Website Design Issues: Website Evaluation

Website Design Issues: Website Evaluation

AIL 605 Assignment 3

Chris Inman

The University of Alabama

10/16/2007

Guidelines: What makes an Effective Website Design?

Creating an effective interactive instructional website is a multi-step process of graphic design. During this process designers analyze their intended audience, identify their message’s purpose, decide how the message will appear, establish goals and objectives, organize text and graphics, and determine the proper mix and layout of design elements (Gibbs, 2007). Perhaps more importantly, effective websites should avoid several potential problems, including tombstoning, trapped white space, claustrophobic pages, unequal spacing, and too many typefaces (Gibbs, 2007). Simply stated, an effective website should be simple, consistent, clear, balanced, harmonious, and unified (Skaalid, 1999). The site should be: simple in that only text and graphics which are absolutely necessary should be used, consistent in that the page layouts are consistent and predictable, clear in that the message should be only what the learner needs to know, balanced in that objects and items on the page should be in symmetrical balance, harmonious in that fonts and colors are the same, and unified in that all the items appear to belong together.

Choosing a Good Website

Good Website: A Rationale

The example of a good interactive instructional website I have chosen to discuss is Digital History (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/). The rationale provided is based upon the guidelines as established by Bonnie Skaalid in Multimedia & Webpage Design Principles (1999). Digital History is an online U.S. History interactive resource for students in grades 9-12 and college students, and grades 9-12 secondary social science teachers and college instructors. The site provides an online U.S. history textbook, primary document and resources, learning modules, classroom handouts, interactive games, an interactive timeline, lesson plans, and virtual exhibitions. Students can visit the site to look up primary documents, peruse the online textbook, play interactive games, and visit the virtual exhibitions. Teachers and instructors can brush up on content knowledge, find lesson plans and handouts, and incorporate any of the interactive elements into their own classroom teaching.

This site has been chosen for several reasons. The messages presented at the site are simple, as there are no superfluous or unnecessary graphics or text. Each page on the site is consistent, with a design template in place for the navigation bar to the left and the header at the top. Messages are clear, as text is short and direct. The pages are balanced, as text and images are displayed in such a way as to provide a balanced appearance. The site is harmonious in that fonts and colors are consistent, images match the text and the topic, and graphics are appropriate. Finally, the site presents a sense of unity in that all of the pages appear to belong together and flow logically.

Good Website: An Evaluation

The evaluation tool used to evaluate the website is the Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) provided by Nesbit, Belfer, and Leacock (2007). According to the authors, a learning object could refer to “a single image, a page of text, an interactive simulation, or an entire course” (Nesbit et al, 2007, p. 2). In the context of this evaluation a learning object will refer to an entire course (I am considering the Digital History site to be an entire course). LORI evaluates nine areas: content quality, learning goal alignment, feedback and adaptation, motivation, presentation design, interaction usability, accessibility, reusability, and standards compliance (Nesbit et al, 2007).

Content Quality. The content on the various pages of the site appear to be thorough and accurate. The site is sponsored by the history department and the College of Education at the University of Houston. There also appears to be an appropriate level of detail, though too much information is provided at times. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest score, Digital History receives 4 points out of 5 for content quality.

Learning Goal Alignment. Learning goals are not explicitly declared, but the overarching goal of using technology to enhance the teaching and learning of U.S. history is apparent. The material presented on the pages of the site supports this goal. Digital History receives 4 points out of 5 for learning goal alignment.

Feedback and Adaptation. The content on the site can be adapted to support different types of learning, but the pages are dominated by text. Options for feedback are also limited. Digital History receives 3 points out of 5 for feedback and adaptation.

Motivation. The site would certainly motivate college students completing history research, but high school students, many of whom are not necessarily interested in history, would not be sufficiently motivated by the text dominated pages. Digital history receives 3 points out of 5 for motivation.

Presentation Design. The information is presented in a consistent, pleasing design. Text, graphics, images, and white space are utilized well. Movies and interactive games are provided when appropriate. Digital History receives 5 out of 5 points for presentation design.

Interaction Usability. Navigation of the pages is easy and the interface is entirely predictable, with no surprises. Digital History receives 5 points out of 5 for interaction usability.

Accessibility. Much of the content is not presented with learning disabled students in mind. However, since the pages are text dominated the pages are sufficient for mobile/distance learners. Digital History receives 3 points out of 5 points for accessibility.

Reusability. The content within the site is highly reusable in different contexts. Digital History receives 5 points out of 5 for reusability.

Standards Compliance. No standards are listed, so I have no choice than to give this criterion a mark of “not applicable”.

Good Website: A Conclusion

Out of forty possible points, Digital History receives a total of thirty-two points. Thirty-two points divided by forty points gives Digital History a score of 80%. Although the site does not score as “great”, it is a good site which presents accurate content in a well designed format.

Choosing a Poor Website

Poor Website: A Rationale

An example of a poor website I have chosen to discuss is Gamequariam.com (http://www.gamequarium.com/). Once again, the rationale provided is based upon the guidelines as established by Bonnie Skaalid in Multimedia & Webpage Design Principles (1999). Gamequariam.com is supposed to be a site for elementary school teachers and students, but it is truly difficult to tell due to poor graphic design of the site. The site provides links, too many links, to interactive games and puzzles for students and resources for teachers.

The site was chosen for several reasons. The messages of the site are difficult to understand due to an overabundance of links which may take you to the content you are hoping for find, or to more links. The pages on the site are not consistent in layout, though the background and the text remain the same, though that is not a good thing. The pages are not balanced, because you honestly do not know what you are going to see when you click on a link. Pages are not harmonious, as the fonts and background do not match, and in fact these elements make it difficult to navigate the site. The site is not unified, as many of the pages do not appear to be part of the site.

Poor Website: An Evaluation

Once again, the evaluation tool used to evaluate the website is the Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) provided by Nesbit, Belfer, and Leacock (2007). LORI evaluates nine areas: content quality, learning goal alignment, feedback and adaptation, motivation, presentation design, interaction usability, accessibility, reusability, and standards compliance (Nesbit et al, 2007).

Content Quality. The content, if you can locate the content on the site, appears to be accurate. However, the bulk of the content is not store at the site, but rather linked to other sites and resources. Also, there is simply too much information. Gamequarium.com receives 2 points out of 5 total points for content quality.

Learning Goal Alignment. Goals are not specifically stated, though one might assume that the site helps K-5 students learn different subjects and to read. Gamequarium.com receives 2 points out of 5 total points for learning goal alignment.

Feedback and Adaptation. The content on the site can be adapted to support different types of learning, but the pages are difficult to navigate and content is sometimes difficult to locate. Options for feedback are also limited. Gamequarium.com receives 2 points out of 5 for feedback and adaptation.

Motivation. If the content can actually be located, the site would certainly motivate young children to play games and to learn, but again, finding the content is difficult, and the design makes it tough to read. Gamequarium.com receives 2 points out of 5 for motivation.

Presentation Design. While the design is consistent for some pages, it is consistently poor. The background and font clash and give the reader a headache. The front page is also cluttered at the top with a myriad of directions for how to reach different websites. Gamequarium.com receives 1 point out of 5 for presentation design.

Interaction Usability. Navigation of the pages is difficult and frustrating. Some links take you directly to content, while others send you a journey of link after link. Gamequarium.com receives 1 point out of 5 for interaction usability.

Accessibility. Much of the content is not presented with learning disable students in mind. Also, since the pages are link heavy, the loading of pages would take much longer than normal. Gamequarium.com receives 2 points out of 5 points for accessibility.

Reusability. The content within the site, if you can find it is highly reusable in different contexts. Gamequarium.com receives 5 points out of 5 for reusability.

Standards Compliance. No standards are listed, so I have no choice than to give this criterion a mark of “not applicable”.

Poor Website: A Conclusion

Out of forty possible points, Gamequarium.com receives a total of seventeen points. Seventeen points divided by forty points gives Gamequarium.com a score of 42.5%. Gamequarium.com tries to present too much information. Not only does the site attempt to cover all subject areas for K-5, but it also presents way too much information for all of the content areas. Furthermore, the navigation is not predictable, and at times, frustrating. Finally, the graphic design is terrible, and it gives you a headache if you look at the site too long. Serious redesign must take place on this site.

References

Gibbs, B. (2002). The basics of graphic design. Tuscaloosa City Schools Online Technology Learning Center. Article retrieved October 16, 2007: http://www.online.tusc.k12.al.us/tutorials/grdesign/grdesign.htm#princdes

Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., and Leacock, T. (2007). Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI): User manual. E-Learning Research and Assessment Network. Article Retrieved October 16, 2007: http://www.elera.net/eLera/Home/Articles/LORI%201.5.pdf

Skaalid, B. (1999). Multimedia & webpage design principles. Web Design for Instruction. Article retrieved October 16, 2007: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/skaalid/page/design/webdsgn.htm