Create your own awesome maps

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account?
Log In

Week 6 Discussion Topic (Please title your posts as “Date_YourName_Topic”) by Mind Map: Week 6 Discussion Topic (Please
title your posts as
“Date_YourName_Topic”)
0.0 stars - 0 reviews range from 0 to 5

Week 6 Discussion Topic (Please title your posts as “Date_YourName_Topic”)

using the three principles. Do you think the page presents information effectively? Absolutely. I think the page looks great and the Flash animations add interest to the page. I like the way it is layed out. Do you think the page as a whole uses visuals effectively? Yes, I think really well. It's exactly what I would expect of this magazine that I have basically grown up with. It reminds me of their high quality magazine and so when I was the site the trademarks were all there. Why or why not? The reason I do like it is because the site is true to their history of great design and colorful pictures. If you were the designer, will you design the page differently? No I would change a thing. The site captures the essance of the organization and keeps a connection to the history of National Geographic while at the same time bringing the organization into the modern technological world of the internet. How? By keeping the same basic look and feel of the orginal magazine, preserving the past and reaching into the future at the same time by using the latest technology like Flash to view the still shots

see, this is what happened if i were not using notes. i can't figure out how to format my post. it goes beyond the page...horrible... do i have to open a box so that it has better layout? i screwed.-tintin

2/10/2011: A side note on using notes...I think they work well for sharing a lot of information, but I am more likely to pay more attention to the ones that are in plain sight;)

2/9/2011_RickSturgill_EvaluateDesign

  Post- February 9, 2011 I think the site is great. It uses images as well as text. The text is not too busy and the site gives plenty of room for the images. I like the way the images roll through. It gives added interest to the page. The site also keeps its historical look with its traditional magazine colors. Which I think is great. As soon as I viewed the page I knew instantly that it was national Geographic. I have loved this magazine all of my life and they are wise in keeping with their traditional look. It's great how they have taken the magazine of yesterday and brought it into the modern technological world of the internet but kept the look and feel of the past as well. The site has everything you would expect from the organization. It looks well thought out and organized. It has drop down menus that can take you to different links but keeps them to a minimum as not to take away from the beautiful photos of animals and places in the world. Using the three principles. Do you think the page presents information effectively? Absolutely, I think the page looks great and the Flash animations add interest to the page. I like the way it is laid out. Do you think the page as a whole uses visuals effectively? Yes, I think really well. It's exactly what I would expect of this magazine that I have basically grown up with. It reminds me of their high quality magazine and so when I was the site the trademarks were all there. Why or why not? The reason I do like it is because the site is true to their history of great design and colorful pictures. If you were the designer, will you design the page differently? No I would change a thing. The site captures the essence of the organization and keeps a connection to the history of National Geographic while at the same time bringing the organization into the modern technological world of the internet. How? By keeping the same basic look and feel of the original magazine, preserving the past and reaching into the future at the same time by using the latest technology like Flash to view the still shots

Do you think the page presents information effectively? Absolutely, I think the page looks great and the Flash animations add interest to the page. I like the way it is laid out.

Do you think the page as a whole uses visuals effectively? Yes, I think really well. It's exactly what I would expect of this magazine that I have basically grown up with. It reminds me of their high quality magazine and so when I first looked at the site the trademarks were all there., Why or why not? The reason I do like it is because the site is true to their history of great design and colorful pictures.

Bad website design Example

  Bad web site design: http://www.maisonmartinmargiela.com/ This is a terrible web site design. The first thing you see is a splash screen declaring that the site is not under construction. What a really weird thing to do.   After entering the site it looks like an old dos type page. It is very poorly done and lacks any visual interest at all.

Bad web site design: http://www.maisonmartinmargiela.com/ This is a terrible web site design. The first thing you see is a splash screen declaring that the site is not under construction. What a really weird thing to do. After entering the site it looks like an old dos type page. It is very poorly done and lacks any visual interest at all., 2/9/2011 - Amira - reply:This website is really ridiculous.. The designer tried to make it very spacial but he failed.. I couldn't even look at it for more than 1 minute.., 2/11 - Nick - This site is awesome. I mean, not good awesome. Just hilariously bad. It took me a while to figure out what they actually do. Well, actually, the first time I exited the window when the thing said it wasn't under construction because that's just stupid and I don't read those things I just glance at them. I thought it said it was under construction. I don't know if anybody figure it out or not, but Maison Martin Margiela is a high end clothing designer. I thought the website was some dude's crappy experiment. It's real and they really want to sell stuff. It looks like a poorly (read: not at all) designed site in your OAK space. Post-modern crap clothing doesn't have to translate to post-modern crap page design., Really?" Maison Martin Margiela is a high end clothing designer." ??? How can they design such crappy website then? I really don't understand. They really use this site to sell their stuff? I bet it's not the main channel for selling their clothes, i hope not. I also thought it's some folk's OAK website. unbelievable. May they have audience are all geeky people. They do market reserach to make sure this is the site for their specially-targeted audiences., 2/12-Alex-This website is horrible. Its looks like something we would have seen about 15 years ago. The designer really had no intentions of attracting traffic to this site. Other than entering it to see how bad it is. You are right, it definitely looks like an old dos type page. Horrible.

2/6/2011 _Tian Luo_National Geographic (NG) website

I like the NG website in general, but like everything else in the world, it does need improvement somewhere there. Regarding selection, I think the text and graphics in the website are prominent enough to attract the audience's   attention. The slide show gallery on the homepage is very   eye-catching since their photographs in NG are always with  high quality. When scrolling down, we can see Daily News, On TV This week, and some Editors' Picks. A facebook plug-in is also   integrated, which I found appealing as it make NG look very popular and up-to-date with the youngsters. The only problem I  found is the navigation in the bottom of the page. The space between lines and sections seem too much which makes it overly   spread out and takes too much space of the page. In terms of organization, i think it does a good job as well. The navigation is well-constructed and it organizes everything very well. The daily news and news on TV are at the top, following by Editor's Picks which are also news, then goes with the social media- facebook and twitter, and there are banners separate things into different sections. So contents with common themes are grouped together nicely. But I do think the Advertisement party takes too much space- it takes around one fourth of the whole page. It seems a bit too much. But maybe NG does have their own reasons of doing it. The integration seems good too. The text and graphics together are accommodating and help with understanding and integration of information.  

2/8/2011_Hitchings_National Geographic

  I felt very comfortable while on this site…it felt familiar. I agree with you on your comments about selection, Integration, and organization. However, if there focus is to sell subscriptions…well although every page had the subscription call out on the upper left…there seemed to be little emphasis on it. More emphasis was on the advertisement of other products by it's sponsers - which I am sure is where the money is. It was apparent that the website was not constructed for marketing print materials - it appeared to be an afterthought.

Alex_2/12/11

I feel that this website was very well put together. The homepage is eyecatching and very appealing to the user. The selection of content is also good. It keeps the viewer interested and wanting to remain on the site to research more.

2/7/2011 _Tian Luo_Another website for discussion.

Another website that I want to introduce to all of you is http://layersmagazine.com. We got to know this website in 604, the flash class. Susan, the TA of this class brought up this website to us. I think the layout and the design of the whole site is pretty cool and it is a great resource for all of us who are learning Adobe programs, no matter it is Flash, PS, InDesign or whatever. The product logos of all the Adobe programs are extrodinarily prominent, which call attention of all of  Adobe lovers- the assumed audiences of this websties. Below are the updates from each section of the website - the tutorials, the layer magazine, the blog, the review, and etc. Each of the new update boxes is labeled with a tab in dark red color, identifying its categories, such as "Illustrator," "Photoshop," or "Design News." In terms of organization, it does a good job too generally speaking. The nagivation on the top is very standout and well categorized of all the contents. However, the contents on the right hand side is a bit confusing though. It is not easy to tell which of those are ads and which are useful contents for users. At a first glance, users are difficult to identify the real content and purposes of the stuff displayed on the right column. Overall, the integration principle is embeded well in this website design. The usrs of this website can easily identify what they mostly interst in and integrat the graphics and the text. Nevertheless, I do think the website is slightly graphics-heavy. Some of the graphics are hard to make connection with their accompanying texts.

2/10/2011: I agree! I love this website. Aside from the content, the design is wonderful! It is often that we miss good content because design is poor...surely not the case here!

I tried not using notes. then made a big mess on our page. so i gave up. btw, how you guys make your dialogue box colored?- Tintin

2/8/2011_Hitchings_NG_overview

    The National Geographic Web site is phenomenal. I think the site shows class, topics of interest, and the graphics/ photos are the best. The selection of the items for the site, along with the quality of presentation is best-in-class. The amount of support for a constantly changing website of this degree is demanding. One thing I noticed was the banner ads on the top of the page. They are interesting, changing, and the effectively use the integration of text and graphics. If you look at them, you can see the use of layers of text changing, with images scrolling from left to right in the background. The organization of the site was exceptional. This is a great example of hierarchical layout. Everything is in a drop down menu without having too many levels such as popup windows, which are distracting. I also liked how every page had a consistent layout. The information is chunked so pictures were on far left, information about the article in middle, advertisements on the right, and banners on top.    

2/8/2011_Hitchings_worst web site!!

  Worst Web site -http://www.georgehutchins.com/ I came across this and I have to say that at first I was falling off my chair laughing…and then I actually got scared. This represents a Congressman? Yikes!! I would have to write a book to be able to describe all the bad attributes – I will name a few and let the other group members join in on the fun. Quality of images and text 1. Georges picture – was he dead when they took the photo? The grayscale is not becoming! 2. All the text is cut out from another source in “knockout boxes” 3. Hierarchical structure - What and where are the links? 4. Donation button on bottom – the smallest button to find at the bottom of about 10 pages. I wonder how many donations he got from this website. Maybe someone should donate a graphic designer!!! 5. Consistency /organization – The only think consistent is they consistently use the same bad photos over and over again! 6. Mass confusion – that is a good overall description….  

Alex_2/13/2011

Terri you are right. The opeing banner displays a good integration of images and text. Its also both appealing and informative to the user. In addition, the information is within a good hieracle format and contains a well balanced amount of content within each category.

02/09/211_Bado_National Geographic

New node

  Selection: I think selection is achieved very well by making the title of the magazine stand out. This is done by capitalizing the title, giving it the largest font on the page and making the color white against a black background. Also, the big square on the left side of the page draws people’s attention to the title of the magazine. Another aspect of the website that stands out is subscription and shopping. The subscription is in the top right corner of the page making it very important. The “shop” is placed on a lower menu but its red color makes it stand out compared to the other items at the same level. Organization: The site is well organized with a three-level menu of different colors and font sizes giving it a sense of structure. It is easy to navigate. People can easily find the information they need. Integration: The title, the menu, the organization, the color and the slideshow, all come together to convey the idea of planet, people and animals. Nothing could achieve that goal better. Overall, I think this site is one of the best sites I have ever seen. However, if I were to redesign this site I would give a larger font to the title of the magazine and center it. Also, I would place the title on top of everything.    

2/9/2011 - Amira - reply: Hey Albert, I agree that the title should be on the top and nothing above it, but I think that the size of the title and it's position is ok. The designer of the website uses the asymmetrical balance in the top side of the page.. but it's still a type of balance!

New node

2/9/2011-Amira-National Geographic

Do you think the page presents information effectively?

Yes, because it's well organized. Information is chunked and separated by white spaces. The use of grid is very clear. Contrast, space, colors, and text sizes are perfectly used., No, if I'm able to edit something in that website, I would change the color of the sentence "Inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888," which is beside the website title, from gray to white because it's not clear., Haha. Nice suggestion. I was trying to think of something I'd change, but I really couldn't. I agree with you about the way the contrast is used effectively ensure the reader can see all the important stuff. It's a very sexy site. -Nick Yinger, New node

Do you think the page as a whole uses visuals effectively? and why?

Yes, all the visuals are attractive and colorful. Labels are provided and proximity is very clear between headings, images, and the labels., 2/9/2011 - Amira - reply on Tian‘s post: Hey Tintin, I think that the worst thing in this website is the position of the advertisement.., but that's something that is not avoidable, they gonna make money for the ads. they have to put them in prominent positions.-Tintin

Will you design the page differently? How?

Amira's Suggestion

Hi guys.. why r u using notes? it makes it more difficult to see the whole image and to compare all the ideas and opinions.. then what's the difference between this and blackboard discussions?!!

2/10/2011: I put my agreement in another place, as well, but I agree with you! It is more difficult to follow the discussions

2/9/2011 - Amira: What do you want to say Linda Lohr?

Amira: In page 169 of the text book, figure 7-8, Linda put the cross and star of David symbols and wrote that these symbols mean Evil in some Arabic countries!! This is not true at all. In fact this is a dirty lie. These 2 symbols mean different religions that we respect and nothing else! I just wanted to clarify!

Good stuff, I agree! There's a big difference between a pentagram and the Star of David, Amira:Thank you, Lol. Lina Lohr is a psycho., geeeeeez. She is still alive I bet. You guys are crazy! I can tell this must be posted by Nick. Anonymous doesn't mean unidentifiable here., Sorry Linda Lohr, It doesn't work :)

2/9/11_Yinger_Natl Geographic Rocks my Socks off

How come I can't choose where these nodes go without assigning them to the main thread? Apparently it's only horizontal up in the mindmeister. Anywho, I love this National Geographic web page. My only problem is that the photo of the day is generally pretty lackluster. I get them as part of my RSS feed and they're almost always forgettable. This makes no sense because the rest of their photos are phenomenal.

As for selection, organization, and integration, I simply like it all. With selection, the hierarchy of information presented on the site is well done. The giant, beautiful, pictures that headline the site are fitting. Even on the rest of the page, I find the selection of images that match with certain sections are intriguing and appropriate for each topic.

With Integration, I have no complaints here either. I think the way everything is set up and designed is in tune with both what we're used to seeing and what makes for good viewing, both which make it easy to comprehend exactly what National Geographic wants us to immediately with a simple glance at the page.

Organization I am also a fan of, big surprise. The important, or main topics are at the top of the page and draw your attention to them right away. The secondary or tertiary stuff are both exactly where I would expect them to be - toward the bottom of the page. I don't go around "like"ing stuff on Facbook because I hate Mark Zuckerberg, so I don't want that stuff at the top of a page.

BAD WEBSITE! _ 2/11 - Yinger_NYTimes

So, I think the New York Times website as actually pretty bad. For a publication that's generally well-regarded, their webpage looks pretty poor. It seems to be a case of cognitive overload. There are words words words galore and they're way too small. There doesn't seem to be any logical organization to the site. There is almost no flow and any contrast is not used effectively. Basically, it's very cluttered and just plain ugly to look at

2/8/2011_JamiPaintiff_EvaluationDesign

I think the National Geographic website looks great! The combination of colors works well...it is not too busy.  The background being white keeps the viewer's attention focused on the objects on which need focused.  I really like the editor's picks section of the website.  This section is a great combination of text and visual -- the name of the article is given, but then the picture gives a clue about the specific context of the article -- very efficient! If I were the designer of this website, I think I would not do anything differently.  Like I said previously, I think the combination of colors and the way that text and visuals are used together work very well for the website.  I also think that the access to information is easy -- it is arranged logically so that it does not take long to find the information you need!

2/10/2011: I have to agree with Amira...I hate using notes! I prefer using Blackboard. I think it make much more sense and the discussions are easier to follow...I think it just makes more sense visually to NOT use the notes...good suggestion, Amira!

2/10/2011: I know this may seem silly, guys, but I am a shopper at heart -- so many of the websites I spend time navigating are shopping websites...one of my favorite websites is ninewest.com!! It is one of the easiest websites on which to shop. I am one who notices the poor use of color...if you look at ninewest.com, the color is NOT a distraction! Users are locked onto that website for one main purpose...TO SHOP! This website enables the user to do just that. It is the perfect combination of text and visuals...categories are listed on the left side of the page, making it easy to find the right kind of shoe. Coming from someone who LOVES shoes...this is a well designed website!

Alex_2/13/2011

Jamie, you are right is stating that the site was not too busy. I also think that it is well balanced and very informative to the user. In addition, there is a good integration of text and visuals that keep the attention of the user. I too, would change nothing about this site. The designers did a good job in chunking information in the proper areas and laying out graphics in their proper place.

3/9/2011 - Amira -Good website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

I like the organization of this website. It's very neat. The colors and the contrast are good. I like how the news is grouped based on its type. But images are too small, maybe to fit into the blocks. Each image is enclosed with a title or a label. two things I don't think they're good: 1- the website title is too small and 2- putting 2 copies of the same advertisement on the same page!

02/11/2011_Bado_Badvisual

http://www.youtube.com/ Almost all of us have heard of Youtube and probably watched a video on this most popular video sharing site. However, it is not the design of the site that makes it popular but the opportunities that it offers to us. Most people like Youtube because they can watch and upload videos in various languages. In this regard, the site is great.

However, when it comes to design, I consider Youtube.com one of the worst sites I have ever seen. Selection: When you visit the site, the first thing that grabs your attention is this huge advertisement of Acura cars. It gives you the impression that it is a car dealership site. The Youtube logo is so small on the left side of the page, and it ends with a search button.

Organization: The site has very poor organization. In fact there is a menu that is adjacent to the search button but it is not clearly visible. The menu has: browse, upload, create and account and sin in. It doesn’t look like a menu. At the bottom of the Acura ad, there is a list of most popular videos organized in two columns. On the right side of the page we have a list of videos under the title “Spotlight”.

Hmm.. I really don't see what you see. It looks totally perfect to me. Sometimes you can't help with dealing with the Ads- you gotta put them in prominent positions coz they pay you!!! -Tintin, It is Ok to have ads on it, but putting them on top to obstruct the Logo of the wesite itself is ridiculous! Youtbe needs to make its own advertisement too.

Integration: The combination of organization and selection does not really give the idea that this is a video sharing site. It gives the impression that it is all about cars because the picture of the Acura is the most prominent on the site

Funny. you are critiquing on Youtube. I mean slashing on them. They will sue you!! revoke your right of watching youtube videos!-Tintin

Actually we don't have rights on youtube. They have rights to use our videos for whatever purpose.

New node

I like this Mindmester now. Now it is my 3rd time mess around with it. And I feel much better. Without seeing you guys' post, I would have know there are so many things that I could mess around with! I figured so many new functions via viewing your pretty icons and colorful posts! Thanks everybody!!!-Tintin

2/13/2011_Alex Murray National Geographic Site

The National Geographic Site was very well put together. When first opening the page you attention is gained by many graphics and well structured catergorial  tabs. It kind of relates back to the discussions in chapter six that deals with information chuncking. For example, all educational information information is grouped in its own section. As well as travel and various animal species. Information of this sort is better explained when organized and group together. In addition to the educational information, there is a good balance and integration of text and images that catch the attention of the viewer. Just as they do with their magazines, National Geographic does a good job of selecting information and graphics that not only catch the attention of readers and researchers, but also makes it appealing and informative without being too complex. The website is broken up enough so that an novice user could navigate and find information with no problem.

Bad Website Design

My organization does constant research in comparing what they offer to other for-profit educational institutions. I was looking at the University of Phoenix website and I must say that I was not impressed. The University of Phoenix is one of the largest and highest earners in the for-profit education section. I was under the impression that they would have an informative, well designed and appealing website. To my dissmay, the website was awful. The image that serves as the home page header in nice, but very basic. There is no appealing picture of a beautiful campus or even a description of their curriculum. You have to link through several informatin sections before you even get any real information about a program in which you would want to do. This is not what I suspected from a leading institution. This particular school is making money hand over fist from continuing adult education. I thought the least they would have an appealing website. It makes me wonder why state institutions put so much effort into their websites? When we view most college websites they show enhanced photos of the college environment and buildings in addition to campus activities and well designed layouts of what the curriculum consist of. Nothing in comparison to what is on the Univ. of Phnx site.

New node

2/15/2011_Terrie Hitchings_ what hasppend to my post - bad website.

Hey did anyone see my post?  I had a very bad website posted, plus a Url, plus a jpeg, plus comments.   This is what i don't like about this site...If you are not careful you can accidetly delete other peoples work.!!   I would have to write a book to be able to describe all the bad attributes – I will name a few and let the other group members join in on the fun. Quality of images and text 1. Georges picture – was he dead when they took the photo? The grayscale is not becoming! 2. All the text is cut out from another source in “knockout boxes” 3. Hierarchical structure - What and where are the links? 4. Donation button on bottom – the smallest button to find at the bottom of about 10 pages. I wonder how many donations he got from this website. Maybe someone should donate a graphic designer!!! 5. Consistency /organization – The only thing consistent is they consistently use the same bad photos over and over again! 6. Mass confusion – that is a good overall description….

Repost from

New node

New node