...
PaperDesign.pdf: This third design is a stretch design that does without a computer interface for reviewers; the host can use some primitive programmable scanner to automate feedback collection.
Amy
The first design allows the artist to add art and groups via a primarily drag-and-drop interface. The second design indicates a way for the artist to view commenters' annotations.
.
The third design shows how commenters can give feedback with a very strict format. The fourth design shows how commenters can make annotations and associate them with a range of ideas rather than specific categories of feedback.
Kyle
This interface was designed to make it extremely efficient to share work from within an existing interface to gather feedback from other people using existing social networking interfaces.
This interface was designed with the constraint that feedback was being sought from blind people. It converts artwork (along with a description) into a physical tactile representation.
This feedback interface is a non-computer interface as soon as the artwork is printed. It generates a standard feedback form on paper.
Sam
An interface designed for in-depth visual critique, allowing reviews and artists to work on various version, make visual annotations, adjust color schemes, and point to related work
...
1: Broad Audience Feedback
This design emphasizes simplicity of the feedback collection process from a broad audience (i.e. public reception).
Jenny uploads her image and adds commenters. She can create/edit groups by dragging and dropping users around.
...
This UI is potentially unsafe. So far, it doesn't present any way for the artist to easily retract a piece of work, or for a commenter to delete a comment. However, these features can be easily incorporated into the UI.
2: In Depth Feedback
This design targets depth of feedback for detailed, categorized reviews and directed critique from groups and individuals with domain knowledge expertise. It takes into account versioning and emphasizes categorization of feedback directly on the artwork.
Jenny uploads her work for review and gives it a title. 
...
Jenny can explore the reviewer feedback entered above and filter based on reviewer group.
Analysis
Learnability
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 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.
Efficiency
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 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.
Safety
Although it's difficult to make mistakes, there is no way for the artist to navigate backwards in the setup dialog or go back and edit preferences after the fact. The interface may be unsafe to reverse comments for the reviewers--perhaps the reviewers should be able to "push" all comments periodically rather than having comments integrate automatically into the artist's view. Also, if the artist were to delete comments no longer relevant (as an improvement) that could be unsafe as well (mistakes).
3: Integrated Feedback
This design aims for a higher level of interactivity and uses of complementary software such as photo editing and social networks for sharing.
Analysis
Learnability
This design may not be very learnable. It requires the artist to be familiar with both the art generation technology as well as the art sharing technology (e.g. Facebook). The art sharing technology in particular may be difficult for a new user to learn simply for sharing their art. Similarly, the commenters must be familiar with the art sharing technology (and may be required to have an account) in order to give feedback. However, it is expected that most artists and commenters are already familiar with networking applications such as Facebook.
Efficiency
This design is highly efficient. It allows the artist to transition straight from art creation to receiving feedback, with minimal navigation. All of the feedback is displayed within the art application, so the artist doesn't need any additional applications. The design is also highly efficient for commenters, since it presents the art to them in an avenue that they are likely to be familiar with.
Safety
This design is potentially very unsafe. When the artist uploads art to an external site or application, it may be difficult to undo the upload depending on the application's security settings. Similarly, commenters may not be able to reverse their comments (e.g. Facebook doesn't usually allow commenters to delete their comments).