- Searchability: No search capabilities, however there's a decent site index map.
- Scope: Very defined scope. However, the scope may be a little too restricted for it to very useful outside of the course it was developed for.
- Useful links: None.
- Accuracy: Apparently solid, however I'm not qualified to judge.
- Uniqueness, originality: Nothing breakthrough, but is this really necessary in this context?
- Coherence: Very well developed coherence. A good sense of the overall site strucure is built up.
- Carefully selected: Unable to judge.
- Quality of Content: Appears as if a lot of time has been spent on it.
- Browse use ability: Fairly good ability to browse randomly. Site maps also help in this.
- Reference use ability: Could be improved by use of search engines, etc. However, concept browsing is still possible.
- Realistic (non-fiction? fiction?): Yes
- Creativity: Decent. However, no breakthroughs. Some other relevant multimedia may not have been bad.
- Response Time: Good. Graphics are generally small.
- Realistic system requirements
- bandwidth: OK. However, ALT text for "menu" elements would have made the site more useful for text-only users. Very graphics-dependent, though. Client side imagemaps and ALT text for graphics, equation graphics would be very useful. Printing of move sizes was useful.
- graphic cabilities: Good. Graphics are small, tasteful. Might have been nice if equation GIFs had been made transparent backgrounds.
- memory: Fairly memory efficient, i.e. not very taxing on the browser.
- Help functions and guides (printed and/or online): Yes. Decent help messages.
- Adherance to standards familiar to user: Good use of consistent web-style standards.
- Appropriateness to objectives: Yes. However, objectives ay be far too limited if focused only on one class.
- Accessibility to all users (consideration of impairments): Somewhat. ALT text is sorely needed, especially for equations in order to make the site accessible. Perhaps using a tool like MINSE would have made equation text more accessible.
- Appropriateness of modality to content: Ambiguous question
- Both underlying structure and graphic layout
- Skipability: Decent. Site maps make his easier.
- bookmarks: Only through browser. Can't expect much more from a portable web site.
- linking: Excellent. Good in-context descriptive links.
- mapping: Good. Site map is useful.
- customizability: None.
- Interface: Good structuring.
- Sequencing: Clear divisions. Hopefully most students would be able to make good use of the ordering.
- Structuring: Ambiguous
- Chunking: Excellent.
Web pages each deal with discrete concepts.
- Representation options (pictorial, words, audio): Largey pictorial. Textual access is a bit problematic. And since many oof the visually disabled use lynx as part of a reader packages, this is also an issue for this group.
- Clarity: Generally good.
- Iconicness of icons: Very iconic.
- Artistry: Limites.
- interactivity: none.
- Aesthetics: Good
- appearance: Clean design.
- keeps one coming back: Unclear
- Interface: lean, consistent, but more ALT text would have been useful.
- immersion: ok.
- adapt to technological changes: Uses very standard web features. Using client-side imagemaps will allow the site to be truly portable and usable over the long term without executable content requirements.
- updating: Excellent. Content seamlessly updated over the web.
- ease of installation: Excellent. Web browsers are easy to configure nowadays.
- incorporating new info: Excellent. Content seamlessly updated over the web.
- adapting to new instructors and instructional environments (customizability): very limited. Doesn't appear to be customizable.
- ability to decontectualize & use MM elements separately: No particular ability to decontextualize any more than the web already makes it able to do. However, no particular effort on authors' part to help with this.
- Legal Issues: Ambiguous, though it looks ok.
- Mechanism to give the author feedback: Only a mailto: link. A more complex form/survey might be useful.
Objectives of MM Package
- Value Added: Yes. Multimedia linking, movies, etc. do add content value.
- Context w/other content: Unsure.
- Integrity: ambiguous
- Scope: Coherent, but perhaps a bit too limited.
- Ability/age level: Generally specific.
- funness: Mediocre.
- Is it clear and truthful what user is getting?: Generally, yes. Intro screen works well.
Considering the Audience
- Appropriateness to audience: Fairly specific in terms of ability/age/etc. level, though this is based more on ability than gender, etc.
- Use of Appropriate Learning Styles: ambiguous
- Instructional Design: ambiguous
- Feedback: No feedback mechanism except author email.
- Feedback options
- Progress feedback
- Mechanism to give the instructor feedback
- public/private annotations