the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
the first thing i did was a [visual and perhaps biased] evaluation of the existing site for flaws and all. wasn’t that hard tbh, i disliked it a lot. here are the key takeaways (i go in depth in the presentation);
ineffective distribution of information relevant to the user, and wastage of screen estate.
poor layout and organisation, terrible component and colour choices.
interface isn’t very friendly — the barrier of good content discovery for a new use.
Ineffective discovery of programs in the Academics page — user is faced with too many categories. Acute lack of an intuitive and natural system of finding programs.r is high.
redesigning the product shopping experience of the Leica Q2 camera.
