The use of images and graphics in websites generally improves the content and enhances its usability. As a result, graphics contents are extensively used in popular websites and with the advent of better design tools, the look and feel and navigation has scaled new heights. However, there’s still a few instances where as a designer you feel that certain aspects of visualization could be tweaked for better results and in the rare occasions you almost wish that the entire site should be reworked for meaningful presentation of data. For the purpose of our discussion, I planned to review weather websites and compare the use of graphics and other illustrations between two sites that (in my opinion) handles similar data but varies significantly in the ease of use and level of clarity.
The Weather Channel (www.weather.com) is a widely visited website, which provides forecasts, alerts, travel updates and other related information. However, the graphics content of the page might be overwhelming to a new visitor as it is packed with information that’s not quite relevant at first appearance. The main area of the webpage carries a rolling snapshot of the top six video clippings where the topic could be as diverse as “Boy carried by Twister” to “Take our Hurricane Quiz”. In terms of relevance, weather is typically a local topic, followed by an interest for nationwide climate and then there’s room for sensational stories. However, the graphics in this site fails to address the primary goal of displaying the local forecasts in a clear and concise manner. In addition, the snapshot of videos change at a high frequency (about once in five seconds) giving the viewer little time to comprehend the text accompanying the graphics. The maps displayed in the main page and in the maps pane don’t clearly give explanation for the symbols used to represent specific weather conditions. There is a key at the top but it is disproportionately small given the size of the entire map. The forecast could be fetched once you are familiar with the site and it has other useful features but the overall presentation of the graphics leaves a lot to be desired.
In comparison, the USA Today Weather (www.usatoday.com/weather/wfront.htm) organizes similar content in a more professional and succinct manner. The main page has a map section on the left and a local forecast on the right which serves the primary purpose of the website right away. The map on the main page could be viewed in five different contexts (Radar, Satellite, Precipitation, Temperature, Pressure fronts). The forecast section gives detailed report of today and has a concise forecast for the following four days. The weather icons are neatly arranged with expected highs and lows for the day. Weather news appears stacked in the bottom part of the website as you scroll down. The maps tab presents more detailed information and there is a comprehensive explanation of the charts on the bottom of the maps.
In summary, the use of graphics in the USA Today weather website enhances cognition as described by the Dual Coding Theory. Visual graphics is seamlessly synchronized with text information and that helps the users to find what they are looking for and navigate with ease to search for further information. On the contrary, the graphics and videos in the Weather Channel website appears in a disjoint manner and interferes with the primary content that majority of users will be interested in. Both sites are at par in terms of the available features and the accuracy of information but vary significantly in terms of the graphics presentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment