site inventory and analysis comments
After you read your own group's comments, please read the comments for all other groups, as what is written most likely will inform your own group's work.
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4return to site inventory
Group 1
You have done an incredible job with your analysis of the site - especially in your detailed Audit Methology and Content Delivery Plan, which should help you quite a bit when moving into the re-design phase. Your sitemaps are also quite good (I especially like how you have color-coded them), though the redesigned site map, because of its web-like layout, is a bit confusing. I can follow it, but it takes a lot longer to gain a clear understanding of the sections. I think you've done a great job with collapsing some of the current sections together, and I'm eager to see what features you add to your front page.
Your Communication Brief is also very well done, and I'm intrigued by the word you have chosen as your single-minded message: Comprehensive. A good word, one that tells me that your redesign is going to be thorough and will work through your goals in great detail. However, be aware that in trying to be comprehensive that you don't wind up with a front page that is cluttered. Distribute that which makes the site comprehesive throughout the site itself. And please be aware of the language that you use. Under Perception/Tone/Guidelines you call the museum a "company," which it certainly is not (nor is the university). While seemingly not a big deal, if a client from the museum saw that you labelled the museum a "company" they might come to the conclusion that you don't fully understand the museum or its mission and could very well opt to use a different design group. Language is important, so please play close attention to it. Overall, a great job on the first part, and I look forward to seeing what your re-design looks like.
Group 2
It is clear that you have an excellent understanding of the Blanton site, its structure, its problems, and its goals. Your materials, however, because you did not collect them into a single document, are quite confusing to read. Each of the sections of the Audit Methodoloy, Content Delivery Plan, Communication Brief, and site maps were broken into different files. I understand that differnt group members worked on different sections, which is great management of group work, but collecting them in a single document would allow for ease of reading, and while not a huge deal here in class, when working with a client you want to be sure to make undestanding complex analyses as easy as possible.
Your goal to want web site users "to feel that this is a place to explore and have wonderful experience learning" is great, but be careful to watch for typos, especially when they start to alter the meaning of a sentence (for example, ". . . has an awesome suffer experience browsing . . ."). And I'm not completely sure I follow your idea for the target audience and tourists. How did you come to the conclusion that "Tourists and philanthropists . . . would be primarily more affluent males"? All the active and potential donors who are women would be quite justified in being offended by this statement, especially because it is coming without any data to support it. As I mention for Group 1, if a client saw this statement, they could very take their business somewhere else. The documents that you provide a client must be thought out from front to back, be clear and easy to understand, and be sure not to offend any one particular group of people. Knowing your design stuff is not enough; you must be sure to be able to communicate effectively with the people who have hired you. I look forwrad to seeing your prototype.
Group 3
You have done a great job analyzing the current Blanton site. I agree that the current site feels like "the pages are scattered, unorganized, and unappealing," and you are really on your way to fixing the problems. You have done a great job with your Audit Methodology and Content Delivery Plan, and your Communication Brief is filled with a great amount of detailed information -- especially about your target audiences. Your Targetted Message of "Sleek, modern, simplicity" is great -- those adjectives are what describe some of the better museum sites that I have seen. I wonder if there is a way to work in an idea or an adjective that related to the new building's physical architecture. It is certainly not modern, but. . . . Being able to have the physical site inform the web site would be great, even if it is only in some very small way.
Your site maps are also very good. I'm not completely sure that University students and K-12 teachers would think to look under "Programs" for education information. You may want to consider making an education section to ease usability. Otherwise, you have done a great job and I look forward to seeing your prototype.
Group 4
It is clear from your site maps and communication brief that you have an excellent understanding of the problems with the Blanton site. I am glad that you are going to leverage each group member's unique skills, and that you are eager to learn from each other. I completely agree with your assessment that the "current site is poorly designed and an unfortunate reflection of the museum itself," and I am very glad to read that the "single purpose of the [redesigned] website is to provide the viewer with information relevant to the museum as well as making it easily accessible and readable." Your assessment of the target audiences is well written and I like the idea of "triggers" that will tempt the user to return to the site again in the future.
You have done some excellent work with the site maps, though I'm not completely sure why you have selected to leave in the 4 pop-up pictures that seem so out of place on the current site. I understand and support the desire to have images on the front page, but they should be presented in some sort of context. The way you have them here, they are sitting on the page context-less. I'm also not completely sure I understand the grouping of University and Community programs. K-12 and Community would seem to be a better pairing; but, even better is to create a single Education section and place K-12 and University under it, and leave the Community by itself. Also great work on the audit methodologies; you'll find that the detail will come in handy during later stages of the project. I look foward to seeing your prototype.