case study audi
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Case Study: Audi

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Case Study: Audi - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 189 Views
  • Uploaded on

Case Study: Audi . 1. Schematics (wireframes) 2. „Jumping Boxes“ 3. Right vs. Left Navigation. Sch e matics. Problem: Traceability. D ocuments separate & independent. Changes & updates inefficient Version control problemati c. Sch e matics. Solution: Adobe GoLive.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Case Study: Audi' - Gabriel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide2
1. Schematics (wireframes)
  • 2. „Jumping Boxes“
  • 3. Right vs. Left Navigation
sch e matics
Schematics

Problem: Traceability

  • Documents separate & independent
  • Changes & updates inefficient
  • Version control problematic
slide4
Schematics

Solution: Adobe GoLive

Convergence of deliverables

  • Sitemap and schematics linked 1:1
  • Components = modular construction
  • WebDAV server
    • concurrent work on schematics
    • remote access by client
  • Cross Platform: PC and Mac; HTML
slide6
Schematics

Disadvantages

  • Site file grew to 30+ mb
  • Unstable, crashed
  • Sitemap tool is suboptimal
  • Didn‘t get team buy-in

Overall GoLive met our expectations, but is the wrong tool for the job

Underscores need for an IA tool

slide7
1. Schematics (wireframes)
  • 2. „Jumping Boxes“
  • 3. Right vs. Left Navigation
slide8
Jumping Boxes

Problem: Variable Browser Sizes

Users surf with different window sizes

  • One screen size  Web design
  • Right navigation must be visible
slide9
Jumping Boxes

Automated Layout

Three page layouts offered – S, M, L

from 640x480 to 1024x768

  • Fulfilled CI constraints
  • Brand: “Vorsprung durch Technik”
slide11
Jumping Boxes

Disadvantages

  • Technically difficult to implement
  • Usability problems?
  • Not needed for all page types

A complex solution for a simple problem

slide12
1. Schematics (wireframes)
  • 2. „Jumping Boxes“
  • 3. Right vs. Left Navigation
slide13
Right vs. Left Navigation

Challenge: Competitive Difference

Right navigation = Audi as innovator

  • Smoother interaction with scrollbar
  • Greater focus on content
  • Subjectively accepted by users
slide14
Right vs. Left Navigation

External Test: www.SirValuse.de

2 prototypes: 1 left & 1 right navigation

64 users: 2 groups

  • Part 1 – Six tasks were timed
  • Part 2 - Eye movement analysis
  • Part 3 - Interviews
slide15
Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 1 - Hypothesis

Time

R

Significant

L

1 2 3 4 5 6

Tasks

slide16
Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 1 - Results

Time

No

Significance

R

L

1 2 3 4 5 6

Tasks

slide17
Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 2 – Eye movement

Method: www.MediaAnalyzer.com

User rapidly coordinate clicks with where they look

  • Hypothesis:

right navigation > focus on content

slide18
Right vs. Left Navigation

Results: Stronger focus on content

slide19
Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 3 – Interview

Do you like the right navigation?

7

23

2

:)

:|

:(

slide20
Right vs. Left Navigation

Subsequent Usability Test

„Normal” methods with 25 participants

  • Corroborated findings of first test
  • No difficulties with a right navigation
  • Positive subjective response
  • Only 1 commented on right navigation
slide21
Right vs. Left Navigation

Conclusions

  • Users are ambidextrous in terms of navigation position
  • Consistency and learnability
  • People expect that websites vary
  • Interaction given by design and layout, not prior expectations (Affordance)
ad