The analysis is well written and concise with the assignment proposal. All of the general topics, but mainly the function section is presented and developed aiming the reader's full understanding of every step of the process, what makes it very pleasant and satisfying from the reader's perspective. However, some of the ideas developed throughout the presentation are, sometimes, confusing, obvious and/or not relevant to the topic in question. Take as an example the first paragraph of the Introduction section: "Although tablets and Ebooks are the future, we're still in the present, which means that physical paper is used for many things.". I do understand the relation that you meant to establish, but, if you want to introduce the "printer" object with this comparison, you need to develop this idea more so that it fits in the objective of the introduction section. Also, because that is the very first phrase of the first page, it gives the impression that you are going to write an essay about "paper vs. tablet" and not a "Pharos printer human-use experience analysis". Lastly, it is far from being a critical point that could ever harm your presentation as a whole, but adding any kind visual explanation for your redesign proposal is always very welcome to the reader's eyes. It helps a LOT in the transmission of what is inside your head to the reader's head.

return to top of page

I actually didn't know we have this printing system at MIT. It is also quite a shame that MIT hasn't got a high tech printing system.

I find the review to be thorough enough to address the problems. As well, the excerpts from students totally communicate similar theme that needs to be rectified.

return to top of page

First of all I really enjoyed your topic because it was really relatable. Your introduction and explanation of pharos printing for those who aren't familiar with it was very clear to understand. The pictures demonstrating the printing steps were really helpful in grasping the user experience. I enjoyed reading the quotes from the users. You gave solutions to a lot of the problems and issues they mentioned, which is great because you kept the users and their satisfaction in mind. The section on positive and negative points of pharos printing was also a great introduction that prepared me for your proposed solutions. The solutions you mentioned were really thoughtful and also in theory, very easy to implement in the current pharos printing system. The idea of adding available printers on the MIT app is very smart and I wonder why that has not happened yet. The suggestions that you made regarding changing the interface also seem very simple and directly respond to the problems most users mentioned. (Also ps: there's a color printer in Hayden Library as well, in case you're ever looking for one).

return to top of page

Intro: Nice hook / opening line! Some more detail can be included in the intro (e.g., there are black vs. color Pharos printers, history of printers, which brand and model of printer is used, etc.) Also, it is helpful to define terms for readers (e.g., readers who are non-MIT may not understand what an "Athena Cluster" is).

Function: The descriptions contain just the right level of detail--awesome!

Users: Great use of quotes from interviews! I appreciate how you define the different user groups upfront. .) One way to bring the user needs to life is to create 2-4 user personas that group together common characteristics, experiences, preferences, and attitudes learned from the people you interviewed and / or observed.

Evaluation: This is a clear and concise list of the pros and cons of the system. It would be helpful to see these prioritized to understand what the high priority user needs are.

Improvements: The two main areas of improvement are laid out clearly. There is opportunity to further define how you would design these improvements. For example, how would the new page on the MIT app look like? What would be a potential workaround if the MIT app is not working or the user does not have their phone?

return to top of page

When it comes to the presentation matters of your analysis, all I have is complements. Ingenious page layout, a clear exhibition of the content, proper text and image formatting, easy to read and navigate. If I had to criticise anything - and by that, I would be annoyingly perfectionist - would be the sidebar mechanism. These minimizing sidebars are usually preferable in screens where you do not have abundant horizontal space - like cellphones. So, using this mechanism in a website that is going to be accessed more by laptops and desktops than mobile phones, ends up being a waste of screen space.

return to top of page

Love the clarity and simplicity of the webpage.

It would be better if the "function" tab can be communicated in Video. I get a little confused by reading the words.

return to top of page

Your website was very simple, organized and easy to navigate. Your menu bar was at first hard for me to find, maybe you can increase the thickness of that to make it more visible. The pictures on the functions page were really clear and had consistent dimensions. There was a lot of white space in some pages, that can be reduced by adding more pictures, or maybe increasing the font.

return to top of page

Overall: This is a nifty site design! I like that the tabs can be hidden and unhidden on the left.

Function: I love how each step includes a clear photo and description. I also like how you scroll down to get from step to step.

Users: Showing photos of the people you interviewed will help bring the quotes to life.

Evaluation: Summarizing the positives and negatives into a user needs list may help transition into the suggested improvements.

Improvements: Your great ideas could come to life in visual form. It would be great to see concept sketches.

return to top of page