GR2: Designs
Scenario
Jenny has just finished a digital drawing for her Art assignment. There is still a week until it's due, so she wants to get some feedback. She wants to ask some of her class if they think the piece is representative of the historical style and hope for a constructive critique. She also wants to ask her broader circle of friends what they think about the piece. Since she also wants the piece for her portfolio to perhaps sells print of later, she also wants to know what the public thinks of it. She knows that most of her friends are typically very busy and would like to give their feedback on their own time. Some of her classmates will most likely want to provide reference works of art, and discuss her work with each other.
Design Sketches
Jonathan
OrganizedTagsSharing.pdf: This first design organizes feedback by group of people and tags, and provide numerical ratings, and like/dislikes of others' review. It is designed for sharing and aggregation.
VisualCommentTimeline.pdf: This second design enables visually localized and specific, actionable feedback, using clicks and inputs on picture, a scrollable view, and filters and offers a manipulable timeline for feedback that is suitable for versionning
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
Kyle
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
. 
A high-efficiency interface that displays a collection of works to reviews at once -- reviews can quickly rate work by hovering over its, which flips to reveal a 5 star scale and a text input for tagging. Reviewers can check off a subset works and ask to see more of the same. Artists receive this high-level feedback via email.
An interface designed to promoted the selling of works and help artists build their public appeal. Reviews can tag works, enter how much they would pay for them, order prints directly. The artist can review statistics on which tags and categories generate the most potential income.
Storyboards
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.
Commenters can browse artwork in a gallery-like format. They can apply/remove filters, and flag pieces that they like so that they are presented with similar pieces. They have the option of giving a quick review or a detailed review.
In the detailed view, commenters can chat with other commenters, give a rating and making annotations.
Jenny sees the comments as they come in. She can hover over users/groups to see their specific comments and annotations.
Analysis
Learnability
This UI could have some learnability issues, since there is very little textual guidance for both the artist and the commenters. The user will have to try dragging and dropping things around to figure out how to create/edit groups. However, this UI has a limited feature set, so it shouldn't take too long for the user to become familiar with what he/she can do. Furthermore, the commenter's UI at least mimics the real-life metaphor of an art gallery, so it should be relatively learnable.
Efficiency
This UI is very efficient. All of the information that the artist would like to see is presented in a single page. The artist can hover over different users to see their comments; there are no additiona dialogs or click actions required. The commenter's UI is similarly very compact.
Safety
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.
Jenny uploads her work for review and gives it a title. 
Jenny specifies the types of critique she would like to receive.
Jenny sets up different reviewer groups and gives them specific permissions.
Jenny's reviewers can annotate her work, show her other work it reminds them of, make in depth comments, tag the work, and tweak the work.
Jenny can explore the reviewer feedback entered above and filter based on reviewer group.
Analysis
Learnability
Efficiency
Safety
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).