A Student’s Perspective of Design on Campus, Emory University
As an undergraduate senior in college, my eyes have become very keen to observing designs all over campus. Being a Computer Science major, I am no expert in design by any means. That is why I am taking the Human-Computer Interaction class: to take a break from lines of code to see things from a front-end perspective.
Please allow me to share two of my opinions about a good design and a bad design on campus.
Good Design: Tech Lab in Cox Hall
If you have not heard of Tech Lab before, I highly recommend you take the short journey to the back right corner of Cox’s Computing Center. You’ll find an extremely functional and versatile space that can cater to just about any of your prototype or creative project ideas with enough room for several people to work comfortably together. Don’t know what you would, or could, work on? Just look around and you are sure to find inspiration from all the tools and machines or labels on the cabinets.
If I were to classify this room’s design with respect to the Formal vs. Functional graph found in our Human-Computer Interaction class’ “Learning To See” reading, I would say that this room is beautiful. It both works and is pretty. What works about this room is that inspires both a collaborative and individual environment. The tables in the middle of the room are just the right size to allow anyone to have a variety of supplies in front of them, the desk spaces around the perimeter foster spaces for smaller projects that may focus on just one machine or tool, and all the while both elements work harmoniously to allow others to walk around the rest of the space. This room is pretty because it is subtly colorful and all of the labels are aligned and coordinated in fonts, colors, and shapes.
The same article presents Dieter Rams’ “Ten principles for good design”, and I believe that the Tech Lab mainly compasses three principles stating that good design is: aesthetic, unobtrusive, and is thorough down to the last detail.
The Tech Lab is aesthetic because of its plentiful projects on display, the string lights that sneak just under the fun window design with the cartoonish Dooley raising his hands in the air, and because everything is neatly stored all over the room from floor to ceiling.
The Tech Lab is unobtrusive because of its neutrality towards any one particular machine or tool. There are no arrows directing users of the space towards the newest or most popular machines. It is just an open space where everything can be observed. While there are plenty of example projects on display, they only serve an inspiration and are off to the sides of the room as to not interfere with the main spaces where users come to create.
The Tech Lab is thorough down to the last detail because of its labelling system, its organization, and its cleanliness. All of the machines are accompanied by a useful pamphlet diagraming and describing its instructions and tips. Additionally, the labels on the cabinets even come with brail for the visually impaired. Every piece of equipment in the Tech Lab has a home, and just by looking around one can tell that nothing looks out of place. Every time I have come to the Tech Lab, the space has been incredibly clean. I agree with the principle’s description that “care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the user” in the Tech Lab.
Moving counter-clockwise around the room, here are each of the individual sections:
Bad Design: Emory’s Computer Science website, Undergraduate Section
Is it heretical to strongly dislike the Computer Science Department’s Undergraduate page? Absolutely.
I am disappointed with Emory’s Computer Science website. While the page itself is functional in the sense that it has all of the proper information present, it is just visually unappealing. Between the large amounts of white space, lack of descriptions around the links in the middle sections of the page, and inconsistencies in the formatting of the headers, I can imagine that it would be hard for a prospective Computer Science student to become invested in Emory’s program. Where is the appeal in a department whose first sentence describes how their classes fill the General Education Requirements, which all students have to complete to graduate?
Returning to the Formal vs. Functional graph, I would classify this website as bold. It works but it is ugly. This website works because it has all of the essential links that an undergraduate student, either prospective or current, would need. Even though it is odd that all of the information is placed into separate PDF files or links to other pages on the department website, it is still easily accessible. This website is on the uglier side because of the stark size differences between the headers and the subsections, the abrasive contrast between the yellow large headers and the white background, and the lack of other pictures showing what it is like to be a computer science student.
If I were to classify the website’s shortcomings by Rams’ “Ten principles for good design” again, I would say that the follow two principles are where it could use the most improvement: in making the product understandable, and being innovative. The Undergraduate section of Emory’s Computer Science website does not make it understandable to potential users why they should become a computer science major or even the potential benefits of doing so. There are no descriptions of the major, no pictures showing students in classrooms or working together. This site is not innovative in my opinion by any means. There are no interactive flowcharts to follow or cool ways to scroll back and forth through information easily. There does not seem to be anything innovative about plain text with different colors for headers, or about having the majority of the page rely on nine different links, five of which go to the same destination. Even if one were to zoom out they would not find anything but a vast white wasteland of empty space as the words shrink away.
To give it some credit, the Undergraduate section of Emory’s Computer Science page does a good job at fulfilling the principle that good design is honest. This site does not try to advertise any grandiose notions of the benefits of becoming a computer science major. It just provides plain, unbias facts about what the Computer Science department provides in terms of courses and how to declare as a major.
Let’s briefly compare the Undergraduate section of the Computer Science department’s website to the Undergraduate section of the Chemistry department’s website.
At first, the picture of the full classroom and professor helping the students in the foreground shows a glimpse into how the Chemistry department fosters collaborative learning and is very popular. Then potential users scroll down to read the following:
Immediately potential Chemistry majors, prospective students, and other users can see that the Chemistry department cares about them. Then the eye can easily follow the large header to a slightly smaller subtitle into the two paragraphs with slightly smaller sized font in a smooth manner. The six buttons below have clear labels by contrasting the white text with the blue rectangles, and the light blue bar above each one gives them a subtle flair. Even the furthest viewpoint when zooming out still contains the entire page from header to footers.
If you were trying to decide whether you wanted to become a Computer Science major or a Chemistry major, how would these two distinct sites influence your decision?
You can also find the Chemistry Department’s Undergraduate Section here:
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you were able to gain some insights and can think about usability and appeal the next time you design or critique a website.
