Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Overall, this interface is learnable as the artist is taken through a guided and constrained set-up process in which each step is independent. It's unclear from the current design how the artist should manage multiple works out for review. Most all of the reviewer's affordances are displayed clearly in the dashboard, but two aspect aspects of this UI may be a bit harder to learn for the reviewers and would benefit from clear affordance and information scent: 1) The scrollable timeline that updates the artwork comments, and 2) the clickable artwork area to input comments directly.

...

This interface lacks efficiency compared to other proposed designs. The artist is forced to go through the same set of steps to upload a work without the ability to skip steps or set defaults. Review of comments is efficient for the artist, as it is presented directly on the artwork and symbols and tags limit the  to time to act on the feedback. Direct manipulation and comments entered directly on the artwork area is relatively efficient from an input perspective as all actions are displayed on the dashboard. The reviewer also has flexibility as to how in-depth their reviews are, so they are not forced into a cumbersome user experience (unlike the artist). In this design, we do not allow the reviewer a means to quickly go over multiple works at the same time, which could hurt efficiency if they have a lot of similar works to consider. Likewise, the artist does not have the ability to review all comments for all versions at once. 

...