Retail Analysis

The store I observed was the Hollister at the Crossroads mall. Their target demographic is teenagers to college students.

Hollister goes for the surf shop/on the beach type appeal. They have lots of plants, and tiki hut-ish wooden structures. Semi-clothed mannequins flank the entrances. They play music that is both too loud (for me) and not very good (also my opinion but seriously). The layout of the merchandise is actually good. When you walk in the helpful "Dudes" and "Bettys" sign tells the Dudes and Bettys which way to walk. They have basic fashion groupings so the consumers get basic tips, without being told what to buy. One interesting thing was that the only guy's jeans that were actually reachable where the ones smaller than a 32 waist. I'm 6'1 and I had to do work to reach the 33s and forget about the 36s. I guess we know how Hollister feels about fatties. Besides some on the floor, the store basically had no lighting. It was weird because you couldn't actually see the clothes. I noticed one customer, finding a shirt of interest, try it on in a mirror, but there is no way she could actually know what it looks like! The cashier area was pretty standard, way back in the 4th zone. There were some conveniently located chairs for me to chill in for a while. The store was quite potent throughout, but there wasn't much of a change in scent from the Dudes to the Bettys. That was a little odd.

The shop reflects a laid back, casual image; who cares, its only fashion could be their motto. There was live feed from a beach in California, which to me, is a little creepy. The dark shopping environment is reflective of the who cares? appeal Hollister has done so well.

The customers seemed basically to just wander aimlessly, usually walking to the back of the store, then working their way back, to make sure they didn't miss any particularly "nice" clothes. My favorite part of the stores design was the very clear gender lines. Men's and women's clothes were completely separated, leaving no confusion.

The Science of Shopping

What points from this article do you feel are most important?

The author of this piece had a lot of really great points about what stores can do to appease consumers, such as the "Decompression Zone", the women's butt thing, and the Invariant Right. But all of these principles are really just guesses on how customers are going to behave. They may be good predictors, but I think the take away message from Gladwell's article is that the customer is unpredictable. If you do things with the intention of luring him/her in, you will invariably fail; instead designers must look at what the customer does naturally, and react to that.

How much do you personally feel you are influenced by a store's design?

I would like to think I am not influenced by a store's design, but after reading this enlightening, and quite frankly disturbing piece I would guess that I am, on some level, influenced by store design. Usually I go to stores with vary specific purposes, so I am probably not the target audience for these store masterminds, but next time I'm at the Gap I'll bet I feel the strings being pulled on the customer/marionette I have become.

Make a check list you could use to analyze a retail store like Paco Underhill does.

Why are customers coming in?

What are their first impressions?

What is the store trying to say?

Doest the store keep people in?

Is the layout logical?

Will women get their asses grabbed?

Biggest Mistakes in Web Design

1. How does this reading relate to the concept of user-focused design that we have discussed in class?

One of the author's main points, and something he mentions several times throughout his piece, is that the purpose of design is to solve user problems. The only reason for the existence of a website is to help the consumer with what ever needs they might have. Many designers look at their designs not through the eyes of the people who need the sites information, but through their own eyes. This is a mistake because they already know what the site's message is and can often over look grievous errors as a result.

2. What points do you feel are most important?

The points I consider the most important are that it is very easy to understand what the web page is about, that the site has content that will keep people coming back. If your websites point is not immediately clear, it is a failure. People do not want to spend anytime trying to figure out your web page. If they can't figure it out right away they will leave. Second, websites need to have "heroin content". This is harder to do, but if you have it, some design mistakes can be made. Heroin content is content the user is desperate to have and will come back to the site again and again for.

3. Create your own list of important design factors for a webpage.

1. Keep it simple. Simplicity is the most important. People should be able to find what they need quickly and easily.

2. Keep the user in mind. Your site should help the user, so don't let bad design get in the way of this primary focus.

3. Contrast! Make sure your site is legible. This should be the easiest , but lots of people can't do it.

Know it All

What do you think are the author's main points in this article?

I think that the author's goal with this article was to illustrate the cultural phenomenon known as Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become our generations goto source for any and all information. If it wasn't expressly forbidden, it would be my sole citation for every research paper I've ever done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at it's core, but it is also so much more. It is a social experiment; the goal being to see what happens when people share information. And the experiment has been successful beyond anyones wildest dreams. The idea, as the article highlights, is crazy, and most "credible" sources say nothing on Wikipedia can be trusted. However, as a study has shown, the error rates between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica are almost identical. I believe that in 20 years, Wikipedia will be considered the credible source of reference.

An important part of credible writing is selecting good supporting evidence. Select a passage from this article that illustrates the effective use of supporting detail. Explain why you think it is particularly effective.

Wikipedia remains a lumpy work in progress. The entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit or miss. Wattenberg and Viégas, of I.B.M., note that the vast majority of Wikipedia edits consist of deletions and additions rather than of attempts to reorder paragraphs or to shape an entry as a whole, and they believe that Wikipedia’s twenty-five-line editing window deserves some of the blame. It is difficult to craft an article in its entirety when reading it piecemeal, and, given Wikipedians’ obsession with racking up edits, simple fixes often take priority over more complex edits. Wattenberg and Viégas have also identified a “first-mover advantage”: the initial contributor to an article often sets the tone, and that person is rarely a Macaulay or a Johnson. The over-all effect is jittery, the textual equivalent of a film shot with a handheld camera.

I found this quote to contain good supporting evidence. A statement was made, and it was followed by several quotes and facts which reinforced the initial idea.

Throughout the article, the author compares Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but not specifically on design. How would you compare the two encyclopedias from a design perspective?

From a design perspective, the two are completely different. Wikipedia is designed with the idea that with more people and more ideas, the best information will come out. On the other hand, Encyclopedia Britannica approaches the problem of information with a research and careful thought approach. They both have their merits; the latter probably being more accurate, and the former having more topics and a broader perspective.

Organization and Prepartation Tips

What do you think are the author's three most important points?

Garr Reynolds basically had 3 major points:

1) Simplicity.

A good presentation is about being concise and not saying too much when you don't have to. Knowing what to leave out is often harder than knowing what to include.

2) Structure:

How are you going to present your information? Good presentation needs a structure so that information can build on itself and the audience can follow a clear path through your material.

3) Story:

A story is often the best way to illustrate complex topics and make your audience connect to your presentation. You also have to know your audience to know how they will connect.

How might you apply his advice to your own presentation?

In terms of my own presentation, I'm going to try and follow most of his guidelines. I hopefully know my audience pretty well! Simplicity is the main thing I want to shoot for. Trying to put too much information into presentations has been a problem of mine in the past. I want to make sure I have a well structured and easy to follow presentation.

What do you think presentation preparation has in common with product design?

Product design and presentation "design" have a lot in common I think. The first question is do each do what they were intended (serve it's function or convey it's info). The second thing you ask is how the consumer/viewer liked the "design" and how effectively it performed. Both need to focus on how they make the consumer/viewer feel.

Also...

I, like several of my peers it would appear, would like to focus more on the reflective design. I find this level very interesting and think it would be fun to study farther.

Either that or pipe, we could go on that all day!