Review.com
Contributions:
- Performed information and task analysis and wrote corresponding requirements document
- User Interface and Interaction design
- Coded HTML templates and JavaScript rollovers
- Coordinated and uploaded client content, HTML code and graphics
- Assisted Cold Fusion developers with integration of their code and HTML
Note: At the time of the redesign, Review.com was separate from Princetonreview.com. The sites are now integrated and the review.com URL will redirect you to princetonreview.com.
go to current site
Review.com was a six-month project redesigning a large Cold Fusion site that provides services to prospective college and grad students, their parents, and high school counselors.
The project was essentially a collaborative effort between Review.com and G.Triad. Though the G.Triad UI team began designing an Information Architecture for the site, Review.com wanted to provide their own.
Information Analysis
The UI team divided the content of the site into the following categories:
Search for schools/info: Searching for information or school by different criteria. Separating public information from information accessible to registered users. Sorting schools by different criteria.
Applying to School(s): the process of filling out forms through one of two methods, Apply! Or EASE, and submitting them to scholastic institutions by registered student users.
“My “ Maintenance: Each group of registered users will be able to save information and access information based on their role. For example, registered student users will be able to give read-only permissions to other registered user categories.
Institutional Center (Separate site initially scheduled to launch a month after the main site): Institutions managing their information
User Services: Static and interactive content that assists in the school/info searching and applying processes
Global Information: Information that is open to all users and to the public (including Help, Glossary)
My approach to Information Architecture for the site was more function-oriented, while the approach of the Review.com staff was more content-based.
Designing the Compare function
Review.com had three different sites in mind when requesting the Compare function: GORP.com, AOL's College Compare site (access from here) and Business Weekly's MBA school Comparator. They requested that the Compare function should be accessed two ways:
- from the school search results page
- from a Compare page without involving the school search function
After assessing the example sites mentioned above, I created two task analysis charts (See: Fig. One and Fig. Two) to represent the two ways of using the Compare function. If you go to the site, you will see that my task flow following the Compare page was not implemented as designed and the results were not limited to one page of six schools. I also recommended that the links to the printer-friendly page and to the add school function should be displayed above the Compare results chart so users did not have to scroll down to access them.