Research Project Sources

List of reference material used for research:

• Secret life of teens- online versus offline- Photographic displays at home
  Abigail Durrant , David Frohlich , Abigail Sellen & David Uzzell
  
• Social networking sites and our lives report
  Keith N. Hampton, Lauren Sessions Goulet, Lee Rainie, Kristen Purcell
• Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation
  Sona Livingstone
• Textual strategies the politics of art making
  Barry, J and Flitterman-Lewis, S.
• Participatory Culture- spreadable media
  Henry Jenkins
• Manufacturing Consent
  Noam Chromsky

Blurb reading summary of Henry Jenkin's series of books

Daniel Miller Anthropology and the individual: a material culture perspective

http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/269099 

• Essay explores the relationship between: indiviuals, networks and place 
• Argument between: Social media better communication and interaction through time and space versus
• Physical isolation and separation: placed based belonging- communities, societies, neighbourhoods 
• Making a profile acts as self-construction of an online identity. Personal expression (especially for teenagers, a time for them exert their own independence and autonomy from their family. 

At what expense do we pay to use free social media Platforms?

This post is on the presentation I delivered at UWE last Thursday for my self directed research project as part of my MA module. It's designed to help prompt me but for anyone who might be interested the full script is below.

Introduction

I am web designer and I noticed when my clients ask me to make a website, most of them ask me to integrate social media onto their websites.  They want a social media platform to connect with their customers and to promote their brands.

I am interested in whether social media is a good or a bad thing. On one side of the argument, people say that Facebook is good for maintaining a network and social interaction. Others may argue that it is pre-dominantly geared towards selling products and used for financial marketing.

I’ve chosen Facebook as an example because they are the most powerful social network with the most amounts of users.

My question is:

At what price do we pay to use “free” social media platforms in regards to data protection and privacy. Is it ethical to encourage this practice by designing websites for clients with integrated social media links.

 Facebook advertising

Research Project:Completed

I've am pleased that my research Project for my university module is completed. My conclusion was as follows:

"My research enquiry is: to what extent does interactive presentation of information provide an enhanced user experience compared to online static communication methods on the web? I have found out that designing innovative but ambiguous interfaces can sometimes hinder user experience because the interface is not what people are familiar with. This can cause them to feel frustrated with the website.

However, Norman Donald argues that people make judgements about a websites emotively, so a first good impression would set them up to having a positive attitude and tolerate minor usability problems. When a website is designed well aesthetically, the website is more credible and trustworthy because it makes users feel more comfortable and relaxed. My artefact results show that unconventional interactive interfaces can be more pleasurable to use than static websites.

On the other hand, Dan Donald suggests that the static, conventional website is more effective at communicating because it degrades onto all devices perfectly. To an extent static websites are better because they are more functional and accessible for users, especially those on a mobile device.

From UX perspective, it is important to identify the user’s needs and create a website that meets the purpose of the website. A non-interactive, static website can be more effective on functional sites where users need to complete a process such as filling in tax forms. Whereas, a website that is trying to persuade someone to buy a holiday package may use large beautiful visuals in a slider to lure the user into making emotive impulse decisions. (Rogers, Sharp, Preece, 2013) On some websites, both of these approaches work. E.g. a fashion retailer, where strong visual flair is used to advertise the latest season products and a functional ecommerce system that is designed to be functional. My overall conclusion is the interactive presentation of information can be more suitable within some contexts than others." -abstract

I shall be preparing for my final research presentation soon. :)

Research Project- User centred design

User-centred design! 

How can the interactive presentation of information provide an enhanced user experience compared to traditional online static communication methods on the web? 

Interactive Presentation of information is more suited for the type of user and what they want to do (purpose) sometimes it's more appropriate to some situations than others. Knowing when it will be useful in context to the product is important in determining if it's useful or not.

Designing for types of users.

• What do they want to do? Find something else quickly and effectively? 
• Complete an operation or a task e.g tax forms? 
• Or a user who loves discovering new cool interactive websites?

Retailers follow a trend of having the same user interface e.g river island, top man etc they are all the same layout. Com formative design, nothing different or exciting. It's functional and it works! It works from user frameworks, metaphors such as basket and checkout. They follow the f shape which is how users look around on the page. Companies with websites such as these make a lot of money.

F-shape website

Is a non-interactive (no sliders, obscure navigational structures, roll overs, multimedia content) website better for functional operations such as filling in tax forms online or applying for housing benefit. These experiences are forgettable: you don’t need to create a lasting impact. You get in and get out after fulfilling what it is you want to do.

functional website (that people only go on to perform tasks)

I think brand websites have to be more interactive because this is more engaging and persuades the user to buy things. Quite often eCommerce or film websites have big images, splash pages, interactive sliders or multimedia content.

Also it is useful to think about the audience the website is intended for. Do people who already know what it is about or do new people go on it? What role does the website make in the wider picture of advertising? "transmedia." For example, films are often advertised on tv but the website's role is to raise a social interaction with fans and create a hype around a film. This is where an interactive website is used.

interactive websites for promotion/advertising and transmedia

Sometimes it is about balance.

Top man website is both a persuasive and functional, e.g. advertise new fashion trends as well as going through a checkout process. Therefore there must be a balance between usable and interactive design? Similarly, banking websites do this too:

Balancing usable and interactive design on banking websites

Artefact Idea:

• Make sonic machines interactive splash page versus the main site. Which one is more persuasive in advertising band and music. Would the user be more likely to buy a CD from visiting a interactive splash page or a more functional website with a more traditional layout?
• Or design a website that should be a very functional website (that people go on to perform boring tasks such as tax forms) and make it into the most interactive, crazy site ever. And see what people think! ;)

• Or the other way round. Create the most functional website for a film. Make it dire and plain looking as possible (and bore them to tears)

References

Banking website
https://www.salemfive.com/

HM Revenue website
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/

Form versus Function
http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/07/10/function-is-nothing-without-beauty-10-sites-doing-it-right/

Narratives
http://alistapart.com/article/narrative

Research Project: Further reading

To inform my project I have read some more of  "Interaction Design, beyond human-computer interaction".

My main notes on "Chapter 2: understanding and conceptualising interaction" in a spider diagram:

And "Chapter 3: Cognitive Aspects":

Research Project: HTML5 Canvas and new technologies

From my findings in artefact 3, the results show that some people are more engaged by the website because of the V.E. These environments exist in the form of interactive or non interactive animated flash or canvas applications.

My findings from reading "HTML Design Essentials" by "Creative Masterclass" makers of .net magazine:

Flash versus HTML5

HTML is winning hands down. canvas: web graphic trends

Adobe edge HTML5 Canvas

"The danger of adobe edge faces is, ironically from something we call 'flash' effect'. Animation and interactivity used for pointless purposes; sites that showcase splash screens and progress bars. What we fear is the second coming of 'skip intro'."

"It seems to me that we're simply jumping on the animation bandwagon because we can, and are in serious risk of backtracking on all the great advances in usability we've had over the last few years. Every new portfolio site is now going to spin, shake"

VML and SVG Javascript

Vector Mark-up language: supported by IE6 - IE9 only

Scalable Vector graphics: supported on all browsers

"Both SVG and VML work by adding special DOM nodes to the document which represent shapes, like circles, lines, and polygons. Like any other DOM element, these shapes can be styled, positioned, and interacted with using native JavaScript or your favorite JavaScript library like jQuery, YUI, etc."

" First, since SVG and VML require us to add DOM elements for each shape to the document, the document model can quickly become overloaded for complex drawings, and the application could slow down or even crash. HTML5 Canvas is much more efficient and performant."

HTML5 Canvas 

"Second, unlike SVG, which can have events bound to shapes via native JavaScript or a JavaScript library, HTML5 Canvas does not provide an event binding API, which is a real bummer. And if you try to implement something yourself, you’ll quickly realize that it’s ridiculously difficult to create an easy to use mouse / touch event system that’s performant. 

Fortunately, there are several HTML5 canvas libraries out there that address this problem, including KineticJS, EaselJS, Paper.js, Fabric.js, and Processing.js."

Janvas 

SVG drawing program. Quite new at the moment: http://www.janvas.com/illustrators_designers_developers/projects/janvas2D_web/index_EN.php

Research Project: Artefact 3 results

My artefact 3 findings are:

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 was very diffciuit and 10 very easy, rate how easy the website was to use? (navigating the site)
6.42

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very slowly and 10 very quickly, rate how long it took to work out what to do on the website?
7.

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is feeling annoyed and 10 is feeling happy, rate how did the website make you feel?
6.33

Q.On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very slowly and 10 very quickly, rate how long did it take for the website to make you feel annoyed or frustrated? (Choose N/A if you didn't feel annoyed at all)
6.

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, rate how visually appealing or interesting the website looked?
6.71

Q. Overall did you like the website?
Yes:  14 (58.33%)
No: 10 (41.67%)

Q. Why did you like or dislike the website? (choose one main reason)
Easy to use: 1 (4.17%)
Looks interesting: 13 (54.17%)
Difficuit to use: 7 (29.17%)
Looks terrible: 3 (12.50%)

Results

• The website was neither very easy or very hard.
• Most users found it quite quick to learn what to do.
• More users felt happy using the website than annoyed, the average rating was in-between.
• The website wasn't quick at getting people frustrated, many didn't get annoyed at all.
• Users gave a high score for how visually appealing it looked.

• More users liked the site than dislike.
• The main reason for liking the website was because it looked visually appealing. 54.17%
• The main reason for disliking the website was because it was difficult to use. 29.17%

User feedback

"A very unique type of website that stands out far from the rest, but the use of this type of design must match the type of website that targets a specific target audience, websites such as commercial shops or agencies should avoid this as it would be hard to navigate for elder users."

"It seemed like a gimmick. As an experimental website it was OK, but I'd be really annoyed if I actually wanted to find a specific thing."

"it was difficult and got frustrating. however the concept is really good! simple looking but effective!" 

"Very well made. Loved how the menu looked 3D."

"Very unique and interesting to use, I especially liked how you had to discover how to navigate the website, but it was not difficult to learn how to use it. Very cool, I would like a website like that."

"I was more so curious about the website than anything, it had an interesting and unique layout that flowed almost effortlessly which I enjoyed a lot."

My Expectations

I expected people to be put off by the 3D navigation despite it looking quite innovative and new. I also thought you have to compromise aesthetics with usability with V.E websites.

My Conclusions

Q. Where are we at currently with interactive presentation? Are we seeing fully interactive elements such as "Virtual environments" being introduced to the web? Can and do they provide a enhanced user experience?

Yes they can to some extent. The results show that some people are more engaged by the website because of the V.E. These environments exist in the form of interactive or non interactive animated flash or canvas applications.

Q. From artefact 2 my findings are that you need to compromise website aesthetics with usability. Does this apply with VE? What is the limit, how far can you push it until it becomes unusable or dysfunctional? 

You do need both. The main factor for liking the website 58.33% was because it looked interesting 54.16%, but only 14.17% of people liked it because it was easy to use. This shows people are more willing to sacrifice usability for aesthetics.

However, the compromise between aesthetics with usability still this applies to V.E to an extent because 41.67% disliked the website, 29.17% of which thought it was hard to use and 12.50% because it looked terrible.

Q. Can interactive VE (2D Flash built made to look 3D) improve user experience? (extend operability) 
The more wacky the art website, the more patient the user is and the more forgiving they are.

If it's interesting enough, it engages and draws the use in, the content buys them leeway and it potentially increases the appeal of the website.

However, it doesn't necessarily make usability easier. Only 4.17% found the website easy to use.

Further research

canvas: web graphic trends: how html is beating flash big style!

html5 can create rich Internet experiences.

Research Project: Artefact 3 preparation

My artefact 3 consists of testing users to see what their response is to this interactive 3D virtual environments navigation website: http://www.screenvader.com/

And then collecting responses from a survey:

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 was very difficult and 10 very easy, rate how easy the website was to use? (navigating the site)

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very slowly and 10 very quickly, rate how long it took to work out what to do on the website?

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is feeling annoyed and 10 is feeling happy, rate how did the website make you feel?

Q.On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very slowly and 10 very quickly, rate how long did it take for the website to make you feel annoyed or frustrated? (Choose N/A if you didn't feel annoyed at all)

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, rate how visually appealing or interesting the website looked?

Q. Overall did you like the website?

Q. Why did you like or dislike the website? (choose one main reason)
Easy to use
Looks interesting
Difficult to use
Looks terrible

Research Project: further reading sources

To inform my project I have began starting to read "Interaction Design, beyond human-computer interaction". Here are my notes so far in a spider diagram:

Also I've watched Dan Donald's Flux & Flexibility talk which was also held locally at Antenna Nottingham 2nd wednesdays. The main points are as follows:

Artefact 2: 300 word Evaluation

Q. To what extent does interactive presentation of information provide an enhanced user experience compared to online static communication methods?


I am going to evaluate my artefact 2 results in relation to how it answers the main question.

Interactive information (aesthetic websites) trades off usability therefore it hinders user experience because the user feels more frustrated and confused with the website.

Dan Donald believes the web is becoming more like Graphic design with its rigid, gridded styles. E.g. twitter bootstrap websites following the rules of the F-shape.

Where is web design going outside the boundaries of semi interactive sites like "creative with a K"? In other words, where are we at currently with interactive presentation? Are we seeing fully interactive elements such as "Virtual environments" being introduced to the web? Can and do they provide a enhanced user experience?

From artefact 2 my findings are that you need to compromise website aesthetics with usability. Does this apply with VE? What is the limit, how far can you push it until it becomes unusable or dysfunctional? (dysfunctional as in like watching a film, not operating for the user.) Radiohead is a good example of this, it is for entertainment purposes but it is not functional.

Possible ideas for artefact 3:

• Create a website navigation, a VE one (with html5 and canvas, games) and a graphic design one (painfully usable, gridded style) Is it possible for VE to be able to used to enhance user experience.
• Do the rules of balancing aesthetics/usability apply to V.E within the web.
• Chapter 2 webdesign about models (Virtual enviroments) sound very relevant to this now!

Research project: Artefact 2 Results

My findings from my Artefact 2 results:

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 was very diffciuit and 10 very easy, rate how easy each website was to use? (navigating the site)
Creative with a K: 5.28
Trade me: 7.28

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very slow and 10 very quick, rate how long it took to work out what to do on each website?
Creative with a K: 5.12
Trade me: 8.48

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is feeling happy and 10 is feeling very annoyed, rate how frustrating did each website make you feel?
Creative with a K: 5.68
Trade me: 4.36

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is excellent and 10 is poor, rate how visually appealing each website was?
Creative with a K: 5.04
Trade me: 5.16

Overall which website did you prefer to use over the other?
Creative with a K: 10
Trade me: 15

In the previous question why did you prefer the website over the other one?
Easier to use: 14
Looks more interesting : 11

User feedback 

"Creative K has an unique navigation and layout design, during in my attention as a user. With Trade me, the navigation and layout is a lot clearer, however it is a very bland website."

"Too many things going on within the Creative With a K website."

"Creative with a K made me want to vomit. It was a really cool idea but it was way too busy, cluttered and it hurt my eyes. Trade me wasn't really a better website it was just less nasciating to stare at."

"Hard to compare as websites have different purpose. Although creative with a K looks unique without hovering over things there is no clear direction for navigation."

"The website (trade me) is self explanatory and I immediately new how to use. Where as the (Creative AK) site was confusing, and wasn't sure what it was and the navigation and usability is very poor."

Expected results

• The trade me website was easier and faster to work out what to do.
• The creative K website was more visually appealing but more frustrating and irritable to use.
• For users to prefer Creative K website more because it was different and exciting concept that people will enjoy discovering. 

Actual findings

• More people found the trade me website easier to use and it took a shorter amount of time for them to grasp what to do.
• A lot more people found the Creative K website to be more frustrating to use. Also they got irritated faster by the Creative K website.
• To my surprise, users thought both websites were equally visually appealing. This shows aesthetics can be subjective.
• More people thought that the trade me website was more preferable than the other. Easier to use was outweighed by looking more interesting as the reason why users liked the website over the other.

Conclusions

Q. Does the novelty (interactive fun elements) make it more memorable or does functionality?
Functionality. My questions did not ask about did they enjoy the interactive elements but I have asked this in a way because Interactive elements can be broken down to: usability and aesthetics. This is even better because it's broken it down. People prefer interactive elements that are easy to use.

Q.  Does beauty destroy the concept?
Yes and no. Some people liked the beautiful website (40%). Others liked the usable website. (60%) Both are important UX considerations when designing a website. You need to compromise website aesthetics with usability.

Research Project: Artefact 2 Preparation

In this artefact I’m trying to find out what’s more important website usability or website aesthetics.

The user looks at two websites and fill out a short questionnaire about which website you prefer. The scale is 1 to 10 so there is more comparison of results than lets say from 1-3 options (bad, neutral, good.) The important question is WHY a user prefers one design over the other, is it because of design or usability? The other questions are to gauge if the unusable beautiful website is unusable and vice versa. I expect these results reflect this. The interesting part is "how quickly" the user becomes frustrated.

Trade me was chosen over Amazon because users pre-existing knowledge won't create a bias when comparing the two sites.

www.trademe.co.nz

www.creativewithak.com

Questions

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 was very diffciuit and 10 very easy, rate how easy each website was to use? (navigating the site)

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very slow and 10 very quick, rate how long it took to work out what to do on each website?

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is feeling happy and 10 is feeling very annoyed, rate how frustrating did each website make you feel?

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very slow and 10 very quick, rate how quickly did each website make you feel annoyed or frustrated?

Q. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is excellent and 10 is poor, rate how visually appealing each website was?

Q. Overall which website did you prefer to use over the other?

Q. In the previous question why did you prefer the website over the other one?

This question is to pick apart WHY something else is preferred, to be more precise. In previous artefact, one was more memorable than the other but the reason behind this isn't specific?

Research Project: Artefact 1 further reading

History of the web

This reading is intended to inform my own research.

Websites were originally meant for communication, to transfer information easily with a hyperlink. They were designed to work across a platform of devices ranging from being able to handle varying amounts of rendering. The font size and style relied on the machines to interpret the information and render it on the screen. All the website had was the text, and the way it was rendered across different machines varied. This is the opposite to front end designers. They design things expecting it to look exactly the way it was designed across all platforms (positioning, the look of it, aesthetics everything.) You could say the first webpage was about functionality (purpose) of communicating rather than transferring designs from print onto screen.

The reason that websites change is to fit the purpose.
People update the looks of their website to refresh their brand or identity. Or perhaps their brand has change and they need to freshen their website look to make it look recent.

This is an article about the history of the web and why I was invented.

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/book4/ch02.html 

Great example of a old website

http://web.archive.org/web/20040419144541/http://www.pgmd.man.ac.uk/ 

Examples of usable websites that don't look aesthetic

http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/well-designed-usable-sites/

Beautiful but unusable websites

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/11/25/showcase-of-beautiful-but-unusable-websites/

"Form versus Function"
http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/07/10/function-is-nothing-without-beauty-10-sites-doing-it-right/
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/23/does-form-follow-function/

Banking websites- form vs function
http://thefinancialbrand.com/28070/50-of-the-most-spectacular-website-designs-in-banking/

Research Project: Artefact 1 Evaluation

This is an Evaluation of my Artefact 1 results

Revised Question

Q. To what extent does interactive presentation of information provide an enhanced user experience compared to  online static communication methods?

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.

Research project: Artefact 1 Results

Results

Q. Which one was easier to use? (Navigating around the site, knowing what to do next etc)
Traditional website (40%)
Sliding layout (60%)
The same (0%)

Q. Which interface was more natural/intuitive to use? (Which one you found more comfortable using)
Traditional website (40%)
Sliding layout (33.33%)
Same difference (26.67%)

Q. Which interface did you find more interesting/ engaging to use?
Traditional website (20%)
Sliding Layout (66.67%)
Same difference (13.33%)

Q. Which interface would you find more memorable? So if you had to recall this in several weeks’ time, which one are you more likely to remember?
Traditional website (26.67%)
Sliding Layout (73.33%)

Q. Overall, which interface would you prefer to use over the other?
Traditional website (53.33%)
Sliding Layout (46.67%)

Feedback

• “the traditional website was self explanatory.”
• “there was no confusion, very simple and straight forward to navigate though”
• “it was easy to follow and all content was visible”
• “It wasn't clear how to go back to the default home screen.”
• “the slider was a much easier and quicker way to navigate through the information”
• “just did not looked right”
• “I had to follow the story of the wives in sequence and could only see one name at a time whereas the traditional let me see the bigger picture.”
• “I preferred the traditional to this, its a cool effect but personally I prefer the content to be laid out in a simpler layout as its immediately easy to understand the information presented.”

Findings 

• A traditional  (non liner) website is more natural for people to use
• People are clever they know how a (linear) scrolling website works, some people were comfortable in using this. 
• A traditional (non linear) website is generally preferred  and easier to use
• However, a linear sliding website is both more engaging and memorable 

Research project: Artefact 1 Preparation

I’ve just finished making my 2 web interfaces for my research project this evening.

I’m going to ask people to try out the 2 different web interfaces and then ask questions about which one they prefer/ find easier to use. This is to test website structures (linear vs non-linear narratives) and how they affect user experience/usability.

I will post an update on the results soon.

non-linear narrative

linear narrative

Questions

Q. Which one was easier to use? (Navigating around the site, knowing what to do next etc)

Traditional website

Sliding layout

The same

Q. Was there anything on the traditional website you found confusing or got stuck on?

-Enter comment

Q. Was there anything on the sliding layout you found confusing or got stuck on?

Enter comment

Q. Which interface was more natural/intuitive to use? (Which one you found more comfortable using)

Traditional website

Sliding layout

Same difference

Q. Which interface did you find more interesting/ engaging to use? 

Traditional website

Sliding Layout

Same difference

Q. Overall, which interface would you prefer to use over the other?

Traditional website

Sliding Layout

Same difference

Q. Which interface would you find more memorable? So if you had to recall this in several weeks’ time, which one are you more likely to remember?

Traditional website

Sliding Layout

Same difference

Research Project Presentation

Hi, Good news, my presentation for my Research Project went very well yesterday,

Here are the verbal feedback comments I received from my peers:

• I linked the section "methodology" well with justified reasons for how I'm going to conduct my artefact and how it will help answer my question
• Fine overall, good quotes
• Have a clear idea of what I'm doing

Self-Evaluation

I think my research project is going well. I have a clear idea of what my next artefacts are to be. I've made an informed decision by thinking earlier on what I'm going to do for my final year project, and I am happy with it. I am interested in testing interactivity and user experience. And I believe it will help set me up in future to do freelance work.

I think I have found some relevant sources but I should spend some time reading them more because it will backup my Primary (artefact) testing.

For the moment, priority is on the "Nottingham Loves" project because I only have a month to finish this project and I need to get a move on.

Research Project: Artefact 2 Visualisation

What I will be testing?

Example of ccs3

Example of  css3

Research Project: Artefact 1 Visualisation

Website structures: Linear vs non-linear narratives

Do they affect user experience/usability?

Photoshop prototype designs

Hierarchal structure of designs

Research: Planning artefact1

I have been putting some thought into my first Artefact, these are some considerations:

What strengths and weaknesses does interactivity provide when telling a narrative?

How will I test this?

Create two prototype websites, 

• one with a interactive one page sliding layout, 
• and one with a traditional navigational structure with several webpages interlinked on the navigation: "Home", "About", "Contact us".

Why?

• I am testing does linear/non-linear narratives affect user experience/usability?
• Also I am testing does interactivity aid or improve user experience/usability?

How will I measure this?

Test the two layouts on an audience and at the end let them give feedback on:

• Which one was easier to use and why?
• Was it easier to find things?
• Which one was more interesting?
• Which one would you prefer to use and why?

What results am I predicting?

I don't know. I am going to see what happens. Perhaps the slider would work better because the scrolling adds functionality, and the scrolling effects create a strong visual impact. And from my website research on the following websites: Dragon Children, One page scrollers, it appears that sliders are a good vehicle for telling narratives.

Sources

Stellar javascript slider tutorial

Exceptional example of a narrative being told in a slider

Nike's better world slider