Plato:
1. Unifying theme
The website does have an overall unifying theme, but it is really confusing in
the way it is set up, so everything feels detached and a little bit
unrelated.
2. Inclusion of everyone
The website mostly friendly to a Mormon viewer, but this might be okay since the Mormon viewer is the target audience. It is important to be welcoming to lots of Mormons though, and the sites wide variety of content allows for this. If the tabs were more organized, this would allow people to be able to see up front that there is content that interests them individually.
3. Enticing opportunity for open discussion
You can contribute by clicking the "contribute" button, but the
placement of this button feels random and disorganized, and so I don't
really have a desire to click it and am slightly confused already. Also for whatever reason, people do not feel enticed to comment on articles, and this should really be looked at and worked on.
4. Easy to understand
Like mentioned above, the website is very confusing and disorganized. I
would not want to revisit that website after my first impression of
it.
Aristotle:
1. The actualization of potentialities brings happiness.
The website has amazing potentialities which are in their case forums
for connecting and talking. They look well thought out and intriguing. The main potentiality that is not being used is the comment section under articles. Somehow that needs to pull people in.
2. Ethos, pathos and logos help create persuasiveness for a website, which will bring users.
They use ethos well by displaying all of their followers on Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, etc. They use pathos well by allowing for real
people to open up and talk about passionate topics. BUT unfortunately,
they do not use logos very well. I believe they do not use logos well
because the layout of their sight is pretty confusing. This is a big
turn off to me, and I am sure to other users as well. I feel if they
could get the logical flow of their website down, they would have a lot
more users.
Hume/Kant:
1. The first type of beauty is contributed by the experts or the site creators (Hume)
The experts (web designers, user experience designers and programmers) create the base beauty. The base beauty of this site is not friendly to the user, so it really did not achieve what it really should. It does not allow for the next form of beauty as well as it should, which is when users interact and consider the site beautiful themselves.
2. The most important form of beauty is achieved only when the user finds it beautiful and contributes to the beauty (Kant)
To critique the site as Kant would, I decided
to dive in and pretend to be a user (since for him beauty is in the eye
of the beholder), and see what beauty I could find in the site and its
services. I went through the site again, and explored some of their
pages and articles. They have a lot of interesting material, and I
found myself reading multiple articles without intending to. A large
reason I read those articles was because they were right there on the
top of the front page, with gripping titles. I did find myself
wondering which tabs to select--the ones on the top or the ones on the
side, since I could tell that some of them were the same but not all.
So that was confusing and definitely not a design that I could
appreciate or find value in as a user. I also found the order of the
drop down menus somewhat illogical. I wonder if there is a way for the
site creators to track which tabs are clicked on most and have those be
at the top of the drop down menus.
No comments:
Post a Comment