1

Republic of the Philippines

Bulacan State University
Bustos Campus
Bustos, Bulacan

PLANTERRA: A WEB STORE APPLICATION

A Capstone Project Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Information Technology and Engineering
Bulacan State University - Bustos Campus

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Information Technology

Submitted by:

Villafuerte, John Vincent R.

De Guzman, Vincent R.
Javier, Meldwin Isaiah M.
Bautista, Ron Ivan P.
Tirao Angeline M.

FEBRUARY 2022
 2

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter will be represents in a data relative of developing, validating and designing

the Planterra Web Store Application. This chapter has settle on how need to answer some

following questionnaires they provide in to Planterra Web Store Application be developed for

the client and the reseller to find a way on how to provide a good performance on how will be

success to buy this product by using application and also we have limit for the service providers

are need to be a client and reseller to find a nearest spot location for a mapping features.

Commonly, Person who wants to buy a plant or selling plant, but with this application are needs

to create an account with defensible information. The client finds a plant, also need a checking of

the plant if it is quality and need to be check the location first if it is okay to buyer and to the

resellers.

The following are the specific objectives sought to answer:

1. To be able to utilized the following Software Development Tools such as:

Microsoft Visual Studio

It is an IDE platform for Microsoft’s OS. It is used to develop computer programs, as

well as websites, web apps, web services and mobile apps.

MySQL

It is an open-source relational database management system. To add, access, and process

data stored in a computer database, you need a database management system such as MySQL

Server.
 3

2. To evaluate the system using the 9126 Software Quality Evaluation Criteria.

Table 4.1

Respondents of the Evaluation

Respondents Frequency Percentage

IT Experts 2 6.66

Instructor 3 10.00

Students 10 33.33

Plant Enthusiast 15 50.00

TOTAL 30 100%

Table 4.1 presents the respondents of the evaluation consisting of two IT Experts; three

Instructors; ten Students; and fifteen Plant Enthusiasts. The definition and the representation of

the tables ventilate the overall mean dispensation in every survey in the criteria. It is also reveal

the definition of range that can be Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good and Excellent as the highest

explanation of the mean distributions. The researcher creates an evaluation instruments under the

Software Quality Model subsequent by a five point Likert scale:

Data Instrumentation

The researcher used relative instrument in collecting a data needed for the study. The

following option is on how tools will be used in gathering data.

 4

Evaluation Form

A method used to appraise the operational feasibility of the system. The following criteria

were gives in order to estimate the developed application such as: (a) Authority, (b) Purpose, (c)

Coverage, (d) Currency, (e) Objective, (f) Accuracy, (g) Functionality, and (h) Training and

Documentation.

During the evaluation of the developing system, the researchers share the questionnaires

and feedback forms in to the respondents of the system and was estimate by the experts in the

Information Technology. Furthermore, the developed application was appraise by the target user

from the people of the Philippines in the Region three.

Data Analysis

Table 4.2

Five Point Likert Type Attitude Scale

Scale Range Descriptive Rating

1 1.00 - 1.49 Poor

2 1.50 – 2.49 Fair

3 2.50 – 3.49 Good

4 3.50 – 4.49 Very Good

5 4.50 – 5.00 Excellent

The rating of the respondents and assessment result and justifiable of the Planterra Web

Store Application were survey the result of file basis: Authority, Purpose, Coverage, Currency,

Objectivity, Accuracy, Functionality and Training and Documentation.

 5

Using a locally structured estimate tools, the evaluations of the experts on eighteen

indicators were obtained using a five-point Liker Scale interpreted as follows: 5.0 - 4.51

"Excellent"; 4.50 – 3.51 "Very Good"; 3.50 – 2.51 "Good"; 2.50 – 1.51 "Fair"; 1.50 – 1.0 "Poor".

Formula:

M=5(r)+4(r)+3(r)+2(r)+1(r)
R
Where:

M – Mean

r – Number of all respondents

R – Total Number of respondents

Expert’s assessment on the Environment of the proposed development of Planterra Web

Store Application were sought using a five-point Likert Scale signify as follows: Excellent (5),

Very good (4), Good(3), Fair(2) and Poor(1).

Table 4.3

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Authority

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

A. Authority 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
1. Authorship: Is it 14 13 3 0 0 4.36 Very Good
clear who
developed the
site?
2. Is contact
information
provided: email 14 15 1 0 0 4.43 Very Good
address, snail
mail address,
 6

phone number,
and fax number?
3. Credential: Did
the author state
qualifications,
credentials, or
personal 18 10 2 0 0 4.53 Excellent
background that
gives them
authority to
present
information?
General Weight Mean 4.44 Very Good

Table 4.4

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Purpose

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

B. Purpose 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
1. Are the outside 20 8 2 0 0 4.53 Excellent
links appropriate
for the site?
2. Does the site 17 13 0 0 0 4.56 Excellent
evaluate the
links?
3. Check the
domain of the
site. The URL 23 6 1 0 0 4.73 Excellent
may indicate its
purpose.
General Weight Mean 4.60 Excellent

Table 4.5

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Coverage

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

C. Coverage 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
1. Compare the
value of the site’s 14 13 3 0 0 4.36 Very Good
information
compared to the
 7

other sites.
2. Do the links go to 18 10 2 0 0 4.53 Excellent
outside sites
rather than its
own?
3. Does the site
provide
information with 14 10 6 0 0 4.26 Very Good
no relevant
outside links?
4. Is it all images or 14 11 5 0 0 4.30 Very Good
a balance of text
and images?
5. Is the information 18 11 1 0 0 4.56 Excellent
presented cited
correctly?
6. Is there an option
for text only, or
frames, or a 15 13 2 0 0 4.43 Very Good
suggested
browser for better
viewing?
General Weight Mean 4.40 Very Good

Table 4.6

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Currency

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

D. Currency 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
1. Links are up-to- 22 8 0 0 0 4.73 Excellent
date?
2. Links provided 4.50 Excellent
should be
reliable. Dead
links or 16 13 1 0 0
references to sites
that have moved
are not useful?
3. Information
provided so trend
 8

related that its

usefulness is
limited to a 19 7 4 0 0 4.50 Excellent
certain time
period?
4. Has the site been
under 15 13 2 0 0 4.43 Very Good
construction for
some time?
General Weight Mean 4.54 Excellent

Table 4.7

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Objectivity

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

E. Objectivity 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
1. Is the information
presented with a 14 10 5 0 1 4.20 Very Good
particular bias?
2. Does the
information try to 13 13 4 0 0 4.30 Very Good
sway the
audience?
3. Does site
advertising 12 14 4 0 0 4.26 Very Good
conflict with the
content?
4. Is the site is try to
explain, inform, 18 9 3 0 0 4.50 Excellent
persuade, or sell
something?
General Weight Mean 4.31 Very Good

Table 4.8

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Accuracy

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

F. Accuracy 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
1. Reliability: Is the
author affiliated 20 9 1 0 0 4.63 Excellent
with a known,
 9

respectable
institution?
2. References: do
statistics and
other factual
information 15 13 2 0 0 4.43 Very Good
receive proper
references as to
their origin?
3. Does the reading
you have already
done on the 16 12 2 0 0 4.46 Very Good
subject make the
information seem
accurate?
4. Is the information
comparable to 16 13 1 0 0 4.50 Excellent
other sites on the
same topic?
5. Does the text
follow basic rules
of grammar, 17 12 1 0 0 4.53 Excellent
spelling and
composition?
General Weight Mean 4.51 Excellent

Table 4.9

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Functionality

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

G. Functionality 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
1. Accessibility. Is
there breadth of
browser
compatibility? A
minimum &
maximum 17 10 3 0 0 4.46 Very Good
monitor
resolution? Is
there is an appeal
to universal
audience –
 10

multilingual
translation,
cultural
sensitivity,
disability access
and services?
2. Speed and
Bandwidth
Sensitivity.
Consider overall
pages sizes &
complexity,
15 14 1 0 0 4.46 Very Good
average
download times,
download order
& image redraws;
wait to first
reaction /
interaction times.
3. HTML Quality.
Clean HTML
with no faulty
code, workability
of active x,
rollovers, applets,
etc., pages titles, 16 11 3 0 0 4.43 Very Good
descriptions,
keywords & tags,
Java and
JavaScript
dependency,
image
dependency.
4. Navigation &
Links. Navigation
functionality & 20 9 1 0 0 4.63 Excellent
clarity, quality &
depth of links
provided.
5. Legality. Original
artwork, music,
intellectual
property etc.,
international
copyright laws
are correctly
 11

observed,
quotations,
images & 17 11 2 0 0 4.50 Excellent
intellectual
property from 3rd
parties are
appropriately
cited, legal site
content and legal
site activities.
6. Compliance.
Adherence to 21 7 2 0 0 4.63 Excellent
standards.
7. Security.
Provision for 22 7 1 0 0 4.70 Excellent
security
requirements.
General Weight Mean 4.54 Excellent

Table 4.10

Mean Distribution of Expert Respondent Rating According to Training and

Documentation

INDICATORS RESPONDENTS MEAN RESPONSE

H. Training and 5 4 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION
Documentation
1. Availability of
guides and
printed 18 10 2 0 0 4.53 Excellent
documentation
(technical or
user’s manual).
2. Provision for
trainings /
tutorials or real 15 13 2 0 0 4.43 Very Good
interactive
learning.
3. Provision for
help component.
Text should be
clear and use
language
correctly, with
 12

appropriate
headings and
subheadings. 21 8 1 0 0 4.66 Excellent
Unfamiliar terms
should be defined
and explained.
Organization
should be logical.
All information
should be readily
accessible for
reference.
General Weight Mean 4.54 Excellent

Table 4.11

Summary of the weighted mean for the Planterra Web Store Application

EXPERT RESPONSE
CRITERIA
Weighted Mean Description

Authority 4.44 Very Good

Purpose 4.60 Excellent

Coverage 4.40 Very Good

Currency 4.54 Excellent

Objectivity 4.31 Very Good

Accuracy 4.51 Excellent

Functionality 4.54 Excellent

Training and Documentation 4.54 Excellent

Overall weighted mean 4.48 Very Good