Factors Influencing the Usability of Mobile Destination Management Organization Websites

Abstract

Mobile devices, such as smartphones, are fast becoming the primary way for many travelers to access the Internet in search of travel-related information. While mobile devices provide travelers with ubiquitous access to the Internet, they also face limitations, such as small screens and slow loading times, which destination management organizations (DMOs) must consider when designing mobile websites. This study investigates the factors influencing the overall usability of mobile DMO websites. Based on a sample of U.S. travelers with mobile devices, findings indicate that design elements related to Ease of Use and Content contribute most significantly to the overall usability of mobile DMO websites. Also, travelers highly value mobile DMO websites that are well structured and organized, offer convenient services, and have an easy-to-understand appearance. Managerial implications and areas for further research are discussed.

Keywords

mobile websites website evaluation usability destination websites

Introduction

As the ownership rates of smartphones and other mobile devices that are capable of wirelessly accessing the Internet continue to rise among travelers, many destination management organizations (DMOs) are showing a strong interest in developing mobile-optimized websites to complement their existing destination websites (U.S. Travel Association 2010). A challenge that often arises from the introduction of new technologies is that organizations try to fit a new technology into existing structures and systems instead of creating new strategies or developing completely new systems in order to take full advantage of that new technology (Gretzel, Yuan, and Fesenmaier 2000). While there has been considerable research conducted in tourism website evaluation (e.g., Law, Qi, and Buhalis 2010), DMO website success factors (e.g., Park and Gretzel 2007), and mobile website usability (e.g., Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007; Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006), very little has been done to investigate the usability of mobile DMO websites. The adoption of mobile technology by consumers has become widespread in recent years, seen primarily in increased use of smartphones and other devices that utilize high speed wireless networks (Donovan 2010). Smartphones differ from regular “feature phones” by having advanced operating systems capable of running applications and browsing the Internet. As of December 2011, there were 331.6 million wireless subscribers in the United States. Additionally, as of May 2011, 83% of American adults owned a cellphone, and among cellphone owners, 42% owned a smartphone. This smartphone ownership rate has doubled since 2009 (Pew Internet and American Life Project 2011). The increased adoption of mobile technology specifically among travelers is also expected because mobile services have been identified as valuable to travelers (Schmidt-Belz et al. 2002). A driving force behind the expanding popularity of mobile services among travelers is the convergence of technologies that can deliver content based on the location of the user. These location-based services (LBS) have the greatest potential to create new value for travelers (Berger, Lehmann, and Lehner 2003).

Smartphones and other mobile devices allow for the ubiquitous consumption of the Internet as a source of information (Siau, Lim, and Shen 2001). Information is valuable in tourism when it is considered that tourism products and services are for the most part intangible and cannot be inspected before their purchase. The Internet, therefore, has been an especially powerful information communication technology (ICT) in tourism and destination management, primarily because it is a tool that facilitates the transmission of communications and information quickly and inexpensively. In other words, the Internet is invaluable for the marketing and promotion of a destination (Buhalis 2003).

Consumers search the Internet for travel information in order to reduce risk and uncertainty before making tourism purchases (Jang 2005). The greater the importance of the purchase, the more research using the Internet is conducted (Fuchs and Reichel 2006). A popular channel for DMOs to provide information and communicate with consumers using the Internet has traditionally been through destination websites, which typically include information on a wide range of activities related to the destination (i.e., accommodations, dining, attractions, and events) (Gretzel, Yuan, and Fesenmaier 2000). In 2010, approximately 60 million Americans who planned travel online used DMO websites (U.S. Travel Association 2012). The primary functions of a destination website are to inform, educate, advertise, persuade, and entertain (Park and Gretzel 2007).

This research focuses on the new technology of mobile-optimized websites, which is quickly gaining importance within the travel and tourism industries, and specifically investigates the factors influencing the usability of mobile destination websites. The purpose of this study is to provide guidance for the future design and strategic use of mobile-optimized websites by DMOs. This research fills a clear gap in the existing literature by examining the usability requirements of travelers when using mobile DMO websites and determining which usability factors contribute to the overall success of a mobile DMO website. This research will help clarify the need for new ways of thinking when applying mobile-website technology, and will also serve as notice that many of the old assumptions used in traditional websites do not necessarily transfer into the realm of mobile devices. An investigation evaluating travelers’ perceived usability of mobile DMO websites will also extend the existing literature in tourism website evaluation, mobile website evaluation, and mobile website usability.

Literature Review

Mobile DMO Websites

Considerable research has been focused on destination websites in order to develop a better understanding of how they can be used effectively for destination marketing, promotion, and advertising (e.g., Choi, Lehto, and Oleary 2007; Gretzel, Yuan, and Fesenmaier 2000; Han and Mills 2006; Park and Gretzel 2007). Several success factors for marketing tourism on websites have emerged. The best destination websites are capable of attracting users, engaging users’ interest and participation, retaining users and ensuring their return, learning about user preferences, and customizing user interactions (Gretzel, Yuan, and Fesenmaier 2000). Effective destination websites provide channels for two-way communication between travelers and the DMO, and focus on offering localized and detailed information that is useful for trip planning (Han and Mills 2006). Moreover, DMO websites should facilitate travelers’ desire to share their travel experiences (Choi, Lehto, and Oleary 2007).

As mobile technologies and mobile services continue to gain broad appeal and adoption among consumers, it has been recognized that these new technologies are influencing the hospitality and tourism industries and creating opportunities to develop new products and services for tourists (Biuk-Aghai 2004; Buhalis and Pistidda 2009; Eriksson 2002). Many industries, such as airlines, hotels, and attractions, have all developed services that allow customers to interact through mobile channels (Lubbe and Louw 2010; H.-Y. Wang and Wang 2010). DMOs are also interested in using the mobile channel as a way of promoting destinations (U.S. Travel Association 2010), but in relative comparison to the large travel corporations that have already developed mobile service applications, DMO resources are very limited (Gretzel et al. 2006).

While the implementation of mobile websites seems to be a prudent strategy for DMOs interested in entering the mobile space, several limitations of mobile devices should be considered that relate to the potential effectiveness of a new mobile website. These limitations, in relation to traditional wired devices (e.g., desktop and laptop computers) used to access the Internet, include slower CPU speeds, limited memory capacity, smaller displays with lower resolution, difficult-to-use keypads, limited battery life, lower bandwidth, unstable network connections, and a higher cost of use (Sadeh 2002). For these reasons, it is best to design mobile websites from the ground up, instead of simply converting a traditional website to a mobile format (Fling 2010). If these limitations are not considered while designing mobile websites, it is possible for users to become frustrated and dissatisfied, especially if they compare their wireless Internet experiences with their wired experiences (Kim and Hwang 2006).

Website Usability

Considerable research has also been conducted on how to effectively evaluate tourism websites specifically. A large body of research on website evaluation spanning all sectors of travel, not just DMOs, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies has been produced (e.g., Doolin, Burgess, and Cooper 2002; Han and Mills 2006; Qi, Law, and Buhalis 2008). In a meta-analysis of 75 website research articles published between 1996 and 2009, Law, Qi, and Buhalis (2010) concluded that the work in tourism website evaluation is far from complete and that research is still needed to develop commonly agreed upon models, standards, and techniques. Law and colleagues recommended that future efforts in tourism website evaluation use a combined approach of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, focus on evaluating websites from the consumer’s perspective, and look to other fields such as psychology, human–computer interaction, engineering, and information systems for theories and models that could be applied to tourism website evaluation (Law, Qi, and Buhalis 2010). Much work in the information systems field has also been devoted to evaluating traditional websites from numerous approaches, including effectiveness (Tan, Tung, and Xu 2009), quality (Barnes, Liu, and Vidgen 2001; Loiacono, Watson, and Goodhue 2007), and usability (Green and Pearson 2009; Lederer et al. 2000; Palmer 2002; Tung, Xu, and Tan 2009; Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006; X. Wang and Liu 2007) frameworks.

Usability is a critical determinant of a website’s success when success is measured by whether visitors are satisfied with a website and whether they are likely to return to a website (Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002). Usability theory is tied to design characteristics (Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006) and has its roots in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which identifies Ease of Use and Usefulness as the key determinants of a technology’s future use (Davis 1989). Regardless of the technological readiness of consumers, research suggests that the greatest influences on usability evaluation were whether the website is utilitarian or hedonic in nature, and whether the website is accessed wirelessly or not (Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007).

Usability has been defined in numerous ways. For example, the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) has developed several definitions of usability. A product-oriented definition of usability (ISO 9126) is “the capability of the software product to be understood, learned, used and attractive to the user, when used under specified conditions” (Abran et al. 2003). An alternative definition of usability used in the context of websites is “the ease with which a customer can employ a site to achieve a specific goal” (Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007). Another commonly accepted definition of usability used when discussing websites and usability is the process-oriented standard (ISO 9241) defined as “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use” (Abran et al. 2003; Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002). This standard of usability, therefore, is determined by three attributes: (1) how well the users achieve their goals, (2) what resources are consumed while achieving these goals, and (3) how users feel about their use of the system. In the ISO 9241 definition of usability, the measurement of usability is based upon the interaction between users and the context of use; meaning that the usability of a product may change when it is used in different contexts (Abran et al. 2003). It is this ISO 9241 definition of usability that is operationalized for the current study.

Usability can be evaluated using four principal methods: heuristic evaluations, cognitive walkthroughs, comparisons against guidelines, and usability testing. These four methods of evaluation are generally conducted in controlled laboratory environments. In the laboratory setting, research participants are given predefined tasks to perform while data are collected using various measures. While user scenarios are often simulated in laboratory-based usability testing, the validity of these tests is often questioned for not fully representing the real world conditions found in the field. This is an issue that is especially relevant in the testing of mobile devices. Novel evaluation techniques, such as the use of treadmills and car simulators, are examples of ways that researchers can simulate real-world contexts in which mobile devices are commonly used. Conversely, field studies, while more accurately capturing real-use scenarios, are also more costly and the observation of research participants is more difficult (Duh, Tan, and Chen 2006).

In addition to the methodological challenges faced in mobile device usability research, usability evaluation frameworks that consider the context of the mobile computing environment have just recently begun to be developed. One such framework is that developed by Coursaris and Kim (2011), which is based on meta-analysis of more than 100 empirical usability studies. Coursaris and Kim (2011) propose that the usability of a mobile computing device (i.e., a mobile DMO website) will be influenced by four key contextual factors: user factors such as demographics and experience; environmental factors, such as location and social conditions; task factors, such as structured versus unstructured activities; and technology factors, such as interface and device type.

Specific to website design, various models for predicting usability have been developed in the information systems field. Palmer (2002) suggests a model that consists of the elements of download delay, navigation/organization, interactivity, responsiveness, and information content, each of which contributes to the usability of websites. Another model, WebQual, identifies the determinants of website quality as ease of use, usefulness, entertainment, and complementary relationships (Loiacono, Watson, and Goodhue 2007).

The Microsoft Usability Guidelines (MUG) is another generally accepted model for website usability (Tung, Xu, and Tan 2009) that began as a white paper written by Microsoft employee Keeker (1997). The white paper later served as the basis for the website usability model developed by Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002). The MUG categorizes the core attributes of website usability as relevant and high-quality content, ease of use, effective promotion, experiences unique to the medium, and emotion. With the exception of promotion, each core category is made up of additional subcategories (Keeker 1997). One of the main advantages of the MUG model is that it is based on actual website usability guidelines developed by the Microsoft Corporation. Therefore, each element of the model corresponds to more specific website design elements and it can be used to identify actionable needs for website improvement (Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002; Tung, Xu, and Tan 2009; Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006). The MUG model was later extended when Tung, Xu, and Tan (2009) expanded several usability subcategories. The dependent variables of the Enhanced MUG are users’ opinions of overall usability, overall design, and overall experience (Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002).

While the Enhanced MUG has been validated in previous studies as a useful model of website usability (Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002; Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007; Tung, Xu, and Tan 2009; Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006), there are several shortcomings associated with it. One of the primary criticisms of the MUG is that Keeker’s original white paper was developed exclusively from interactions within the Microsoft Network (MSN), only a small subsection of the entire Internet. Another limitation of the MUG is that it maintains website promotion as a construct of usability, yet the promotion of a website does not occur exclusively online and it can be difficult for someone with no previous knowledge of a website to evaluate its promotion, especially across all channels of communication. Furthermore, promotion of a website generally has little influence on its overall design (X. Wang and Liu 2007).

Factors Influencing Website Usability

Previous consumer-based usability research has consistently found that content and ease of use are the two most important usability requirements of website users (e.g., Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007; Pearson and Pearson 2008; Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006). Content in mobile DMO websites can take the form of mapping, searchable lists, travel itineraries, and reservation and booking systems (Choi, Lehto, and Oleary 2007), while ease of use relates to the quick, easy, and inexpensive search for travel-related information using the Internet (Carroll, Kwortnik, and Rose 2007).

In a study using the MUG model that included the evaluation of websites from both the airline and car rental industries, Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002) found that consumers rated content as the most important construct, followed closely by made-for-the-medium and ease of use. The elements of promotion and emotion were found to be significantly less important (Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002). Later, Venkatesh and Ramesh (2006) demonstrated that usability requirements differed for mobile and traditional websites within the banking, news, shopping, and tourism industries. Furthermore, Venkatesh and Ramesh (2006) evaluated the usability of wireless tourism review websites using the MUG model and found that content, ease of use, and made-for-the-medium were considered the most important among consumers. The MUG model was also used to show that made-for-the-medium, content, and ease of use explained 58% of the variation of the usability of wireless tourism review websites. Most closely related to this study, Park and Gretzel (2007) utilized meta-analysis to identify nine factors that have most commonly been used to measure DMO website success: ease of use, responsiveness, fulfillment, security/privacy, personalization, visual appearance, information quality, trust, and interactivity. They also concluded that future DMO website research should identify which factors affect consumer behavior the most and link those factors to quantifiable outcomes. Pearson and Pearson (2008) found that in a general business to consumer context, the website usability constructs most important to consumers are (1) ease of use, (2) navigation, (3) accessibility, (4) download speed, and (5) customization and personalization. Pearson and Pearson also argued that content, while a critical aspect of websites, should not be classified as an element of usability. Instead, in line with the TAM, content was considered an antecedent of usefulness, meaning that while content would contribute to a website’s usefulness, content did not affect the ease of use of a website (Pearson and Pearson 2008).

Research Questions

Although the influence of individual usability factors on overall usability has been examined extensively in traditional websites using the MUG and other models, relatively little research has examined the importance of website usability factors to consumers, and no previous investigations have been made within the mobile DMO website context. The determination of the relative importance of specific usability factors in different contexts of use and among different types of users is argued to be extremely valuable to inform management decisions and the future design of online services, such as mobile DMO websites (Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007). As outlined by Coursaris and Kim (2011) there are several contextual factors that may contribute to the usability of a mobile DMO website. This study is primarily concerned with understanding how the technology characteristics (i.e., design) of mobile DMO websites can influence usability. Therefore, within the design context, this study answers the following research questions:

Research question 1: What are the perceived levels of importance for the factors that influence mobile DMO website usability among travelers?

Research question 2: To what extent does each usability factor contribute to the overall usability of a mobile DMO website?

Research Design

To identify the most important factors influencing the usability of mobile DMO websites, a modified version of the Enhanced MUG model was used to better understand which usability factors contribute to the overall usability of mobile DMO websites. Note that unlike previous studies that implemented the MUG model, this study’s model excludes Promotion, since this factor of usability is difficult to evaluate and has limited influence on design (X. Wang and Liu 2007).

The model specifies that the overall usability of a mobile DMO website will be predicted by four principal independent variables: Content, Ease of Use, Made-for-the-Medium features, and Emotional appeal. Each of these four usability constructs are latent variables formed from the indicators described in Table 1. Consistent with Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002), the independent variable of Usability is a reflective variable measured by three indicators based on the ISO 9241 definition of usability: overall usability of the mobile website, overall design of the mobile website, and overall experience at the mobile website.

Table 1.

Usability Categories and Subcategories of the Enhanced Microsoft Usability Guidelines Model.

Category (Subcategory)	Definition
Content (CONT)	Extent to which website offers informational and transactional capability
Relevance (CONT_1)	Extent to which website offers content relevant to core audience
Quality (CONT_2)	Extent to which website offers content that is accurate and error free
Media use (CONT_3)	Extent to which website uses media appropriately and effectively to communicate content
Depth and breadth (CONT_4)	Extent to which website provides appropriate breadth and depth of content
Timely/Current Information (CONT_5)	Extent to which website provides current and timely information
Ease of Use (EASE)	Extent to which using website is free of effort
Appearance (EASE_1)	Extent to which website reaches target users by appealing to them in a fashion they are comfortable with and can easily understand
Convenient Services (EASE_2)	Extent to which website provides convenient services to facilitate users’ online activities
Structure (EASE_3)	Extent to which website is well structured and organized
Feedback (EASE_4)	Extent to which website provides clear and understandable results and feedback regarding your progress
Made for the medium (MED)	Extent to which website can be tailored to fit your specific needs
Community (MED_1)	Extent to which website offers opportunity to be part of online group or community
Personalization (MED_2)	Extent to which website can treat you as a unique person and responds to your specific needs
Refinement (MED_3)	Extent to which website reflects the most current trend(s) and provides the most current information
Emotion (EMO)	Extent to which website evokes emotional reactions from you
Challenge (EMO_1)	Extent to which website offers element of challenge
Plot (EMO_2)	Extent to which website provides interesting story line
Character Strength (EMO_3)	Extent to which website ties to individuals, within and outside organization, who have credibility
Pace (EMO_4)	Extent to which website allows you to control the pace at which information you interact with it

Source: Tung, Xu, and Tan (2009).

An online questionnaire based upon the Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002) instrument was used to collect data in two phases for this study. Survey respondents were first asked a screening question to ensure that they had a mobile device to evaluate the subject mobile website. In the first section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to complete a constrained rating task to measure the perceived importance of Enhanced MUG categories and indicators for all mobile DMO websites in general. In the second section, respondents were given clear instructions on how to navigate to the subject mobile DMO website using their personal mobile device in order to browse the website for several minutes. The subject mobile DMO website contained searchable destination information organized by upcoming events, hotels, dining, shopping, nightlife, and attractions. The subject website also included static maps and images of the destination. Respondents were asked to imagine themselves in the role of a traveler using the mobile website to plan a visit to the destination. After familiarizing themselves with the mobile website, respondents were subsequently asked to evaluate that mobile website by rating the quality of each Enhanced MUG indicator using a 5-point semantic scale ranging from poor to excellent.

Procedure

Prior to the full study, a pilot survey was conducted with a sample of 24 tourism graduate students and faculty members of a university located in the Eastern United States. On the basis of the feedback received from the pilot study, improvements were made to the wording of the screening question to avoid confusion. In addition, based on feedback from the pilot study, more parsimonious phrasing was used in the instructions for the first section of the questionnaire for rating the importance of each usability factor. Finally, a screen capture of the subject mobile website was added to the questionnaire used in the full study in order to serve as a check that respondents were evaluating the correct website.

For the full survey, the population of interest was U.S. travelers (both domestic and international) that owned mobile devices. The sampling frame was a list of email addresses for 7,136 individuals that had requested tourism information about a major city in the Southeast United States between the months of January and November 2010. The DMO for this city, in addition to providing the sampling frame, was the developer of the subject mobile website evaluated in this study.

Survey invitations were sent to all email addresses, resulting in a purposive sampling technique that, in the researcher’s judgment, focuses on individuals known to have an interest in travel. As a response enhancement for the sample of travelers, respondents were offered the opportunity to submit their name for the random drawing of a $200 Visa gift card.

The initial survey invitations were emailed on March 1, 2011, and after two reminders the survey was closed on March 18, 2011. Of the 7,136 invitations emailed, 6,781 were successfully delivered, resulting in 284 completed questionnaires—282 of which were usable. This is an effective response rate of 4.2%. While 282 travelers completed questionnaires, 145 (51.8%) who had mobile devices needed to answer all questions and evaluate the subject mobile website. Of these 145 completed questionnaires, one case reported technical issues and was removed from the study, resulting in a total of 144 usable cases for the study. After the postcoding of variables corresponding to open-ended survey questions was completed, the data were analyzed using SPSS version 19.0.0 and SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, and Will 2005) software.

Results

Of the 144 travelers sampled in this study, 94.4% were residents of the United States, and overall, the pooled sample took 3.9 business trips and 4.8 leisure trips during the previous 12-month period. Other characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 2. The characteristics of this sample are also relatively consistent with the characteristics of the general U.S. population of travelers as reported by the U.S. Travel Association (2012), though male travelers are underrepresented in this sample.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Survey Sample (n = 144).

	Sample
Characteristics	U.S. Travelers (%)
Gender
Male	28.5
Female	68.1
Do not wish to comment	3.5
Age
18-24	4.9
25-34	41.7
35-44	26.4
45-54	18.8
55-64	6.9
65-74	0.7
75+	0.7
Marital status
Never married	32.6
Married/domestic partnership	50.0
Divorced	9.7
Widowed	0.7
Do not wish to comment	6.9
Level of education
Not a high school graduate	1.4
High school graduate	2.8
Some college	20.8
College associate’s degree	13.9
College bachelor’s degree	35.4
Advanced college degree	22.2
Do not wish to comment	3.5
Annual household income (before taxes), $
Less than 10,000	3.5
10,000 to 14,999	2.1
15,000 to 24,999	3.5
25,000 to 34,999	6.3
35,000 to 49,999	17.4
50,000 to 74,999	16.0
75,000 to 99,999	17.4
100,000 to 149,999	14.6
150,000 or more	6.3
Do not wish to comment	13.2
Ethnic origin
African American	19.4
Asian or Pacific Islander	2.8
Caucasian	64.6
Hispanic	4.2
Native American	0.7
Other	3.5
Do not wish to comment	4.9

Travelers’ Perceived Importance of Usability Factors

In order to answer research question 1, the variable weights indicating perceived importance for each item of the Enhanced MUG were calculated following the methodology used by Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002) and Venkatesh and Ramesh (2006). Survey respondents were first asked to rate the importance of each usability factor by distributing 100 points among the five category items of Content, Ease of Use, Promotion, Made-for-the-Medium, and Emotion, with more points being distributed to items of higher importance. Respondents were then asked to weigh the importance of all usability subcategory items by distributing 100 points among the items found within each subcategory. Final weights for each item were then calculated by multiplying the subcategory ratio by the parent category’s original weight. For example, if a respondent distributed 25 points to the Content category, and then 20 points to the subcategory item Relevance, the final weight for Relevance would be 5. In this way, each usability factor for each respondent could have a weighted importance value ranging from 0 to 100.

The mean importance for mobile DMO usability factor categories and subcategories are reported in Table 3. The major category of Ease of Use, with a mean weight of 31.39, followed closely by Content with a mean weight of 28.47, are the most important usability categories to mobile device users when using DMO mobile websites. Emotion, with a mean weight of 10.46, is considered the least important category of factors that influence the usability of DMO mobile websites.

Table 3.

Perceived Importance of Usability Categories and Subcategories (n = 144).

	M	SE	SD
Ease of Use	31.39	1.29	15.481
Structure	9.43	0.85	10.16
Convenient	8.58	0.63	7.61
Appearance	8.15	0.44	5.32
Feedback	5.22	0.29	3.48
Content	28.47	1.15	13.74
Relevance	7.08	0.46	5.57
Current	7.00	0.44	5.33
Quality	6.59	0.39	4.63
Depth	3.90	0.21	2.54
Media	3.90	0.23	2.78
Made-for-the-Medium	17.83	0.75	9.05
Refinement	7.35	0.45	5.37
Personalization	6.99	0.39	4.66
Community	3.49	0.27	3.26
Promotion	11.85	0.66	7.90
Emotion	10.46	0.75	9.04
Pace	3.27	0.25	2.99
Character	2.95	0.27	3.22
Plot	2.33	0.20	2.44
Challenge	1.90	0.19	2.31

Examining the usability factors of DMO mobile websites at the subcategory level, several factors are clearly considered the most important to travelers. In order of weighted importance, the top five factors are Structure (9.43), Convenient Services (8.58), Appearance (8.15), Refinement (7.35), and Relevance (7.08). The top three factors are all constructs of Ease of Use, followed by constructs of Content and Made-for-the-Medium. Pace (3.27) was the most important construct of Emotion. Note that the sum of the mean weights for the five usability categories equals 100, whereas the mean weights for the mobile usability subcategories only sum to 88.15. This is because the category of Promotion doesn’t have any subcategory elements, so the 11.85 points of importance corresponding to Promotion are not further distributed at the subcategory level.

Identifying Key Determinants of Mobile Website Usability

In order to answer research question 2 and measure the relative influence each usability factor has on the overall usability of mobile DMO websites, a partial least squares (PLS) analysis of the Enhanced MUG model was conducted. PLS analysis was chosen for this study because PLS works well with smaller sample sizes (Chin 2010), whereas another common technique, covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM), requires a minimum sample size of 200. Furthermore, PLS has been shown to be more appropriate than SEM for exploring the structure of existing theories and identifying the dominant constructs of a model (Chin 2010; Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011).

Prior to testing the relative influence of usability factors, it is necessary to evaluate the Enhanced MUG model on the validity and reliability of the measures used for each construct shown in Figure 1. Model validity depends on both discriminant and convergent validity. Discriminant validity is determined by examining indicator loadings making up a construct in order to ensure that inter-construct loadings are higher than the loadings of the other constructs (Chin 2010). Table 4 summarizes the cross loadings of the Enhanced MUG model. For reflective constructs, average variance extracted (AVE) values of .50 or higher (which indicates that the latent variable explains more than half of the indicator variance) suggest convergent validity (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011). As shown in Table 5, the Enhanced MUG’s reflective construct, Overall Usability, satisfies this requirement with an AVE of .832, and the AVE value for Overall Usability is greater than the squared correlation between Overall Usability and any other latent variable. Table 5 also includes the Cronbach alpha and composite reliability measures for Overall Usability. Unlike Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability does not assume tau equivalency among measures, and, therefore, is considered a better approximation of reliability (Chin 2010). While the reflective construct of Usability is shown to have construct validity, there are no universally accepted criteria for assessing the reliability of the formative constructs of a model since no theoretical assumption is made about interitem correlation. Collinearity, however, can be checked in formative models in order to detect any highly correlated indicators that would make model results imprecise when estimating indicator weights (Coltman et al. 2008). Within each formative construct (Content, Ease of Use, Made-for-the-Medium, and Emotion), indicators were tested for collinearity and all tolerance values fell within the range of .37025 and .87186, indicating that there are were no collinearity issues. Based on these tests, the Enhanced Mug model used in this study was confirmed as a valid and reliable model for measuring mobile DMO website usability.

Figure 1.

Enhanced Microsoft Usability Guidelines model for mobile destination management organization website usability.

Table 4.

Model Cross Loadings.

	CONT	EASE	EMO	MED	USAB
CONT_1	0.899	0.778	0.765	0.680	0.738
CONT_2	0.765	0.643	0.688	0.663	0.628
CONT_3	0.799	0.651	0.728	0.665	0.656
CONT_4	0.917	0.763	0.745	0.736	0.753
CONT_5	0.801	0.713	0.713	0.680	0.658
EASE_1	0.744	0.844	0.760	0.704	0.715
EASE_2	0.773	0.862	0.720	0.628	0.730
EASE_3	0.625	0.805	0.636	0.480	0.682
EASE_4	0.407	0.510	0.491	0.520	0.432
EMO_1	0.609	0.650	0.787	0.615	0.620
EMO_2	0.508	0.590	0.706	0.552	0.556
EMO_3	0.737	0.708	0.790	0.639	0.623
EMO_4	0.785	0.737	0.889	0.668	0.701
MED_1	0.660	0.604	0.656	0.823	0.570
MED_2	0.718	0.634	0.675	0.888	0.615
MED_3	0.351	0.425	0.385	0.482	0.334
USAB_1	0.692	0.770	0.696	0.570	0.904
USAB_2	0.759	0.739	0.728	0.635	0.894
USAB_3	0.792	0.807	0.732	0.687	0.937

Note: CONT = Content; EASE = Ease of Use; EMO = Emotion; MED = Made-for-the-Medium; USAB = Overall Usability. Bold values indicate highest factor loadings for each item.

Table 5.

Overall Usability Interconstruct Correlations and Reliability Measures.

			Squared Correlations
Composite Reliability	Cronbach’s Alpha	AVE	CONT	EASE	EMO	MED
0.937	0.899	0.831	0.674	0.717	0.621	0.480

Note: AVE = average variance extracted; CONT = Content; EASE = Ease of Use; EMO = Emotion; MED = Made-for-the-Medium.

Results of the PLS analysis are presented in Figure 1. The Enhanced MUG model of four main constructs (Ease of Use, Content, Made-for-the-Medium, and Emotion) was found to have a high correlation to Overall Usability (R² = .757). This indicates that the Enhanced MUG model can explain 75.7% of the variation in overall usability. Path coefficients for each construct provide insight into the relative influence of each construct in the model. Of greatest influence on Overall Usability within the Enhanced MUG model is the construct Ease of Use with a path coefficient of 0.491. The second most influential construct in predicting mobile DMO website usability is Content with a path coefficient loading of 0.317. Statistical significance of PLS analysis is determined through bootstrapping to calculate t statistics for each path of the model (Chin 2010; Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011). After bootstrapping 300 cases, the t statistics for the Enhanced MUG model path coefficients are also reported in Figure 1. The effects of Ease of Use (t = 8.142) and Content (t = 4.451) are statistically significant contributors to Overall Usability. However, the Emotion (t = 1.542) and Made-for-the-Medium (t = 0.063) constructs are found to have nonsignificant effects on Overall Usability at α = .05. This PLS analysis clearly shows that not all usability constructs have equal influence on Overall Usability, and that Ease of Use and Content most strongly contribute to mobile DMO website usability.

Figure 1 also shows the indicator weights of each Enhanced MUG construct and it is noteworthy that all indicators are statistically significant contributors to the latent constructs except for CONT_2 and CONT_3. These data suggest that Quality of Content and Media Use of Content are not significant indicators of the latent variable mobile DMO website Content. All other indicators are statistically significant contributors to their respective constructs.

Discussion and Implications

While there has been considerable research conducted in tourism website evaluation (e.g., Law, Qi, and Buhalis 2010), DMO website success factors (e.g., Park and Gretzel 2007), and mobile website usability (e.g., Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007; Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006), very little has been done to investigate the usability of mobile DMO websites. While focusing on the technology context (i.e., design characteristics) of mobile websites, this research fills a clear gap in the existing literature by examining the usability requirements of travelers when using mobile DMO websites and determining which usability factors contribute to the overall success of a mobile DMO website. An effective procedure for evaluating mobile website usability that uses the Enhanced MUG model, which was developed initially by Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002) and later improved upon by Tung, Xu, and Tan (2009), has also been detailed. Several important observations have been made as a result of this research.

Using a modified version of the Enhanced MUG model of usability, which proposes that website usability is determined by the four basic website factors of Ease of Use, Content, Made-for-the-Medium, and Emotion, it has been demonstrated that not all of these usability constructs contribute equally to the overall usability of mobile DMO websites. In particular, Ease of Use and Content contribute most significantly to mobile DMO website usability. This study also identified which factors of mobile DMO website design are considered the most important among travelers.

Implications for Managers

The identification of Relevance as a principal success factor in mobile DMO website usability highlights the importance of maintaining mobile DMO website content that is focused on user needs. Although the other top design elements of Structure, Convenient Services, and Appearance do not require as much diligence once they have been implemented, travelers also place high value on the Refinement of mobile DMO websites. If a DMO allows its mobile website to become outdated with regard to both its content and the way in which the content is presented, then it risks seriously damaging the usability and credibility of its mobile website. Therefore, while more attention may be given to making mobile DMO websites easier to use, it should not be forgotten that accurate, high-quality content still remains king and that it is a vital component of any mobile DMO website’s success.

While Content and Ease of Use factors should be of the highest priority when making design considerations, DMO professionals should not overlook the Made-for-the-Medium factors that travelers value, especially personalization. Using the Internet for travel planning purposes continues to become a more and more personal experience, and DMOs would be well advised to continue to take advantage of technology, such as LBS, that can customize the user experience based on individual user contexts as much as possible. Turn-by-turn navigation and the identification of nearby points of interest on interactive maps are examples of technologies that can be integrated into mobile websites in order to add user context and increase usability. Personalization of mobile DMO websites should not, however, be limited to LBS. This study has also found that Community factors are of less importance for travelers using mobile DMO websites. This suggests that the integration of social networks, which link an online mobile DMO website to online communities, is not a feature strongly desired by travelers, and can therefore be a lower design priority if the goal is to maximize the usability of a mobile DMO website. This isn’t to say that destinations should not have a presence in online communities.

Mobile DMO websites will not only be used for making major pretrip decisions prior to departure, such as when and where to travel, but also for decisions more flexible to change while at the destination, such as what attractions to visit or in which restaurants to dine, and the implications of this are significant. DMOs must, therefore, consider what information is needed by travelers for making both these primary and secondary trip decisions and integrate those needs into their mobile DMO website strategy. For example, information needed for primary decision making that may be integrated into a mobile DMO website would include general information about the destination, a calendar of events, lodging and transportation options, specials and promotional packages, and other information that would enable a user to select one travel destination over another.

Compared to the past, when billboards and hotel/motel magazines were the primary channels used by DMOs to influence secondary and en route decisions (Fesenmaier and Jeng 2000), there is now growing opportunity for DMOs to engage travelers while they are at the destination using mobile websites (Choi, Lehto, and Oleary 2007). Examples of secondary trip decision information that should be integrated into mobile DMO websites would include detailed information about destination attractions, food and beverage options, detailed maps, and instant mobile coupons and other promotions, as this type of mobile website content would influence travel plans that were flexible or yet to have been made.

Implications for Researchers

This research has applied a version of the Enhanced MUG model to understand the perceived levels of importance of factors influencing mobile DMO website usability among travelers and the extent to which each usability factor contributes to the overall usability of a mobile DMO website. It has also been shown that the Enhanced MUG is a reliable instrument for capturing both user opinion of a mobile website design elements and user opinion of the relative importance of mobile website design elements. Furthermore, this study has demonstrated a repeatable methodology that can be used in future mobile website usability research.

Findings also imply that the Enhanced MUG model of website usability requires further refinement, as suggested by Venkatesh and Ramesh (2006). The usability construct of Promotion was omitted from regression analysis in this study, and the four-construct model (Ease of Use, Content, Made-for-the-Medium, and Emotion) was still able to explain 75.7% of the variability of Usability. This study has identified which usability factors will affect consumer behavior the most, a major research priority for DMO website analysis (Park and Gretzel 2007). Results have shown that Ease of Use and Content are the primary influencers of Overall Usability for mobile DMO websites. This finding is consistent with the findings of previous website studies that examined the usability requirements of both traditional and mobile website users (e.g., Massey, Khatri, and Montoya-Weiss 2007; Venkatesh and Ramesh 2006), and suggests that the basic usability requirements of Ease of Use and Content are consistent keys to successful website design regardless of the device used. However, in contrast to previous research, this study finds that Made-for-the-Medium and Emotion constructs do not significantly impact the usability of a mobile DMO website. This study’s findings suggest that only Content and Ease of Use contribute to the overall usability of DMO websites. In fact, these two factors alone can explain 74.7% of the variability in overall usability. If Content is viewed as a proxy for Usability, as suggested by Pearson and Pearson (2008), then these finding suggest that mobile DMO website usability may be equally understood using the TAM (Davis 1989) framework and its later refinements, which explain the adoption of a technology as a function of its Ease of Use and Usefulness.

Research Limitations

This study has a notably low response rate. Survey respondents were explicitly required to have a mobile device in order to complete the questionnaire, yet the sampling frame used for this study was not prescreened to exclude those not owning a mobile device. Therefore, a possible cause for the low response rate may be due to respondents disqualifying themselves from the survey because they did not have a mobile device to complete the survey. Beyond the low response rate, there are several other limitations to this study’s methodology. First, there is a concern that technical difficulties were an issue for respondents, since respondents were unsupervised as they completed the questionnaires. Therefore, any problems that occurred with the respondent’s mobile device or the mobile DMO website during the survey may have had an unknown effect on results. This is a valid concern, but it is also an issue that managers must contend with when operating a website. Another issue regarding mobile devices is that any type of Internet-enabled mobile device was allowed to complete the questionnaire. It is expected that user experiences varied by mobile device, but again, this is a common issue with web design. Finally, the lack of a control group threatens the validity of findings that contrast the usability of DMO websites versus traditional DMO websites.

Recommendations for Future Research

Understanding the usability success factors of mobile DMOs should prove valuable to both tourism managers and academics. Future researchers may want to investigate mobile DMO website usability and actual use in order to confirm this study’s results. Further research that explores in more detail the information consumption habits of mobile travelers using mobile devices through all phases of travel and the impact of mobile devices on trip decisions made in all stages of travel would also be a worthy endeavor. As tablet devices (e.g., iPads) gain popularity, it would be worthwhile to examine how DMO websites are used by travelers on these devices. Also, studies comparing and contrasting travelers’ use of mobile technology in other travel and tourism sectors (e.g., hotels, online travel agencies, restaurants, cruises, airlines) and among different target markets (e.g., business, leisure) would contribute to managers’ improved digital marketing efforts. Therefore, future work may expand the Enhanced MUG model to test the effects of additional exogenous variables proposed by Coursaris and Kim (2011), such as the time and location of use (i.e., pretrip, on site, posttrip), user device, user travel experience, user technology experience, and industry sector, on mobile tourism website usability.

Opportunity to be part of online communities was only rated of average importance to mobile DMO website users. This finding is slightly unexpected considering the popularity of social media. Today’s travelers are accustomed to utilizing online communities that can provide user reviews and also forums for sharing travel experiences, and further investigation that explains travel-related social media use on mobile devices is needed. In addition to the integration of social media features, tourism professionals have many other considerations to make when developing mobile DMO websites. Beyond simple information search, mobile users are continuously raising their expectations of the services provided by mobile websites. LBS, such as mapping and navigation services, are now a must-have, but other services, such as the ability to quickly identify and easily book an activity, transportation, meal, or room through a DMO’s mobile website should also be considered if the DMO wishes to remain relevant among the growing group of competing mobile websites from companies such as Expedia, Kayak, Facebook, Google, Groupon, and Yelp. Additionally, a mobile DMO website must present the content that travelers are seeking in a manner that is convenient for them. Travelers are more often than not multitasking numerous activities while also using a mobile DMO website; therefore large, easy-to-read text and navigation buttons are critical when designing for the limitations of a mobile device’s small screen size. Eye-popping animations and other multimedia that are used to grab a user’s attention in traditional websites oftentimes demand too much from the limited memory and power resources of the typical mobile device, and this results in pages that display incorrectly or load very slowly. When it comes to the appearance and structure of a mobile DMO website, keeping it simple may be the key to success.

Therefore, having shown which general factors most positively influence the overall usability of mobile DMO websites, future research may include experimental designs that utilize control groups in order to understand how specific services and design features influence and contribute to the usability factors discussed in this study. In a similar fashion, future researcher should consider further developing the Enhanced MUG model to better explain mobile DMO website usability while also testing the Enhanced MUG model against other models, such as the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1989).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jason L. Stienmetz is earning his PhD in Business Administration at Temple University’s Fox School of Business. He is a research assistant at the National Laboratory for Tourism & eCommerce and his interests include tourism metrics, big data analytics, and smart tourism.

Stuart E. Levy is an assistant professor of marketing and tourism studies in the School of Business at The George Washington University. His research interests include relationship marketing, corporate social responsibility, and digital marketing in the lodging industry.

Soyoung Boo is an assistant professor of Management and Tourism, School of Business, at the George Washington University. Her research areas are event/meeting management, risk management, and tourism development.

References

Abran

Alain

Khelifi

Adel

Suryn

Witold

Seffah

Ahmed

. (2003). “Usability Meanings and Interpretations in ISO Standards.” Software Quality Journal, 11 (4): 325-38.

Agarwal

Ritu

Venkatesh

Viswanath

. (2002). “Assessing a Firm’s Web Presence: A Heuristic Evaluation Procedure for the Measurement of Usability.” Information Systems Research, 13 (2): 168-86.

Barnes

Stuart J.

Liu

Kenny

Vidgen

Richard T.

(2001). “Evaluating WAP News Sites: The Webqual/M Approach.” Proceedings of the The 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia.

Berger

Stefan

Lehmann

Hans

Lehner

Franz

. (2003). “Location-Based Services in the Tourist Industry.” Information Technology and Tourism, 5 (4): 243-56.

Biuk-Aghai

R. P.

(2004). “Macaumap: A Success Story. Digital Geospatial Information for Tourists and Locals.” GIM International, 18 (12): 77-79.

Buhalis

Dimitrios

. (2003). eTourism. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Buhalis

Dimitrios

Pistidda

(2009). “Wireless Applications in Destinations.” Proceedings of the ENTER Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2009, Amsterdam.

Carroll

W. J.

Kwortnik

R. J.

Rose

N. L.

(2007). “Travel Packaging: An Internet Frontier.” Cornell Hospitality Report, 7 (17): 4-20.

Chin

Wynne W.

(2010). “How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses.” In Handbook of Partial Least Squares, edited by Vinzi

Esposito

Henseler

Wang

Berlin: Springer, pp. 655-90.

10.

Choi

Soojin

Lehto

Xinran Y.

Oleary

Joseph T.

(2007). “What Does the Consumer Want from a DMO Website? A Study of U.S. and Canadian Tourists’ Perspectives.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 9 (2): 59-72.

11.

Coltman

Devinney

T. M.

Midgley

D. F.

Venaik

(2008). “Formative versus Reflective Measurement Models: Two Applications of Formative Measurement.” Journal of Business Research, 61 (12): 1250-62.

12.

Coursaris

Constantionos K.

Kim

Dan J.

(2011). “A Meta-Analytical Review of Empirical Mobile Usability Studies.” Journal of Usability Studies, 6 (3): 117-71.

13.

Davis

Fred D.

(1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3): 319-40.

14.

Donovan

Mark

. (2010) “The State of Mobile: U.S. Mobile Media Landscape and Trends.” comScore.

15.

Doolin

Bill

Burgess

Lois

Cooper

Joan

. (2002). “Evaluating the Use of the Web for Tourism Marketing: A Case Study from New Zealand.” Tourism Management, 23 (5): 557-61.

16.

Duh

Henry Been-Lim

Tan

Gerald C. B.

Chen

Vivian Hsueh-hua

. (2006). “Usability Evaluation for Mobile Device: A Comparison of Laboratory and Field Tests.” Proceedings of the MobileHCI 2006, Helsinki, Finland.

17.

Eriksson

Owen

. (2002). “Location Based Destination Information for the Mobile Tourist.” Proceedings of the ENTER Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2002, Innsbruck, Austria.

18.

Fesenmaier

Daniel R.

Jeng

JiannMin

. (2000). “Assessing Structure in the Pleasure Trip Planning Process.” Tourism Analysis, 5 (1): 13-27.

19.

Fling

Brian

. (2010). Mobile Design and Development: Practical Concepts and Techniques for Creating Mobile Sites and Web Apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

20.

Fuchs

Galia

Reichel

Arie

. (2006). “Correlates of Destination Risk Perception and Risk Reduction Strategies.” In Progress in Tourism Marketing, edited by Kozak

Metin

Andreu

Luisa

. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 161-71.

21.

Green

David T.

Pearson

J. Michael

. (2009). “The Examination of Two Web Site Usability Instruments for Use in B2C eCommerce Organizations” Journal of Information Systems, 49 (4): 19-32.

22.

Gretzel

Ulrike

Fesenmaier

Daniel R.

Formica

Sandro

O’Leary

Joseph T.

(2006). “Searching for the Future: Challenges Faced by Destination Marketing Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (2): 116-26.

23.

Gretzel

Ulrike

Yuan

Yu-Lan

Fesenmaier

Daniel R.

(2000). “Preparing for the New Economy: Advertising Strategies and Change in Destination Marketing Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (2): 146-56.

24.

Hair

Joe F.

Ringle

Christian M.

Sarstedt

Marko

. (2011). “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2): 139-51.

25.

Han

Jee-Hee

Mills

Juline E.

(2006). “Zero Acquaintance Benchmarking at Travel Destination Websites: What Is the First Impression That National Tourism Organizations Try to Make?” International Journal of Tourism Research, 8 (6): 405-30.

26.

Jang

SooCheong

. (2005). “The Past, Present, and Future Research of Online Information Search.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17 (2): 41-47.

27.

Keeker

(1997) “Improving Web Site Usabilty and Appeal.” Microsoft. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc889361.aspx.

28.

Kim

Dan J.

Hwang

Yujong

. (2006). “A Study of Mobile Internet User’s Service Quality Perceptions from a User’s Utilitarian and Hedonic Value Tendency Perspectives.” Proceedings of the Twelfth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexico.

29.

Law

Rob

Shanshan

Buhalis

Dimitrios

. (2010). “Progress in Tourism Management: A Review of Website Evaluation in Tourism Research.” Tourism Management, 31 (3): 297-313.

30.

Lederer

Albert L.

Maupin

Donna J.

Sena

Mark P.

Zhuang

Youlong

. (2000). “The Technology Acceptance Model and the World Wide Web.” Decision Support Systems, 29 (3): 269-82.

31.

Loiacono

Eleanor T.

Watson

Richard T.

Goodhue

Dale L.

(2007). “Webqual: An Instrument for Consumer Evaluation of Web Sites.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11 (3): 51-87.

32.

Lubbe

Berendien

Louw

Liebie

. (2010). “The Perceived Value of Mobile Devices to Passengers across the Airline Travel Activity Chain.” Journal of Air Transport Management, 16 (1): 12-15.

33.

Massey

Anne P.

Khatri

Vijay

Montoya-Weiss

Mitzi M.

(2007). “Usability of Online Services: The Role of Technology Readiness and Context.” Decision Sciences, 38 (2): 277-308.

34.

Palmer

Jonathan W.

(2002). “Web Site Usability, Design, and Perfomance Metrics.” Information Systems Research, 13 (2): 151-67.

35.

Park

Young A.

Gretzel

Ulrike

. (2007). “Success Factors for Destination Marketing Web Sites: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (1): 46-63.

36.

Pearson

J. Michael

Pearson

Ann M.

(2008). “An Exploratory Study into Determining the Relative Importance of Key Criteria in Web Usability: A Multi-Criteria Approach.” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48 (4): 115-27.

37.

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2011) “Device Ownership.” http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Device-Ownership.aspx (accessed December 16, 2011).

38.

Shanshan

Law

Rob

Buhalis

Dimitrios

. (2008). “Usability of Chinese Destination Management Organization Websites.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25 (2): 182-98.

39.

Ringle

Christian M.

Wende

Sven

Will

Alexander

. (2005). “SmartPLS.” 2.0 (beta). SmartPLS, Hamburg, Germany.

40.

Sadeh

Norman

. (2002). m-Commerce: Technologies, Services, and Business Models. New York: John Wiley.

41.

Schmidt-Belz

Makelainen

Nick

Poslad

(2002). “Intelligent Brokering of Tourism Services for Mobile Users.” Proceedings of ENTER Conference on Information & Communication Technologies in Tourism 2002, Innsbruck, Austria.

42.

Siau

Lim

E.-P.

Shen

. (2001). “Mobile Commerce: Promises, Challenges, and Research Agenda.” Journal of Database Managment, 12 (3): 4-13.

43.

Tan

Felix

Tung

Lai-Lai

Yun

. (2009). “A Study of Web-Designers’ Criteria for Effective Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Websites Using the Repertory Grid Technique.” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 10 (3): 155-77.

44.

Tung

Lai

Yun

Tan

Felix

. (2009). “Attributes of Web Site Usability: A Study of Web Users with the Repertory Grid Technique.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13 (4): 97-126.

45.

U.S. Travel Association. (2012) “Travelers’ Use of the Internet, 2011 Edition.”

46.

U.S. Travel Association. (2010) “Use of Mobile Travel Services by Destination Marketing Organizations, 2010 Edition.”

47.

Venkatesh

Viswanath

Ramesh

(2006). “Web and Wireless Site Usability: Understanding Differences and Modeling Use.” MIS Quarterly, 30 (1): 181-205.

48.

Wang

Hsiu-Yuan

Wang

Shwu-Huey

. (2010). “Predicting Mobile Hotel Reservation Adoption: Insight from a Perceived Value Standpoint.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29 (4): 598-608.

49.

Wang

Xiuyan

Liu

Jiaguo

. (2007). “Usability Evaluation of B2c Web Site.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2007, Shanghai.