Posts Tagged ‘ design ’

What’s wrong here?

Website design analysis

For the first homework for CommLab, I’ve selected a local Philippine news website for analysis.

“” is the news website of the television station TV5. After being recently acquired two years ago, they have yet to establish as webpresence as a news organization. Most Filipinos get their online news from three major websites which makes everything they’re doing is like starting out from scratch and build their audience from there.


This is the front page of the website. The headline encompasses the center but highlights features such the 9/11 article and the attacks in Afghanistan.


Using a single grid to line everything up nice and tidy, the user doesn’t need to worry which one to look at first as it is presented in a very linear fashion.


It shows in both the negative and positive space that every pixel on the site is used thus giving it the image of being very clean and professional as a news site should be.



The color selection is kept to three main colors which is the color of their logo using RED, WHITE and BLACK. The only deviations from these colors occur in the images that link to microsites from the main site. Fonts are pretty much kept to sans serif fonts and limiting it to 3 an again, deviations only occur in links and images that lead to microsites.


As we scroll down, the page splits into a three column setup which then the user has the option to decide which to read first. Due to the tightness of layout, it still remains clean but a bit confusing on where to go next unless you already know what you’re looking for. The splits in page are interesting to note as they occur at a page break if your monitor is set at 1024 x 768 which doesn’t make it jarring for the user.



Scrolling even further the site adjusts to the 3 column layout to ben evenly spaced. I feel like this page was intended for a tablet due to the large space devoted to the commentary pages and more microsites.


Still it maintains the tightness of the layout as well as the solid space that it’s occupying.

Screen Shot 2011-09-13 at 2.33.38 PM


So how does the “Interaksyon” website fare? Direct to the point, concise and not a waste of space. It both functionally serves the the quick access to news part, which is important to the user. One does not need to find the headline nested beneath at least two more clicks. It shows practically everything on the front page but if the headlines aren’t for you, you can just easily click on the menus on top or just scoll down. Very easy to navigate.



Talk to Me @ MOMA

The “Talk to Me” exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in New York is appropriate for the timing of the show and the scope that it shows. The show in my opinion basically conveys, everything is interactive.


Even though everything is interactive, there are varying degrees of interactivity. Some installations required you to actually touch the display in order to see the “magic” that occurs, others were visual displays of the results of the device created.


But as static some displays were, the exhibition itself had a degree of interaction from the mere scanning of a QR code in order to get more information about the work.


But now what if these codes were ported elserwhere.


I would describe interactivity as both parties to the action are aware that there is a response being waited upon each action compared to the idea where a static work such as a book.

Even though we interact with the book by reading it and reacting to the words on the page, it’s not interactive. It’s participation. The book does not expect a response from the reader nor does it care (Crawford 2003).

The museum experience is usually participatory as we willingly enter and absorb the works that stand before us. Like Monet’s “Water Lilies”, the benches that sit before it on the 5th floor of the MOMA invite the visitor to sit in front of the installation and look at the painting.

This is in stark contrast to the “Talk to Me’ exhibit.

I believe interactivity is where the work is complete once the intended user completes the cycle to which the art is represented. I see it very evident in the augmented reality works. They may range from the QR code in the field (pictured above) or the fact that USB ports stuck on the wall invite users to stick their computers next to it to download an image into your computer.




Roopa (@rouxpz)getting a virus from the wall.


The Hungy Hungry Eat Head needed users to hold augmented reality cards for the program to put animated heads over their bodies displayed on a giant screen for everyone to see.


Augmented (hyper) Reality : Augmented City 3D

Though these works in augmented reality were not interactive at the show, at the time of their creation to the public is highly interactive. Though I believe the Augumented City 3D is conceptual in its “Minority Report” likeness but everywhere. It shows on how the tech can take us in that direction.

But not everything on display was as interactive as others as there are varying levels of interactivity with the work.

The Bat Billboard I believe is one example where it is not human interactive but instead bat interactive. We humans just watch the response on the billboard to describe the actions of the bats.

I found the BBC Dimensions exhibit particularly interesting where it uses existing data such as the length of the moon walk by the crew of Apollo 11 in real scale or like how long the mars rover travelled. It gives us who are not involved in theses events but curious to know about the information a sense of the scale of these events were traced out to our neighborhood which brings it closer to us.

Of all the works I do enjoy the fact that LIttle Big Planet made it to the exhibit in comparison to all of the “interactive” videogames out there. I believe this is the closest to mass market interactivity we can get that is not essential as compared to ATM interfaces, metro and oyster card dispensers. The level of user intervention in the game takes it beyond the participatory nature of media and instead turns it into something else.

Maybe in the next exhibit we’ll have to redefine “interactivity” once again. But for now, the future looks promising.



Crawford, Chris. “The Art of Interactive Design” (2003) No Starch Press. San Francisco.