Mobile Application Development Assignment: Interactive Mobile App
12 Pages2427 Words111 Views
Added on 2020-05-28
Mobile Application Development Assignment: Interactive Mobile App
Added on 2020-05-28
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: EVALUATION OF AN INTERACTIVE MOBILE APP "NIKE+ RUN CLUB"Evaluation of an interactive Website“Visitsouthport.com"Name of the AuthorName of the universityAuthor NoteABSTRACT:Visitsouthport.com is a promotional website thatpromotes the seaside town (Southport) in theMerseyside, England. The paper reviewed theinteractive website using the assistance of thecognitive walkthrough method, and the findingsreveal that the website is well designed and istrue to its objective. However, minorshortcomings have been evaluated for whichappropriate recommendations has been madebefore concluding the discussed report.KEYWORDS:Interactive website, visitsouthport.com, cognitivewalkthrough Introduction:Interaction is one of the keywords thatis associated with progress, and one of suchinteraction is between the human and computer(Dingli, and Cassar 2014). The developers arenow developing interactive computing systemsand technologies. One example of the discusseddevelopment is an interactive website. The reportwill evaluate one of such interactive website andbased on the evaluation appropriaterecommendations will be made. The subject forevaluation is visitsouthport.com, and it will beevaluated using cognitive walkthrough method.The report has also taken proper ethicalconsideration and has offered different forms andsheets that have been used in the paper in theappendices section. Author’s view of Website:The evaluated website on the first viewseems to be quite exciting as it offers an excitingand beautiful view of the objective of the website.The objective of the website is to promoteSouthport, a seaside town of Merseyside, England(Visitsouthport.com 2018). The images on thewebsite beautifully depict the offerings (naturalbeauty, rich cultural background, sportsenthusiasm and others) of visiting the town (vander Hoop 2014). Additionally, the maps and otherrequired details make the viewers interested invisiting the town. The website’s design andnavigation are comforting for the visitor. Thedevelopers have also kept in mind to make thewebsite a responsive and dynamic one to earn apositive perception from the visitor. Hence, it canbe stated that in the first view the website seemspicture perfect and the viewer can revisit it.Cognitive Walkthrough Method:Cognitive walkthrough method (CWM)is an evaluation method that takes account of theperception that a visitor will have on visiting thewebsite for the first time (Plechawska-WójcikLuján-Mora and Wójcik 2013). In the discussedevaluation method, the evaluator answers fourquestions while playing the role of a first timevisitor. It enables the evaluator to evaluate theinteractive technology without worrying aboutthe ethical consideration and also putting lesseffort in the process (Bligård and Osvalder2013). The accuracy offered by the discussedevaluation method is also very high. Anothernotable benefit offered by the CWM is that it iscost-effective and time-saving for the evaluator.
Ethical Issues:As stated in the earlier section, adoptingCWM omits the chances of arousal of any ethicalissue though there are minor ethicalconsiderations which must be taken into account.Hence, it will be ensured that the paper isunbiased and free from any data manipulationattempts (Williams and Williams 2016).Additionally, as the evaluator is playing the roleof a participant so to ensure the reliability andvitality consent forms, risk assessment,instruction sheets and other research forms &sheets has been added in the appendices sectionfollowing the report. To enhance, the reliabilityof the stated facts, definitions and other factorsthat assisted the author in pursuing the paper,proper credit has been offered to the sources inthe bibliography section. It will also be kept inconsideration to avoid any ethical dilemma fromarousal as the author is the participant and theevaluator. If such dilemmas are identified, thenthey will be added to the limitations of the paper.Evaluation:The evaluation process will be pursuedin four steps (Fernandes, Flaster and Lehman2013). They have been discussed as follows:Clarity over the purpose of the subject: Thesubject’s purpose is very clearly visible onvisiting the website. The purpose of the subject isto attract tourism, and the images and guidanceoffered to reach the destination define theobjective (Cyr 2013). Additionally, the detailingabout the places to visit and accommodationoptions make the visitors more drawn towardsthe fulfilling the purpose of the subject. Visibility of options: The options are also readilyvisible which is further simplified by adding asearch icon (where you can search the site).Subsections of the website also offer a librarytype view where the visitor can look for specificknowledge in the specific section. The designingof the website has also taken care of the touristwho loves their pets as there is a section whichsuggests that the pets will be taken appropriatecare (Plechawska-Wójcik, Luján-Mora andWójcik 2013). This approach of the websitedevelopers cites their creativity to make thevisitors see what they desire for.The link between the option and action: In thediscussed step the action in response to theselected option has been discussed. Theevaluation reveals that there are multiple optionsto select from and they very much serve theirpurpose. The option that cites print page doestake the visitor to the print page; the calendardoes offer the event details that are proposed andother options similarly serve their designatedpurposes as well. However, the option thatenables the searching option of the website canbe improved as it will be difficult for the non-frequent website visitors to choose from themultiple options offered by the search section(Yin and Guo 2013). It is visible from the pictureattached below that when selecting theaccommodation option; it offers a suitableresponse.Feedback accuracy: It is evident on anevaluation that the website does offer appropriateresponses for the selected options. Additionally,the detailing associated with the feedback is anexcellent perk for the visitors (Fernandes Flasterand Lehman 2013). One of the examples ofdetailing is the travel map which can be printedto offer simplicity the visitors need. However,the results can be confusing for some visitors,and they might consider that the feedbackoffered by the website is not appropriate. Recommendations:
On evaluating the website, it is evidentthat there is not much need for improvement.However, the search section can be improved tooffer more concise and accurate result to thevisitors. The website should also support ‘lite’version (basic HTML support mode) for thevisitors who live in a low connectivity area andfaces difficulty in visiting a high-resolutionwebsite.Conclusion:The evaluated website is a well-designed website and even offer a simplifiednavigation option but most importantly fulfils thepurpose of its creation. Though minor errorshave been determined which can be easilytackled and in-process broaden the visitors visitlogs. The author and hopefully the readers willalso earn an insight into evaluating interactivesystems and technologies. Finally, adopting thecognitive walkthrough method limited the ethicalissues from development but though offeredcertain limitations which has been stated in thefollowing section. Limitations:Not many limitations have beenidentified while pursuing the evaluation process.However, the limitation to the thinking capacitycan be considered as the only limitation of thepaper. Bibliography:Barry, D.J., Ferrara, J.S., Meissner, G.L. andReale, P., International Business Machines Corp,2013.System and method for developing awebsite. U.S. Patent 8,386,921.Bligård, L.O. and Osvalder, A.L., 2013.Enhanced cognitive walkthrough: developmentof the cognitive walkthrough method to betterpredict, identify, and present usabilityproblems.Advances in Human-ComputerInteraction,2013, p.9.Cyr, D., 2013. Website design, trust and culture:An eight country investigation.ElectronicCommerce Research and Applications,12(6),pp.373-385.Dingli, A. and Cassar, S., 2014. An intelligentframework for website usability.Advances inHuman-Computer Interaction,2014, p.5.Drees, T.P., Zimmerman, S.V., Taylor, D.J. andRachitsky, L., Neustar Inc, 2013.System andmethod for determining cost of websiteperformance. U.S. Patent 8,423,634.Fernandes, N.C., Flaster, M. and Lehman, A.R.,Google Inc, 2013.Evaluating website propertiesby partitioning user feedback. U.S. Patent8,615,514.Grigoreanu, V. and Mohanna, M., 2013, April.Informal cognitive walkthroughs (ICW): paringdown and pairing up for an agile world.InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems(pp.3093-3096). ACM.Plechawska-Wójcik, M., Luján-Mora, S. andWójcik, L., 2013, July. Assessment of UserExperience with Responsive Web Applicationsusing Expert Method and CognitiveWalkthrough-A Case Study. InICEIS (3)(pp.111-118).van der Hoop, W., Short Run WebsiteEvaluation: The Effect of Human Aspects inImages.Visitsouthport.com. (2018).Visit Southport -Official Southport Tourist Information Site.[online]Availableat:https://www.visitsouthport.com/ [Accessed 5Apr. 2018].Williams, S.E. and Williams, J.F., 2016.Methodand System for Digital Signing for ConsentUsing a Video Consent Signature and CognitiveTest. U.S. Patent Application 14/732,389.Yin, P.Y. and Guo, Y.M., 2013. Optimization ofmulti-criteria website structure based onenhanced tabu search and web usagemining.Applied Mathematics andComputation,219(24), pp.11082-11095.
Appendices:Consent Form:CONSENT FORMProject Title:Evaluator’s Name:Please initial the boxes1.I verify that I have read and understand the information and instruction sheet on [__/__/____]for the paper. I was availed to resolve my queries regarding the doubt I had after reading thesheets.2.I agree that my participation is consensual and is not influenced by any external means. I alsohave the independence to withdraw my participation at any moment without any explanation. 3.I do understand that my medical notes and data collected in the study have been stored and willbe evaluated by the [name of the student] of [name of the University]. I give my consent to theindividual for the same.4.I agree to my GP of being informed about my participation in the test study.5.I do agree with being part of the study.Name of the participant Date Signature
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.