This is an Evaluation of my Artefact 1 results
Revised Question
Artefact 1 aims
Q. I am testing does interactivity aid or improve user experience/usability? Does interactivity help engage the user?
Does website structures (linear) versus (non-linear) narratives affect user experience and usability?
To further inform my research I think it will be useful to read about the history of the web. What was possible in the old days on a website, lets say 10 years ago (before javascript and html5 and new possibilities) -> What has been enhanced since then?
It is difficult to define a traditional website, in my a first artefact the interface (non linear) would be considered “traditional” 10 years ago. And the slider interface would now be considered “traditional” now. What seems to be ‘traditional’ to people changes over time. Basically a traditional website is the translation from paper to screen; it is print based stuff put onto the monitor.
In my first artefact, people thought the nonlinear website as less interesting. Why do people find “basic” websites boring? Is it because we are used to the interactive features these days. (with tablets and touch screens) So is the novelty behind it? In my first artefact, the users said the interactive slider is more memorable. Is this because of the novelty features (interactivity) or is it because it’s more functional? (user experience)
David questioned, do more people find it engaging/interesting because of website structure (linear vs non linear) or is because of aesthetics/design of the website. The slider had a better design because of the big image and the nice text etc as opposed to the menu.
On one end the scale you have an fully interactive website that breaks the UX design conventions, a website that is experimental and adventurous. = A new concept. It’s good because it’s a novelty, all these new wacky ideas that people haven’t seen before. However it’s not very usable because people don’t know how to use it. People who, challenge UX conventions and push forward the next generation of user interfaces?
On the other end of the scale, there is very functional websites that are very plain, simple and boring. Perhaps something with just 4 links. This is very boring to look at but may be easy to use for people.
In the middle of these two extremes is the web. The question is, where do you draw the line between interactive but unusable, or usable and boring. Compromising usability for beauty? If you break the meta, and be adventurous will you always lose usability? Does beauty destroy the concept?
Next Steps
In your first artefact, you’ve tested two interfaces that is in-between the two. Maybe push these to the extreme. Make a website that is very experimental and adventurous but that isn’t necessarily obvious what to do. Does the novelty (interactive fun elements) make it more memorable or does functionality? Does beauty destroy the concept? If you break the meta and be adventures, will you lose usability?
- Test two websites with opposite extremes,
- Measure which one was quicker at getting them annoyed/frustrated
- Measure which one they found more confusing
- Or took them longer to work out what they were doing
- David suggests you need to do both at the same time because it’s necessary to have results that are comparative to something.
David says there is a theory (UI) that if a interface is aesthetically pleasing people are more forgiving of the functionality of the website.
