Author Archives: exegesis

Course Notes

Posted on by

Coursera Design Course Notes Lecture 1a Artifact, not just physical in nature. Can be software, etc. salad caprise fine arts library at Penn staircase in apple store ice cream scoop (10th century ice cream scoop) (?) design is responsive to … Continue reading →

Thoughts on Finishing the Class

Posted on by

I signed up for this class because I wanted to take something that was outside my “comfort zone.” But it turns out that a course in industrial design (I thought it was just general design) was too far outside of that zone– I am not really a “materials” person. I don’t have a woodshop; I don’t sew or build things. I do ceramics, but for me ceramics is about art, not design. Plus, I’m not good enough to create genuinely new kinds of functional objects.

Mostly I work with words and ideas, and as the daughter and sister of graphic designers, I do like to work with images and text on a a page or screen.

I began this class identifying a “gap” that I thought to be both whimsical and real: a birdfeeder that cannot be destroyed or subverted by squirrels. But I had no idea how to create even a rough prototype. Sure, my husband does stuff like this all the time. Our house is full of Rube Goldberg contraptions. But this is a project I wanted to take on myself. So I switched my project to something I happened to be working on concurrently: a design for incorporating book reviews into a magazine website. No longer out of my comfort zone– but at least now I could do the assignments.

What I found most useful about the class was that it gave me a structure for thinking about ideas that I already understood intuitively. I did all of the matrices and other exercises, and the end result was always the same as what I would have done anyway, without going through the process. But I found it useful to have the tools to validate my own choices and ideas. As Professor Ulrich pointed out in one of his lectures, it’s often useful to be able to supply this supportive material to a committee.

I took pages of notes on every lecture (and screenshots of the illustrations.) I don’t know if I will refer to them in the future, but I think I’ll put them up on this site for reference if I can figure out how to translate the files from the Apple Notes application I used.

One other thing– although these assignments were graded by peer review, not instructors, I was surprised by how invested I got in the feedback. My scores (I think) are near perfect (early on, I was rightfully docked a point for a sub-par birdfeeder photo.)

Here is the review I posted of the class on courseratalk.org.

Assignment #6.1

Posted on by

Assignment #6.1 X: Alpha Prototype My design gap: a way to incorporate occasional reviews of small-press poetry and fiction publications in my quarterly literary magazine. Explanation of my prototype: The main content on the magazine website consists of poems, short stories, essays, and … Continue reading →

5.1 Concept Testing

Posted on by

My design gap: a way to incorporate occasional reviews of small-press poetry and fiction publications in my quarterly literary magazine.

The concepts I am pursuing: Based on last week’s matrix assignment, I’ve narrowed it down to two approaches. This week I sought user feedback on which design is more appealing, engaging, and easy to use.

A description of my process: I approached my readers through my personal Facebook and our Facebook fan page. I invited them to choose an approach, and to give additional verbal feedback, if they wanted to (many did.)

THE CHOICES:

A. “Busy Look”: In this version, the reviews run in narrow columns between sidewide sidebars. This is an “expensive” concept because, due to css styling settings, I have to set up the blogs differently than other posts. It has a very “webby” feel, but is it worth the extra time and effort?

Concept-G-9

Screen Shot 2013-05-19 at 7.38.05 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. “Clean Look”: In this version, the reviews are isolated on the page.
Concept 3

boxcar-review-sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Results (I put them in a Google spreadsheet):

Screen Shot 2013-05-31 at 8.41.35 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion:  Two-to-one, the respondents favored the “Clean Look” (B) over the “Busy Look” (A).

In addition to voting, I received these comments:

“D. I am assuming that this is for an on-line publication (that’s how I see Cleaver. Sidebars are very annoying to read on a scrolling screen. I don’t really like multiple columns because I have to scroll up again to continue. I also do not like print that is very wide (like the bottom of D though I do not mind the photos in the columns. I read a line at a time and do not like any printing so wide that I have to do it in more than one scan per line.”

“D (on my computer.) But I wonder if that would work as well on my phone. . .”

“What are you wanting to achieve with this page layout? D is the most handsome, but the least webby–it is much more like the printed page. It looks especially good with the littering of images like in your sample.But in many ways it is a throw-back, not providing the fluidity that good web pages do in a complex site, like a magazine site. This tosses me back to A. If you wanted a quiet place on the site with minimal navigation, or if you were trying to separate this portion of the site out from the rest for some functional reason, then a solution like D works.”

“D. The lines are really appealing.”

“D. The clutter in A gives me a headache!”

“A… i like the busy, webby.”

“Less is more. In other words, D.”

 

 

Thoughts Mid-Week 5

Posted on by

According to the course notes, this was to be a short week because of the Memorial Day holiday. And I guess that’s good because– how is it already Thursday?

I stayed up last night to do the student evaluations. The rubrics are getting harder to juggle, and the scale, well at least last week, was wider. In general, I was very impressed by the projects I evaluated.

One designer simply did not complete the assignment– he only uploaded the images that were carried over from the previous week. There was a note asking for the evaluator to give him until Wednesday, but since it was after midnight I felt I could only give him partial credit set-up of the assignment.

Another did what we used to call a snow job. A ridiculously generic set of user needs and a matrix that could serve as a cartoon example. But really: what is the point of trying to bluff your way through a noncredit course?

For the most part, however, the projects I saw demonstrated skill, thought, innovation, and an investment in time. I’m not sure I would actually want any of their products. The silliest was some kind of chairlike structure to fit inside a hammock so you can work on a laptop. Seems like there would not be much of a market for that one. But, even so, this designer and others did a great job creating thoughtful matrices and impressively crafted prototypes.

I have to remind myself that even though I am now working on a project to do with a website, which is something I already know how to do, I am still learning a lot about the process of development of ideas and products, and how ideas are brought into society. I really wish I had the tools and experience to go forward with a squirrel-proof-birdfeeder, but if I’d kept on in that direction I would have been stuck.

Thoughts at the End of Week 4

Posted on by

1. Did anyone else think that the testing of the ice cream scoop prototypes was flawed because the ice cream became increasingly soft as the demo wore on? Thus, naturally, the later prototypes worked better. And when he retested the early ones, they suddenly worked better, too.

2. After the taping, did the staff get to eat the ice cream?

3. Will those class members not from the Philadelphia area think that Turkey Hill is an odd name for an ice cream brand?

In related news, I really enjoyed doing the Concept Selection Matrix. It confirmed my earlier conclusion of which design was best. The biggest light bulb for me was that this kind of record keeping is a good tool for convincing committees at a glance. The matrix expresses visually what would take a thousand words to communicate.

Assignment #4.2 Prototyping

Posted on by

X: PROTOTYPING

My design gap: a way to incorporate occasional reviews of small-press poetry and fiction publications in my quarterly literary magazine.

List of 6-12 Primary User Needs:

  • The review content will be easy to identify from the front page of the magazine.
  • The review content will be easy to access from the front page and other menu pages of the magazine.
  • The review content is accessible through an index tab on the magazine.
  • The reviews are attractive and easy to read.
  • The review authors are identified by easy-to-locate bios/photos.
  • The review authors are easy to locate through an index.
  • The review authors are clearly identified as separate from the literary authors on the site.)
  • The review content has a different look/feel to easily distinguish it from the literary content on the site, while retaining the basic brand of the site. (!)
  • The review content is easy to navigate to and from, in any part of the magazine.
  • The reviews are fun or have some kind of whimsical element, incorporating graphics and/or text (!)

Concept Sketches and Prototypes: 

Concept-G-9

Concept Sketch G (9)

Prototype G (9)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept and Prototype G (9): “Busy” look with full site-wide sidebars. Book icon is in upper left and author’s photo/bio are at bottom.

————–

Concept-F-8

Concept Sketch F (8)

Concept 8

Prototype F (8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept and Prototype F (8): Full width text (to distinguish from literary site content, which is presented with 300 px padding). Book icon at top; reviewer bio and photo at bottom. Dotted border.

Concept-H-10

Concept Sketch G (10)

Screen Shot 2013-05-19 at 7.38.05 PM

Prototype G (10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept and Prototype G (10): Displaying reviews inline with the existing Editors’ Blog.

Assignment #4.1 Concept Selection

Posted on by

My design gap: a way to incorporate occasional reviews of small-press poetry and fiction publications in my quarterly literary magazine.

List of 6-12 Primary User Needs:

  • The review content will be easy to identify from the front page of the magazine.
  • The review content will be easy to access from the front page and other menu pages of the magazine.
  • The review content is accessible through an index tab on the magazine.
  • The reviews are attractive and easy to read.
  • The review authors are identified by easy-to-locate bios/photos.
  • The review authors are easy to locate through an index.
  • The review authors are clearly identified as separate from the literary authors on the site.)
  • The review content has a different look/feel to easily distinguish it from the literary content on the site, while retaining the basic brand of the site. (!)
  • The review content is easy to navigate to and from, in any part of the magazine.
  • The reviews are fun or have some kind of whimsical element, incorporating graphics and/or text (!)

Selection Matrix:
(click on image for larger size)

Screen Shot 2013-05-24 at 12.12.22 PM

 

I loved using this tool. The result, that Concept F is the best design, confirms my intuitive assumption after working through the visual designs last week. I was a little surprised at how pronounced the results were– I thought they would be closer. At first glance it appears that, for my prototypes, I should focus on the F, G, and H. However, G and H are significantly more costly, in terms of labor. So perhaps I should add C to the mix.