VCD 2014-2015 team K
March 26th, 2015 by admin

  • VCD team K (R/D/vic-team – webshop:
  • Commenting on their presentation is not made possible. Please comment your peer reviews for this team here.

    One Response  
    • VCD groep D writes:
      March 31st, 20152:31 pmat

      Dear group K,
      Underneath you can find our review of your blog. Per post some remarks or questions will be listed. When reviewing a project it is almost standard that more negative things pop up than positive things, because the negative points will stand out more. The list with remarks does not mean that you did a bad assignment, most of the things are just small remarks. The list is this big, because there was a lot work to review. We hope these remarks are useful for you while improving and finishing the last part of the assignment. Good luck!

      General remarks:
      – Well structured planning
      – Good to have sources of inspiration

      Remarks per post:
      Post about chosing two pages – 10th of March
      – What do you mean with ‘clean’, ‘simple’? What makes a website clean and simple but informative? We think that it is good to make this more specific, because then you are able to check if the redesign fits your desires at these aspects.
      – For a reader that does not follow the course it is hard to understand what the experiment is, on your blog nothing is explained about the method. A brief description of the experiment would be sufficient for the reader to get a better understanding of what you did.

      Post Visual Search Experiment – 10th of March
      – Good that the purpose of the experiment is mentioned at the beginnen of the artcle.
      – The colomn titles in the table are not readable. There is no unit (s or ms). Instead of using seconds in the different steps it would be more precise if you use ms and only use s at the last step (calculating the average).
      – The image is very small, so maybe you could split the image in more parts.
      – You did not use a grading. Using a grading would make it less obscure, for the reader this makes it easier to get an overview.
      – Good that you focused on function when deciding which queries to use for the test, but there is nothing to compare it with. For example there is no query ‘big font’, so you don’t really know when a participant has problems with size. Having both ‘small font’ and ‘big font’ will make it more interesting.
      – In your table it says ‘aGerage’
      – Results: show the list. Which query was found the fastest, which the slowest?

      Change blindness experiment – 10th of March
      – Good to mention your purpose
      – The picture is showing too much information and besides that it is too small to read.
      – It is smart that you gave participans specific tasks, but we don’t really understand how many participants did the specific task. Was it just one? And what does the time mean? ‘How many people spend the most time?’
      – Again it would be nice if you could include a rating list with numbers from easiest to hardest to find.

      The scenario task and questionnaire – 10th of March
      – We don’t understand the scenario task test
      – What open questions were asked?
      – Clear purpose

      Happinez identity
      – What were the results of this discussion session?
      – Why would these specific things keep their place? Based on test results? Then mention it.
      – Good to use cut out pieces of the website as the basis of the functional redesign.

      Functional redesign – 12th of March
      – ‘The problems ‘founded” has to be ‘the problems ‘found”
      – Good to make a distinction between things to change and things to eliminate
      – Argumentation is lacking sometimes. Not every change is founded.

    Leave a Reply

    XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

    »  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa