## 4 The Proposed Development Model: Holistic Security and Accessibility Layered Architecture (HSALA)
### Analytical Comparison of the Models
#### 5.2.5 Additional Parameters  
Several other factors, such as technologies used and development/maintenance overhead, also differ between the two models. Table 7 provides an overview of how technology choices can be integrated, while Table 8 focuses on development and maintenance considerations.  
As illustrated in Table 7, HSALA's modular structure accommodates diverse technologies more easily.  
HSALA's flexibility in adopting layer-specific technologies enhances innovation and allows for the integration of advanced tools, particularly in security and accessibility. The three-layered model's limitations may hinder technological advancements and the implementation of specialized tools.  
Table 8 contrasts the efficiency and maintainability of each model.  
HSALA's modularity and separation of concerns streamline development and maintenance processes, enabling more efficient workflows and consistent standards. In contrast, the three-layered model may encounter inefficiencies and inconsistencies due to its less structured approach.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Aspect** & **HSALA** & **Three-Layered Model** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Layer-Specific Technologies} & Allows for the use of the most appropriate technologies at each layer (e.g., different databases, programming languages and frameworks). & \\  & Facilitates experimentation with new tools and technologies without & Adopting new technologies may require significant network and pose challenges due to the monolithic structure. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Innovation-Friendly} & Seamless incorporation of security technologies, like encryption & Difficulty in integrating advanced security tools due to architectural constraints and lack of dedicated security layers. \\  & Libraries, authentication mechanisms, and security testing tools, at each layer. & Difficulty in integrating advanced security tools due to architectural constraints and lack of dedicated security layers. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Comparison of the two architectural models considering technologies used.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Aspect** & **HSALA** & **Three-Layered Model** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Parallel Development} & Teams can work on different layers simultaneously, improving development efficiency and reducing the time-to-market. & Layers are often developed in a linear fashion, which can slow down the process and create bottlenecks. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Simplified Maintenance} & Isolated layers make it easier to identify and fix issues without impacting unrelated components, enhancing maintainability. & Interdependencies can complicate troubleshooting and updates, increasing maintenance overhead. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Documentation and Standards} & Encourages better documentation and adherence to development standards due to the clear separation of concerns and responsibilities. & Without clear separation, development standards may vary across the application, leading to inconsistencies and potential integration issues. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Comparison of the two architectural models considering development and maintenance.