Info Science

For this assignment, you will nominate one Web site for the Information Architecture Hall of Fame, and another for the Information Architecture Hall of Shame. For each nomination, include a link to the Web site, then justify your nomination by describing what's great (Hall of Fame) or lousy (Hall of Shame) about the sites you nominated. (Note: Don't think too literally -- Your Hall of Fame nominee doesn't have to be the greatest site on the Web. It just has to be a site that is overall doing a good job with IA. The Hall of Shame nominee doesn't have to be the worst site on the Web. It just has to be a site that has fallen short on some or all of the IA aspects.) As you justify your nominations, use the following questions to guide your evaluations. Make sure you pay attention to the assignment's rubric to make sure your focus your answers according to grading guidelines.  · Is the architecture -- meaning the combination of presentation and navigation -- appropriate for the type of business at hand? Why or why not? Think about the organizational context who posted the Web site as a whole and whether its mission is supported by the IA. · Is the architecture appropriate for the types of tasks at hand? Why or why not? Think about the things different types of users would want to accomplish on the site, and whether these tasks are supported by the IA. · How well is the site's content organized into a navigational structure? Does the architecture facilitate or impede navigation throughout the site? Why or why not? Think about the design and structure of menus and pages, the labels used for menus and links, and the use of navigational conventions. Remember that the owners of websites (usually) want users to have a good experience, but they have other priorities as well! There’s not a “right” way to match architecture and site goals, but there are some effective and ineffective ones. The goal of this assignment is to show that you have thought critically about the goals and architecture choices of the information architects. Be concise: aim for 250-500 words for each nomination. Choose your words carefully to make the most out of your limited maximum word count! Bullet points and visual substitutes for text are good ways to tighten up the text. · Be sure to give specific evidence to support your evaluations. · Screenshots, site maps, sketches, and other visual aids are strongly encouraged (Convey visual information visually!). · Be sure to explain how your evidence is important to your argument. The websites you select should not be websites we’ve visited in class or in the online lectures. If you need help selecting great or terrible sites, review the Information Architecture slides and readings to create some criteria for yourself. Grading Criteria: · 90%: Each of the three questions is worth 30% of the assignment grade (15% per question for Hall of Fame; 15% per question for Hall of Shame). The answers to your questions will be graded by examining how well the evidence you provide for your nominations aligns aspects of information architecture with the goals of the Web site and its users. Make sure that the evidence you select for each nomination supports your argument and includes concepts related to information architecture. · 10%: Writing is concise and polished (includes spelling, grammar, and quality of discourse). Rubric IA Homework Rubric IA Homework Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Fame: Q1 - Criterion 1 Demonstrates awareness of organizational mission. 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Fame: Q1 - Criterion 2 Provides example/s of one or more aspects of the site's information architecture that pertain to organizational mission. Articulates a valid connection between the example and the concept of organizational mission. 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Fame: Q2 - Criterion 1 Demonstrates awareness and understanding of user tasks for this Web site 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Fame: Q2 - Criterion 2 Provides example/s of one or more aspects of the site's information architecture that pertain to user tasks. Articulates a valid connection between the example and the concept of user tasks. 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Fame: Q3 - Criterion 1 Demonstrates awareness and understanding of navigation 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Fame: Q3 - Criterion 2 Provides example/s of one or more of the site's navigational elements and articulates how the navigational element/s is a strength or weakness 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Shame: Q1 - Criterion 1 Demonstrates awareness of organizational mission. 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Shame: Q1 - Criterion 2 Provides example/s of one or more aspects of the site's information architecture that pertain to organizational mission. Articulates a valid connection between the example and the concept of organizational mission. 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Shame: Q2 - Criterion 1 Demonstrates awareness and understanding of user tasks for this Web site 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Shame: Q2 - Criterion 2 Provides example/s of one or more aspects of the site's information architecture that pertain to user tasks. Articulates a valid connection between the example and the concept of user tasks. 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Shame: Q3 - Criterion 1 Demonstrates awareness and understanding of navigation 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHall of Shame: Q3 - Criterion 2 Provides example/s of one or more of the site's navigational elements and articulates how the navigational element/s is a strength or weakness 7.5 pts Awesome 5.0 pts Good 2.5 pts Attempted but needs some work 0.0 pts Not attempted 7.5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSpelling, grammar, and quality of discourse Uses correct spelling and grammar Stays reasonably near the minimum and maximum word counts per nomination Discourse is well written - student's points are explained well without leaving out important information or being repetitive Document is well designed and organized with appropriate use of section headings, bullet points, visual aids, etc. 10.0 pts Awesome Flawless grammar and spelling (or one minor error) Highest-caliber writing style Attractive and well-organized document 7.5 pts Good 3-5 grammar/spelling errors but excellent discourse or, Slightly flawed discourse, but perfect spelling and grammar or, Very minor flaws in both spelling/grammar and quality of discourse 5.0 pts Needs some editing More than a few spelling/grammar errors Messy or disorganized document More than 1 or 2 instances of flawed discourse style 2.5 pts Almost unreadable 0.0 pts Completely unreadable 10.0 pts Total Points: 100.0 PreviousNext How to use UMD Canvas