Regarding the quality and thoroughness for Eduardo Orozco's user experience analysis of KIC Scanner and two improvement suggestions are: I think you did a great job in introducing the scanner and what it is used for. You were also very thorough in walking through how someone would use the device and identifying problems in the experience. The suggestions I would make for improvement are: adding a bit about who the target user is besides just students and in the experience section, the same block of texted is repeated which is redundant, but I assume this is just an accident. In addition, you came up with some very good solutions, but it would be very helpful to have some sort of diagram to have a clearer understanding of what exactly you mean!

return to top of page

This was very thorough and informative read. It also has a nice professional tone. I like how in the introduction you not only explain what the KIC is, but also explained the evolution of the scanners and what the KIC's main functions are. I thought scanning speed chart was interesting when I first saw it, I was a bit hesitant to believe it when I didn't see a reference under it. I took at look at your references at the end and noticed it came from KIC's website so there's a chance it could be a bit biased. I'd try to avoid putting that type of material in the introduction because it could be a bit misleading.

The user experience is well explained with images and captions, and I found it very clear and thorough. The benefits were also very easy to understand and hit a lot of the key points.

The solutions page could have used a bit more content, whether that be an image to explain something for thoroughly or a bit more text. They could have also been organized into the different problems they addressed, this would help with tying it together with the rest of your analysis

return to top of page

The analysis breaks down the product very well, giving background information and a comparison of similar products. The analysis breaks down the process from beginning to end, pointing out the flaws in the system when encountered. Additionally, solutions to the current issues were also addressed, and how users had to interact with the product to get the desired effect. These improvised solutions act as a good basis for improvements in the product. When suggesting improvements and solutions to the issues that arise, a quick sketch of the improvement can create a stronger case. To bring more attention to the issues, editing the photos and adding circles to the issue would bring more attention to it.

return to top of page

The navigation bar on the side made it really easy to navigate through the different sections of the human-use experience analysis. However, each page was laid out in a way that was a little difficult to read. In the experience tab in particular, you did a great job numbering the steps in the initial diagram, but it was a little difficult to see what steps this numbers corresponded to because they were hidden by the surrounding text. It might have been clearer if you had numbered the steps on the left. For the problems tab, the alternating sides for which the picture was on kind of made it difficult to follow and read. Maybe try and be more consistent?

return to top of page

A very aesthetically pleasing website! I really liked it! The colours and layout were all very nice. I really liked how you had many pictures and captioned them all directly below or under it. It made it easy to look at the picture and then read the description or vice versa.

I have a few nit-picky comments to make. On the benefits page, the title text changes to grey when I hover my mouse over it. Although it is a cool feature, it confuses me a bit since I feel like it should click it, but clicking it does nothing.

The solutions page looked a bit bare compared to the rest of your website. It would have been nice if you could have included a simple sketch of a proposed new UI or something.

return to top of page

The presentation was done well, dividing the different parts of the analysis into different pages. Within the pages, the text and images aligned well with little to no confusion of what images the text was referring to. The images at few points seemed crowded together and hard to differentiate between them, but a slight border around them would give larger clarity. There were inconsistencies in the size of the images, that made some of the alignment peculiar.

return to top of page