Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • With regard to usability evaluation Table S

    2018-10-25

    With regard to usability evaluation, Table S2 presents the data resulting from the usability criteria evaluation of the UTPL OCW (See Appendix A). This table is organized by following the usability guide of the standard ISO 9142-11. This usability guide considers the degree of the three usability measures: effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction. Therefore, the table presents the identified problems/errors and their possible solutions in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction; and it purchase N6022 also presents results of the aspects, criteria and priority in the UTPL OCW educational/training website following the Sirius framework [4]. On the other hand, Tables 1 and 2 present the results obtained from the automatic usability evaluation of the UTPL OCW using tools for this purpose. Specifically, Table 1 shows its usability results in terms of the priority, the identified errors and the suggested solution by the Google PageSpeed tool [2]. Google PageSpeed measures the performance and the loading speed of a website accessed from mobile and desktop devices. From the analysis of the website, the tool also provides a set of tips for improving the usability. Table 2 shows the results obtained from the automatic evaluation of Google Analytics [1] of the UTPL OCW. Google Analytics provides detailed reports and statistical information about the visits to a website, as well as the browser or the type of device that is connected to. The results are presented in Table 2 in terms of the countries, browsers, operating systems, mobile devices and mobile operating system used in the connection to the UTPL OCW website.
    Experimental design, materials and methods To evaluate the accessibility and usability of the UTPL OCW site, the standards were synthesized into tables and they were adapted to OCW requirements. Table S5 synthesizes the WCAG 2.0 guidelines [5] to evaluate the accessibility of OCW websites and to suggest improvements for each criterion (See Appendix A). On the other hand, the usability criteria have been selected from Sirius framework [4]. This framework is one of the most complete proposals based on heuristics to measure usability, and by extension, satisfaction. This framework measures 83 criteria of 10 aspects under evaluation in a quantitative and qualitative way. These aspects are: General Aspects (GA), Identify and Information (II), Structure and Navigation (SN), Labelling (LB), Layout of the Page (LY), Comprehension and easy Interaction (CI), Control and Feedback (CF), Multimedia Elements (ME), Search Elements (SE), and Help Elements (HE). Each aspect is composed of a set of measurable criterion synthesized in Table S6 (See Appendix A), and the numerical measures and its corresponding category (label value) are presented in Table 3. A questionnaire was provided to the subjects that evaluate the accessibility and usability criteria. They are presented in Tables S8 and S9 of the Appendix A.
    Acknowledgements This work has been feasible thanks to the facilities provided by the UTPL and it has been partially sponsored by the Senescyt Ecuador.
    Data, experimental design, materials and methods
    Processed data in supplementary files
    Acknowledgements
    Data The data presented in this article is included in a single excel file containing 35 variables. The excel file can be accessed from the link: https://engineering.purdue.edu/LASCI/research-data/energy. The variable measures are given in both Metric System of Measurement and Imperial System of Measurement. Table 1 summarizes the descriptions of all variables. This data contains valuable information related to electricity sales and revenue, electricity price, state-level climate and weather as well as socio-economic data obtained from four different data sources. The electricity sales data is trend-adjusted using the process as described in [1].
    Experimental design, materials and methods The data on end-use energy consumption, climate and weather, and the socio-economic information were obtained from various publicly available data sources such as U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) [form EIA-826] [2], National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and U.S. Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics [3] respectively. The data spans from 1990 to 2015. The monthly end-use electricity consumption data was trend-adjusted as described in [1]. The daily weather data obtained from various weather stations was first station-averaged and then aggregated to monthly level data. The socio-economic data included both monthly and yearly level variables. The variables such as labor, employment, unemployment and unemployment rate contain monthly-level information while the per capita income and the real gross state product are measured at yearly-levels. These yearly level variables are considered to be constant for all the months during that particular year. All the variables were then aggregated using the year and the months as the nexus.