I have decided to create parts of the website in word press. This will give more perks and advantages to both user and client.
The different features that Wordpress could offer are:
A blog: This will allow the client to import images, data, schedules or other relevant information.
A weather forecast: This will allow players/clients to see the weather forecast and be updated on what equipment they will need for the conditions.
A calendar: This will act as a schedule producing information on when the next training session is or if a session has changed date or time.
A login form: I believe this particular feature will open up a section for players to see additional information from their coach on progress and training, whilst keeping it confidential and personal to them.
I aim to create a database in Word press that will give the client easy access and ways of updating the website whilst having those extra features that engage the browser and keep them well informed. These additional changes will help keep the web application one step ahead of competitors and ahead of times. I aim to create a blog with login and feeds to keep the browser up to date with news.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Artefact 3 - New plans
X3 images/wireframes
Followed by a set of 5-10 questions
X3 website links – Followed by 5 questions and 2-4 statements.
I have a understanding of that interaction is a key element in kee3ping the interested and engaged in the content. I aim to now see what variables can enhance the experience and maybe affect the outcome of the users experience. I will do this by showing three different wireframes and getting the audience too tick which one they were drawn to first or visually preferred. This will give me a starting point which I will take further by developing a three page application that uses the same content on every page just in a different layout each time. In the pages I will use a balance of interactions with content. It will ensure that the user will be purely tested on the structure. This will hopefully show me if structure can affect the browsers time spent on a website or not. In consideration to this I will use the design principles of Constantine and Lockwood, making three different layouts. The website links will be followed by a set of questions and statement’s to give me specific data that will give me a clear answer for if structure does enhance interaction in websites or not. This will prove interesting as apparently to grab the audience’s attention the content must be portrayed in a certain manner and layout, with interactions and engagement keeping them on the website but will this show in the experiment.
Questions I aim to investigate:
Does this affect how interactive a web application is?
Or can it enhance how interactive the web application is?
Does it have any affect over how interesting or appealing a website is?
Followed by a set of 5-10 questions
X3 website links – Followed by 5 questions and 2-4 statements.
I have a understanding of that interaction is a key element in kee3ping the interested and engaged in the content. I aim to now see what variables can enhance the experience and maybe affect the outcome of the users experience. I will do this by showing three different wireframes and getting the audience too tick which one they were drawn to first or visually preferred. This will give me a starting point which I will take further by developing a three page application that uses the same content on every page just in a different layout each time. In the pages I will use a balance of interactions with content. It will ensure that the user will be purely tested on the structure. This will hopefully show me if structure can affect the browsers time spent on a website or not. In consideration to this I will use the design principles of Constantine and Lockwood, making three different layouts. The website links will be followed by a set of questions and statement’s to give me specific data that will give me a clear answer for if structure does enhance interaction in websites or not. This will prove interesting as apparently to grab the audience’s attention the content must be portrayed in a certain manner and layout, with interactions and engagement keeping them on the website but will this show in the experiment.
Questions I aim to investigate:
Does this affect how interactive a web application is?
Or can it enhance how interactive the web application is?
Does it have any affect over how interesting or appealing a website is?
Artefact 2 - final results
The final results showed me that websites interactive with the browser to keep them interested and engaged. After gaining possitive research to support this theory i intend to see what variables can enhance the experince and affect how interested a viewer is on a page. I aim to do this for the next artefact. After discovering that physically features on a website not only engaged the viewer but keep them focused.
Below is the second set of data to support the first questions and data i gained from google anaylitics.
Below is the second set of data to support the first questions and data i gained from google anaylitics.
Interactive Design (book)
I read specific articles within this book that helped with my primary research. It gave me a few theories and ideas of my own on how to test interactive design whilst having some useful information. Below is a spinet from chapter 3 which i found quite interesting.
Chapter 3: Cognitive Aspects
'In this chapter we examine cognitive aspects of interaction design. Specifically, we consider what humans are good and bad at and show how this knowledge can be used to inform the design of technologies that both extend human capabilities and compensate for their weaknesses. We also look at some of the influential cognitive-based conceptual frameworks that have been developed for explaining the way humans interact with computers. (Other ways of conceptualizing human behavior that focus on the social and emotional aspects of interaction are presented in the following two chapters.)'(interactive design, 2011)
Below is the web link to the website.
http://www.id-book.com/
Chapter 3: Cognitive Aspects
'In this chapter we examine cognitive aspects of interaction design. Specifically, we consider what humans are good and bad at and show how this knowledge can be used to inform the design of technologies that both extend human capabilities and compensate for their weaknesses. We also look at some of the influential cognitive-based conceptual frameworks that have been developed for explaining the way humans interact with computers. (Other ways of conceptualizing human behavior that focus on the social and emotional aspects of interaction are presented in the following two chapters.)'(interactive design, 2011)
Below is the web link to the website.
http://www.id-book.com/
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Artefact 3 - Ideas
After gaining positive results and feedback towards the theory of websites being interactive I aim to take this research to the next level. In organise some hand on data in the form of a focus group. This will allow me to test them as a group and individually using live examples followed by a few starting points to debate. This will allow me to document the discussion and see the audience’s response and reactions towards interaction within websites. The notes on the debate will give me key quotes and figures that will hopefully support the theory of interaction being a key element in engaging the browser and keeping them interested.
The plan
I plan to keep the test as accurate as possible taking into account all acting variables.
I aim to start by getting an interactive web page against a non-interactive website then innate a debate that I will take notes from and then conclude this with a few one on one interviews to get a select few opinions.
The plan
I plan to keep the test as accurate as possible taking into account all acting variables.
I aim to start by getting an interactive web page against a non-interactive website then innate a debate that I will take notes from and then conclude this with a few one on one interviews to get a select few opinions.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Artefact 2 - Evaluation
The website was produced to gain a stronger development on the research undergone in artefact one. Allowing me to gain an insight into what works better in websites to interact with the browser and keep them interested.
After gathering positive data towards interaction in this website I realised that web applications must consist of a working balance between interactive features and content to keep the viewer engaged and interested. I took the theory further with artefact two by gaining some in-depth data using Google analytics and a survey to give the best possible results. I chose to categorise the different forms of interaction this gave me a greater understanding of each specific method. It allowed me to see what worked best in keeping the viewer interested.
This artefact showed me that browsers are more interested by interactive website but in particular more interested by physical interactions such as games or animation. Question two in the survey supported this with the majority agreeing with that animation and games are the most interactive feature. Question 5 specifically asked the browsers what feature kept them interested. If you compare these results to question 4 it shows that even though the participants where split over page 1 and 2 for which was most interactive still 2 people were interested by media factors from page 4. This still showed that the two most interactive features that kept the viewer engaged was mouse interactions and games/animation.
Overall this artefact has taken my research to the next level in understanding the different techniques and how they can affect the time spent on a web page. It also showed me how website environments can be improved with the use of interaction creating a more user friendly experience. In the next artefact I aim to take the research further by a focus group/ interview to get some quotes from users and see the reactions for myself.
After gathering positive data towards interaction in this website I realised that web applications must consist of a working balance between interactive features and content to keep the viewer engaged and interested. I took the theory further with artefact two by gaining some in-depth data using Google analytics and a survey to give the best possible results. I chose to categorise the different forms of interaction this gave me a greater understanding of each specific method. It allowed me to see what worked best in keeping the viewer interested.
This artefact showed me that browsers are more interested by interactive website but in particular more interested by physical interactions such as games or animation. Question two in the survey supported this with the majority agreeing with that animation and games are the most interactive feature. Question 5 specifically asked the browsers what feature kept them interested. If you compare these results to question 4 it shows that even though the participants where split over page 1 and 2 for which was most interactive still 2 people were interested by media factors from page 4. This still showed that the two most interactive features that kept the viewer engaged was mouse interactions and games/animation.
Overall this artefact has taken my research to the next level in understanding the different techniques and how they can affect the time spent on a web page. It also showed me how website environments can be improved with the use of interaction creating a more user friendly experience. In the next artefact I aim to take the research further by a focus group/ interview to get some quotes from users and see the reactions for myself.
Artefact 2 - what I discovered
This question specifically asked the browsers what feature kept them interested. If you compare these results to question 4 it shows that even though the participants where split over page 1 and 2 for which was most interactive still 2 people were interested by media factors from page 4.
These results clarified the theory from artefact 2 whilst supporting the data I had got from Google analytics. Overall from this artefact I have discovered that games and animations seem to keep the viewer more interested than non-interaction features such as text imagery or even video/audio.
The overall results showed me that most participants preferred the interactive web pages in comparison to the non-interactive. The participants were unaware which pages where the interactive and which weren’t to allow a fair test. In addition to the results accumulated by Google analytics I added a set of questions at the end of the test. This gave me more useful data as well as the results I got from artefact 1. This made the theory even more clear after being influenced by the questionnaire it was made even more obvious from the in-depth data that websites use interaction to keep the viewer interested. This artefact was created to give a clear comparison of time spent on a web page if it is interactive in comparison to a non-interactive web page. This gave results that proved the argument. It also allowed me to test a few variations of different interactive features to see which were most appealing. The data showed me that to grab the audience’s attention the webpage must use certain interactive features alongside the content.
These results clarified the theory from artefact 2 whilst supporting the data I had got from Google analytics. Overall from this artefact I have discovered that games and animations seem to keep the viewer more interested than non-interaction features such as text imagery or even video/audio.
The overall results showed me that most participants preferred the interactive web pages in comparison to the non-interactive. The participants were unaware which pages where the interactive and which weren’t to allow a fair test. In addition to the results accumulated by Google analytics I added a set of questions at the end of the test. This gave me more useful data as well as the results I got from artefact 1. This made the theory even more clear after being influenced by the questionnaire it was made even more obvious from the in-depth data that websites use interaction to keep the viewer interested. This artefact was created to give a clear comparison of time spent on a web page if it is interactive in comparison to a non-interactive web page. This gave results that proved the argument. It also allowed me to test a few variations of different interactive features to see which were most appealing. The data showed me that to grab the audience’s attention the webpage must use certain interactive features alongside the content.
Artefact 2 Results and analysis
I developed a design that would test the viewer’s engagement with a web application whilst testing the interaction in different forms. I have done this by using Google analytics to test time spent on the website and the time spent on each page. This generated results that gave me clear figures of which page kept the viewer most interested and what interaction worked best. In addition to this a small set of questions were asked at the end to give extra data.
The results
Below is a few of the results from Google analytics followed by a few sentences about what I have found. In addition to this the questions from the end of the experiment are listed below with the results.
The main feature was the custom report that I created. This tested time spent on the website, with average time spent on each page. It used metric features against dynamic features such as daily basis.
Here is three examples from the Artefact.
1. Page 1 (10:00 a.m.) --> Page 2 (10:04) --> Page 3 (10:10) --> Page 4 (10:11) -- >Exit (10:13)
2. Page 1 (9:00 a.m.) --> Page 2 (9:03) --> Page 3 (9:06) --> Page 4 (9:08) -- > Exit (9:12)
3. Page 1 (2:00 p.m.) --> Page 2 (2:05 p.m.) --> Page 3 (2:16 p.m) --> Page 4 (2:19p.m) Exit (2:25p.m.)
The results showed that the most common time spent on the website was around 16 minutes.
Here is the average time spent for each page:
Page 1 (mouse interactions/ hover effects): 2-5 mins
Page 2 (Animations and games): 6 – 12 mins
Page 3 (text based): 1-4 mins
Page 4 (video and audio): 2-6mins
The results showed that interaction does keep the viewer more interested and work to create a more engaging experience. This is shown with the lack of time spent on the non-interactive pages. The page that got most time spent on was the page that used the highest amount of interaction in flash based games and animations that required a physical input. This was the main focus of this particular artefact and with the results from artefact one they both point to the outcome that websites interest the viewer more with physically interactive features such as games/ animation and mouse effects.
The other results that I got from Google anaylitics gave me background information that was useful but not particularly necessary for this investigation, such as location, new vs old user etc.
The questions that followed the experiment are listed below with the results.
1. After using all for pages which one did you prefer?
The majority replied that they preferred using page 2 with the next most popular being page 1 (mouse effects/ physical interaction). Page 1 and 2 where the two interactive pages out of the four which showed how interaction can enhance the browsers experience.
2. What feature out of the website do you believe was most interactive?
Animation/games – 8 people
Mouse over effects and interactions -6 people
Text - 0
Video and audio -2people
Other -0
The results showed that the participants believed the features on page 1 and page 2 where most interactive. This shows that the viewer’s understood what interaction can take the form of in websites.
3. Out of all four pages which one kept you most interested?
This had a very similar outcome to question 1 with the majority answering page 1 and page 2. This clarified that interaction can keep the browser more interested even more than media or text.
4. Which page do you believe was most interactive?
Page 1- 7 people
Page 2- 9 people
Page 3- 0
Page 4- 0
This data showed me that the browsers found the games and animation the most interactive and engaging.
5. What particular feature in the website kept you most interested?
Animation/games – 8 people
Graphics and imagery – 0
Mouse over effects and interactions – 6 people
Video and audio – 2 people
Other – 0
The results
Below is a few of the results from Google analytics followed by a few sentences about what I have found. In addition to this the questions from the end of the experiment are listed below with the results.
The main feature was the custom report that I created. This tested time spent on the website, with average time spent on each page. It used metric features against dynamic features such as daily basis.
Here is three examples from the Artefact.
1. Page 1 (10:00 a.m.) --> Page 2 (10:04) --> Page 3 (10:10) --> Page 4 (10:11) -- >Exit (10:13)
2. Page 1 (9:00 a.m.) --> Page 2 (9:03) --> Page 3 (9:06) --> Page 4 (9:08) -- > Exit (9:12)
3. Page 1 (2:00 p.m.) --> Page 2 (2:05 p.m.) --> Page 3 (2:16 p.m) --> Page 4 (2:19p.m) Exit (2:25p.m.)
The results showed that the most common time spent on the website was around 16 minutes.
Here is the average time spent for each page:
Page 1 (mouse interactions/ hover effects): 2-5 mins
Page 2 (Animations and games): 6 – 12 mins
Page 3 (text based): 1-4 mins
Page 4 (video and audio): 2-6mins
The results showed that interaction does keep the viewer more interested and work to create a more engaging experience. This is shown with the lack of time spent on the non-interactive pages. The page that got most time spent on was the page that used the highest amount of interaction in flash based games and animations that required a physical input. This was the main focus of this particular artefact and with the results from artefact one they both point to the outcome that websites interest the viewer more with physically interactive features such as games/ animation and mouse effects.
The other results that I got from Google anaylitics gave me background information that was useful but not particularly necessary for this investigation, such as location, new vs old user etc.
The questions that followed the experiment are listed below with the results.
1. After using all for pages which one did you prefer?
The majority replied that they preferred using page 2 with the next most popular being page 1 (mouse effects/ physical interaction). Page 1 and 2 where the two interactive pages out of the four which showed how interaction can enhance the browsers experience.
2. What feature out of the website do you believe was most interactive?
Animation/games – 8 people
Mouse over effects and interactions -6 people
Text - 0
Video and audio -2people
Other -0
The results showed that the participants believed the features on page 1 and page 2 where most interactive. This shows that the viewer’s understood what interaction can take the form of in websites.
3. Out of all four pages which one kept you most interested?
This had a very similar outcome to question 1 with the majority answering page 1 and page 2. This clarified that interaction can keep the browser more interested even more than media or text.
4. Which page do you believe was most interactive?
Page 1- 7 people
Page 2- 9 people
Page 3- 0
Page 4- 0
This data showed me that the browsers found the games and animation the most interactive and engaging.
5. What particular feature in the website kept you most interested?
Animation/games – 8 people
Graphics and imagery – 0
Mouse over effects and interactions – 6 people
Video and audio – 2 people
Other – 0
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Client website in Wordpress
I have decided to create the website in word press. This will give more perks and advantages to both user and client.
The different features that Wordpress will offer are:
A blog: This will allow the client to import images, data, schedules or other relevant information.
A weather forecast: This will allow players/clients to see the weather forecast and be updated on what equipment they will need for the conditions.
A calendar: This will act as a schedule producing information on when the next training session is or if a session has changed date or time.
A login form: I believe this particular feature will open up a section for players to see additional information from their coach on progress and training, whilst keeping it confidential and personal to them.
I aim to create a database in Word press that will give the client easy access and ways of updating the website whilst having those extra features that engage the browser and keep them well informed. These additional changes will help keep the web application one step ahead of competitors and ahead of times.
The different features that Wordpress will offer are:
A blog: This will allow the client to import images, data, schedules or other relevant information.
A weather forecast: This will allow players/clients to see the weather forecast and be updated on what equipment they will need for the conditions.
A calendar: This will act as a schedule producing information on when the next training session is or if a session has changed date or time.
A login form: I believe this particular feature will open up a section for players to see additional information from their coach on progress and training, whilst keeping it confidential and personal to them.
I aim to create a database in Word press that will give the client easy access and ways of updating the website whilst having those extra features that engage the browser and keep them well informed. These additional changes will help keep the web application one step ahead of competitors and ahead of times.
Google Analytics
I have used Google Analytics to create data for the website I made. It will allow me to gain a better understanding of how interaction works within websites whilst seeing which works best.
This is the first time i have used Google Analytics and i documented some of the pages such as the Overview that contained useful information. Also i managed to make my own custom form that measured time spent on the website and time spent on each page. This allowed me to see which page the user stayed on the longest.
The Overview
The vistor overview
This is the first time i have used Google Analytics and i documented some of the pages such as the Overview that contained useful information. Also i managed to make my own custom form that measured time spent on the website and time spent on each page. This allowed me to see which page the user stayed on the longest.
The Overview
The vistor overview
Online Survey
This website was a useful tool in creating a custom survey that fitted in at the end of the experiment. On the website it offered different forms, questionnaires and surveys. Below are a few screenshots of the website itself.
This the client side overview showing surveys or forms you have made.
These are the different forms you can create with a small description.
This the client side overview showing surveys or forms you have made.
These are the different forms you can create with a small description.
Artefact 2 - Question list
The list of questions
After using the web application and participating in all four pages could you answer the following questions below to give an indication of your response.
Please fill in the answer to your best ability.
1. After using all for pages which one did you prefer?
2. What feature out of the website do you believe was most interactive?
3. Out of all four pages which one kept you most interested?
4. Which page do you believe was most interactive?
5. What particular feature in the website kept you most interested?
Thank you for participating and answering the questions above.
Below is a screenshot of the online survey i created.
After using the web application and participating in all four pages could you answer the following questions below to give an indication of your response.
Please fill in the answer to your best ability.
1. After using all for pages which one did you prefer?
2. What feature out of the website do you believe was most interactive?
3. Out of all four pages which one kept you most interested?
4. Which page do you believe was most interactive?
5. What particular feature in the website kept you most interested?
Thank you for participating and answering the questions above.
Below is a screenshot of the online survey i created.
Monday, 6 February 2012
Artefact 2 - website experiment
I have created a simple four page website to test website interaction and how it engages the audience. I also looked at how these features can keep the browser more interested.
Below is a few screenshots of the website.
The splah page
Part of the home page/ page 1 of the experiment
Part of page 2
This is the final image page 4
Below is a few screenshots of the website.
The splah page
Part of the home page/ page 1 of the experiment
Part of page 2
This is the final image page 4
Friday, 3 February 2012
Different Interactive Features
Links in dialogue
Light box
J Query gallery
Marquee
Calenderer
Mouse over affects
Physical click of the mouse features
Light box
J Query gallery
Marquee
Calenderer
Mouse over affects
Physical click of the mouse features
Thursday, 2 February 2012
The website plan (Artefact 2)
Splash page- This will introduce the participant into the experiment with a small introductory paragraph.
Page 1 – Home page (Java script and J Query)
This page will consist of mouse over features and other forms of interaction that will creating an interactive environment.
Page 2 – A flash based and animation webpage
This page will be a different form of physical interactivity.
Page 3 – HTML and CSS
This will just be text with minimal images. This page will be one of the non-interactive page.
Page 4 – Video and Audio
This page will consist of video and audio to show that some features can seem interactive but actually just be consumerism not physical interactions.
Page 1 – Home page (Java script and J Query)
This page will consist of mouse over features and other forms of interaction that will creating an interactive environment.
Page 2 – A flash based and animation webpage
This page will be a different form of physical interactivity.
Page 3 – HTML and CSS
This will just be text with minimal images. This page will be one of the non-interactive page.
Page 4 – Video and Audio
This page will consist of video and audio to show that some features can seem interactive but actually just be consumerism not physical interactions.
Final Plans for artefact 2
Interactivity is this key element in keeping the viewer interested. The link below is a blog entry that supports that without interactive features a website can be boring and not engage the browser.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/importance-of-web-interactivity-tips-and-examples/
After the first artefact I plan to take the idea of interaction in websites further by getting a group of participants to test it and answer a few specific questions on the experiment. This will hopefully produce positive data like the first artefact with accurate results.
The first page will consist of simple mouse over effects with simple Javascript and j Query.
This will use features such as a j Query gallery with simple Javascript imagery and dialogue effects.
The second will be a flash based animation and games to physically engage the audience with interaction.
The third page will consist of text using HTML and CSS. This will be the non-interactive page to test both ends of the spectrum.
The fourth will be a video and audio page this will try to see if people are tricked by consumerism instead of physical interaction.
The four page design will be followed by a unique set of questions relevant to the test. It will be also tested online with Google analytics with additional heat maps to track what the users looked at.
To summarise the structure two pages will test the two main different interactions whilst the third and fourth will test for non-interactive to see what grabs the viewer’s attention and keeps them interested.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/importance-of-web-interactivity-tips-and-examples/
After the first artefact I plan to take the idea of interaction in websites further by getting a group of participants to test it and answer a few specific questions on the experiment. This will hopefully produce positive data like the first artefact with accurate results.
The first page will consist of simple mouse over effects with simple Javascript and j Query.
This will use features such as a j Query gallery with simple Javascript imagery and dialogue effects.
The second will be a flash based animation and games to physically engage the audience with interaction.
The third page will consist of text using HTML and CSS. This will be the non-interactive page to test both ends of the spectrum.
The fourth will be a video and audio page this will try to see if people are tricked by consumerism instead of physical interaction.
The four page design will be followed by a unique set of questions relevant to the test. It will be also tested online with Google analytics with additional heat maps to track what the users looked at.
To summarise the structure two pages will test the two main different interactions whilst the third and fourth will test for non-interactive to see what grabs the viewer’s attention and keeps them interested.
Artefact 2 Plans
Plans and ideas
The plan for this artefact is to extend my knowledge of website interaction and the techniques used to keep them interested. This will hopefully give me an insight into what method works best.
This particular artefact is influenced by the questionnaire. After finding that viewers believe websites are interactive and also the understanding that browsers want to be interested when entering a website. I chose to take this theory further by developing a four page web application. This would include four types of interactive pages that would test the viewer’s reactions to come to a conclusion of what works to keep the viewer interested.
I will be testing how interaction is used in websites to create an interesting and engaging environment for users. I will do this because it will allow me to see what works best and how websites keep the participant interested in different ways.
I will begin the process by producing a 4 page website I will base each page around the same topic just with a different technique of producing the information. This will allow me to use Google analytics to produce a range of results. This will show me how long the person stayed on the website and further what they looked at with heat maps to support the findings. In addition to this I will follow up the experiment with a set of questions. It will give some extra information on the interaction within the website and how these kept the viewer interested. I aim to do this as the first artefact produced data that gave me the understanding that the websites use interactions to stimulate the audience and keep them interested. I personally wanted to take this further by creating my own website that can test these features. It will consist of two different variations of good and bad techniques/ non- interactive and interactive. This will allow me to see a difference in time spent on the page and also see if the viewer was interested by the page or not. This will tell me what works best and what interests the viewer most when interacting with them.
The first group will be mouse overs / mouse interactions. These will test the viewer and keep them engaged. The different effects will require a reaction from the browser.
The second group will be just sections of text and with little of anything else. This is to see how non interactive content can quickly stop the browser from being interested.
The third will be interactions such as games and interactive diagrams that all require a physical reaction from the audience.
The forth group will be minimal images and text with no forms of interaction with a clip or two. This will include video and audio to an extent.
The first group – this is designed to test for response and interaction in websites
The second group - this is designed to create a non-interactive environment that doesn’t engage the audience. This will give a comparison between the interactive pages to see the difference in results.
The third group – this group will consist of different interactions to the first but will test for interaction in website and hopefully give a conclusion of how they work to keep the viewer interested in comparison to non-interactive applications.
The forth group - this will be a middle ground with very few interactive features but other forms of media such as video and audio that engage the browser. This will see how the in between ground of interactive and non – interactive websites work in keeping a participant interested. This web page will consist of both methods.
Questions at the end of the website will allow me to get a better insight. It will give me clear pointers on what works best interactively in websites and what keeps the browser most interested.
The plan for this artefact is to extend my knowledge of website interaction and the techniques used to keep them interested. This will hopefully give me an insight into what method works best.
This particular artefact is influenced by the questionnaire. After finding that viewers believe websites are interactive and also the understanding that browsers want to be interested when entering a website. I chose to take this theory further by developing a four page web application. This would include four types of interactive pages that would test the viewer’s reactions to come to a conclusion of what works to keep the viewer interested.
I will be testing how interaction is used in websites to create an interesting and engaging environment for users. I will do this because it will allow me to see what works best and how websites keep the participant interested in different ways.
I will begin the process by producing a 4 page website I will base each page around the same topic just with a different technique of producing the information. This will allow me to use Google analytics to produce a range of results. This will show me how long the person stayed on the website and further what they looked at with heat maps to support the findings. In addition to this I will follow up the experiment with a set of questions. It will give some extra information on the interaction within the website and how these kept the viewer interested. I aim to do this as the first artefact produced data that gave me the understanding that the websites use interactions to stimulate the audience and keep them interested. I personally wanted to take this further by creating my own website that can test these features. It will consist of two different variations of good and bad techniques/ non- interactive and interactive. This will allow me to see a difference in time spent on the page and also see if the viewer was interested by the page or not. This will tell me what works best and what interests the viewer most when interacting with them.
The first group will be mouse overs / mouse interactions. These will test the viewer and keep them engaged. The different effects will require a reaction from the browser.
The second group will be just sections of text and with little of anything else. This is to see how non interactive content can quickly stop the browser from being interested.
The third will be interactions such as games and interactive diagrams that all require a physical reaction from the audience.
The forth group will be minimal images and text with no forms of interaction with a clip or two. This will include video and audio to an extent.
The first group – this is designed to test for response and interaction in websites
The second group - this is designed to create a non-interactive environment that doesn’t engage the audience. This will give a comparison between the interactive pages to see the difference in results.
The third group – this group will consist of different interactions to the first but will test for interaction in website and hopefully give a conclusion of how they work to keep the viewer interested in comparison to non-interactive applications.
The forth group - this will be a middle ground with very few interactive features but other forms of media such as video and audio that engage the browser. This will see how the in between ground of interactive and non – interactive websites work in keeping a participant interested. This web page will consist of both methods.
Questions at the end of the website will allow me to get a better insight. It will give me clear pointers on what works best interactively in websites and what keeps the browser most interested.
Interactive Website Article
How Does One Achieve Website Interactivity?
There are many elements that can be focused upon to achieve web interactivity that attracts users. The main subject of the website should be taken into consideration. This can give a clue as to the kind of interaction to be used. For example, a product website will have various categories on display. The range should be presented in an interactive manner rather than plain rows of products. A 3Dimensional Flip Book can be used to its advantage to showcase a range of products with the relevant information. A user gets engaged whilst flipping through the book.
The creation of these website interactivities requires time to be spent on technical details. However, in the recent times, designers can create these interactivities within minutes without any programming with rapid interactivity software that is available in the market
This is an article on a blog that had different examples of interactive websites. It had a positive theory of how interactive websites keep the viewer more interested.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/importance-of-web-interactivity-tips-and-examples/
There are many elements that can be focused upon to achieve web interactivity that attracts users. The main subject of the website should be taken into consideration. This can give a clue as to the kind of interaction to be used. For example, a product website will have various categories on display. The range should be presented in an interactive manner rather than plain rows of products. A 3Dimensional Flip Book can be used to its advantage to showcase a range of products with the relevant information. A user gets engaged whilst flipping through the book.
The creation of these website interactivities requires time to be spent on technical details. However, in the recent times, designers can create these interactivities within minutes without any programming with rapid interactivity software that is available in the market
This is an article on a blog that had different examples of interactive websites. It had a positive theory of how interactive websites keep the viewer more interested.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/importance-of-web-interactivity-tips-and-examples/