Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2000

Use of a World Wide Web Site Evaluation Toolin Chemistry

Paul C. Yates1

Material on the World Wide Web may be freely accessed by instructors and students,regardless of its source. Evaluation of such material can be facilitated by use of one of anumber of web site evaluation tools. These assess a web site in terms of content and designby adapting established principles in each of these areas. The feasibility of using one suchtool, originally developed for the evaluation of medical information sites, in chemistry hasbeen explored. The tool was applied to 37 sites that cover the periodic table. Most of thecriteria seemed to be as applicable to chemical sites as to those for which it was designed,and gave useful information on the quality aspects of each site. On the other hand, someof the criteria included for medical sites were inappropriate or too vague in the context ofchemical sites, and additional criteria not present in the original tool would have been usefulfor this application. These observations have been used to construct a modified tool whichshould be more applicable for World Wide Web sites with chemical content.

KEY WORDS: Chemical information; general chemistry; internet; periodic table; teaching/learning aids.

INTRODUCTION

The World Wide Web (WWW) represents a verysignificant development in the delivery of informa-tion in a variety of situations ranging from entertain-ment to more technical subjects. This is as true inthe delivery of materials for the learning and teachingof chemistry at all levels as in any other area. In fact,the WWW is particularly suited to the delivery ofcomplex chemical information, as evidenced by theextensions to WWW browsers offered by ‘‘plugins’’developed by and specifically for the chemistry com-munity (Murray-Rust et al., 1997).

Educators in chemistry are using the WWW ina number of ways for the delivery of information.These include the development of specific courses,often replacing traditional lecture courses usingWWW-based material. Alternatively, specific re-sources can be selected by the instructor and used aspart of a course. There are many collections of such

1School of Chemistry and Physics, Lennard-Jones Laboratories,Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, United King-dom. e-mail: p.c.yates@chem.keele.ac.uk

357

1059-0145/00/1200-0357$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

resources on the WWW, including those which havebeen independently reviewed (Yates, 1998). Thisprocess gives the instructor confidence in the accu-racy and suitability of such materials.

Inevitably, peer-reviewed WWW materials inchemistry are a very small minority compared to theamount of other material available. The nature ofthe WWW means that such nonreviewed materialsare available to instructor and student alike, and theavailability of several search engines means that ma-terial on a specified topic can be accessed withoutdifficulty, provided of course that it exists in the firstplace. This fact has been used as the basis of studentassignments, which have served to develop their criti-cal and other skills (McGowan and Sendall, 1997) atvarious levels (Stevens and Stevens, 1996). However,students with a mastery of the WWW will inevitablyuse this as a resource in their study of chemistrywhether or not directed to do so.

It is now relatively straightforward for an indi-vidual to place material on the WWW, in terms ofboth technical ability and the resources required.Thus, it is possible to find material on a given topic

358 Yates

written by both an acknowledged world expert in thefield and others less well qualified. This, coupled withthe fact that the presentation of the material is notalways a guide to its reliability, can make it difficultto judge the validity of material on a particular siteon the WWW. In terms of the learning process, thepresentation of material can make a vast differencebetween an effective site and one that is useless,which adds a further complication.

Concerns about the reliability of material avail-able on the WWW have been expressed in the areasof both dietetics and health. In the first case 45% ofsites provided information that was not consistentwith one or more of the Canadian dietary guidelines(Davison and Guan, 1996), and in the second only 4pages out of a total of 41 adhered closely to the mainrecommendations in published guidelines on themanagement of fever in children at home (Impiccia-tore et al., 1997).

A review of published criteria for evaluatinghealth-related web sites found that the most fre-quently cited criteria were those dealing with content;design and aesthetics of site; disclosure of authors,sponsors, or developers; currency of information (in-cluding frequency of update, freshness and mainte-nance of site); authority of source; ease of use, andaccessibility and availability (Kim et al., 1999). Anoriginal web site assessment tool aimed at businesssites has been presented (Evans and King, 1999), andstudies have also been reported where the qualityof WWW sites in law (Newman, 1999) and libraryinformation (Clausen, 1999) has been evaluated.

However, to date no study has been reportedwhich has looked at the quality of WWW sites inchemistry or related science subjects. One reasonfor this may be the difficulty of finding concise andapplicable evaluation tools in the literature. Thisstudy reports the results of applying one such tool(Tweddle et al., 1998) to sites that depict the periodictable. Good introductions to this topic can be foundin many general chemistry textbooks (Ebbing, 1996).

This paper will

1. describe the experiences gained in applyingthe evaluation tool to this group of sites.

2. comment on the utility of the tool in the handsof different groups of users.

3. suggest modifications to the original schemeto make it more applicable for use in chem-istry.

No attempt will be made to provide a rigorous com-parison of the various sites studied, and data on the

quality of the sites will only be presented to illustratethe use of the tool. Accordingly, no identification ofindividual WWW sites will be made, other than tolist those which were included in the study.

The overall objective of the paper is to increaseawareness of web site evaluation tools which as yethave received little attention within the chemical andscientific communities. It is hoped that the availabilityof a tool that has been evaluated within a chemicalcontext will encourage others to use this in theirown work.

METHODOLOGY

Sites on the WWW related to the periodic tablewere identified by using a range of search engines.This gave a total of 37 sites; there are doubtless othersbut at this point the search engines were giving nonew hits. The sites are listed in Table I. The formatof most of the sites is to present an image of theperiodic table (which may be text or graphicallybased) on which the user may click to obtain informa-tion on a particular chemical element. The table re-quires that the elements be arranged in a particularway in relation to one another, and it is importantthat this arrangement is retained whatever the formof display. It was chosen as the subject in this studybecause there are probably as many WWW sites de-picting the periodic table as any other chemical topic,and by minimizing differences in content betweenthe sites it is hoped that a more consistent judgmentof the evaluation tool can be made.

Each site was judged according to the publishedcriteria (Tweddle et al., 1998), in so far as these wereapplicable in a particular case. The criteria aregrouped under eight headings and it proved possible,given the similarity of subject material on each site,to judge some of them using very specific questionsas described below. This particular tool was selectedbecause it was developed for a field not too dissimilarfrom that of interest (i.e., scientific), is published ina relatively concise form, and appeared to be straight-forward to use requiring no particular knowledge ofeducational or design principles.

Purpose

To judge whether the site provided material notelsewhere on the web, a list of topics covered wasproduced and the frequency with which each

Use of a World Wide Web Site Evaluation Tool in Chemistry 359

Table I. List of Online Periodic Table Sites Revieweda

http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/periodic.htmlhttp://kufacts.cc.ukans.edu/cwis/references/Periodic/periodic.htmlhttp://pearl1.lanl.gov:80/periodic/http://www.csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.htmlhttp://ull.chemistry.uakron.edu/periodic–table/index.htmlhttp://milt.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/PERIODIC.htmlhttp://www.concentric.net/�Noshadow/tablehttp://ccinfo.ims.ac.jp/Periodic/index.htmlhttp://expert.cc.purdue.edu/�helvey/javapert.htmlhttp://www-tech.mit.edu/Chemicool/http://www.cs.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/nph-pertab/tab/periodic-tablehttp://bmrl.med.uiuc.edu:8080/MRITable/http://www.iinc.com/�obwan/htc/technogy/chem/chem–table.htm#tablehttp://www.in-search-of.com/frames/periodic/periodic–elements–nf.shtmlhttp://www.dayah.com/periodic/http://bvsd.co.edu/�stanglt/per/NN3/index.htmlhttp://www.esrf.fr/cgi-bin/periodichttp://tqd.advanced.org/2690/ptable/ptable.htmlhttp://starbase.ingress.com/�dwight/students/carlos/pages/elements/pages/periodic.htmhttp://www.intercorr.com/periodic/http://members.iworld.net/joo/physics/curri-sub/periodic/periodic-table.htmlhttp://www.universe.digex.net/�kkhan/periodic.htmlhttp://bvsd.k12.co.us/schools/BHS/science/elements/elements.htmlhttp://www.micronmetals.com/ste.htmhttp://wulff.mit.edu/pt/http://www.paydirt.net/files/paydirt/indu/periodic.stmhttp://www.sonic.net/�famweb/periodic/http://www.oxychem.com/html/periodic–table.htmlhttp://KLBProductions.com/yogi/periodic/index.htmlhttp://www.psinvention.com/periodic.htmhttp://ghs.bcsd.k12.il.us/projects/class/periodic/1997/http://www.chemicalelements.com/http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/http://sweethaven.com/chemele/pertab01.htmlhttp://xray.uu.se/hypertext/ptable.htmlhttp://citynight.com/periodic/periodic.htmlhttp://www.exploratory.org.uk/plores/per–tbl/per–tbl.htmaThis list is also available as an HTML document at http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ch/groups/chemed/periodic.html

appeared was noted. The list of topics appears inTable II.

Authority

Authors credentials were considered to be listedprovided that a link was provided to them, possiblyvia one or more other pages. This would be the case,for example, if the author provided a link to hisWWW home page that contained biographical de-tails.

Content

There is potentially a vast amount of data associ-ated with the periodic table, and this proved to be

the case with many of the sites visited. Only obviouserrors were noted, and this frequently involved miss-ing units on quantities and similar errors. One wouldhope that such features are indications of the carewith which the data have been assembled. However,other than laboriously checking every individual itemof data, it is impossible to verify the content of eachsite entirely.

Design

The sites were viewed on a computer withoutloudspeaker output. Only one of the sites reviewedappeared to make limited use of sound, but as thiswas judged from visual material alone there may havebeen more. Accessibility considerations were conse-

360 Yates

Table II. Frequency of Information Presented in the Online Peri-odic Tables Reviewed

No. ofItem occurrences

Atomic number 33Atomic mass 32Boiling point 23Melting point 23Density 19Physical properties 19Electron configuration 17Applications of element and compounds 15Date of discovery 15Name of discoverer 13Electronegativity 10Oxidation states 9Specific heat 9Atomic radius 8Crystal structure 8Enthalpy of fusion 8Enthalpy of vaporization 8Source of element 8Group 7Ionization potential 7Isotopes 7Atomic volume 6Covalent radius 6Electrical conductivity 6Thermal conductivity 6Origin of name 3X-ray properties 3Block 2Electron affinity 2Registry numbers 2Toxicity and hazards 2Enthalpy of atomization 1Ionic radius 1Lattice spacing 1NMR properties 1Period 1Translations of name 1

quently restricted to users with visual disabilities, andthe design was considered to be sympathetic to theseif it proved possible to increase the size of the elementsymbols within the periodic table by changingbrowser options. In other cases the incorporation oftext in the form of graphics images makes this impos-sible.

Readability

The tool refers to an acceptable length of a page.However, as noted elsewhere, the width of display isalso important where vital information can be omit-ted from the initial display (Pollard and Blyth, 1999).

Consequently, both factors were considered whenusing a standard 640 � 480 pixel display.

Implementation

Each site was tested with Lynx 2.8.2 as the lowestspecification of browser. The site was judged to beacceptable with this if the elements were still dis-played in the recognizable shape of the periodic table.One might be tempted to question the inclusion ofthis feature within the evaluation tool, given the pro-liferation of high specification computers andbrowsers. However, particularly from an educationalpoint of view, it is highly desirable that access isavailable to those who do not have these facilities,such as those working in developing countries andless well endowed institutions.

Only two of the sites required the use of a plug-in, so help for the technically inexperienced user wasconsidered to comprise the simple instruction (whereappropriate) of clicking on an element symbol to seefurther details. Performance and downloading timeswill inevitably vary dramatically, so these factorswere only considered to be insufficient if the delayswere particularly noticeable.

An analysis of accessibility to people with disa-bilities has been performed using the automated tooldeveloped by the Center for Applied Special Tech-nology (http://www.cast.org). This is based on theWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines (Casey, 1999)developed by the World Wide Web Consortium(http://www.w3.org). To comply with these guidelinesa WWW site must

● provide text equivalents for all nontext ele-ments.

● provide summaries of all graphs and charts.● ensure that all information conveyed with

color is also available without color.● organize content logically and clearly.● provide alternative content for features that

may not be supported.

It has also been noted in the Guidelines that adher-ence to them will make WWW content more avail-able to all users regardless of the user agent or theconstraints under which they are operating.

Evaluation

It was only considered to be clear to authorshow one could contribute to evaluation of the site if

Use of a World Wide Web Site Evaluation Tool in Chemistry 361

this was stated explicitly. However, inclusion of thee-mail address of the author was also noted.

Conclusion

The site was considered to be appropriate forits purpose if it could be of practical use as a periodictable. However, this was a rather vague criterion,which was difficult to apply and did not really differ-entiate between sites.

RESULTS

The results will be discussed under the headingsgiven in the previous section, as used in the web siteevaluation tool (Tweddle et al., 1998).

Purpose

Only 6 of the 37 sites viewed attempted to ad-dress their purpose, or stated the audience at whichthey were targeted. This tended to be the case whenthe periodic table provided specialist information(such as x-ray or NMR) or had been developed aspart of a student exercise. In other cases statementswere vague and along the lines of a sentence statingwhat was on the page or a hope that the materialwould be useful to everyone. However, the majorityof the sites presented the periodic table without anypreamble whatsoever.

From Table II it is evident that little informationis provided by WWW periodic tables that is not dupli-cated. These data consist of enthalpy of atomization,NMR properties, crystal lattice spacing, ionic radius,and translations of the name of the element and theperiod of the table in which it is found. All the otherproperties are repeated to a certain extent, althoughonly the atomic number and atomic mass are foundalmost universally. It seems that if a WWW periodictable is to be used as a source of data, then for reason-able coverage access to more than one is necessary.

One would normally expect to view the periodictable and its associated information on-line, so themajority of the sites make no mention of the pre-ferred mode of use. However, two sites do providespecific links for a printable version of the table andone has a link to a downloadable version for runningon a personal computer.

Thirteen of the sites provided an obvious way

of providing feedback to the author of the pages.These were frequently a simple e-mail link, but insome cases were labeled as ‘‘Comments’’ or ‘‘Feed-back.’’ Two sites actually contained a complete feed-back form. Such links usually appeared on the pagecontaining the whole table, but in some cases wereonly present on the elemental pages. The majorityof sites did not appear to welcome feedback.

Authority

Only 16 of the 37 authors chose to identify them-selves. Of these, only five provided sufficient informa-tion on their credentials for an evaluation of suitabil-ity to be made. Three of the sites cite awards givenfor the material presented, but none of the othersmakes any mention of having been peer and/or ex-pert reviewed. Four sites give some indication of howthey are being developed. This includes listing infor-mation that would be useful to the author, askingfor requests for new elements to be worked on, andoutlining desirable improvements and extensions tobe made when time allows.

The periodic table as presented here is clearlydata intensive. It is thus surprising that only eightsites mentioned the issue of copyright, Accompa-nying messages generally allow copying for personaluse but prohibit any redistribution of the materials.There are also only eight sites which incorporate adisclaimer. This would seem to be a wise thing foran author to do when providing data on potentiallydangerous chemical elements.

Seven of the sites reviewed included some formof advertising. Only one of these explains the reasonfor including advertising, which makes it clear thatthis banner is essentially independent of the othermaterial included. Where the periodic table actuallyappears on a chemical supplier’s site, it is generallyobvious that the periodic table is being provided asa secondary function of the site.

Content

In view of the small number of sites that stateany sense of purpose, it is difficult to assess whetherthe intended purpose has been met. However, everysite provides some useful information so could beregarded as satisfactory in this regard. Only a smallnumber of pages contain links to external sites, andit could certainly be argued that having presented a

362 Yates

periodic table, perhaps with more detailed infor-mation on each element, they have achieved theiraim without the need to relate to external re-sources.

Only two of the sites referred to pages or mate-rial that was under development. In one case thisapplied to a method for displaying periodic datagraphically, while in the other any noncompleted ele-ments were displayed in a different typeface withinthe overall periodic table. These sites also belongedto a group of 14 in which the pages were actuallydated. This gives a useful indication of how recentlya page has been written or updated, but for the major-ity of elements it is unlikely that frequent updatingwould be required.

Ten of the sites contained obvious errors in thepresentation of data, suggesting that the actual datashould be treated with caution. This does not ofcourse mean that the remaining 27 sites were neces-sarily error free, but suggests that one might have agreater degree of confidence in them. In view of theamount of data presented, it has to be of considerableconcern that only nine of the sites gave the sourceof that data.

Of the 14 sites that included external links, onegave a very general grouping that was not sufficientlyspecific to the periodic table, and another had ratherbrief descriptions. However, in all cases it was possi-ble to glean some information as to the content ofthe link from the referring site.

Design

The periodic table in itself provides a logicalstructuring of subject matter (in this case the chemicalelements) so this is not an issue in the design ofthese web sites. Pages dealing with the propertiesof elements were inevitably set out in a consistentmanner, which is after all the easiest way of produc-ing them.

Four of the sites incorporate graphics in theirdesign. These vary from a depiction of the actualelement, through displays of its orbitals and colorspectrum, to appropriate cartoons. The small numberof sites incorporating graphics is disappointing, andthis seems to be a lost opportunity for using the me-dium of the WWW to its full potential and bringingthe periodic table alive. Simply illustrating each of theelements would seem to be an obvious step, althoughobtaining the photographic data in a suitable form

may be problematic. None of the sites incorporatedanimations, which is where the use of the chemicalplug-in Chime would have been useful.

A much more common device is the use of colorfor classifying the elements in the periodic table. Atotal of 16 sites did this, although the schemes usedvaried considerably. Of these, six gave no indicationof what scheme had been used, thus immediatelynegating any benefits which could have beenachieved by this simple mechanism. Of the remain-der, three sites colored elements according to theirstate at room temperature and another three ac-cording to their characterization as a metal or non-metal or more specific groupings (e.g., alkali metal).Two of the sites were able to combine both of theseschemes by applying one to the text color and anotherto the background color used for an element. Otherschemes used colored elements according to theiratomic number or electron orbitals.

Internal linkages to aid navigation were presentin 20 sites, most frequently in the form of a buttonto return from an element page to the overall periodictable. In 31 cases the periodic table was still readablewhen the graphics was turned off. This is a conse-quence of the fact that most of the sites have beenproduced using text and tables for the periodic tablerather than graphics. Clicking on an element gener-ally gives a page of data with the heading of an ele-ment name, which is useful for orientation purposes.There were only four sites for which this was notthe case and where orientation of the user may bean issue.

It was possible to increase the text font size in23 of the periodic tables reviewed. This goes someway toward accommodating accessibility by peoplewho have visual disabilities.

Readability

The length of pages was acceptable in 23 of thesites, but in 7 cases the width of the table was toogreat for the standard display. Thus the uninitiatedmight have believed that the halogens were the lastgroup of the table in one case. In 19 sites the materialwas ordered using titles and subtitles. Six sites con-tained further information on at least some of theproperties cited. Given the hypertext nature of theWWW it is disappointing that this feature has notbeen used more often. It would certainly be a verygood technique for introducing the periodic table toa complete novice.

Use of a World Wide Web Site Evaluation Tool in Chemistry 363

In addition to the graphics noted in the previoussection, one site includes Virtual Reality ModelingLanguage (VRML) representations (Vollhardt et al.,1995) of each atom while another gives atomic scat-tering factors in the form of a graph. Two other sitesincorporate graphics in their general design eventhough these are not directly related to a graphicaldisplay of each type of atom.

Implementation

Only seven of the sites worked correctly whentested with the text browser Lynx. Several othershave readable output with usable links to the elemen-tal pages, which suggests that it would have beenrelatively easy to extend their capabilities in this way.The technically inexperienced user receives help in18 cases, being told what to do to obtain informationon an element. However, mention also needs to bemade of two sites, which require the use of browserplug-ins to either work or achieve their full capability.The perseverance required to install these is likelyto be beyond that of most inexperienced users andmore detail (and above all reassurance) needs tobe included.

The sites contained very few implementation er-rors. Two of these were related to the incorrect per-formance of the plug-ins referred to. In two othercases the periodic table was too big to display as awhole, despite changing browser options. One sitegave an error message when an element was selected,although the data appeared to be displayed correctly.In another case the implementation error simply con-sisted of a major typographical error, which wouldbe sufficient to puzzle any reader.

Somewhat impressively, 18 of the sites werefound to be compatible with accessibility aids suchas screen readers and switches. In addition, a num-ber of other sites needed further manual checksbefore compatibility could be ensured but wereclearly capable of being modified to achieve thiscompatability.

Evaluation

In 11 cases it is straightforward to send com-ments to the author. This facility varies from a simplee-mail link (which may or may not be labeled ‘‘Com-ments’’ or ‘‘Feedback’’) to a complete form for more

detailed feedback. One of these sites acknowledgesthe role of user feedback in the updating of the site,and another specifically invites the submission of cor-rections by e-mail. A further site actually publishescomments received; unfortunately these are gener-ally requests for further information on specified ele-ments rather than useful feedback, despite the au-thor’s plea for no chemistry questions to besubmitted.

Conclusion

All the sites were considered to have some valuein presenting information associated with the peri-odic table on-line. It was impossible to judge whethera site was appropriate for the target audience andpurpose as this information was not usually providedas noted previously.

DISCUSSION

Periodic tables on the WWW present a range ofinformation, and it is unlikely that a single site wouldprovide a sufficient range of data for general pur-poses. Each has its own particular selection whichmay be appropriate for a particular case.

The major concern with WWW periodic tablesconcerns the reliability of data. Sources are rarelygiven, and it is not generally possible to ascertainwhether the author has appropriate credentials forits production. Graphics are rarely used even thoughmuch of the material could be made highly visualand the medium of presentation lends itself to thistype of display. Similarly, hypertext links providingfurther explanation of technical terms could easilybe incorporated but are rarely present. This studyalso highlights the fact that delivery of chemicallyrelated material via the WWW can go some waytoward making the subject accessible to people withdisabilities. There would certainly seem to be poten-tial for further development in this area in collabora-tion with the work being done on improving labora-tory access (McDaniel et al., 1994).

A WWW site evaluation tool is a useful devicefor ascertaining the likely suitability of a site orgroup of sites for a given purpose. A certain amountof experience is required for its use to be effective,and it cannot guarantee the ultimate reliability ofa site when a large amount of data is presented,

364 Yates

as in this case. It was generally easier to group thespecific points listed under the general headingsused in this work, although perhaps the most impor-tant aspect of the tool was in stimulating criticalevaluation even if a decision on a specific pointcould not be made.

Application of the web site evaluation tool to agroup of chemistry WWW sites allows one to identifythose criteria which are rarely useful, difficult toapply, or missing. In particular, those grouped underthe headings Evaluation and Conclusion gave no use-ful additional information in this context. Similarly,under Purpose the question of whether guidelineswere present for submitting materials or commentsto the pages made was not needed here.

Explicit processes for development of the siteand its material (under Authority) are likely to beof little interest to the average chemist, while theextent of content coverage and links can only bejudged as being sufficient to the purpose (under Con-tent) if that purpose has already been stated, whichwas not usually the case here. The same applies tothe inclusion of all required facilities to meet thepurpose of the site (Design), and to the questionof whether the style and presentation convey theauthor’s perspective and purposes (Readability).Also under Readability, it was found that an appro-priate width of page was as important if not moreimportant than its length. This has been noted else-where, where excessive width led to a menu beingout of view with the result that it was rarely accessed.Use of sufficient white space is a very subjective issue,and one could argue here that it is better for thecentral table to be as large as possible. Supportingfeatures may also be specifically designed to catchthe reader’s eye, so that the possibility of distractionmay not be an issue.

Given the international nature of these sites,it is probably unrealistic to expect totally consistentperformance particularly when level of usage istaken into account. This may also have more todo with hardware issues than the quality of WWWsite design.

Graphics and animation, as discussed underDesign, can usefully be introduced into chemistryWWW sites using the plugins ISIS/Draw and Chime(Murray-Rust et al., 1997). Thus, it would be usefulto ascertain whether the technology is beingexploited to its full extent by the incorporationof material for these plugins where appropri-ate.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of these factors leads to the sug-gested web site evaluation tool for chemistry WWWsites given in the Appendix. It is important to notethat this has been based on consideration of a smallnumber of sites on a single topic (which neverthelesspotentially covers a range of related chemical topics).In much the same way as the material on the WWWis evolving, one would expect the tools for evaluatingmaterial to evolve over time. It is hoped that thesuggested criteria will encourage the evaluation ofChemistry WWW sites by both instructors and stu-dents in this way.

Future work will involve application of the modi-fied tool to other sites of chemical interest. Attemptswill also be made to develop a numerical scoringsystem, which will require careful weighting of thecriteria listed.

APPENDIX. Suggested Criteria for EvaluatingChemistry WWW Sites2

1. Purpose1.1 Are the audience and purpose stated if

not obvious?1.2 Does the site provide material not already

available on the WWW?1.3 Does the site complement other resources

available to the audience?1.4 Is there a stated mode for reading the in-

formation?2. Authority

2.1 Is the author of each page identified?2.2 Are authors’ credentials provided and are

they appropriate?2.3 Are the materials independently re-

viewed?2.4 Are issues of copyright and intellectual

property clear?2.5 Are disclaimers and cautions provided?2.6 Is any advertising or sponsorship material

made explicit?3. Content

3.1 Are pages still under developmentclearly identified?

3.2 Is the information dated?3.3 Are the content and links accurate?

2Based on a scheme originally developed for the assessment ofmedical web sites (Tweddle et al., 1998).

Use of a World Wide Web Site Evaluation Tool in Chemistry 365

3.4 Is source data referenced where appro-priate?

3.5 Are the nature of external links given?4. Design

4.1 Is there a logical and consistent structur-ing of the subject matter?

4.2 Are graphics, sound, animation and colorused to enhance the content?

4.3 Are chemical plugins used to enhance thecontent where appropriate?

4.4 Does text stand alone when graphics areturned off?

4.5 Are appropriate orientation mechanismsused?

4.6 Are external links incorporated to be con-sistent with the overall design?

4.7 Is the site accessible by those who havevisual or hearing disabilities?

5. Readability5.1 Are text and graphics clear and compre-

hensible?5.2 Are pages of appropriate length and width

for readability?5.3 Are introductions, titles and subtitles

used?5.4 Are images and/or sound used where ap-

propriate to convey meaning?5.5 Are font size and color appropriate for

readability?6. Implementation

6.1 Does the site work with computers andbrowsers of low specification?

6.2 Is help offered for the technically inexpe-rienced user?

6.3 Is the implementation of the site errorfree?

6.4 Is the downloading time of files rea-sonable?

6.5 Is the site compatible with accessibilityaids?

REFERENCES

Casey, C. (1999). Accessibility in the virtual library: Creating equalopportunity web sites. Information Technology and Libraries18: 22–25.

Clausen, H. (1999). Evaluation of library web sites: the Danishcase. Electronic Library 17: 83–87.

Davison, K., and Guan, S. C. (1996). The quality of dietary informa-tion on the World Wide Web. Journal of the Canadian DieteticAssociation—Revue de L’Association Canadienne des Dietet-istes 57: 137–141.

Ebbing, D. D. (1996). General Chemistry, Houghton Mifflin,Boston.

Evans, J. R., and King, V. E. (1999). Business-to-business market-ing and the World Wide Web: Planning, managing, and as-sessing web sites. Industrial Marketing Management 28:343–358.

Impicciatore, P., Pandolfini, C., Casella, N., and Bonati, M. (1997).Reliability of health information for the public and the worldwide web: Systematic survey of advice on managing feverin children at home. British Medical Journal 314: 1875–1879.

Kim, P., Eng, T.R., Deering, M.J., and Maxfield, A. (1999). Pub-lished criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review.British Medical Journal 318: 647–649.

McDaniel, N., Wolfe, G., Mahaffy, C., and Teggins, J. (1994). Themodification of general-chemistry laboratories for useby students with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation 60: 26–29.

McGowan, C., and Sendall, P. (1997). Using the world wide webto enhance writing assignments in introductory chemistry.Journal of Chemical Education 74: 391.

Murray-Rust, P., Rzepa, H. S., and Whitaker, B. J. (1997). TheWorld-Wide Web as a chemical information tool. ChemicalSociety Reviews 26: 1–10.

Newman, M. S. (1999). Evaluation criteria and quality control forlegal knowledge systems on the Internet: A case study. LawLibrary Journal 91: 9–27.

Pollard, K., and Blyth, R. (1999). User-centred design of Websites and the redesign of LineOne. BT Technology Journal17: 69–75.

Stevens, K. E., and Stevens, R. E. (1996). Use of the World-WideWeb in lower-division chemistry courses. Journal of ChemicalEducation 73: 923.

Tweddle, S., Avis, P., Wright, J., and Waller, T. (1998). Towardscriteria for evaluating web sites. British Journal of EducationalTechnology 29: 267–270.

Vollhardt, H., Henn, C., Moeckel, G., Teschner, M., and Brick-mann, J. (1995). Virtual Reality Modelling Language inChemistry. Journal of Molecular Graphics 13: 368–375.

Yates, P. C. (1998). Web Reviews. Computers and Chemistry Edu-cation 18: 5–7.