Team 1:
- Effective
- The simplicity of the header and the image of the inkwell with an oak leaf quill struck me when I first opened the page. I thought it had incredible aesthetics and efficacy.
- Tour (video) of GreenSpring campus
- The idea to tag authors/artists in each post to make them easy to find
- I like the idea of having featured events on the side bar and its interactivity
- Simplicity of the “About” page. It does not have an overwhelming amount of the team’s information, which is good for the viewer.
- Improve
- The book background is a little busy.
- The “Submissions” page is wordy. I think it could be condensed and/or provide an attachment to all of the guidelines.
- I like the other teams’ ideas of having a direct submission on the website opposed to through email.
- The “Home” page does not contain many interactive elements. I like the other ideas of having featured work.
- The “Issues” tab is a little bland. When clicking on the types of art/creative pieces, it takes you to all of the work, but they only have a title and author/artist. There needs to be some more visual elements.
Team 2:
- Effective
- I like the image in the header a lot; it is very symbolic and has subtle connections to Stevenson.
- I really like the archives tab, especially for after GSR has been around for a while. The literary websites we looked at for the rhetorical analysis contained archives.
- I like the idea of quotes from the editors because it shows their personal involvement in the magazine.
- I liked having a snapshot of the creative writing/poetry pieces and the option to read further.
- I enjoyed that they organized the content by genre and then issue. This is how The Paris Review organized their content as well.
- Improve
- Besides the small image in the header, it is rather boring to look at because it is just a dulled white screen.
- I don’t like the font chosen for the featured pieces and their titles. It is easy to overlook even with the underlining.
- There is a lot of scrolling involved in looking at pages like the “visual art.”
- There is a lot of blank, white space on the “Home” page, and there is not much interaction for the viewer.
- Though there is easy submission on the website, there is still a wall of text prior to the submissions, which could be a deterrent.
Team 3:
- Effective
- I like the idea of featured pieces displaying multiple types of creativity as well as submitted artwork for the issue cover
- I liked the idea to create a collective “About” page then having a picture of each contributor.
- The idea of a subscription to the magazine is a good way to get a better following for GSR.
- Having submission through the website is very effective.
- I like the way content is displayed upon clicking the type of multimedia (in squares).
- Improve
- There is a lot of white space on the “Home” page, and the image in the header does not seem relevant.
- I think the headers should be in a different font. There a little boring to look at, and I pass over them easily.
- I think the issues should be more clearly labeled, or there should be more separation between the two issues it displays now. They blend together.
- The side bar seems a little redundant because of the issue links then four more links to the specific art and writings.
- There is not much connection to Stevenson besides the small Facebook feed on the side bar, which is something the GSR staff expressed a subtle need for.
I am voting for Team 1. I really enjoyed the easiness in navigation, but it was also interactive, which is important for user experience. The main suggestion I would make is to mimic the other teams’ ideas to have a direct submission option through the website opposed to a separate email.