CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSES, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

In this chapter the results of the data analysis are presented. The data were

collected and then processed in response to the problems posed in chapter 1. A

fundamental goal drove the collection of the data and the subsequent data analysis. That

goal was to create a department owned website that is easy to use and maintain while

following the standardization of ISO 9126. These objective was accomplished. The

findings presented in this chapter demonstrate the satisfaction rate of the end users as

well as the standardization of ASTRAL using ISO 9126.

Table 2
End Users and Administrators’ Response to ASTRAL in terms of Functionality
FUNCTIONALITY END USERS ADMINISTRATORS MEAN
1.Capability 4.24 4.36 4.30
2.Accurateness 4.26 4.27 4.265
3.Interoperability 3.84 3.64 3.74
4.Compliance 4.06 4 4.03
5. Security 3.86 3.73 3.80
WEIGHTED MEAN 4.052 4 4.03

Table 2 shows the mean of the end users and administrators about ASTRAL.

The End users and Administrators agreed that capability, accurateness, and compliance

is agreeable in ASTRAL. However, both respondents have neutral thoughts regarding

ASTRAL’s interoperability and security. This shows that ASTRAL is capable of complying

with the standards of Functionality based on ISO 9126.

 Table 3
Administrators’ Response to ASTRAL in terms of Reliability
RELIABILITY MEAN
1.Maturity 3.45
2.Fault Tolerance 3.64
3.Recoverability 3.91
WEIGHTED MEAN 3.67

Table 3 shows the responses of the administrators in terms of Reliability about

ASTRAL. Administrators have neutral thoughts about ASTRAL’s maturity, fault tolerance,

and recoverability.

Nielsen, (1997), stated that credibility is important since it is unclear who is behind

the information. This shows that ASTRAL’s lack of credibility on its protection hindered

the agreed response of the Administrators. Improvements however should take part by

integrating several backup sources as well as monthly maintenance and optimizations.

Table 4
End Users and Administrators’ Response to ASTRAL in terms of Usability
USABILITY END USERS ADMINISTRATORS MEAN
1. Understandable 4.58 4.64 4.61
2. Learnable 4.58 4.55 4.57
3. Applicable 4.56 4.45 4.51
WEIGHTED MEAN 4.57 4.55 4.56

Table 4 shows the responses of the End users and Administrators to ASTRAL

being user friendly. Both respondents agreed that ASTRAL is understandable, learnable,

and applicable.

Furthermore, it only shows that ASTRAL was able to comply with the study of

Zeldman (2016), in which he stated that content precedes design and that the website
can attain better usability or being user friendly by answering the end user’s problems.

Borrowska (2016), also expressed that decluttering design was efficient for the website’s

end users; giving them a straight-to-the-point experience.

Table 5
End Users and Administrators’ Response to ASTRAL in terms of Efficiency
EFFICIENCY END USERS ADMINISTRATORS MEAN
1. Time Behavior 4.14 4.09 4.12
2. Resource Behavior 4.06 4 4.03
WEIGHTED MEAN 4.1 4.05 4.08

Table 5 shows the End users and Administrators’ response to ASTRAL’s

Efficiency. Both respondents agreed that ASTRAL complied to time behavior and

resource behavior. ASTRAL was able to express its efficiency by incorporating a web

template in which it was optimized for faster use. Mischook, (2011), study was able to

perceive a website’s efficiency by following the web template. This was ASTRAL’s biggest

leap as it inculcated a web template to serve as its core as it progresses; further optimizing

its time and resource behavior.

Table 6
Administrators’ Response to ASTRAL in terms of Maintainability
MAINTAINABILITY MEAN
1. Analyzability 3.73
2.Changeability 3.82
3.Stability 3.64
4. Testability 4.18
WEIGHTED MEAN 3.84

Table 6 shows the Administrators’ response to ASTRAL’s Maintainability.

Administrators’ response towards analyzability, changeability, and stability of ASTRAL

were all neutral. However, they agreed towards ASTRAL’s testability. This shows that

ASTRAL can adapt to any norms or current events. Halvorson, & Rach, (2014), stated

that a good alignment with the present events is important in developing a good web

content. Moreover, ASTRAL has room for improvements with its analyzability,

changeability, and stability criteria.

Table 7
End Users and Administrators’ Response to ASTRAL in terms of Portability
PORTABILITY END USERS ADMINISTRATORS MEAN
1. Adaptability 4.2 4.27 4.24
2.Installation 4.34 4.09 4.22
3.Conformance 4.08 4 4.04
4.Replaceable 4.12 3.82 3.97
WEIGHTED MEAN 4.19 4.05 4.12

Table 7 shows End users and Administrators’ response to ASTRAL’s portability.

End users responded ASTRAL’s adaptability, installation, conformance and replaceable

standard was agreeable. Administrators had neutral thoughts however on ASTRAL’s

ability for being replaceable.

This shows that ASTRAL is well indeed inclined with the standardization of

Portability though it lacks evidence of being replaceable for Administrators. It also shows

that ASTRAL is in need of a collaborative environment in which it can spread information

efficiently and obtain high quality learning. With this ASTRAL’s rating for being

replaceable or usable to another website’s environment can increase (Rotem, Oster-

Levinz, 2007).