveness. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(2), 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Inal, Y., Rızvanoğlu, K., & Yesilada, Y. (2019). Web accessibility in Turkey: Awareness, understanding and practices of user experience professionals. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Malekshah, S., Alhelou, H. H., & Siano, P. (2021). An optimal probabilistic spinning reserve quantification scheme considering frequency dynamic response in smart power environment. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, 31(11), e13052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bosse, S. (2022). PSciLab: An unified distributed and parallel software framework for data analysis, simulation and machine learning—design practice, software architecture, and user experience. Applied Sciences, 12(6), 2887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rotfeld, H. J. (2008). Brand image of company names matters in ways that can’t be ignored. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(2), 121–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin, C. P. (2009). Learning online brand personality and satisfaction: The moderating effects of gaming engagement. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 25(3), 220–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shah, J., Kama, N., & Bakar, N. A. (2019). Estimating change effort using a combination of change impact analysis technique with function point analysis. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 9–14.

  35. Kujala, S., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Karapanos, E., & Sinnelä, A. (2011). UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 473–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Malekshah, S., Rasouli, A., Malekshah, Y., Ramezani, A., & Malekshah, A. (2022). Reliability-driven distribution power network dynamic reconfiguration in presence of distributed generation by the deep reinforcement learning method. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 61(8), 6541–6556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rahiminasab, A., Tirandazi, P., Ebadi, M. J., Ahmadian, A., & Salimi, M. (2020). An energy-aware method for selecting cluster heads in wireless sensor networks. Applied Sciences, 10(21), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011). Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges? A critical analysis of empirical studies of User Experience. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Proceedings, pp. 2689–2698.

  39. Malekshah, S., Banihashemi, F., Daryabad, H., Yavarishad, N., & Cuzner, R. (2022). A zonal optimization solution to reliability security constraint unit commitment with wind uncertainty. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 99, 107750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roussou, M., & Katifori, A. (2018). Flow, staging, wayfinding, personalization: Evaluating user experience with mobile museum narratives. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(2), 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mahmood, Y., Kama, N., & Azmi, A. (2020). A systematic review of studies on use case points and expert-based estimation of software development effort. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 32(7), e2245.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mitre-Ortiz, A., Muñoz-Arteaga, J., & Cardona-Reyes, H. (2022). Developing a model to evaluate and improve user experience with hand motions in virtual reality environments. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2021). Usability and user experience: design and evaluation. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley, pp. 972–1015.

  44. Schmidt, M., et al. (2020). User experience (re)design and evaluation of a self-guided, mobile health app for adolescents with mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 4(2), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kama, N. (2013). Change impact analysis for the software development phase: State-of-the-art. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 7, 235–244.

    Google Scholar 

  46. AlGhannam, B. A., Albustan, S. A., Al-Hassan, A. A., & Albustan, L. A. (2018). Towards a standard arabic system usability scale: Psychometric evaluation using communication disorder app. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(9), 799–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hussain, J., et al. (2018). Model-based adaptive user interface based on context and user experience evaluation. Jouranl on Multimodal User Interfaces, 12(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lewis, J. R. (2018). Measuring perceived usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 34(12), 1148–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Finstad, K. (2010). The usability metric for user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 323–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Reza, M., et al. (2018). Usability testing of bed information management system: A think-aloud method. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 9(4), 153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cho, H., Powell, D., Pichon, A., Kuhns, L. M., Garofalo, R., & Schnall, R. (2019). Eye-tracking retrospective think-aloud as a novel approach for a usability evaluation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 129, 366–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. John Brooke. (1966). SUS: A 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In Usability Evaluation In Industry, 1st ed. CRC Press (pp. 4–7).

  53. Shabrina, G., Lestari, L. A., Iqbal, B. M., & Syaifullah, D. H. (2019). Redesign of user interface zakat mobile smartphone application with user experience approach. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 505(1), 12088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1988, pp. 213–218.

  55. Lewis, J. R. (1933). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use.

  56. Solano, A., Collazos, C. A., Rusu, C., & Fardoun, H. M. (2016). Combinations of methods for collaborative evaluation of the usability of interactive software systems. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2016, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kama, N., Basri, S., Ismail, S. A., & Ibrahim, R. (2019). Using static and dynamic impact analysis for effort estimation. International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 16(2), 163–170.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Åström, W., & Sahlin, W. (2022). User experience and acceptability of a mixed reality system for rehabilitation: From an occupational- and physical therapy perspective, p. 31.

  59. Kitchenham, B. (1996). DESMET: A method for evaluating Software Engineering methods and tools.

  60. Hedberg, H., & Lappalainen, J. (2005). A preliminary evaluation of software inspection tools, with the DESMET method. Proceedings - International Conference on Quality Software, 2005, 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Azmi, A., Ibrahim, S., Yusop, O., Sarkan, H. M., Kamardin, K., & Ismail, S. A. A document-based traceability model: An evaluation by using feature analysis.

  62. Mugisha, A., Nankabirwa, V., Tylleskär, T., & Babic, A. (2019). A usability design checklist for Mobile electronic data capturing forms: The validation process. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Nielsen, J. (1996). Usability metrics: Tracking interface improvements. IEEE Software, 13(6), 12–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Faulkner, L. (2003). Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35(3), 379–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Turner, C. W., Lewis, J. R., & Nielsen, J. (2006). Determining usability test sample size.

  66. Garousi, V., Felderer, M., & Mäntylä, M. V. (2019). Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 106, 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Penn, I. A., & Pennix, G. B. (2017). Records inventory. In Records Management Handbook, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge.

  68. Franks, P. C. (2013). Records Retention Strategies Inventory Appraisal Retention and Disposition. In Records and Information Management, American Library Association, 2013, pp. 84–114.

  69. Read, J., & Ginn, M. L. (2016). Electronic Records Management. In Records Management, 10th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2016.

  70. UK National Archive. (2012). Records Management retention scheduling, United Kingdom.

  71. UK National Archive. (2017). Born-digital records and metadata. Information Management-Digital Record Transfer. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/digital-records-transfer/what-are-born-digital-records/. [Accessed: 06-Dec-2020].

  72. Diamond, M. (2017). How to Implement a Record Retention Schedule for Electronic and Other Records. Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), 2017. https://www.acc.com/resource-library/how-implement-record-retention-schedule-electronic-and-other-records#. [Accessed: 20-Feb-2021].

  73. Lee, C. A. (2018). Computer-assisted appraisal and selection of archival materials. In Proceedings - 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Big Data 2018, 2019 (pp. 2721–2724).

  74. Harvey, R., & Thompson, D. (2010). Automating the appraisal of digital materials. Library Hi Tech, 28(2), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Vellino, A., & Alberts, I. (2016). Assisting the appraisal of e-mail records with automatic classification. Records Management Journal, 26(3), 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. IRMT. (2009). Managing the creation, use and disposal of electronic records. Int. Rec. Manag. Trust.

  77. Crockett, M. (2011). User Guide to Retention and Disposal Schedules Council of Europe Records Management Project.

  78. Lo, N. W., Wu, C. Y., & Chuang, Y. H. (2017). An authentication and authorization mechanism for long-term electronic health records management. Procedia Computer Science, 111, 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Masenya, T. M. (2020). Application of modern technologies in the management of records in public libraries. Journal of the South African Society of Archivists, 53, 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Guo, H., Li, W., Nejad, M., & Shen, C. C. (2019). Access control for electronic health records with hybrid blockchain-edge architecture. In Proceedings - 2019 2nd IEEE International Conference on Blockchain, Blockchain 2019, 2019, pp. 44–51.

  81. Oladejo, B., & Hadžidedić, S. (2021). Electronic records management—A state of the art review. Records Management Journal, 31(1), 74–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Joseph, P., Debowski, S., & Goldschmidt, P. (2013). Search behaviour in electronic document and records management systems: An exploratory investigation and model. Information Research, 18(1), 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lemieux, V. L. (2016). Trusting records: Is Blockchain technology the answer? Records Management Journal, 26(2), 110–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Namukasa, J. (2017). Records management and procurement performance: A case of NAADS program in the central region of Uganda. Records Management Journal, 27(3), 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Pappel, I., Butt, S., Pappel, I., & Draheim, D. (2021). On the specific role of electronic document and record management systems in enterprise integration. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1184, Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2021, pp. 37–51.

  86. Broussard, M., & Boss, K. (2018). Saving Data Journalism: New strategies for archiving interactive, born-digital news. Digital Journalism, 6(9), 1206–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. International Council on Archives. (2013). Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments.

  88. The National Archives United Kingdom. (2017). Migrating information between records management systems, pp. 1–35.

  89. Chen, L., Lee, W. K., Chang, C. C., Choo, K. K. R., & Zhang, N. (2019). Blockchain based searchable encryption for electronic health record sharing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 95, 420–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Lengstorf, J., & Wald, K. (2016). Pro PHP and jQuery. Apress.

  91. Duarte, J., Portela, C. F., Abelha, A., Machado, J., & Santos, M. F. (2011). Electronic Health record in dermatology service. In ENTERprise Information Systems, 2011, pp. 156–164.

  92. Nikiforova, A., & McBride, K. (2021). Open government data portal usability: A user-centred usability analysis of 41 open government data portals. Telemat. Informatics, 58, 101539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Ratnawati, S., Widianingsih, L., Anggraini, N., Marzuki Shofi, I., Hakiem, N., & Agustin, F. E. M. (2020). Evaluation of digital library's usability using the system usability scale method of (A Case Study). In 2020 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management, CITSM 2020, 2020.

  94. Faiqunisa, F., Nugroho, E., & Santosa, P. I. (2013). A model of electronic document management system for limited partnership. Journal of Telematics and Informatics Reports, 1(2), 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Parizi, R., Moreira, M., Couto, I., Marczak, S., & Conte, T. (2020). A design thinking techniques recommendation tool: An initial and on-going proposal. In 19th Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality, 2020, pp. 1–6.

  96. Marshall, C., Brereton, P., & Kitchenham, B. (2014). Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: A feature analysis. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2014, pp. 1–10.

  97. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Peres, S. C., Pham, T., & Phillips, R. (2013). Validation of the system usability scale (sus): Sus in the wild. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2013, pp. 192–196.

  99. Finstad, K. (2006). The system usability scale and non-native English speakers. Journal of Usability Studies, 1(4), 185–188.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Diefenbach, M. A., Weinstein, N. D., & O’reilly, J. (1993). Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. Health Education Research, 8(2), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Cox, E. P. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Hussain, J., et al. (2018). A multimodal deep log-based user experience (UX) platform for UX evaluation. Sensors, 18(5), 1622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Rong, T., Hsieh-Yee, I., Lindahl, D., Groves, K. S., & Lampert, L. D. (2006). Federated searching: User perceptions, system design, and library instruction. In Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting, vol. 43.

  105. Zhao, Y., Zhao, Y., Yuan, X., & Zhou, R. (2018). How knowledge contributor characteristics and reputation affect user payment decision in paid Q&A? An empirical analysis from the perspective of trust theory. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 31, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Georgsson, M., & Staggers, N. (2016). Quantifying usability: An evaluation of a diabetes mHealth system on effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction metrics with associated user characteristics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study is financially supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (Vote No. R.K130000.7856.5F415) awarded by the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia (MOHE) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Informatics Department, Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 54100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Asyraf Wahi Anuar, Azri Azmi, Nazri Kama, Hazlifah Mohd Rusli & Nur Azaliah Abu Bakar

  2. Engineering and Technology Department, Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 54100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Norliza Mohamed

  3. Faculty of Information Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Johor, 85000, Johor, Malaysia

    Asyraf Wahi Anuar

Authors
  1. Asyraf Wahi Anuar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Azri Azmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nazri Kama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hazlifah Mohd Rusli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nur Azaliah Abu Bakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Norliza Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asyraf Wahi Anuar.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anuar, A.W., Azmi, A., Kama, N. et al. Integrating user experience assessment in Re-CRUD console framework development. Wireless Netw 29, 109–127 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-022-03098-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-022-03098-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation