My action plan for my website was to produce a technology and travel site that was easy to navigate so that all ages can use the site. The plan was effective  and made me more aware  of what I needed to do in a cretin time scale and deadline. The only concern was what the colour scheme was going to be to make sure it applied to both genders and ages.

I did research on the internet to find different layout designs that I liked and then looked at putting my ideas into them, I found that these methods of research were very effective because they were fast and simple to find. We uses the research to make drawings of our ideas before we started using muse. In a perfect world I could have done more research with more time and then i could have gotten other people ideas and thoughts on what I had found in the early stages of the research.

I think the product does fit the purpose of been a website, it follows the codes and conventions of a site of this standard. It has a layout that other large names sites use like pintrest and tumbler. The technical quality, for example the hyperlinks with in the images, could have been done better. For instance there could have been writing telling you were and what you were clicking on to to read. I did develop my technical skills as a result of this production and that was on the software we had to used to make the sire, Adobe muse.I didn’t do any audience research before the production just because we didn’t have any time to do so.

I gathered a group of my class mates and showed them my site and took notes on what they thought was, good and bad. Here some of what they had to say and my own thoughts on the site.

Whats good –

The colour is well thought out and they all tie in together, this is good because it all links in some way so that when you look at it its easy on the eyes and this flows throughout the site. It’s simple but effective meaning the design is very current and its what people know and like. The content is useful and has a point, it isn’t meaningless and a waste of time to read. There is a rage of media that includes images and videos.

Whats bad –

Once you click into the article it could be seen as bland other than the videos that are there. You can’t access the galley page because there isn’t a button for it so it is a bit pointless it been there. There is nothing on the home page telling the reader what they are going to read because all they can see is images.

The site itself –

The site itself works, because you can navigate thought the different pages from the home screen and still get back. There is video content that works and plays when on the page. The site is also eye catching the colours make it eye catching and because the boarders around the images are white when the mouse isn’t on them, when it is the blue is shown and this is a really strong contrasting colour.

Regarding law and ethical guidelines, it does follow them because all the images on the site that wasn’t mine have been taken from a stock site which has no copyright to the images. Also with regards to the video content which comes from YouTube, there is no copyright law been broken there because YouTube allows you to share there videos and because i have not branded it as my own its fine to use.

CONCLUSION –

The planning would have been done for longer so I could gather a wider range of ideas and facts. The research would have been done with a larger group of people and then even a second follow up survey. When it comes to the product the images that have been used for the buttons could have been my own images instead of me getting them of a website that has no copyright. There could be more media content within the articles to get people more interested in the site and then move on to other articles and see more. The home page buttons would have writing on them when someone’s mouse went over them so they knew what they were clicking on to read.

 

 

Advertisements