Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

22
Razorfish, Germany Case Study: Audi

description

 

Transcript of Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

Page 1: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

Razorfish, Germany

Case Study:

Audi

Page 2: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

2

1. Schematics (wireframes)

2. „Jumping Boxes“

3. Right vs. Left Navigation

Page 3: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

3Schematics

Documents separate & independent

Problem: Traceability

Changes & updates inefficient

Version control problematic

Page 4: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

4Schematics

Solution: Adobe GoLive

Sitemap and schematics linked 1:1 Components = modular construction WebDAV server

– concurrent work on schematics– remote access by client

Cross Platform: PC and Mac; HTML

Convergence of deliverables

Page 5: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

5Schematics

Page 6: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

6Schematics

Disadvantages Site file grew to 30+ mb Unstable, crashed Sitemap tool is suboptimal Didn‘t get team buy-in

Overall GoLive met our expectations, but is the wrong tool for the job

Underscores need for an IA tool

Page 7: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

7

1. Schematics (wireframes)

2. „Jumping Boxes“

3. Right vs. Left Navigation

Page 8: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

8Jumping Boxes

Users surf with different window sizes

Problem: Variable Browser Sizes

One screen size Web design

Right navigation must be visible

Page 9: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

9Jumping Boxes

Three page layouts offered – S, M, L

from 640x480 to 1024x768

Automated Layout

Fulfilled CI constraints

Brand: “Vorsprung durch Technik”

Page 10: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

10

Page 11: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

11Jumping Boxes

Disadvantages Technically difficult to implement Usability problems? Not needed for all page types

A complex solution for a simple problem

Page 12: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

12

1. Schematics (wireframes)

2. „Jumping Boxes“

3. Right vs. Left Navigation

Page 13: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

13Right vs. Left Navigation

Right navigation = Audi as innovator

Challenge: Competitive Difference

Smoother interaction with

scrollbar

Greater focus on content

Subjectively accepted by users

Page 14: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

14Right vs. Left Navigation

2 prototypes: 1 left & 1 right navigation

64 users: 2 groups

External Test: www.SirValuse.de

Part 1 – Six tasks were timed

Part 2 - Eye movement analysis

Part 3 - Interviews

Page 15: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

15Right vs. Left Navigation

Time

Tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6

R

L

Significant

Part 1 - Hypothesis

Page 16: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

16Right vs. Left Navigation

Time

Tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6

RL

NoSignificance

Part 1 - Results

Page 17: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

17Right vs. Left Navigation

Method: www.MediaAnalyzer.com

User rapidly coordinate clicks with where they look

Part 2 – Eye movement

Hypothesis:

right navigation > focus on content

Page 18: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

18Right vs. Left Navigation

Results: Stronger focus on content

Page 19: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

19Right vs. Left Navigation

Do you like the right navigation?

Part 3 – Interview

: |: ) : (7 23 2

Page 20: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

20Right vs. Left Navigation

„Normal” methods with 25 participants

Subsequent Usability Test

Corroborated findings of first test

No difficulties with a right navigation

Positive subjective response

Only 1 commented on right navigation

Page 21: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

21Right vs. Left Navigation

Conclusions Users are ambidextrous in terms of

navigation position

Consistency and learnability

People expect that websites vary

Interaction given by design and

layout, not prior expectations

(Affordance)

Page 22: Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

Razorfish, Germany

Thank You

[email protected]