Michael's Art 328 Process

ScreenShot:


Navigation:
Is it easy to navigate or difficult?
It is easy to navigate on the top half of the page but difficult to access content below the fold without scrolling. There are plain text links at the top that provide access to all the pages along with a useful search box.

How are you led through the site?
You are led with links in the color gray and blunt words like "vote now", "rate this website" and with simple numbers to crawl other pages. Because of the innate nature of wanting to click on images, the images take you to the referring website.

What visual clues are given to tell you how to interact?
As mentioned above the color grey is used as the link color and call to action areas. Also larger type helps direct your eye to interactive areas. These areas are also highlighted with a thick white border around the content divisions. Closely cropped images make you inclined to click and see more.

Does the designer use a metaphors to get you to move through the website?
There are really no metaphors used on this site to encourage interactivity or movement. It relies solely on plain text/graphics and slight shift in color to activate the user.

What Kind of metaphors are used? Organizational Metaphors = (organized by type, kind etc…); Functional Metaphors = performs a “real world” function (in Photoshop you can figuratively “cut” and “paste”) or Visual Metaphors (common graphic elements familiar to most – the traditional “play”, “fast-forward”, “rewind” buttons found on CD players)
N/A

Information Architecture:
Does the information in the site make sense?
At first it is slightly difficult to understand the information on the site without arbitrarily clicking a link to see what happens. There is a FAQ at the top of the page that describes why the particular information is on the site but it's not very evident at first glance.

Can you access the content you want easily?
The content is very easy to access as there is no clutter or excess information and only the minimum needed. A simple cropped image, vote now links and feedback about the votes. Previous content is also very accessible via the simple page navigation on top.

How is the content organized? (By location, alphabet, timeline, category, etc? )
The content is organized chronologically by the order in which the author published a submitted link. Otherwise the user can also re-organize the content by using the organizational links at the top.

Is there visual and content hierarchy that allows you to easily understand and access the information presented to you?
The hierarchy relies in the size of text and if something is gray or black. The words "VOTE NOW" bring your eye over to the subdivision of a content area and then encourage you to read and understand that you need to select a rating below with the words, "Rate This Website:". The image to the left of this area is much larger and the only content in color so that stands out the strongest and with most users, encourages them to click. It is not plainly described that you should click to view the site first before rating.

Usability
Is this site easy to use?
It is easy to use but arguably hard to understand which call to action you are to begin with.

How do the above two concepts, navigation and information architecture, work in terms of making the site usable or not? Do the metaphors make sense with the content?
The two concepts make the site usable by allowing extreme focus on the content with no other interruptive elements or metaphors. There are no extraneous graphics or cues which may or may not be helpful since most website users are led with stronger visual cues.

Overall- does the site sustain your interest and engagement?
For me, the site does not sustain my interest for very long. The site is lacking in visual interest and the cropped images just look pretty and do not engage me to interact.

Meaning-Making: (Narrative and Metaphoric Structures)
In what way is the designer creating meaning in this site?
I believe that the designer wasn't trying to create meaning in this site other than showcasing other people's work. He or she simply wanted a user driven site to give feedback to other users about what everyone is looking at and finding interesting. This establishes that the meaning is to rate websites but isn't clear on what should compose your attributes for rating; simply a number to denote whatever you want it to mean.

Are they using metaphor? (Remember, metaphor is very common in our experience with computers, sometimes so common we don’t even realize we are using it, i.e. the desktop, cutting and pasting, file systems, buttons, etc.)
They are not using any metaphors because they do not want to take away from or distract the user from the image or rather the website needing to be rated.

Is there a narrative, story or event that unfolds over time?
Not really. One can see that there are many previously rated websites that are shown by numbered links to older pages. They do not unfold overtime because the user must interact to see older material.

Is this narrative linear, non-linear, or multi-linear?
This website has a linear face but you can access older pages without going through each section sequentially in a non-linear fashion.

Reflection of the User:
Is there a reflection of you, as the user, on this site?
There is. The reflection is shown after I have clicked a rating link. The site then reacts and shows my vote increasing the vote count and the resultant vote average rating.

Does it change according to your specific visit?
Yes it does change by remembering which sites you voted on and denoting the rating you picked and removing the "VOTE NOW" words to be replaced with the current rating.

Do you receive mouse feedback? text feedback?
When the mouse hovers over gray links the links turn white. As mentioned above when I click the rating link it gives me text feedback about my vote.

Does the site store any choices you have made?
Yes, the site stores my rating choice and probably my general internet information that cookies and webstats usually acquire.

Are you engaged enough in the site to linger and explore?
No I am not engaged. It's too simple and bland with poor visual cues.

Transparency of Design:
Does the design of the site lead you to pay more attention to the content or to the design itself?
The site design does a very good job of portraying the content and taking your attention away from the site design by using a muted color scheme and no metaphors.

Does the design feel transparent or “natural”, leading you to focus on the content
and forget the design completely? Or – Is attention called more to the design itself?
It feels quite transparent and calls little attention to itself.

Does the transparency or lack of transparency of the design make sense with what the site is intending to do?
The transparency makes perfect sense for the intended purpose of the site wanting to showcase other websites and not its own.