Spin Case Study
Coming up with a list of characteristics to judge the value of different
multimedia titles is difficult. In the same way that different genres of
film are difficult to compare, multimedia titles are difficult to define.
There is also an added complexity due to the interactive element. It is
my belief that it is impossible to accurately judge different titles based
on the categories discussed in class. I recommend that titles fall into
certain "meta-genres". The different "genres" that
I purpose for multimedia titles would include, for example, education and
entertainment. Under these major headings, the taxonomy of subcategories
would be up to debate. The entertainment "genre" would include
twitch games, role playing games, and so forth. The education "genre"
would also include a heirarchy similar to entertainment. I consider any
title that is intended to educate as educational.
The evaluation criteria that was
created in class is still extremely useful. Once the heirarchy is complete,
different weights can be given to each evaluation criteria. For example,
if a multimedia title falls under the "meta-genre" of entertainment,
the navigation criteria may differnt meaning, depending on what
subcategory it falls under in the entertainment "meta-genre".
If it is a twitch game like Doom, the criteria under navigation
would mean something different than if it was an adventure game like Myst.
The content criteria obviously would have different weights as
well. It could also be that the subcategories themselves define the weights
of the different criterias.
There is still much research that needs to be done in order to create
a taxonomy of multimedia titles. Categorization for the education "meta-genre"
needs to be developed. Also, more "meta-genres" need to be created
created. A possibility would be a "meta-genre" like issues. The
subcategories would be similar to the heirarchies that can be found in
Anyway, that's my $0.02.
The Mattel Color
I have chosen to break down the evaluation into four distinct sections.
The first section would be presentation, design, and inquiry.
I define presentation to mean the content that is presented to the user,
my own opinion to whether the title was effective in educated me. Second,
I also mean presentation to mean delivery of actual bits.
- The quality of presentation, the effectiveness of the title, was fair.
I believe that there other ways to communicate the information in a more
effective manner. I use of the quicktime videos was poor because the need
to actually see the person speaking in a 320x240 window seemed inappropriate.
I would much rather have a sound file which would ease download time. However,
I believe that the title was informative and I did get a glimps of the
process of creating a unique commodity. I learned how people tackle problems
of inefficiently. I also did see how creative measures are taken in order
to cut cost, decrease frustrating working conditions and the thought processes
that brought about these innovations.
- The delivery of actual bits is poor. There would be no way, due to
current constraints of technology, for people to wait for the Quicktime
videos to download. The pages themselves also need more thought. Some browsers
don't support tables. Some browsers don't display graphics and some people
turn images off. There are images that are important in understanding the
ideas presented, however, this is poor presentation because this assumption
should not be made.
What I refer to design I mean the layout of the pages.
- The layout was nice but I was confused by the Index. I am used to the
back buttons on the browser and I initially didn't understand that there
were subcategories. The pages though are too large in file size. All pages
should be kept under 100k.
- I thought that the navigation of the title was difficult and awkward.
The ability to jump to different sub-sections is needed. There is the ability
to skip to different sections, however, I believe that this segmentation
of the title is too broad.
- The playback controller for the Quicktime movies were also inaccessible
on some pages. These pages can be found at:
- There was also a broken link at:
- Alias/Wavefront Mattel Case Study link
What I mean by inquiry is the user interaction with the title.
- I liked the way the quizzes were given and they really helped me to
understand the material presented. They reinforced key ideas. It would
have been nice to have an actual test, run the answers against a key and
then been given a summary of my performance and where to look to better
understand ideas that were being presented. This requires backend processing
but should not be difficult to implement.
- I would have also liked a way to be post my thoughts on site and read
or hear other responses that others have given concerning the site. A discussion
based on case study could only reinforce what was learned.
Criteria created in class for multimedia evaluations
- Useful links
- Uniqueness, originality
- Carefully selected
- Quality of Content
- Browse use ability
- Realistic (non-fiction? fiction?)
- Response Time
- Realistic system requirements
- graphic abilities
- Help functions and guides (printed and/or on-line)
- Adherence to standards familiar to user
- Appropriateness to objectives
- Accessibility to all users (consideration of impairments)
- Appropriateness of modality to content
- Both underlying structure and graphic layout
- Representation options (pictorial, words, audio)
- Iconicness of icons
- keeps one coming back
- adapt to technological changes
- ease of installation
- incorporating new info
- adapting to new instructors and instructional environments (customizability)
- ability to decontectualize & use MM elements separately
- Legal Issues
- Mechanism to give the author feedback
Objectives of MM Package
- Value Added
- Context w/other content
- Ability/age level
- Is it clear and truthful what user is getting?
Considering the Audience
- Appropriateness to audience
- Use of Appropriate Learning Styles
- Instructional Design
- Feedback options
- Progress feedback
- Mechanism to give the instructor feedback
- public/private annotations
Go back to opening remarks
Go back to top of page