Summary-week+5+discussion

__ 802.6 Week 5 Summaries: A connoisseur’s take on museum sites __

Although classmates may have been tentative about their own comparisons of the two websites, each person put forward valuable observations. Thank you for your efforts and taking the risk to share your thoughts! Many different viewpoints were expressed - there were as many perspectives as there were people comparing the two sites.

The two websites examined for the assignment: McCord Museum: [] (the English version of the site is at [|http://www.musee-mccord.qc.ca/en] ) Canadian Science and Technology Museum:[]


 * //Stacey Monette: Museum Website Comparisons// ** – Stacey focused on finding elegance in the sites and created a chart to easy, visual comparisons (so clever!). In her chart, she used succinct jot notes in which she commented on the layout and visual components.


 * //Elenna Nickel: Webpage comparison//** – Elenna included a link to a helpful article written by Elliot Eisner, to further explain connoisseurship and criticism. She made reference to the configuration of the webpage of the Tech site and suggested that perhaps it was to accommodate a mobile device. According to her, the McCord site appeared centered and balanced, but there was too much information on the page and was not as easy as the Tech site to navigate as the links were not as conspicuous on the navigation bar.


 * //Greg Woitas: Do I have what it takes to be a connoisseur?//** – Greg commented at the start that he needed to write down his observations in a chart for comparisons and I wished that he had included the chart! He noticed that while both sites had maps to help navigate through the massive amount of information, the Tech site was easier. Neither left a lasting impression on him with regards to logos or symbols.


 * //Sarah Stack: Can I peek now?//** – Sarah compared the sites from an artistic viewpoint. The McCord symbol, seemed like a ‘fingerprint’ which felt like ownership and individuality to her and she appreciated the youthful tone and spring colours. She noticed that the Tech site was unbalanced and had an incongruous nautical symbol, but also had an interesting favicon and movement. She had been to both sites and commented that the Tech site did not reflect the thrilling experience of being to the museum in person.


 * //Rick Heise: My attempt at being a connoisseur//** – Rick focused his comparison of the two sites on; space, unity, emphasis and focal point, and balance. He noticed that both sites had an excess amount of information for small screens, but they were both consistent with their colours and link tiles. He commented that the visitor is drawn to the rotating banner at the top of the Tech site, but there was no true focal point for the McCord site. Like others, he pointed out that the Tech site was asymmetrical compared to the McCord site.


 * //Cheryl Anderson – Yikes….here it is…//** - Cheryl noticed that the text on the McCord site was easier to read due to the font size and that the colour scheme, used in combination, felt like a ‘Warhol’ painting. She also noticed that the McCord site had more of an informal, warm, inviting feeling compared to the Tech site. From the teachers’ perspective, she thought that the activity kits were interesting, but the Tech site was too busy and not as easy to navigate through.


 * //Musings on Museums by Michelle//** - Michelle mused on the idea of experiencing the websites as a child. She approached McCord with exploratory curiosity but was unable to find things quickly. Good symbols on the site. CSTM was an active site with symbols of motion.
 * Discussion** lead to a question of harvesting or GETing information. Process of exploration.


 * //Humble Opinion by Lianne Kenyon//** - First impression lead Lianne to find McCord personal and CST formal and unappealing to her. She felt the McCord had a softness to it where CST was more mechanical and utilitarian.
 * Discussion** lead to some questions of achieving balance in artistic and scientific appeal. Some gender differences or stereotypes were questioned.


 * //Science vs. Art Showdown by Kris Street//** - THE McCord offered a pleasant visual experience including vibrato colour, images and fonts. It blended together (almost too well) wit icons and images as category identifiers. CSTM was mainly textual and limited in colour and font but overall pleasant as well. The final opinion is in the eye of the beholder.
 * Discussion** lead to a further exploration of the idea of design related to culture. Can a person be from "both worlds" Others commented that overall the sites seemed to be behind other current designs.


 * //Deja Vu by Robert Heppner//** - Robert took and individual approach and then did a side by side comparison. He compared a couple pages within the site not just the splash page. His initial reactions were largely based on personal interest. His perception was skewed by his interest in science.
 * Discussion** lead to the talking about the personal element of critiquing websites as well as our personal views. Commenters were sometimes overwhelmed by the McCord site. Most commenters felt they had similar interests that effected their analysis and outcome. Co-construction and bias were discussed. There was also a Vader Helmet pic.


 * //je suis un Connosisseur by Randall White//** - Randall looked at critic and critique and broke down his chart into positives and weaker areas. He found McCord overwhelming and busy and CSTM cleaner and easier to read with a familiar side menu. Yet after his initial views he found value in both.
 * Discussion** lead to talk of precedent and past product. The idea of critique was useful and to support opinions with reason. Lastly a talk of technology limiting design was brought up as visitors can access the site on old technology.


 * //A Great Challenge by Roxanne Bitner//** - Roxanne made an evaluation of each site. McCord was cultured site with sequential and well laid out areas. It mired the music and emotion of the exhibits. CSTM site was simple with one visual and logical organization. The information is factual and much less artsy. She noted that both home pages are set up with three columns and viewers given consideration with dedicated learning areas.
 * Discussion** lead to a conversation around the heartbeat of the museum and a continuation back to Dave's post on a similar "artsy" comment.

__David__: “Comparing the two, the biggest thing I noticed was how their collections were presented or not presented.”
 * //David Morin, “A Tale of Two Websites”//** - David provided his viewpoints on the visual impacts, user experience, and content within each site. He also made observations on the presentation of the museum collections and the interactivity of the sites.
 * Discussion** lead to the navigation of each site, searching content on the sites, alignment of the content, and the interactivity expectations of the sites.


 * //Beige Biggins, ‘Better Late Than Never...’//** - Beige provided a chart to compare the two sites and included observations regarding features for education. In her comments, Beige addressed the visual aspects, content included, and ease of navigation of the sites.

__Janine__: “...I am definitely a visual learner. I like seeing what I'm going to be looking at before clicking on the link. It makes the link more enticing.”
 * //Janine Smits, ‘I wanna peek!’//** - Janine provided a table to make comparisons of the major visual and formatting differences between the two websites. She also shared her preference for the McCord website as a visual learner.
 * Discussion** lead to conversation about the visuals.

__Karen__: “Thinking semantics, syntactics, intellectual curiosity... it’s a whole new way of exploring a website....”
 * //Karen Fox, ‘Intellectual Curiosity – a way of looking at the web’//** - With Semiotics in mind, Karen viewed the websites focusing on the syntactics of the sites and the semantics of the images. She provided a breakdown of the structure of each site and included a resonating quote from David Sless, “Semiotics is above all an intellectual curiosity about the ways we represent our world to ourselves and each other”.
 * Discussion** included observations on the interplay of Semiotics and expectations.

__Rebekah__: “I was intrigued that the McCord website almost felt like an exhibit for the audience to explore, whereas the straightforwardness of the CSTM site would have been a great place to find the information the audience needed, fast!”
 * //Rebekah Bennetch, ‘A new concept hierarchy to consider’//** - Rebekah processed the two websites using Aristotle’s modes of appeal: logos, pathos, and ethos. In relation to logos, Rebekah noted the use of space within the websites and their structure. Within pathos, she commented on aspects of the website that create a connection for the viewer.
 * Discussion** lead to comments on the value of the process Rebekah used and how this could be useful to a connoisseur.

[]
 * //Ian Hecht, ‘Musée vs. Museum’//** - Ian begins with his initial response to each website then makes a side-by-side comparison of the two. He notes the visual aspects of each website and their similarities and differences along with the social media presence and how the pages are linked to the social media. Further in the conversation, Ian posted a link to explain the terms liquid and non-liquid formatting.
 * Discussion** lead to the impact of the visuals and the layout of the web sites in regard to viewing them on different devices.

__Ian__: “... while some of these [warning labels] might cross cultures, others aren't obvious at all... nuclear waste disposal sites...will remain toxic for up to 10,000 years, so they need a sign that tells people not to go inside that transcends language (think of how different language was ten thousand years ago and you get an idea of the magnitude of the problem). “
 * //Ian Hecht, ‘Signs, signs, everywhere a sign’//** - In response to the Thursday night Kitchen Party held on June 12, Ian posted warning sign symbols for people to determine the meaning of. Along with this topic, Ian raised the issues of cross-cultural understanding of signs and the issue of effective signs for future generations in relation to toxic waste.
 * Discussion** lead to the issues in recognizing symbols and the importance of this.