Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

22
Razorfish, Germany Case Study: Audi

description

 

Transcript of Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

Page 1: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

Razorfish, Germany

Case Study:

Audi

Page 2: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

2

1. Schematics (wireframes)

2. „Jumping Boxes“

3. Right vs. Left Navigation

Page 3: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

3Schematics

Documents separate & independent

Problem: Traceability

Changes & updates inefficient

Version control problematic

Page 4: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

4Schematics

Solution: Adobe GoLive

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

Convergence of deliverables

Page 5: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

5Schematics

Page 6: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

6Schematics

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

Page 7: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

7

1. Schematics (wireframes)

2. „Jumping Boxes“

3. Right vs. Left Navigation

Page 8: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

8Jumping Boxes

Users surf with different window sizes

Problem: Variable Browser Sizes

One screen size Web design

Right navigation must be visible

Page 9: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

9Jumping Boxes

Three page layouts offered – S, M, L

from 640x480 to 1024x768

Automated Layout

Fulfilled CI constraints

Brand: “Vorsprung durch Technik”

Page 10: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

10

Page 11: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

11Jumping Boxes

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

A complex solution for a simple problem

Page 12: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

12

1. Schematics (wireframes)

2. „Jumping Boxes“

3. Right vs. Left Navigation

Page 13: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

13Right vs. Left Navigation

Right navigation = Audi as innovator

Challenge: Competitive Difference

Smoother interaction with

scrollbar

Greater focus on content

Subjectively accepted by users

Page 14: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

14Right vs. Left Navigation

2 prototypes: 1 left & 1 right navigation

64 users: 2 groups

External Test: www.SirValuse.de

Part 1 – Six tasks were timed

Part 2 - Eye movement analysis

Part 3 - Interviews

Page 15: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

15Right vs. Left Navigation

Time

Tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6

R

L

Significant

Part 1 - Hypothesis

Page 16: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

16Right vs. Left Navigation

Time

Tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6

RL

NoSignificance

Part 1 - Results

Page 17: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

17Right vs. Left Navigation

Method: www.MediaAnalyzer.com

User rapidly coordinate clicks with where they look

Part 2 – Eye movement

Hypothesis:

right navigation > focus on content

Page 18: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

18Right vs. Left Navigation

Results: Stronger focus on content

Page 19: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

19Right vs. Left Navigation

Do you like the right navigation?

Part 3 – Interview

: |: ) : (7 23 2

Page 20: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

20Right vs. Left Navigation

„Normal” methods with 25 participants

Subsequent Usability Test

Corroborated findings of first test

No difficulties with a right navigation

Positive subjective response

Only 1 commented on right navigation

Page 21: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

21Right 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)

Page 22: Audi casestudy jameskalbach (1)

Razorfish, Germany

Thank You

[email protected]