Cis 375 1 week 3: using technology as experience framework

Case Study week 3: Using Technology as Experience Framework Rahsaan Fortune Dr. Emmanuel Nyeanchi CIS375007VA016-1154-001: Human Computer Interaction
Case Study 1 week 3: Using Technology as Experience Framework
In the recent years, most organizations are embracing online transactions for most of their activities. The online platform offers a more interactive and efficient way of transacting with clients and customers. However, the effectiveness of the interfaces is entirely dependent on the design. As many organizations migrate to the online platforms, donations can now be done through the website. According to Arumi & Johnson (2005), this journey has not been inspirational or engaging in a manner that befits the nature of interaction expected for donations. This could be attributed to the thought and process of designing a web user interface. The web user interface can be a very effective tool that can benefit donors in making their decision. The web interface acts as a platform through which a story is told to the world, through this platform the donor is engaged and can validate the need to make a donation (McCarthy & Wright, 2004).
A well designed web interface combines several elements that ignite appropriate emotions, effective storytelling and an interactive and welcoming atmosphere that appeals to donors. The donors can then be in a position to understand the course, create a meaningful connection and feel the need to donate, tell other friends, volunteer their time and attend fundraising events (Helen, Yvonne & Jenny, 2014). Basic information such as the vision, mission and the purpose of a charity organization conveyed through the website helps the donor to understand the nature of activities that they can channel their funds. Most importantly, the website interface is a best channel for providing essential details such as the facts and figures for a particular program that can help the donor to decide how much they are going to donate.
The emotional design model by Orneal et al (2005) is based on the different levels of the brain; the visceral level, behavioral level and the reflective level. According to Orneal et al (2005), the visceral level of the brain is pre-wired to respond to events that happen in the physical world, it basically responds rapidly and makes appropriate judgments about what is good or bad, dangerous or safe, abhorrent or pleasurable. It is also the level of the brain that triggers emotional responses to stimuli. Most human activities occur at the behavioral level of the brain, these include talking, walking, typing among others. On the other hand the reflective level involves conscious thought where people step back from events or decide to continue with particular activities (Orneal et al, 2005). The emotional design model plays a major role in design of the user interface. As demonstrated in the case study the emotional thread is mainly concerned with the reaction of the user to the experience. When a donor views a page and reads through the message the visceral level of their brain elicits feelings of sympathy, frustration, sadness, joy, anger among other feelings (Helen et al, 2014). Consequently, they are forced to make a decision whether to contribute, attend events or share the message after considerable reflection on the matter.
According to Wright and McCarthy (2004), a compositional thread is simply a story relayed to the audience. In the online fundraising context, the donor will read through a story and interpret it in their own way. Thereafter they will think and reflect on a story as described. Donors will identify with a story and are able to make contributions based on their understanding of the program. Compositional thread also brings out major details of a fundraising such as the facts and figures that include amount needed, amount raised and remaining milestones to achieve (Wright and McCarthy, 2004). Through such communication the donor will be in a better position to make a decision on how much to donate.
Based on the user experience framework several product evaluation criteria can be established using the sensory and compositional threads.
i) Cognitive evaluation
The user of an interface in our case the donor will go through the interface and make appropriate decision based on the information that is contained in the website. This is facilitated by the compositional and sensual thread. The compositional thread gives the donor the story that will trigger their feelings and cause them to take appropriate action (Helen et al, 2014).
ii) Usability evaluation
The web interface is ultimately measured on its usability. The ability of the user to use the interface to accomplish the intended task is a crucial way of evaluating the interface. Compositional thread provides the donor with the basic information for his comprehension, understandability and use of the interface. A well designed interface should convey the intended message in a logical and understandable manner (Helen et al, 2014).
iii) Identity
Since the fundraising programs involve sourcing for money and other resources, it is important to ensure identity of the web interface and organization at large to enhance donor confidence (Helen et al, 2014). This again is facilitated by the compositional thread that narrates the story and provides the basic information including facts and figures.
iv) Ease of use
Is the interface easy to use and navigate through? A donor would appreciate a site that is easy to use. The contents in the site should be in plain and simple format to eliminate the skeptics that we are trying to sell something to the donors. This drives away potential donors. The site should have clear organization with appropriate directions n how the donor should make their contributions (Helen et al, 2014).
v) Effectiveness of design
The design of the interface depends on the nature and purpose of the website. In this case the design should be simple and convey the intended communication. In these criteria, the product is evaluated by determining the effectiveness of the design in serving the intended purpose (Helen et al, 2014). Essentially, this is measured by how many donors visited the site and made donations, referred the site to other donors, purposed to attend the fundraiser among others.
Arumi, A. M., & Johnson, J. (2005). The charitable impulse: A report from Public Agenda. Retrieved on April 6th 2015, from
http://www. publicagenda. org/research/research_reports_details. cfm? list= 94
McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Interactions, 11(5), 42-43.
Ortony, A., Donald A. Norman, & William R. (2005). Affect and proto-affect in effective functioning. Who needs emotions, 173-202.
Helen, S., Yvonne, R., Jenny, P., (2014). Interactive Design: Beyond Human-Computer-Interaction