LIS 385T.6 Spring 2001
Critique 2 websites
Evaluate the following Web sites using the five principles of design by Donald Norman. Explain how these sites measure up to or fail from a user-centered design perspective.
The 5 principles of Design are:
- Visibility
- Natural Mapping
- Feedback - positive and negative
- Constraints and affordances
- Good conceptual model
http://www.moma.org
I really enjoy the look and feel of the MOMA site because of the use of
colors, minimalist design, easy navigation, and the feel of the site was
maintained throughout. The index page nearly fit on one page very little
scrolling was necessary. The mouse rollover feature to display drop menues
furthers this minimalist feel because the page would look cluttered without
this tool.
- Visibility is
present. If the user can't find what they are looking for in the drop
down menu there is a site map at the bottom of the page which breaks
down each subject into specific lableled links. The user can also click
on the picture with subject heading and go to an index page for that
topic. In addition, there is a search box the can be used. (Unfortunately
it wasn't working when I tried it). The webpage also provides clearly
labeled "menu","collection", "more", "back"
options to move easily through the site.
- Natural Mapping
is clear. "What's on now" indicates the feature temporary
and current display and breaks this down into medium. "Collection"
indicates what is in the permanent collection and breaks this category
down into medium. "Educational Resources" indicates the types
of progams available, etc. It seems that the orgainzation is done in
a natural way.
- Feedback. I did
get a 405 message when I tried to use the search box.
- Constraints and
Affordances. There was a limited amount of clickable thumbnails available
in the collection section. It seems as though they picked the most popular
or well known works to display here. I'm sure it would be impractical
to have thumbnails of the whole collection.
- This site provides a good conceptual model. The user is able to predict the effects of our actions. If we click on "current exhibitions" we can expect to see some writing about some examples of the current exhibition, which moma.org has done.
<>removed link<>
I don't like this webpage at all. There is no clear organization in the
website (links listed randomly in the index), no fluidity between the
pages (changes colors,types of font, and style from page to page) and
it's downright ugly which I found distracting.
- Visibility. Too
much is hyperlinked and in an unorganized manner in the index leaving
the user feeling overwhelmed initially.
- There is no clear
sign of natural mapping. I don't know why pages are linked the way they
are. Why is "Catalogue-style A-Z showings" next to "Interactively
SAMPLE Treacyfaces fonts now!" and not "Free 40-page catalogue"
which is next to "SPECIAL OFFERS"?! I'm confused.
- There is no clear
feedback. When I clicked on the "Rubdown" section of the page
I was transported to a page where I wasn't able to click on anything.
I sat there looking at an ugly page with no hyperlinks so I tried putting
my mouse over all sections of the page to get somewhere. There was no
indication (like "loading" or "please wait") to
let me know that I was being transported to another page with information
on "Rubdown".
- I would not want
to get fonts from this place (even though I actually did use the forms
they set up to try out some of their fonts with your own text which
I have to admit was pretty cool) The site doesn't appear to be very
professional. They obviously have a good handle on using forms in which
the user can interactively test fonts but at the expense of an overall
well designed site which I think matters.
- Overall the site stinks. When the user clicks on something it is not clear what he/she will be viewing. For example, The "News, Fonts, substantial online delivery savings" header simply displayed a link to the sample page, info about the company and a price list of fonts. The design of the page distracts the user and functionality of the page is somewhat lost because of that.