Author: messt148

I have chosen the restaurant Eleven’s website (Elevenck.com). Their layout is simple, clean and uncluttered. I only have two complaints: The navigation bar gets a little weird when the window is resized, and the layout for the photo gallery is inconvenient which I will get into more detail later. Navigation overall is easy for the user; very clear and self explanatory. The color of the site is easy on the eyes; the minimal, neutral color scheme includes compatible colors. As Chapter 2 in The Principles of Beautiful Web Design describes the color orange is used to psychologically induce an energetic feeling in the onlooker, I feel it is definitely doing the job here. It is light and fun, even tho darker tones are used. Texture is seen at the top and the bottom of every page of the website. It’s just the right amount and the texture is not too busy.

Being honest I’m a bit concerned about how my website will stand out. I definitely encountered some difficulties with JQuery effects on images. However, I feel the overall design is similar. There is a minimal color scheme with compatible colors, good quality photos of food and of other featured artwork. The navigational bars seem to be the same, so I feel better in not missing anything imperative. 

In particular, my restaurant page encourages interaction outside of the website; on social media. The photo gallery on Eleven.com has a nice large slide show, but then has extremely large images in one single row continuing down the page. Personally, I do not find this attractive. Other than that detail, I feel the actual concept of the Pittsburgh themes restaurant is what will put it apart from an upscale place like Eleven.

Since Bravo Franco and Six Penn Kitchen no longer exist, I took the last option provided: No. 9 Park, and Burgatory. Both sites have the information centered in the window. Text and images are also separated with space between the two. The sites also have a balance of color, with complementing colors and a consistent theme. Keeping the same theme throughout all the pages keep the sense of unity. Both websites do not crowd their pages. This layout makes the websites easy for the viewer to navigate. Things are clear and so are the link to navigate to other pages. 

Both website’s headings are designed well and follow what is described on page 50 of Krug’s book: Enough space is allowed between them and the heading is closer to the content it is about rather than the content above. Theres is a definite hierarchy, letting the reader know what is most important to look at. They also don’t have too much text, overwhelming the viewers. As previously stated, there is a good balance between images and text.

Burgatory definitely grabs my attention more than No. 9 Park. I believe it is mostly because of the color contrast. It is meant to pop and catch attention. No. 9 Park looks good, but is more subdued with the colors. This restaurant is more upscale than Burgatory, therefore it makes sense the feel of the website should mirror the vibe of the venue.

I chose the website “Sim Sim Falafel”, is the website to analyze for this review. The bright colors caught my eye while I was scrolling to find a website. Once on the page, the user can immediately interact with the page. Moving the cursor, the food images change size. Going further into the website, the elements are separated with an appealing grid layout. Another interesting point, the logo moves with the user when scrolling, moving to different parts of the screen.

This particular website does not scroll left and right, only up and down. I believe this is just a small restaurant website, so it may not be necessary for them to have tabs and a number of other elements. The simple animations are clean and smooth, almost making up for the lack of other things to click and play with. 

The grid layout and  make the website easy to look through, and I like how the user can scroll, but it’s more of a snap-to effect. In a way, this one page site almost acts as seven. I do like how the sort of separate pages are a single block of color, however there are some issues with it the further down the user scrolls; I will explain in my next paragraph. I also like the typeface used for the titles on the site. It is simple and the font demands attention. The same typeface is used for the other information about the food (however I am only guessing, I cannot read the language; German?).

Alright, so there are a few improvements to make the site stronger. I can appreciate the direction the designer was going in. Bright colors made the site seem fun and exciting, and the images were high quality and cut well. The title screen is very appealing with the motion effect. The typeface and fonts are also appropriate for the content. There are a few other sections where the images and bold color are compatible, however there are a few that are difficult to read. It also seems as if the designer got lazy the further down the website goes. The bottom of the page has what seems to be a Google Map attachment. The cursor changes to a hand to drag the map, but I could not get this feature to work. Not sure if this is a bug or an operating system issue? I wished the food images were throughout the page, there were less and less the further I scrolled down. I’d also like implementing the motion effect that was at the top of the page in other spots. My expectations were set high with that title section. Also, even though this restaurant may only be a local shop, I still feel some sort of a translate button may be helpful. 

All in all, since this is a site for a small local business I believe the layout and design as a whole is acceptable. As said in The Principles of Beautiful Web Design, “There’s a strict usability angle, which focuses on functionality, the effective presentation of information, and efficiency. Then there’s the purely aesthetic perspective, which is all about the artistic value and visual appeal of the design”. I would give Sim Sim Falafel a 7/10 on usability and for aesthetics; I feel the usability is also effected by the aethetics. Changing a few of the background colors where it is hard to read the black text, such as the dark purple, would help the usability. I would also maybe change the map attachment to something the user can click rather than drag. The map would be opened in a separate tab.

In comparison to other shopping platforms, I would have to say Amazon the most user friendly. The large, white search bar is easily seen at the top of the screen over a dark navy background. If the contrast in colors is not enough, the magnifying glass that is the universal symbol for ‘search’ is seen beside the bar in orange and navy. Typically, the user can easily find the good needed with ease in less than a minute by just searching what is wanted. I searched “bluetooth apple mouse”.  Normally, it is not necessary to pick a department to search, but searches can be refined – in my case, by selecting “Computer Mice”, “Computer Keyboards & Mouse Combos”, and so on. Not only is the search process simple and easy to understand, Amazon is also visually appealing. I believe being visually appealing aides in customer usability.

If I was unsure of what brand I was looking for and only searched “bluetooth mouse”, other products show up that are not Apple products. On the left hand side, Amazon shows all brands of bluetooth mice. I can then check the sub head “Brands” and select “Apple”. There are many other categories to search with to cater toward what is most important to the customer, including searching only for “Prime” items (Free shipping for the customers who pay a monthly fee), “Average Customer Review”, “Color”, and even specific categories that only apply to the item that is being searched. In my case, these specific categories include “PC Mouse Feature”, Mouse Interface”, and so on.

Users with low experience with websites can easily navigate Amazon. Items are placed in departments and have keywords attached to them are created with common sense.

References

Krug, S. (2014). Dont make me think!: Web & Mobile Usability – Revisited(3rd ed.). Retrieved June 15, 2019.