Client Correspondence

The following is an email I received from my client and the respons that I sent (dated 14 April). I have yet to receive a reply:-



Steve,

Regarding site design, the only similarity to the FUCA website is the double left hand nav bar. The content design and navigation structure beyond that is different. The reason the double left hand nav bar was used is because the navigation style (by year group) made sense to have the sub-groups listed next to the main nav groups. I studied the ABC and Chris Hoy websites as discussed in the blog, and chose some of the elements of presentation of each. ABC's colour scheme and contextualising, without their layout as it seemed messy and confusing, and elements of Chris Hoy's layout, avoiding the content display as it involved scrolliing and I wanted to avoid this.

Regarding navigation by year group, that was a decision that we came to when it was decided that navigation by speciality would be too unbalanced. Besides which, from a personal note, I would want to see a break down year by year so I could see progression throughout the course.

Regarding tne listing of each unit and description thereof, I looked through the FUCA website and decided that the display of units that it featured was not good (one long list, bulk text). I preferred to see the units listed, then with the possibility of checking each for more information. Bear in mind the user is not forced to see this additional available information, but they can if they so choose to so I see no harm including it.

You mention you would want the important sections to be students showcase, over course information. I would point out that the sub-nav bar lists student testimonials and galleries, so the user is at most only ever 1 click away from seeing these sections.

Would you like me to change the layout in any way having discussed these issues?

Additionally, the blog screenshots are the maximum size allowed for by blogger, this is not a conscious decision, and they are just to give an idea and document progress.

D



David,

OK, I have had a look at the screenshots on your blog.

It is rather difficult to make judgments on the basis of such small screenshots and of course these shots are static so I can't really get a feel for what is always on screen and what if anything is pop-up or context-sensitive.

I see that you have gone for the UCA style navigation bars at the side although I did express some misgivings about these when we talked about using the UCA site as a basis for the design.

As a tutor evaluating this as a piece of web communication, I would say that the screenshots suggest a well organized site with well thought through systems of links and some quite complex levels of information about the course. Therefore the site suggests itself as a good example of technical skill in website building. However, how effective is it in attracting the target audience of youthful prospective Farnham students? Is such detailed information - down to the unit level - really necessary?

From a pragmatic assessment/project point of view, as we do not have much by way of student work content yet, it might be wise to decrease the focus of this site on student work samples and shift the focus a bit more toward information on the course. The pages and spaces for student showcases can be built in but we may have to wait a bit yet before mp3 files etc start to come in. Again you can write introductory text and contextualising content for these sections and leave space for the files to be plugged in later.

So to fill the site with unit information helps in the sense of obtaining content, but in terms of building an attractive menu bar, we are left with the years 1,2,3 menu options which are perhaps not what a prospective course applicant is thinking about. Although it would make sense to organize student work by year, I am not sure years should be main level menu choices.

I'll leave you to chew these points over. I am not that worried about the detail of wording used to describe individual units - the descriptions of content on the front pages of unit descriptors are well written on the whole and are easily usable and adaptable for a range of purposes. I am more concerned by the main menu arrangement which to me does not entice and how we flag up, display and signpost attractive elements of the website, such as the student views of the course and the best student work (even if the content ain't here yet we can still figure a way to signpost the place where it will be put).

Steve