On To Project 3!

Sorry I couldn't post my final video- my onid is full! And sorry its taken me so long to post the project 3 stuff!

First off, here are my website reviews (screenshots coming soon) Hope i did the reviews right!



Site Name: Iamalwayshungry.com

Navigation:

Overall the site was fairly easy to navigate. The main menu was large and easy to find and understand as soon as I entered the site. I was able to go to the info section immediately to get a feel for what the site was all about. The info section had a sort of poetic ___-esque description that wasn’t completely informative but set a tone for the rest of the site. The titles of the subsections also cled me in to what the site was about right away. I could tell by the menu categories “motion,” “print,” “identity,” etc. that the site was for a design group or a designer.

The only navigation difficulty was that it took it took a little extra exploration to find the contact section, because it isn’t connected visually or spatially to the rest of the menu items. This adds to the fun/exploration element of the site, but may frustrate potential employers who just want to get ahold of the designer quickly.


Metphors:

Organizational: Main menu categories were organized by use (news/showcase/archive/info) Subcategories were arranged as was fitting for each section, for example, the archive section was arranged by the type of work.

Functional: the ticking clock, use of buttons

Visual: The groups actual design work was full of visual metaphors, but I didn’t notice many visual metaphors in the site design, perhaps the envelope in the email section would count.

Information Architecture:

Information makes sense, and the content is easy to access and well-organized, overall, although it is difficult to distinguish the hierarchy between some of the submenus. For example, in the archive section the menus appear to be continuous all the way down the left side of the screen, when in fact its actually a menu on the top half, and sub-ctegories on the bottom half. But tthere isn’t enough hierarchy to tell the difference between the two. Heirarchy works to aid usability in most other areas of the site except in this one instance, though. I especially like the large main menu superimposed over the background- it helps the site feel more simple, even though there are a lot of areas of information to navigate.

Usability:

Navigation and information architecture contribute to high overall usability. The site is easy to use and interesting, presenting a lot of detailed information in a user-friendly way.
Meaning Making:

No obvious or unusual metaphors were used besides the ticking clock. The ticking clock in the upper right corner of the screen was an interesting element. Its presence gives a sense of urgency, even though it’s just keeping time. It made me feel a slight sense of urgency and anxiety while I explored the site, as if there was something I was supposed to discover within a certain time limit, almost like some sort of video game. This mostly felt like a bad thing, but I did notice that this aspect contributed to my overall immersion in the environment of the site and kept my attention on the site, because I felt I didn’t have time to be distracted.

Reflection of the user:

Besides the usual rections upon mouse-over for links, etc, there was no special reflection of the user in the site. The clock gave the feeling of reflecting the user. I felt like it was timing me. But in actuality it was just keeping track of the actual time of day, and didn’t change according to my interaction with the site.

Transparency of Design:

The design doesn’t overpower the content, but I did spend more time thinking about the site design than I did on other websites I visited. Since it’s a design group, however, this may not necessarily be a bad thing. Overall the design is fairly simple, and showcased the design group’s work beautifully with nice transitions and an easy-to-use interface.





Site Name: airbag concept

Navigation:

I wouldn’t exactly say it’s difficult to navigate, as there is only one page. However, the lack of depth to the site is not explained very clearly, so at first I kept attempting to find a way to get to the next page, or somehow uncover more information. Visual clues don’t give much of an explanation about how to interact with the site, at least upon first glance.

The metaphor of an ultrasound showing the development of an unborn baby represents that the site itself is in the midst of development and will be “reborn” in the future.

Metphors:

The metaphor of an ultrasound showing the development of an unborn baby represents that the site itself is in the midst of development and will be “reborn” in the future. I’m not sure what type of metaphor this is, maybe functional?

Information Architecture:

The site doesn’t conatin much information. I had to go to the external facebook link provided to find out what was going on with the website. After seeing screenshots of how the website normally looks, and remembering the developing baby metaphor, I put two and two together and realized that the site must be under construction. The information was presented in a very poetic and interesting way, but was not very clear at first.


Usability:

I can’t say much about usabilty, since the site is under construction, but overall I didn’t have a very good experience as far as ease of use.

Reflection of the user:

I kept looking for what the site was about, trying to figure out if the changing image was changing because of my interaction with the site in some way, but it wasn’t. It was a little frustrating at first, until I realized what was going on.

Transparency of Design:

This was one of the most interesting and memorable sites I visited, which is why I chose to write about it even though its under construction. It was also one of the least understandable and most confusing. The poetic imagery definitely overpowers clear presentation of information. But it made the site memorable. It made me want to see more of what the creators’ work is like. I will definitely go back to visit the site again when it’s finished.





Site Name: eating sandwiches

Navigation:

Very simple and easy to navigate! The user is lead through the site by a calendar-like interface, with recent articles arranged by date and posted in a calendar-like grid with a brief section of the article and a picture for each. The clickable section of the grid for each article turns green upon rollover. There’s no menu on the main page so you really don’t have many options to confuse you. All you can do is click on articles.

Metphors:

Organizational:

Articles on the main page are organized by date, starting with the most recent. Within articles, there is a menu bar an the right hand side. Menu items are organized by categories (such as art/exhibit, brand, Canadian, etc), with number of articles of each type next to each category.

Functional:

Looks like a calendar.

Visual:

[…] symbol indicates that there is more of the article to read, and reinforces the idea that the user should click on the articles to read more. The play button symbol is also used in some of the video links. Buttons are used sparingly but there are a few.

Information Architecture:

Information is clearly presented and makes sense. Content is easy to access, although you can’t search by category unless you are already in an article because there is no menu on the main page. But it only takes one click to get there, so it’s not too big of a hassle.
Content is organized by date on the main page. On other pages there is a menu that includes major sections (other pages, categories, recent comments, etc.) with exhaustive listings under each category heading. There is also a search section so that the user can find specific information that may not be listed.

Visual hierarchy helps a lot in this site’s design. This site offers the most hierarchy in text size, which greatly contributes to the simplicity and straightforward communication. In the calendar, the most recent post is the largest. Within the articles, there is enough variety in text size to make the articles easy to read or to skim through. It’s easy to understand what’s important.


Usability:

The site is very easy to use- navigation is easy and information is presented clearly. Metaphors, hierarchy, and simplicity are the greatest contributers to its ease of use.

The site sustains my interest- not because of the design but because the articles are interesting and easy to read because the information is presented so clearly.

Meaning-Making:

The designer creates meaning using the calendar metaphor which creates organization and a sense of being up-to date. There is a linear narrative in that people can converse about articles by posting comments. The whole site can also be considered a less linear narrative about whats going on in the creative world- not one story line, but bits and pieces that create a general feel (multilinear?)

Reflection of the user:

The user can post comments on articles, thereby adding information to the site as well as conversing with other users. Mouse feedback is the same as most sites.

Transparency of Design:

The design is extremely simple and lends itself to the presentation of information like these articles. The design is about presenting the info clearly, not about having an especially cool/flashy look.