The hierarchy of needs is especially important to consider when establish a strong design. It has been recognized that low level designs generally pay little to no attention to the hierarchy of needs and its structure, as they often have to pay attention to the more basic levels before the higher ones can be achieved. However strong designs have been acknowledged to ay close attention to the hierarchy, ultimately strengthening audience involvement with the design and how they interact with it.
In retrospect to my design, the animated approach to the Ningaloo Destination Model and its presentation of information, I would have to say that my utilization of the hierarchy of needs is somewhere around half and half. While it is strong in some areas, in others it is fairly lacking. And I recognize that it is these areas that hold the project down. Let me explain in respect to each level of the hierarchy to show you why.
Functionality – has to meet with the most basic design requirement
The most basic design requirement of my piece was to communicate information about the expansion of Ningaloo in a unique, interesting and engaging way. And I feel I have done this very well. My idea to use an animation was only used by one other person in our class, so it already provided a different perspective on viewing the information to the client. Thanks to my use of a humorous PSA style, I was able to captivate viewers who didn’t want to spend time sifting through endless amounts of text while also allowing the transmission of data through blueprint style infographics in a logical, quirky and successful manner.
Reliability – establishes a reliable performance every time
This is where my project showed signs of breaking down. While my first introductory animation was successful at entertaining viewers and showing data in a concise and effective way, the one after outlining how I would approach explaining the data bout the scenarios would not. I already explained in detail this in my ‘80/20 rule’ post, but basically the amount of time spent on the infographics was too great and too repetitive. While it did display the information necessary, it didn’t do it at the steady pace or the sharp wit that I had in my first animation. This factor between animations makes the transmission of data between the two very different, making the second animation much more unreliable that the first. I have already acknowledged in retrospect that given more time I would have altered it to be less information heavy and juxtaposed with more elements of humor and animation.
Usability – has a easy and forgiving design
My application to this level in the hierarchy is varied. As an animation, the ability for the viewer to use the design is very simple. They just have to click play, sit back and watch. While I did have the idea for pause, rewind and scene selection buttons I was not able to make them work. For this reason, if the viewer missed a piece of information and need to go back to watch it again they would have to sit through the entire animation. This makes the design unforgiving in this respect. Also, the animation selection screen based on a Google Earth layout (Explained in my ‘wayfinding’ blog post) can be placed in this level. While it wasn’t particularly visually stimulating or interesting, and due to longer play time for the scenario based animations the absence of a rewind button was felt even more heavily, it still got the job done and was fairly straightforward.
Proficiency – empowers people to do a better job second time around
When watching the animations again, people will generally have the same response as to how they reacted the first time. There is little to nothing new to see. Although it wouldn’t add to the communication of data, if I had put some visual gags in the background that people may have not noticed on their first view it could have made re-watching the animation more fun for them. The idea of proficiency also comes back to my lack of a rewind or pause button. I feel if I got these working, the project would have sustained a huge boost from a very simple idea.
Creativity – allows people to interact with the design in creative ways.
While my project doesn’t really stand up so well up to this point, I still feel that it has some strong creative output with the user. While they can’t physically interact with the piece in creative ways, such as manipulating data themselves that some interactive designs may have allowed for, the addition of identifiable characters and humor lead my piece to be interacted with on different levels. Viewers grow fond of these characters; they can relate to them and enjoy their humorous approach to the situation. This allows them to be more open to these characters thus feeling inclined to listen to them and the animation more. While not your typical interaction with the audience, it certainly does its job.
In summation, there is a lot that could be saved about my Ningaloo Destination Model project and a lot that could be worked on and improved. For a first attempt, and with something as open-ended and as unconventional as an animation in this situation, I feel I have done fairly well. I still communicated what I wanted, and gave my client a new and interested idea about how information about Ningaloo could be presented. And with these design principles now fresh in my mind, I feel my future designs can only be improved upon with what I have learnt here.
No comments:
Post a Comment