Alexandra Z
May 14, 2010
leave a comment
April 7, 2010
March 12, 2010
Final Group Presentation
|
|
Project Site |
Site 1: |
Site 2: |
Site 3: |
|
Objective
|
To serve as an online tool to access information about the school, its classes and pertinent information about education for deaf students.
|
”
|
”
|
”
|
|
Audience
|
Deaf students, parents of deaf students and teachers of deaf students.
|
”
|
”
|
”
|
|
Tasks
|
|
”
|
”
|
”
|
Criteria |
Comment |
Comment |
Comment |
Comment |
|
Home Page
|
The homepage makes it clear to the viewer how to answer the questions but the information is presented poorly and because of the bad design choices on the site the site does not impress upon the the viewer the import of the information it is presenting.
|
Though the design of this homepage is dated it is far more professional than the project site’s homepage. The information is easy to find and the three target groups are more clearly defined.
|
The homepage for this site is designed much better compared to the sites that we looked at previously. The homepage is professional, not perfect but not bad either, and you get a much better sense of the dynamics of the school than at the two previously mentioned sites. The homepage also offers a “Quicklinks” panel, which makes the site seem incredibly user friendly.
|
”
|
|
Navigation
|
The navigation system is off putting, there is almost no local navigation within linking systems and because of this the links sidebar is long and overwhelming.
|
On the homepage there are several parent links that will take you to other pages, each of them geared towards a specific subject or target group.
|
The navigation on this site is very smooth. Each of the parent catagories are well defined and the links that fall under them make sense.
|
”
|
|
Site organization
|
The site organization is very counter intuitive, you have to try almost every category before you stumble upon what you’re looking for.
|
The site organization plays off intuition very well, though you can easily lose yourself in a mountain of links and getting back to where you started can be difficult.
|
The organization of this site is almost perfect. It is easy to find all the information you need.
|
”
|
|
Links and labels
|
Though the links are clearly defined and labeled they don’t really “link” in a pure sense of the term. They take you further down the page to the section pertaining to your question rather than actually linking to a page. Because of this system the user has to click another link, ambiguously labeled “back” to get to the top of the page.
|
The links are clearly labeled and defined but as was mentioned before, you can easily get lost in the giant linking system that they have set up. | The links here are very well defined. Each one is not only labeled clearly, but also in an engaging way.
|
”
|
|
Readability
|
The font choice on this site is awful. It is inconsistent, varying from page to page and the text font is always something default and unprofessional looking. They also use Comic Sans, enough said.
|
Readability is where this site fails. All the information is there, but the design choices are incredibly inconsistent. Each section of the site seems to have been designed using a different template at a different point in time. The homepage is not at all indicative of what the rest of the site looks like.
|
The readability on this site is good. The fonts are pretty default but they are easy enough to read. Also, as compared to the previously mentioned competitor site the design of the site is streamlined and consistent.
|
”
|
|
Performance
|
The content of the site is fine, not great but once you get to the information it is pretty easy reading.
|
”
|
The content of this site is more well written than either of the previous sites. The information is presented well in an easy-to-understand but interesting way.
|
”
|
User experience:
Though the information was relatively easy to find the users that we had access the site found the information itself difficult to read and understand due the the site’s poor design and terrifyingly unattractive presentation.
March 2, 2010
Class Notes 02/03/10
Flash:
- Not searchable
- If you want it so be searchable you have to duplicate the the copy that is in the flash file and then do a “display none” to render it invisible
- The flash movie (like javascript) downloads to your computer and then plays
- Use “Actionscript 3.0″ on all Flash files
File Types:
- “.fla”: Used to make the “.swf”
- “.swf”: The file that actually gets uploaded to the web (the sever)
- “.flv”: A flash video, YouTube uses these
- “.as”: Stands for “Actionscript”, like a “.js” file
