In this report, two websites having the same domain were evaluated with respect to static, dynamic, and content analyses. Selected websites are library web sites of Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB). This report includes the following parts: 1. Introduction, 2. Static Analysis Results, 3. Dynamic Analysis Results, 4. Content Analysis Results for the selected websites evaluated.

1. WEB EVALUATION
Summary: In this report, two websites having the same domain were evaluated with
respect to static, dynamic, and content analyses. Selected websites are library web sites of Middle
East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University
[library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB). This report includes the following parts: 1. Introduction, 2.
Static Analysis Results, 3. Dynamic Analysis Results, 4. Content Analysis Results for the selected
websites evaluated.
Mustafa Değerli
METU Informatics Institute
April 2016
Ankara, Turkey

2. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 1
Contents:
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Definitions and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 2
1.3 References ........................................................................................................................... 2
2. Static Analysis Results........................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Static Analysis Results by Areas ....................................................................................... 4
2.2 Static Analysis Results - Overall...................................................................................... 12
2.3 Conclusion for Static Analysis Results............................................................................ 30
3. Dynamic Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 31
3.1 Dynamic Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 32
3.2 Conclusion for Dynamic Analysis Results ...................................................................... 35
4. Content Analysis Results.................................................................................................. 37
4.1 Search Capability............................................................................................................... 37
4.2 E-Sources ........................................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Library Account ................................................................................................................. 38
4.4 Remote Access to Library Sources ................................................................................. 38
4.5 Information for the Users ................................................................................................ 38
4.6 Forms.................................................................................................................................. 39
4.7 Collections.......................................................................................................................... 39

3. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 2
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope
In this report, two websites having the same domain were evaluated with respect to
static, dynamic, and content analyses by using the Web SCADA approach proposed by
Erdal (2012).
Selected websites are library web sites of Middle East Technical University
[lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-
LIB).
1.2 Definitions and Abbreviations
HU-LIB Hacettepe University Library Website
METU-LIB Middle East Technical University Library Website
1.3 References
Erdal, F. Web Market Analysıs: Static, Dynamıc and Content Evaluation (M.Sc.
Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2012.

4. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 3
2. Static Analysis Results
This part of the report gives the results of static analysis applied for library web sites of
Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University
[library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB).
In this context;
 Static Analysis Identity – Results are given in Table 2.1,
 Static Analysis Loading and Viewing - Results are given in Table 2.2,
 Static Analysis Navigation - Results are given in Table 2.3,
 Static Analysis Interactivity - Results are given in Table 2.4,
 Static Analysis Comprehensibility - Results are given in Table 2.5,
 Static Analysis Personalization & Content - Results are given in Table 2.6,
 Static Analysis Information Quality & Up-to-dateness - Results are given in Table
2.7,
 Static Analysis Security & Miscellaneous - Results are given in Table 2.8,
 Static Analysis Areas – Comparative Results are given in Table 2.9,
 Static Analysis Results for METU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and Open
to Improvement) Matrix are given in Table 2.10,
 Static Analysis Results for HU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and Open to
Improvement) Matrix are given in Table 2.11, and
 Comparative Static Analysis Results – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and Open
to Improvement) Numbers are given in Table 2.12.

5. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 4
2.1 Static Analysis Results by Areas
Table 2.1 Static Analysis Identity - Results
Questions – Identity
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 Includes a corporate / brand logo 10 10 10
2 Includes an organization chart 10 10 10
3 Includes e-mail addresses of the staff 10 10 10
4 Includes mailing addresses of the staff 15 0 0
5
Includes telephone/fax numbers for
the staff
15 15 15
6 Includes Web Master address 15 15 15
7 Includes a site map 10 10 7
8
The site has been reviewed by an
agency
10 0 0
9 Terms of service available 10 0 0
10 Includes aids, tools and help resources 10 8 8
11
Domain’s (e.g. edu, com, gov)
influence on the evaluation
5 5 5
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
Total
120
Total
83
Total
80

6. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 5
Table 2.2 Static Analysis Loading and Viewing - Results
Questions – Loading and Viewing
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 Pages load quickly 15 15 15
2
Site is platform and browser
independent
10 10 10
3 Has 24x7x365 user access 5 5 5
4 Dynamic accessibility is fast 10 10 10
5 Page formats are standard 10 10 10
6
Usage of Graphical user interface
standards
10 10 10
7
Consistency, clarity and relevancy of
Colors, pictures and images
5 5 5
8 Easy to read 10 7 9
9 Visual elements are used consistently 10 9 9
10 Audio available 5 0 0
11 Multimedia is downloaded effectively 10 5 5
12 Includes animations 10 0 0
13
Graphics and animations attract
attention
5 2 2
14
Screen resolution sensitivity
information available
5 0 0
15 Text is downloadable 5 5 5
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
Total
125
Total
93
Total
95

7. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 6
Table 2.3 Static Analysis Navigation - Results
Questions - Navigation
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 Menu structure is present 10 10 10
2 Vertical scrolling is minimized 10 8 7
3 Horizontal scrolling is minimized 15 15 15
4
All pages include standard navigation
options (back, forward, main page)
15 0 0
5
Navigation options are consistent and
standardized on all pages
10 5 5
6
Links are meaningful and relevant to
the subject
10 8 8
7 Explanations available for link titles 10 8 9
8 Links are not broken 10 10 8
9
On main page, it is possible to judge
how the web site is organized and
what options are available
10 8 8
10
Icons clearly represent what is
intended
10 8 8
11 Navigation is fast 10 10 10
12
Navigation options give an impression
of a professional design
5 3 3
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
125 93 91

8. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 7
Table 2.4 Static Analysis Interactivity - Results
Questions – Interactivity
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 Multimedia usage is effective 10 7 7
2 Printer-friendly version available 10 0 0
3
Access to required information requires
minimum clicking
15 13 13
4 Keyword searching is available 15 15 0
5
Well programmed advanced search
options are available
10 8 0
6 Dynamic information is available 10 10 10
7 Dynamic access to data is possible 10 10 10
8 User defined preferences are available 10 0 0
9 E-mail communication is present 5 5 5
10 Comments forum is available 10 0 0
11 Chat room is present 10 0 10
12 Questions bulletin board is present 10 0 0
13
Queries or complaints are resolved
within 24 hours
10 10 10
14 FAQ pages are available 15 15 0
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
150 93 65

9. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 8
Table 2.5 Static Analysis Comprehensibility - Results
Questions – Comprehensibility
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1
Cultural, artistic and traditional issues
are covered
15 0 0
2
Number and type of links are
meaningful
15 10 10
3
Forms to enter personal details are self
explanatory
15 10 10
4
Turkish language is well used, spelling
and grammar is correct
10 10 10
5
Font sizes are appropriate / Lets user
control font size
10 8 8
6 Website is worth spending time 15 15 15
7 Website presentation is eye-catching 10 8 7
8
Website occupies the user and attracts
attention/interest
10 8 7
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
100 69 67

10. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 9
Table 2.6 Static Analysis Personalization & Content - Results
Questions – Personalization & Content
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 Website offers user specific services 10 10 10
2 Registration is simple 10 0 0
3
Main page contains options for new
and registered users
10 10 10
4 Customization is possible 10 0 0
5 User interface can be personalized 10 0 0
6
Subscription to a particular content is
possible
15 0 0
7 Offers one-entry-one-exit option 10 10 10
8 Received information is helpful 10 8 8
9
Received information guides the user
to other helpful sources
10 8 8
10
Users can easily reach the experts
within the organization
15 5 5
11
The system alerts the users for
updates
10 5 5
12
Do not Include pages under
construction
10 10 8
13 On-line information is available 10 10 10
14 Includes an e-library 10 10 10
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
150 86 84

11. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 10
Table 2.7 Static Analysis Information Quality & Up-to-dateness - Results
Questions – Information Quality & Up-
to-dateness
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 No incorrect information available 10 10 10
2
Information is up-to-date and date of
recent revision is given
10 8 8
3
Content is appropriate for the intended
audience
15 13 13
4 Original information is supplied 15 13 13
5
Links to other related sources are
present
10 10 10
6 Links are given in a logical order 15 10 10
7 Links are up-to-date 10 10 10
8 Links are revised regularly 10 10 10
9 Date of information is given 10 0 0
10
Date of current version/last revision is
given
10 0 0
11
Information about any planned
updates or revisions is given
10 0 0
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
125 84 84

12. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 11
Table 2.8 Static Analysis Security & Miscellaneous - Results
Questions – Security & Miscellaneous
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 Includes privacy statement 10 0 0
2 Authentication ability available 10 10 10
3 Authorization ability available 10 10 10
4 SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is used 20 20 20
5 Digital signature is used 10 0 0
6 Website has received an award 15 0 0
7
Information can be printed without the
need to change the original system
configuration of the user
10 5 5
8
Page layout is suitable for printing in
small segments
10 5 5
9
Website is available in more than one
language
10 10 10
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion
Orange Light: Partially satisfies the criterion
Orange Dark: The criterion not satisfied
105 60 60

13. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 12
2.2 Static Analysis Results - Overall
Table 2.9 Static Analysis Areas – Comparative Results
Areas
Weight
Top
Score
METU-LIB
Score
HU-LIB
Score
1 Identity 120 83 80
2 Loading and viewing 125 93 95
3 Navigation 125 93 91
4 Interactivity 150 93 65
5 Comprehensibility 100 69 67
6 Personalization and Content 150 86 84
7
Information Quality and Up-to-
datedness
125 84 84
8 Security and Miscellaneous 105 60 60
Green: Fully satisfies the criterion set
Orange Light: Largely satisfies the criterion set
1000 661 626

14. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 13
Table 2.10 Static Analysis Results for METU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and
Open to Improvement) Matrix
# Areas Criterion
Status
Strong
(Fully
Satisfies
the
Criterion)
Weak
(The
Criterion
Not
Satisfied)
Open to
Improve
ment
(The
Criterion
Not Fully
Satisfied)
1. Identity Includes a corporate / brand logo X
2. Identity Includes an organization chart X
3. Identity
Includes e-mail addresses of the
staff
X
4. Identity
Includes mailing addresses of the
staff
X
5. Identity
Includes telephone/fax numbers
for the staff
X
6. Identity Includes Web Master address X
7. Identity Includes a site map X
8. Identity
The site has been reviewed by an
agency
X
9. Identity Terms of service available X
10. Identity
Includes aids, tools and help
resources
X
11. Identity
Domain’s (e.g. edu, com, gov)
influence on the evaluation
X
12.
Loading
and
Viewing
Pages load quickly X

15. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 14
13.
Loading
and
Viewing
Site is platform and browser
independent
X
14.
Loading
and
Viewing
Has 24x7x365 user access X
15.
Loading
and
Viewing
Dynamic accessibility is fast X
16.
Loading
and
Viewing
Page formats are standard X
17.
Loading
and
Viewing
Usage of Graphical user interface
standards
X
18.
Loading
and
Viewing
Consistency, clarity and relevancy
of Colors, pictures and images
X
19.
Loading
and
Viewing
Easy to read X
20.
Loading
and
Viewing
Visual elements are used
consistently
X
21.
Loading
and
Viewing
Audio available X
22.
Loading
and
Viewing
Multimedia is downloaded
effectively
X
23.
Loading
and
Viewing
Includes animations X
24.
Loading
and
Viewing
Graphics and animations attract
attention
X
25.
Loading
and
Viewing
Screen resolution sensitivity
information available
X

16. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 15
26.
Loading
and
Viewing
Text is downloadable X
27.
Navigat
ion
Menu structure is present X
28.
Navigat
ion Vertical scrolling is minimized X
29.
Navigat
ion Horizontal scrolling is minimized X
30.
Navigat
ion
All pages include standard
navigation options (back, forward,
main page)
X
31.
Navigat
ion
Navigation options are consistent
and standardized on all pages
X
32.
Navigat
ion
Links are meaningful and relevant
to the subject
X
33.
Navigat
ion Explanations available for link titles X
34.
Navigat
ion Links are not broken X
35.
Navigat
ion
On main page, it is possible to
judge how the web site is
organized and what options are
available
X
36.
Navigat
ion
Icons clearly represent what is
intended
X
37.
Navigat
ion Navigation is fast X
38.
Navigat
ion
Navigation options give an
impression of a professional design
X
39.
Interact
ivity Multimedia usage is effective X
40.
Interact
ivity Printer-friendly version available X
41.
Interact
ivity
Access to required information
requires minimum clicking
X

17. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 16
42.
Interact
ivity Keyword searching is available X
43.
Interact
ivity
Well programmed advanced search
options are available
X
44.
Interact
ivity Dynamic information is available X
45.
Interact
ivity
Dynamic access to data is possible X
46.
Interact
ivity
User defined preferences are
available
X
47.
Interact
ivity E-mail communication is present X
48.
Interact
ivity Comments forum is available X
49.
Interact
ivity
Chat room is present X
50.
Interact
ivity Questions bulletin board is present X
51.
Interact
ivity
Queries or complaints are resolved
within 24 hours
X
52.
Interact
ivity FAQ pages are available X
53.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Cultural, artistic and traditional
issues are covered
X
54.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Number and type of links are
meaningful
X
55.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Forms to enter personal details are
self explanatory
X
56.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Turkish language is well used,
spelling and grammar is correct
X

18. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 17
57.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Font sizes are appropriate / Lets
user control font size
X
58.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Website is worth spending time X
59.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Website presentation is eye-
catching
X
60.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Website occupies the user and
attracts attention/interest
X
61.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Website offers user specific
services
X
62.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Registration is simple X
63.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Main page contains options for
new and registered users
X
64.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Customization is possible X
65.
Persona
lization
&
Content
User interface can be personalized X
66.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Subscription to a particular content
is possible
X
67.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Offers one-entry-one-exit option X

19. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 18
68.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Received information is helpful X
69.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Received information guides the
user to other helpful sources
X
70.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Users can easily reach the experts
within the organization
X
71.
Persona
lization
&
Content
The system alerts the users for
updates
X
72.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Do not Include pages under
construction
X
73.
Persona
lization
&
Content
On-line information is available X
74.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Includes an e-library X
75.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
No incorrect information available X
76.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Information is up-to-date and date
of recent revision is given
X

20. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 19
77.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Content is appropriate for the
intended audience
X
78.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Original information is supplied X
79.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links to other related sources are
present
X
80.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links are given in a logical order X
81.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links are up-to-date X
82.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links are revised regularly X
83.
Informa
tion Date of information is given X

21. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 20
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
84.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Date of current version/last
revision is given
X
85.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Information about any planned
updates or revisions is given
X
86.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Includes privacy statement X
87.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Authentication ability available X
88.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Authorization ability available X
89.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is used X
90.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Digital signature is used X
91.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Website has received an award X

22. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 21
92.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Information can be printed without
the need to change the original
system configuration of the user
X
93.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Page layout is suitable for printing
in small segments
X
94.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Website is available in more than
one language
X
Totals 42 23 29

23. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 22
Table 2.11 Static Analysis Results for HU-LIB – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and
Open to Improvement) Matrix
# Areas Criterion
Status
Strong
(Fully
Satisfies
the
Criterion)
Weak
(The
Criterion
Not
Satisfied)
Open to
Improve
ment
(The
Criterion
Not Fully
Satisfied)
1. Identity Includes a corporate / brand logo X
2. Identity Includes an organization chart X
3. Identity
Includes e-mail addresses of the
staff
X
4. Identity
Includes mailing addresses of the
staff
X
5. Identity
Includes telephone/fax numbers
for the staff
X
6. Identity Includes Web Master address X
7. Identity Includes a site map X
8. Identity
The site has been reviewed by an
agency
X
9. Identity Terms of service available X
10. Identity
Includes aids, tools and help
resources
X
11. Identity
Domain’s (e.g. edu, com, gov)
influence on the evaluation
X
12.
Loading
and
Viewing
Pages load quickly X

24. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 23
13.
Loading
and
Viewing
Site is platform and browser
independent
X
14.
Loading
and
Viewing
Has 24x7x365 user access X
15.
Loading
and
Viewing
Dynamic accessibility is fast X
16.
Loading
and
Viewing
Page formats are standard X
17.
Loading
and
Viewing
Usage of Graphical user interface
standards
X
18.
Loading
and
Viewing
Consistency, clarity and relevancy
of Colors, pictures and images
X
19.
Loading
and
Viewing
Easy to read X
20.
Loading
and
Viewing
Visual elements are used
consistently
X
21.
Loading
and
Viewing
Audio available X
22.
Loading
and
Viewing
Multimedia is downloaded
effectively
X
23.
Loading
and
Viewing
Includes animations X
24.
Loading
and
Viewing
Graphics and animations attract
attention
X
25.
Loading
and
Viewing
Screen resolution sensitivity
information available
X

25. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 24
26.
Loading
and
Viewing
Text is downloadable X
27.
Navigat
ion
Menu structure is present X
28.
Navigat
ion Vertical scrolling is minimized X
29.
Navigat
ion Horizontal scrolling is minimized X
30.
Navigat
ion
All pages include standard
navigation options (back, forward,
main page)
X
31.
Navigat
ion
Navigation options are consistent
and standardized on all pages
X
32.
Navigat
ion
Links are meaningful and relevant
to the subject
X
33.
Navigat
ion Explanations available for link titles X
34.
Navigat
ion Links are not broken X
35.
Navigat
ion
On main page, it is possible to
judge how the web site is
organized and what options are
available
X
36.
Navigat
ion
Icons clearly represent what is
intended
X
37.
Navigat
ion Navigation is fast X
38.
Navigat
ion
Navigation options give an
impression of a professional design
X
39.
Interact
ivity Multimedia usage is effective X
40.
Interact
ivity Printer-friendly version available X
41.
Interact
ivity
Access to required information
requires minimum clicking
X

26. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 25
42.
Interact
ivity Keyword searching is available X
43.
Interact
ivity
Well programmed advanced search
options are available
X
44.
Interact
ivity Dynamic information is available X
45.
Interact
ivity
Dynamic access to data is possible X
46.
Interact
ivity
User defined preferences are
available
X
47.
Interact
ivity E-mail communication is present X
48.
Interact
ivity Comments forum is available X
49.
Interact
ivity
Chat room is present X
50.
Interact
ivity Questions bulletin board is present X
51.
Interact
ivity
Queries or complaints are resolved
within 24 hours
X
52.
Interact
ivity FAQ pages are available X
53.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Cultural, artistic and traditional
issues are covered
X
54.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Number and type of links are
meaningful
X
55.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Forms to enter personal details are
self explanatory
X
56.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Turkish language is well used,
spelling and grammar is correct
X

27. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 26
57.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Font sizes are appropriate / Lets
user control font size
X
58.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Website is worth spending time X
59.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Website presentation is eye-
catching
X
60.
Compre
hensibil
ity
Website occupies the user and
attracts attention/interest
X
61.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Website offers user specific
services
X
62.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Registration is simple X
63.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Main page contains options for
new and registered users
X
64.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Customization is possible X
65.
Persona
lization
&
Content
User interface can be personalized X
66.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Subscription to a particular content
is possible
X
67.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Offers one-entry-one-exit option X

28. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 27
68.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Received information is helpful X
69.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Received information guides the
user to other helpful sources
X
70.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Users can easily reach the experts
within the organization
X
71.
Persona
lization
&
Content
The system alerts the users for
updates
X
72.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Do not Include pages under
construction
X
73.
Persona
lization
&
Content
On-line information is available X
74.
Persona
lization
&
Content
Includes an e-library X
75.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
No incorrect information available X
76.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Information is up-to-date and date
of recent revision is given
X

29. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 28
77.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Content is appropriate for the
intended audience
X
78.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Original information is supplied X
79.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links to other related sources are
present
X
80.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links are given in a logical order X
81.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links are up-to-date X
82.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Links are revised regularly X
83.
Informa
tion Date of information is given X

30. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 29
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
84.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Date of current version/last
revision is given
X
85.
Informa
tion
Quality
& Up-
to-
datenes
s
Information about any planned
updates or revisions is given
X
86.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Includes privacy statement X
87.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Authentication ability available X
88.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Authorization ability available X
89.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is used X
90.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Digital signature is used X
91.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Website has received an award X

31. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 30
92.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Information can be printed without
the need to change the original
system configuration of the user
X
93.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Page layout is suitable for printing
in small segments
X
94.
Securit
y &
Miscella
neous
Website is available in more than
one language
X
Totals 39 25 30
Table 2.12 Comparative Static Analysis Results – Criterion Status (Strong, Weak, and
Open to Improvement) Numbers
Library
Status #
Strong
(Fully
Satisfies
the
Criterion)
Weak
(The
Criterion
Not
Satisfied)
Open to
Improve
ment
(The
Criterion
Not Fully
Satisfied)
METU-LIB 42 23 29
HU-LIB 39 25 30
2.3 Conclusion for Static Analysis Results
In prior parts (2.1 and 2.2) of the report, the results of static analysis applied for library
web sites of Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe
University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB) are provided.
It is seen that both METU-LIB and HU-LIB have average performance regarding the static
analyses results. Themes those can be partially/fully improved are elaborated for each
site in the preceding parts. Nevertheless, when compared to the HU-LIB, the METU-LIB
have slightly better performance; yet both can be improved in many ways as listed above.

32. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 31
3. Dynamic Analysis Results
Selected websites are library web sites of Middle East Technical University
[lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-
LIB). The web pages evaluated in the scope of this report are subdomains. Subdomains
are not ranked separately from their domains*
. Therefore, for dynamic analysis
metu.edu.tr and hacettepe.edu.tr addresses are used as the Alexa does not allow using
subdomains. This part of the report gives the results of dynamic analysis applied by Alexa,
Competitive Intelligence, Site Comparison.
In this context;
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Rank Last Three-year) are given
in Figure 3.1,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Reach Percent Last Three-year) are
given in Figure 3.2,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews Percent (Last Three-year)
are given in Figure 3.3,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Rank (Last Six-month) are given in
Figure 3.4,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews/User (Last Six-month) are
given in Figure 3.5,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Time on Site (Last Six-month) are given
in Figure 3.6,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Sources (Last Six-month) are
given in Figure 3.7,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Sites Linking In (Last Six-month) are
given in Figure 3.8,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Likes (Last Six-month) are
given in Figure 3.9,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Shares (Last Six-month) are
given in Figure 3.10,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Gender (Last Six-month) are
given in Figure 3.11,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Education (Last Six-month)
are given in Figure 3.12,
 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Age (Last Six-month) are
given in Figure 3.13, and
 Figure 3.14 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Income (Last Six-
month) are given in Figure 3.14.
*
https://support.alexa.com/hc/en-us/articles/200461930-Subdomains-Where-do-visitors-go

33. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 32
3.1 Dynamic Analysis Results
Figure 3.1 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Rank (Last Three-year)
Figure 3.2 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Reach Percent (Last Three-year)
Figure 3.3 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews Percent (Last Three-
year)

34. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 33
Figure 3.4 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Rank (Last Six-month)
Figure 3.5 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Pageviews/User (Last Six-month)
Figure 3.6 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Time on Site (Last Six-month)
Figure 3.7 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Traffic Sources (Last Six-month)

35. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 34
Figure 3.8 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Sites Linking In (Last Six-month)
Figure 3.9 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Likes (Last Six-month)
Figure 3.10 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Facebook Shares (Last Six-
month)
Figure 3.11 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Gender (Last Six-
month)
Figure 3.12 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Education (Last Six-
month)

36. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 35
Figure 3.13 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Age (Last Six-month)
Figure 3.14 Comparative Dynamic Analysis Results – Visitors by Income (Last Six-
month)
3.2 Conclusion for Dynamic Analysis Results
In the previous part (3.1) of the report comparative dynamic analysis results are provided
in detail, in Figure 3.1 to 3.14. For sure, these figures shall be interpreted by taking into
account the many factors. However, these main conclusions can be drawn to summarize
the whole picture. As noted before, all these conclusions shall be taken into account
together with other factors that may influence the results.
 Regarding last three years’ traffic rank, metu.edu.tr is dominantly more popular
when compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,
 Regarding last three years’ reach percent, metu.edu.tr is more prevalent when
compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,
 Regarding last three years’ pageviews percent, metu.edu.tr is slightly more
prevailing when compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,
 Regarding last six moths’ rank, metu.edu.tr is superior when compared to
hacettepe.edu.tr, and metu.edu.tr is getting better with respect to world and
TR contexts,
 Regarding last six moths’ pageviews/user ratio, both web sites (metu.edu.tr
and hacettepe.edu.tr) performs approximately similar performances,
 Regarding last six moths’ time on site, metu.edu.tr is by and large higher when
compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,
 Regarding last six moths’ traffic sources from search, hacettepe.edu.tr is by and
large higher when compared to metu.edu.tr,
 Regarding last six moths’ traffic sources from direct, metu.edu.tr is on the
whole greater when compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,
 Regarding last six moths’ sites linking in, metu.edu.tr is superior when
compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,
 Regarding last six moths’ Facebook likes, metu.edu.tr is greater when
compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,
 Regarding last six moths’ Facebook shares, metu.edu.tr is higher when
compared to hacettepe.edu.tr,

37. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 36
 Regarding last six moths’ visitor genders, more male visited hacettepe.edu.tr
when compared to metu.edu.tr,
 Regarding last six moths’ visitor genders, more female visited metu.edu.tr when
compared to hacettepe.edu.tr, and
 Regarding last six moths’ data, metu.edu.tr and hacettepe.edu.tr remarkably
diverges with respect to visitors’ ages, educations, and incomes.

38. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 37
4. Content Analysis Results
This part of the report gives the results of content analysis applied for library web sites
of Middle East Technical University [lib.metu.edu.tr] (METU-LIB) and Hacettepe
University [library.hacettepe.edu.tr] (HU-LIB). In this study, content analysis is evaluated
with respect to seven dimensions. These mostly content related dimensions are:
 Search Capability
 E-Sources
 Library Account
 Remote Access to Library Sources
 Information for the Users
 Forms
 Collections
In this context;
 Search Capability feature is elaborated in part 4.1,
 E-Sources feature is elaborated in part 4.2,
 Library Account feature is elaborated in part 4.3,
 Remote Access to Library Sources feature is elaborated in part 4.4,
 Information for the Users feature is elaborated in part 4.5,
 Forms feature is elaborated in part 4.6, and
 Collections feature is elaborated in part 4.7.
4.1 Search Capability
Both library sites have search capability to browse the library materials. METU-LIB calls
it as “Find,” and HU-LIB calls it as “Search.” METU-LIB uses “METUnique Search” engine
for search, yet HU-LIB uses “eds.a.ebscohost.”
In both search capabilities, users can easily find what they look for. They can easily
extend or limit their searches. There are also advance search options available for each
website.
For the search capability content context, I find both websites useful and easy-to-use.
4.2 E-Sources
METU-LIB provides “Databases,” “Reference Management Tool,” “E-Theses,” “E-
Journals,” and “Online Trial Resources” as e-sources.
HU-LIB provides “A-Z Index,” “Databases by Subject,” and “Databases by Material Type”
as e-sources.
I evaluate that content of e-sources of METU-LIB is richer than the one of HU-LIB, as
more options and contents are seem to be available at METU-LIB website.

39. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 38
4.3 Library Account
Both web sites have a part for users to log-in. There is no option to create new users by
using the regarding systems.
For library account log-in METU-LIB uses the University Student ID and Pass pairs, yet
HU-LIB uses National Identity Number and assigned password.
Both library account systems provides holding, review and renew capabilities which are
mostly required for most of the users.
I found METU-LIB’s log-in and account management mechanisms more reliable, user
friendly, and easy-to-use.
4.4 Remote Access to Library Sources
Both web sites have directions defined for remote access to library sources. METU-LIB
names it as “Remote Access” and HU-LIB names it as “Off-Campus Access”.
METU-LIB uses two ways for remote access. These are: Off Campus Access Login Form
and Virtual Private Network. HU-LIB uses just the proxy mechanism for off-campus
access.
Overall, I found METU-LIB’s remote access mechanisms richer and more convenient as
there are more than one option.
4.5 Information for the Users
Both websites have some information for their users. METU-LIB provides following
information in detail:
About Us
Quality Management System
Departments & Staff
Rules & Policies
More...
User Training
User Training Program
Orientation & User Training
Guides for Library Users
For Librarians
F.A.Q.
How to
Plan Your Visit
Retrieve Lost Items
Find Locations
Make a Donation

40. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 39
Contact Us
Address
Library Hours
HU-LIB provides following information in detail:
General Information
Strategic Plan
Guidelines for Library Use
Organization Scheme
Personnel
Internship Opportunities
Library Hours
Contact
Generally, I found METU-LIB’s information for users part more extensive and beneficial
as it has more information provided.
4.6 Forms
METU-LIB has a devoted forms tab for use. Following forms are integrated into METU-
LIB. This makes METU-LIB more technologically advanced when compared to HU-LIB
pertaining to content analysis.
Request Forms
Book Stacks Request Form
Journal Stacks Request Form
Inter-Library Loan Request Form
Recommend Forms
Recommend a Book/Textbook
Recommend a New Electronic Journal/Database
E-Theses Submission Form
Photocopying Permission Form for Thesis
Move a Book from Main Library to Reserve
Evaluation Form for Trial Databases
4.7 Collections
Both web sites have collections parts regarding their contents and contexts.
Collections part of METU-LIB is composed of the following materials:
Book Collection
Periodicals Collection
Electronic Resources Collection
Reference Collection
Reserve Collection
Audio Visual Materials Collection
Theses

41. WEB EVALUATION
Mustafa Değerli – 2016 40
New Arrivals
Publications of METU Faculty
Donated Books of This Month
Turkish Labor History (Virtual Collection)
Media Gallery
Videos
Collections part of HU-LIB is composed of the following materials:
Catalog
Frequently Used E-Resources
Electronic Resources
Trial Databases
Free Electronic Resources
By and large, I found METU-LIB’s collections part more extensive and well-organized for
users.