JordanO_R09

In response to reading number nine, which was more of looking at info graphics than a reading is that there is great need for information to be presented without the use of words. The tricky part is, without words steps can be confusing and misinterpreted without prior background knowledge. It takes a really good design to help someone understand something completely foreign without words. This is no simple task and challenges you as a designer to convey information in the right way. In the case of these examples I will state what I think is not working effectively and how I would improve upon them.

Example 1: Hanging a picture frame

The first thing that I notice when looking at this info graphic is that I could be easily misread. The red dashed line going from left to right makes your eye want to skip from step 1 to step 3 automatically. I see that they are trying to show you that you are using this to line up the top of the frame level on the wall but this connection could be confusing and defiantly could be demonstrated in another way. As far as negative feedback that is all of have for this info graphic. I think that this is a good method for hanging a picture frame and the rest is pretty much self-explanatory.

Example 2: The bike

In this example I am lost all together as to the point of this graphic. Is this the proper position to get the most out of riding you bike? Is it for comfort? Is this for fitting? I am not sure and I think this is definitely and example of the need for prior background information to understand this graphic. I do like how this graphic is laid out. It is a nice piece of design and the relationships all make sense to me. I am just unclear of its purpose.

Example 3: Rolling a cigarette

I think that all of the pieces are here in this info graphic. The steps make sense and the subject is clear. The one thing that I would like to see changed in this graphic is the addition of one step. There is no sense of tucking the paper or pressure that is to be added when rolling the cigarette. I think that the graphic makes this process seem very easy when if fact it is fairly complex. So the addition of a symbol of step that could help define the process in depth more could be a needed addition.

Example 4: Changing a Baby

In this example I see two methods of changing a baby. The old school way and the new school way. I think that almost everyone can get an idea of what is to be done in both cases and the new diapers almost make this idiot proof to begin with. The facial expressions of the baby are a bit distracting though and attention to this detail could help this be more effective. The expression on the baby’s face as it stands is unnecessary chart junk at the moment and leaves the final step seemed unresolved in my opinion.

Example 5: Changing a flat tire

This is the diagram that I have to most problems with. Where is the jack supposed to be placed? Dose everyone have the same type of jack or tools to be used in this case? And is everyone’s spare tire always located in the trunk? I know from experience that these are many variables that are unexplained in this diagram. Someone with no previous experience would have a lot of trouble if only have this diagram as his or her basic knowledge. These are the most basic problems I have with is design. This design is wonderful in graphic nature as well as the rest of these info graphics but lacks information for users without previous knowledge. To resolve this I think that steps need to be added to make this more understandable to anyone changing a flat with no previous experience.

Paul-A-R11

Carliner begins by talking about the various ways that museums charge for admission to their exhibits then switches to how web providers might charge for access to their information. There is already a long history of how to provide access to museums so why not use the lessons learned there as a model for how to provide access to websites. One problem with the premise is that the scale on which these two entities operate is totally different. Even taking into consideration every local museum along with the major ones, they would count in the tens of thousands worldwide. Websites would be more in the millions. As Carliner mentions in the article, admission prices are generally constrained by other museums in the local area. If one museum offers free admission, other museums will find it difficult to charge for admission. One the web the “local area” is the world. Charging admission to a website would only be possible if you offered content that could not be found anywhere else for free. The additional problem is how to keep that information exclusive once you offer access to it to others. On the web it is just too easy to find, duplicate and disseminate information. A physical museum has total control of its content. You may be able to find similar information elsewhere but it would require a trip to another city or another country and even then the admission price might not be free.
Many of the examples that Carliner gives do make sense: if a museum is supported by local taxes, it seems only fair that the taxpayers would receive admission for free or at reduced prices and outsiders should pay more. The daily pass systems he describes seem more of a disservice. Do visitors have to rush through the exhibits so they can visit multiple museums in one day in order to get their money’s worth? It does not sound all that enjoyable to me.

Rachel+H+R10

Museums have different levels of information that visitors can access based on what they want to get out of their visit. One person may walk through a museum and never read a single label but may observe objects and displays intently. On the other hand, another person may meticulously read all the labels and plaques. Both will gain different knowledge, neither is better it just depends on what the viewer is trying to obtain. Also, for an additional fee, often times you can purchase a headset for an audio tour which commonly provides additional information not presented on display labels. Then there is always the option of being a part of one of those guided tour groups that gets herded through the museum. All approaches to experiencing the museum have their pros and cons. Some are cheaper or may take less time but some maybe provide more information. I think in the end it all depends on what the individual wants to get out of their visit. If you are really interested in the content of the museum you will undoubtedly get more out of it because you will process and categorize the information in more depth than someone who perhaps is not as versed or intrigued in the subject.

I myself have only taken one tour with a guide (mostly because of a limited budget and because I always thought the people in those groups were like sheep who have no freedom to explore the museum because they have to say with their chaperon) and although I hated the feeling of being part of our group of 15 or so it turned out to be very beneficial. The tour was of the Vatican Art Museum and our guide proved to be quite knowledgeable and charismatic. It cost 30 euro to have a guide and included admission to the museum, but the best part of the deal was that we didn't have to wait in the long line on an 80 degree day to get in (which was predicted to be 3 hours at the least). Another perk was that the guide showed us the most "important" or prominent pieces in the 53 galleries and also gave extensive background knowledge about the museum itself, information that wasn't provided on any plaque or sign. I think in an instance like the Vatican Museum it was beneficial to spend the extra money because we saved time, gained much more knowledge than if we had explored on our own, and got to interact with more people and discuss pieces with people from around the world.

I think that most people know what kind of learner they are or how they learn the best so they should make their decision of how they view a museum based off of that and based on how much they are willing to spend on different viewing options. Also I think the way you experience the museum also can be decided on your particular interest in or knowledge of the content of the museum.

Hyrom-S-R11

The order of directions and their target is the matter that adhere to the entire museum experience. When this information is unclear a event of enjoyment is destroyed. Every event or place should be able to clarify the viewer in which they are after. Right on.

Hyrom-S-R10

The things in which we are familiar with are the the subjects in which we pay more attention to. We are very constant with these sources so they are ever dominating our interest. When something new is presented to us our minds and will to learn panic in the attempt to try something new. This article proves this emphasis deeply because when you have an experience at a museum you are sure to hold up a mental guard that compete with previous museum experiences. Why? The mind works this way for some reason. I believe the attempt to brake this hold will very hard and stressful.

EmilyW.R11

Saul Carliners Reflections on Museums 2: What Museums Cost Visitors—and Lessons for Information Architects and Information Designers was much more informing than the other blog post. I learned about museum costs and memberships. I didn't really think about that in depth before. It is interesting how I just take museum fees for granted and pay them without questioning, when if I was prompted to pay to enter a website I would be turned off by that and proceed to a free one.

Carliners juxtaposition of museums and websites was very insightful. Being one of those people with income limitations I would be sad if every website had a fee to enter it. As a society I think a lot of people would feel the same way and it would be hard for websites to charge fees. However, slowly I think this will become more and more prevalent. I think it is fair especially because there is a lot of work behind building a website and keeping in maintained and someone who puts that amount of work into something should be able to generate some revenue, but it also sucks for people like me who have to budget every penny. We will look back with longing on the days of free internet when information was available to all. And maybe this again will build an even wider gap between the classes in society. Again people with access to money will be the ones with access to information and education, setting them farther and farther ahead of those who are less fortunate.

Using museums as a comparison for the internet and different websites is a helpful analogy for people that want to create a system of websites that can still be competitive with other free ones but also make some money. As a designer maybe someday I can use this to help me make some money so I can pay to use the websites I create. ha.

EmilyW.R10

The first thing Carliner mentions in his blog is the extensive study that Falk and Dierking conducted. There were no other mentions of this study or any information to back it up in the rest of the blog. He talked about his own experience and his partners but I don't know if this was a sufficient argument to back up the study that he mentions. There are many other factors of why people go to museums than just personal interest. I do agree that personal interest is probably the main reason. However, in his analysis he should have given more examples to back it up.

Some other reasons to visit museums are perhaps you were scheduled to go there for a class, you didn't have enough money to go to a concert one weekend so you decided to go to a museum, you were visiting a foreign country and perhaps your tour guide took you there, you wanted to steal a painting or artifact from the museum. These are just a few other reason's that one might visit a museum.

I do think it is accurate to say that everyone comes out of a museum with different information. Just like everyone comes out of a movie with a slightly different experience or sees different shapes in the clouds. Every person is different, therefore they experience things differently. The point of a museum is not so that every person that walks in sees the same thing and experiences the same thing but that they experience. Experience is the point of a museum otherwise they would not bother. It is to go somewhere to see something and acquire information about it. Everyone gets different information out and that is an obvious phenomenon. A ten year old is going to get something much different out of a museum of anthropology than an anthropology professor.

EmilyW.R09

The first graphic on this little chart of "how to" explanation graphics is, I hate to say it, a failure. Looking at it the first time I had no idea what it was trying to explain. I had to ask someone which I felt dumb about but I guess it's not really my fault is it? It's just a horrible way to explain hanging a picture. First of all, the first image we see, step one, has a red dotted line across the page to the 3rd step and our eye goes straight horizontally following the most distinct visual path to the next graphic not to mention that is the natural way we read so our eyes are already prone to go that way. After you realize that is the wrong order to look at the graphic you see the little arrow pointing down to step two. Then there is a little piece of paper that is thrown in there and little red marks that are used to measure the distance and it's just very confusing. If you look at it long enough you can get what the point is but it's definitely not clear.

The second bicycle graphic is not that hard to understand, however there are some things that could be improved on. We can assume the body should be in a 45 degree angle to the ground when seated on the bicycle and that the knee and the pedal should form a perpendicular line to the ground. The arrow that indicates 1" is confusing because it just points to the empty space between the two lines protruding from the seat and handle bars. It is not very hard to figure out that this means the seat must be an inch above the handle bars but it's not very clearly designed. Also the smaller bicycle graphic in the background has an arrow indicated 2" but it's hard to tell what measurement is the 2" based on what the arrow is pointing at. It just points at a line. Not the distance between the crotch and the bar that it is trying to denote.

The tobacco graphic and the baby diaper graphic seem fine to me. There is one point of confusion on the tobacco step two graphic where it shows the two arrows coming in a circular motion and then also to arrows going in the opposite direction horizontally to the roll. This kind of looks like they want you to rip it in half or something but then if you look at the next picture you can see it's not ripped in half.

The last graphic of the tire change is all kinds of wrong. The arrows are confusing, there are not enough steps to show this complicated process and this is a process that a lot of people do not know how to do, also one that needs to be done correctly otherwise you will have a very bad accident. I can't even begin to go into the details of everything that needs to be changed in this graphic.

Over all, these graphics for the most part can only be understood if you have done the task prior to seeing the instructions. There is just not enough information for someone who has never preformed these actions to be able to go from start to finish and come out with a successful product.