COMPARISON OF QUICKSORT AND MERGESORT METHOD FOR USER INTERFACE AND USER EXPERIENCE ASSESSMENT IN ADISUTJIPTO COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

Muhammad Zainal Abidin, Dwi Nugraheny, Yuliani Indrianingsih

Abstract

This study is intended to assess the user interface and user experience on the Adisutjipto College of Technology website using the mergesort method and compared with the quicksort method in finding the highest value of several variables or elements that are categorized as good or good in order to improve the quality of the Adisutjipto College of Technology website. The results of the study show that the quicksort method is faster in the process of calculating questionnaire data than the merge method with an average time record of 0.476667 seconds for the quicksort method and 0.576667 seconds for the mergesort method. The results of the comparison of the two methods on the questionnaire website to assess the accuracy in terms of user interface and user experience on the Adisutjipto College of Technology website, that the mergesort method is more accurate than the quicksort method, the Usability category scores the highest, while the Expressive aesthentics category has the lowest value

Keywords

Quisioner, Mergesort, User Interface, User Experience, Quicksort.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Ghose, S., & Dou, W. (1998). Interactive functions and their impacts on the appeal of Internet presence sites. Journal of Advertising research, 38(2), 29-43.

Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2002). WebQual: A measure of website quality. Marketing theory and applications, 13(3), 432-438.

De Troyer, O., & Casteleyn, S. (2004, November). Designing localized web sites. In International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (pp. 547-558). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Sridevi, S. (2014). User interface design. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology Research, 2(2), 415-426.

Albert, W., & Tullis, T. (2013). Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Newnes.

Heny, D. N. (2017, December). Penerapan Metoda Pengurutan Quicksort Untuk Menganalisa User Interface Dan User Experience Website Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Adisutjipto Yogyakarta. In Conference SENATIK STT Adisutjipto Yogyakarta (Vol. 3, pp. 174-181).

Dix, A., Dix, A. J., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D., & Beale, R. (2003). Human-computer interaction. Pearson Education.

Prayogaperdana.com. 2014. ’Pengertian Website, Tentang Website, Apa itu Website’ http://webdesign.about.com/od/content/qt/what-is-web-content.htm,

Freud, S. (2003). Beyond the pleasure principle. Penguin UK.

Ahmed, S. U., Al Mahmud, A., & Bergaust, K. (2009, July). Aesthetics in human-computer interaction: Views and reviews. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 559-568). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International journal of human-computer studies, 60(3), 269-298.

Sutabri, T. (2004). Analisa Sistem Informasi, Edisi 1. Penerbit Andi: Yogyakarta.

Santosa, P. I. (2001). Struktur Data Menggunakan Turbo Pascal 6.0. Andi Yogyakarta.

Sismoro, H., & Iskandar, K. (2004). Struktur Data dan Pemrograman dengan pascal. Andi Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta.

Eriksson, H.E, dkk. 2004. UML 2 Toolkit. Wiley Publishing Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana.http://www.ecotec.edu.ec/documentacion%5Cinvestigaciones%5Cdocentes_y_directivos%5Carticulos/6008_TRECALDE_00278.pdf. Diakses pada tanggal 25 Agustus 2019.

Fowler, M. (2004). UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Addison-Wesley Professional.

Article Metrics

Abstract view: 101 times
Download     : 47   times

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.