Laboratory 1

1. Analyse the following websites with regard to ageing users (over 70).

webmd.com

Layout: A large amount of content on the webpage, maybe writing too small for aging users who's sight may not be the best. To much information. However the symptom checker is a handy tool and is relatively easy to find on ther page.

Content: Would be very helpful for ageing users as it would help them assess symptoms for possible ailments

bookdepository.co.uk

Layout: Simple layout latest books easily found and a list to the side of book types is easy to find. Search bar is easy to find at the centre of the page at the very top

Content: This site would suit any agegroup including those over 70

wired.com

Layout: Not very easy to navigate, however writing is large and    comes out of the page. The main problem with the page is the articles are hard to distinguish from each other, especially for someone with bad eyesight

Content: Some ageing users might be into the content but this primarily aimed at younger people.

2. Give an example of a website that meets the specific needs of a certain group of people, yet gives all users a better experience.

             

Soccernet.com is a site specifically for fans of football/soccer, it is part of the larger American sports site ESPN. It gives a clear indication of live scores from games all across the world on its front page and league tables too, showing visibility of system status. It’s easy to navigate and uses colours to effectively delineate sections from each other. It effectively uses pictures to lead you to specific articles

4. Have the questionnaires produced varying results to your own original analysis in Exercise 1?

No they were similar in nature, the Nielsen heuristics give the user a good roadmap from which to be critical of the websites and to understand why some design is good and other design not so good.

5. Analyse the 3 websites using this validator http://validator.w3.org/mobile/

a.      How mobile friendly are they?

Facebook: 60%

Soccernet.com: 27%
Vice.com: 0%

b.      Could you find a website that rates higher than 60%?

                  Facebook

6. Analyse the 3 websites using this tool http://wave.webaim.org/

a.      How accessible are they?

Facebook: quite accessible, only a few minor errors

Soccernet: large structural errors no HTML errors

Vice: some structural errors

b.      Are there similar problems in all 3?

Vice and Soccernet have a large amount of contrast and structural errors, facebook appears to be the most accessible