Razorfish, Germany Case Study: Audi
Razorfish, Germany Case Study: Audi 2 1. Schematics (wireframes) 2. Jumping Boxes 3. Right vs. Left Navigation.
Mar 27, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Razorfish, Germany
Case Study:
Audi
2
1. Schematics (wireframes)
2. „Jumping Boxes“
3. Right vs. Left Navigation
3Schematics
Documents separate & independent
Problem: Traceability
Changes & updates inefficient
Version control problematic
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
5Schematics
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
7
1. Schematics (wireframes)
2. „Jumping Boxes“
3. Right vs. Left Navigation
8Jumping Boxes
Users surf with different window sizes
Problem: Variable Browser Sizes
One screen size Web design
Right navigation must be visible
9Jumping Boxes
Three page layouts offered – S, M, L
from 640x480 to 1024x768
Automated Layout
Fulfilled CI constraints
Brand: “Vorsprung durch Technik”
10
11Jumping Boxes
Disadvantages Technically difficult to implement Usability problems? Not needed for all page types
A complex solution for a simple problem
12
1. Schematics (wireframes)
2. „Jumping Boxes“
3. Right vs. Left Navigation
13Right vs. Left Navigation
Right navigation = Audi as innovator
Challenge: Competitive Difference
Smoother interaction with
scrollbar
Greater focus on content
Subjectively accepted by users
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
15Right vs. Left Navigation
Time
Tasks
1 2 3 4 5 6
R
L
Significant
Part 1 - Hypothesis
16Right vs. Left Navigation
Time
Tasks
1 2 3 4 5 6
RL
NoSignificance
Part 1 - Results
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
18Right vs. Left Navigation
Results: Stronger focus on content
19Right vs. Left Navigation
Do you like the right navigation?
Part 3 – Interview
: |: ) : (7 23 2
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
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)
Related Documents
