Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

2,191 views

Published on

Published in: Design, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Audi Relaunch Case Study 2002

  1. 1. Razorfish, Germany Case Study: Audi
  2. 2. 21. Schematics (wireframes)2. „Jumping Boxes“3. Right vs. Left Navigation
  3. 3. 3SchematicsProblem: Traceability Documents separate & independent  Changes & updates inefficient  Version control problematic
  4. 4. 4SchematicsSolution: Adobe GoLive Convergence of deliverables  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
  5. 5. 5Schematics
  6. 6. 6SchematicsDisadvantages  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
  7. 7. 71. Schematics (wireframes)2. „Jumping Boxes“3. Right vs. Left Navigation
  8. 8. 8Jumping BoxesProblem: Variable Browser Sizes Users surf with different window sizes  One screen size ≠ Web design  Right navigation must be visible
  9. 9. 9Jumping BoxesAutomated Layout Three page layouts offered – S, M, L from 640x480 to 1024x768  Fulfilled CI constraints  Brand: “Vorsprung durch Technik”
  10. 10. 10
  11. 11. 11Jumping BoxesDisadvantages  Technically difficult to implement  Usability problems?  Not needed for all page types A complex solution for a simple problem
  12. 12. 121. Schematics (wireframes)2. „Jumping Boxes“3. Right vs. Left Navigation
  13. 13. 13Right vs. Left NavigationChallenge: Competitive Difference Right navigation = Audi as innovator  Smoother interaction with scrollbar  Greater focus on content  Subjectively accepted by users
  14. 14. 14Right vs. Left Navigation External Test: www.SirValuse.de 2 prototypes: 1 left & 1 right navigation 64 users: 2 groups  Part 1 – Six tasks were timed  Part 2 - Eye movement analysis  Part 3 - Interviews
  15. 15. 15 Right vs. Left Navigation Part 1 - Hypothesis Time RSignificant L 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tasks
  16. 16. 16 Right vs. Left Navigation Part 1 - Results Time No RSignificance L 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tasks
  17. 17. 17Right vs. Left NavigationPart 2 – Eye movement Method: www.MediaAnalyzer.com User rapidly coordinate clicks with where they look  Hypothesis: right navigation > focus on content
  18. 18. 18Right vs. Left NavigationResults: Stronger focus on content
  19. 19. 19Right vs. Left NavigationPart 3 – Interview Do you like the right navigation? 7 23 2 :) :( :|
  20. 20. 20Right vs. Left NavigationSubsequent Usability Test „Normal” methods with 25 participants  Corroborated findings of first test  No difficulties with a right navigation  Positive subjective response  Only 1 commented on right navigation
  21. 21. 21Right vs. Left NavigationConclusions  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)
  22. 22. Razorfish, Germany Thank Youjim@razorfish.de

×