Rationale for our score

At the end of the presentation session, we had to grant each group a number of points. We had 10 points at our disposition...and three minutes to make up our mind, which proved to be rather short for a final evaluation in this course. Although of course, we have been able to follow progress throughout the year via the blogs. Remarkable enough: the teams that got the highest score both have a rather minimalistic design...contrary to ourselves. Something to think about.


This is what we came up with:

• Chikulua12: 0 points
  The most important feature of their system is not really visible if you don't know it. Also, their design was just too basic. It reminded us a bit of the early Windows (3.x) version. When you have many ways too direct attention, it's better to use at least some of them.
• Chimaera: 0 pointsAs a first (but not decisive) remark: the link with a Beaver is not really clear, a marketing problem?
  More troublesome to us was their concept which only allowed linear processing of messages. When a busy user has a lot of messages and quickly wants to skim through the most important, an overview would be useful.
  Furthermore, the positioning of the 'Previous' button was rather odd compared to the next. It's idea was rather strange as well. It was not actually meant to be used...
• 地: 0 points
  This application reminded us simply of a mail client with several sources. The labelling idea is not bad, but was not highlighted enough as the most prominent feature in the design. The whole left us with a very Googlisch feeling.
• ChiGirlPower: 1 PointThe presentation was nice with a good use of the SUS rating to illustrate their progress. We couldn't really understand why they ignored the Timeline issue in the end, since it was a recurring problem. Also, the solution with a tutorial didn't really appeal to us. Mind the Google+ info videos on the start screen. Still, the application was workable and visually appealing.
• Metro: 1 pointThey did a good job with the presentation, especially by putting problems and solutions neatly together in an overview. The application was nice as well, but didn't really stand out to us. The categorising was rather limited and some icons were unclear. Why not simply use an archive for 'mark as read' - it is after all what happens...
• Sjiek: 2 pointsThe 'Focus' of Sjiek actually resembles Featr (our own application) in many ways. Their presentation was very good as well, with a clear focus on the essential facts and navigation guidelines for the audience. They tackled their problems in a structured way. E.g. the read view is a nice feature to have. Only wondering whether processing messages will be efficient. If you can even open up a calendar to categorise your messages, the speed might drop rather quickly.
• Groep14: 3 pointsOne of our 'winning teams'. Their presentation was well-structured, even covering a basic issue such as terminology.
  Their application seems very minimalistic (especially compared to ours) but has all the functionality is needs and is easy to deal with, as should be expected from phone app. In that case, minimalism becomes rather a feature than a nuisance. The tutorial idea is also great. Just get rid of this Trash icon and you're ready to go commercial!
• TempChi: 3 pointsOur second winner. Designing for mobile devices always gives a headstart, but one still has to live up to the expectation. They did. The final implementation really felt like a finished product. Maybe the refresh was a little odd, but the initial overlay clearly showed all the available functionality. With just a few gestures, one can easily sift through one's overloaded information stream using this application.