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 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: 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