CodyGAndrewF

= The Rubric =

May have a couple issues with navigating freely and consistently in the interface. || Issues with navigational control, or freedom. May not be able to navigate quickly, or doesn't effectively take the user where they expect to go. || Issues with navigational control, and freedom. May not be able to navigate quickly, and doesn't effectively take the user where they expect to go. || Design || 9-10 || 7-8 || 5-7 || 0-4 ||
 * Standards/Consistency || 22-25 || 17-21 || 12-16 || 0-11 ||
 * || The interface effectively and efficiently shows internal, external, and real world consistency. colors, logos, use of control are consistent with what other programs use. || The interface is mostly consistent with 2 of the 3 types of consistency(real-world, internal, external) || The interface somewhat consists of 2 of the 3 types of consistency. || The program only shows consistency with 0 or 1 of the 3 types of consistency. ||
 * Error Prevention || 17-20 || 14-16 || 10-13 || 0-9 ||
 * || The interface provides useful instructions on ways to avoid errors, windows and menus are modal where appropriate to avoid errors, provides access only to variables that can be changed as necessary at certain times. When errors occur, they are handled in a manner that does not crash the interface. || Instructions are unhelpful or unavailable. Other criteria are met. || No instructions are available and some variables can be manipulated when not appropriate. || No error prevention is used. Errors cause the program to crash. ||
 * User Control/Freedom || 17-20 || 14-16 || 10-13 || 0-9 ||
 * || The interface gives the user the freedom of being able to navigate quickly, and also has the control to do so consistently. Takes the user where s/he expects to go. || Interface effectively takes the user where they expect to go.
 * Flexibility/Efficiency || 12-15 || 9-11 || 7-8 || 0-7 ||
 * || Common accelerators are used, and are helpful in speeding up actions. Unnecessary repetition is avoided. All actions are able to be redone in case of error. || Accelerators are used but require familiarity with specific interface. All other criteria are met. || No accelerators are used, steps may be overly repetitious. || No accelerators are used, steps may be overly repetitious, and no undo function is available. ||
 * Aesthetic/Minimalist
 * || Options and tasks available to the user are helpful and not intrusive. Design and layout is easy to navigate and not overwhelming. Goals can be accomplished with a minimum amount of clicks. || Layout is somewhat confusing. All other criteria are met. || Layout is confusing and some options are unnecessary. || Lots of unnecessary options are available, requiring lots of clicks, and the layout is poor. ||
 * Visibility/System Status || 9-10 || 7-8 || 5-7 || 0-4 ||
 * || The interface gives the user a good view of their current status. The user knows where they are, and will not get confused navigating in the interface. Doesn't overwhelm the user with extraneous or redundant information. || The interface gives the user a decent view of their current status, and the user know where they are, but may be a little confused in the overall navigation. Doesn't overwhelm the user with extraneous or redundant information. || The interface gives the user a poor view of their current status. The user may occasionally get lost, or confused in the interface, and may also overwhelm the user with extraneous, or redundant information. || The interface gives the user a poor view of their current status. It is easy for the user to get lost, or confused in the interface. May also overwhelm the user with extraneous, or redundant information. ||

= panic.com = The first site we applied our rubric to is panic.com. The site hosts a store in which items such as T-shirts are available for sale and can be added to the user's "cart". The site has innovated on the popular shopping cart idea of online stores by allowing the user to actually pull items into an area designated as the cart.

1) Standards/Consistency - 23/25 - The interface does a really good job with consistency. You select the size of items along with the number of them you wish to purchase(external consistency). Site uses an internal consistency of the drag and drop feature(for downloads, and products), which also serves as a good real-world shopping cart consistency 2) Error Prevention 12/20 - The interface does a really poor job with their error prevention. While using this interface, its glitches become very apparent. In Mozilla Firefox, you cannot even drag items out of your cart even though it informs you to do so. Sometimes while increasing the number of items to purchase, the product's picture doesn't even show up in the cart. 3) User Control/Freedom 11/20 - I found myself using the back button on my browser a lot with this site. Its links aren't designed for a user's freedom. and since the drag and drop feature doesn't work the way it is suppose to, the user doesn't get the freedom they were looking for.(has to push the clear all button instead of dragging items out of cart) 4) Flexibility/Efficiency 7/15 - not all the steps are able to be done over, making user errors a pain. Links to speed up user view time are inefficient/non-existent. 5) Aesthetic/Minimalist Design 5/10 - There is a small design, but you cannot easily navigate through different types of products, and some of their buttons are unclear..on their main page. 6) Visibility of System Status 3/10 - Would be higher, but the status on this site is mostly the shopping cart. Since the shopping cart has so many glitches, the system status is never up to date, and could easily confuse the user.

Overall Grade: 61/100



= Chrome Web Browser = 1) Standards/Consistency - 23/25 This application was created on the idea of simplicity. It shows external consistency with other web browsers with the back/forward/refresh buttons, and the url bar. the tabs are good real-world consistency because it is similar to paper filing. internal consistency is shown with their wrench bar. all of their available options are included with the wrench. 2) Error Prevention 20/20 - I have never witnessed an error with this application. It even finishes my sentences for me. 3) User Control/Freedom 19/20 - User has all the control. they can search with the address bar, in a search engine of their choosing, drag and drop tabs, and add extensions to their choosing. 4) Flexibility/Efficiency 14/15 - You can make shortcuts so if you type in a certain key combination it will automatically search it for you in specific way(using wikipedia, etc.). 5) Aesthetic/Minimalist Design 10/10 - Designed to use as few buttons as possible, and even combines the url as a searchbar. 6) Visibility of System Status 10/10 - Does not allow user to get lost in the interface, because it has very few menus to get lost on.

overall score - 96/100



= Prezi = 1) Standards/Consistency - 23/25 This interface shows good internal consistency with their circle format. it allows you to re-size, move objects. They also have the circle place on the upper right of the screen which allows you to insert different shapes, fonts, and backgrounds. 2) Error Prevention 20/20 - The interface is pretty self explanatory, and makes it difficult to create an error. 3) User Control/Freedom 19/20 - user is able to create new text, backgrounds, and shapes, and place them exactly how they see fit. 4) Flexibility/Efficiency 14/15 - All shortcuts are located in a specific area, and are easily accessed. 5) Aesthetic/Minimalist Design 10/10 - The interface is not cluttered, and very well laid out. 6) Visibility of System Status 6/10 - The interface does a good job not overwhelming the user with redundant information, but it is rather easy to get lost in your own presentation.

overall score - 92/100



= Netbeans IDE =

1) Standards/Consistency - 25/25 - Icons and layout are largely consistent with other programs(hammer for build, + for add) and within itself. Navigation is set up somewhat intuitively for a programmer. 2) Error Prevention 16/20 - warnings, tips, and instructions are helpful and crashes are rare, but modal windows and panes are rare and many conflicting things can be manipulated at all times. 3) User Control/Freedom 19/20 - Getting to where you want is almost always easy; panes and proper headings guide the user to where they want to be. 4) Flexibility/Efficiency 13/15 - Accelerators are easy to use and common, such as F5 to build. A very good job is done of avoiding repetition but some is still present. 5) Aesthetic/Minimalist Design 7/10 - While most options are helpful, the design presents a lot at once to someone new to the software and some things, particularly panes, are unnecessary. For example, I am yet to use the Files, Services, or Tasks panes. 6) Visibility of System Status 10/10 -Due to proper headings and messages, the user knows where they are most of the time, and while information is presented heavily, it is usually organized well.

Overall Score - 90/100



= Old MSN/Explorer vs New MSN/Explorer = This presents all categories of UI. The old version is heavily text based(The only picture isn't even supported by the browser) The old version uses buttons that are not easily conveyed because they are pictures instead of words. There are no tabs to view multiple pages at a single time. The new toolbar has less clutter with more functionality. The new web page has more information, and it is easier to look at.

The changes have definitely improved over the **centuries** of time. The functionality of the back/forward buttons remained the same, but buttons such as copy and paste were removed(replaced with shortcuts). Browsers do a much better job of implementing pictures.





= Reference List =

http://prezi.com/ http://www.msn.com/ http://images.google.com/ Netbeans IDE 6.8 http://www.panic.com/ google chrome

d