1. Report on Evaluation Process The decisions and issues involved in the proposal, research, design and prototyping of the Mood Gallery are documented on-line beginning at; http://www2.infm.ulst.ac.uk/~cdp8let/group/pages/gallery.htm

2. For evaluation and development, the Mood Gallery team had proposed; Iterative questionnaires Iterative interview A final combined questionnaire and interview Original Evaluation Proposals

3. Much of the project was a process of reducing horizons to match constraints. We went right back to the beginning - the original brief - to devise a simpler way to gauge whether or not we had come close to matching it Rethink on Evaluation

4. We concentrated on what we determined was the core statement of the brief; "The software product that you devise should exemplify, amplify and facilitate harmony with ideas.” To further understand the brief, we applied definitions to the more abstract words. The Brief

5. exemplify - to show or illustrate by example. amplify - to expand by the use of detail or illustration or by closer analysis. facilitate - to make easier. harmony - pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts. Definitions

6. Taking a literal view of the brief, new and simpler evaluation questions were devised based directly on the definitions associated with the brief. Four questions were devised. Each question allowed a rating from 1 to 5. New Evaluation Questions

7. exemplify - to show or illustrate by example. Does the software make effective use of images to illustrate concepts? (1=not effective, 5=very effective) Evaluation Question 1

8. amplify - to expand by the use of detail or illustration or by closer analysis. Does the software make use of varying levels or stages? (1=no use of levels and/or stages, 5=good use of levels and/or stages) Evaluation Question 2

9. facilitate - to make easier. Does the software make the process of browsing an art gallery easier? (1=not as easy, 5=much easier) Evaluation Question 3

10. harmony - pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts. Do the various elements of the software work together to form a cohesive whole which complements the gallery experience? (1=not cohesive, 5=very cohesive) Evaluation Question 4

11. Group Averages Question 1 average 3 60% Question 2 average 4 80% Question 3 average 3.5 70% Question 4 average 4 80% What the Evaluators Thought

12. Overall 72.5% Based on the 4 simple questions provided, on a sliding scale of 20 to 100 (100 being the fullest satisfaction of the brief) the Mood Gallery software received a rating of 72.5 from the evaluators. Does the Software Fit the Brief?

13. The navigation was initially confusing - this was partly intentional in that the viewer could, if confused by the navigation, enter either the good or bad mood gallery. This point was reinforced by giving the 'floorplans' an interactive feel i.e. text appeared when the cursor was placed over the icon, this text clearly indicates what the icon is and where you will go upon selection. Evaluator Comments

14. The graphics were clear and crisp, suiting the project content - this was the intention, to try and recreate the simplicity of viewing a 'real' exhibition, you simply enter and browse. The eye icon was an informative feature - this idea was based upon the metaphor of carrying a guide, which would give information on the art and artists, it can be availed of whenever the viewer wishes to obtain more information on a particular mood canvas. Evaluator Comments (cont.)

15. Can you play your own selection of music whilst viewing the various exhibitions? - this is accommodated in the project by providing a default music selection upon entering a selected gallery, if the user is displeased with this music, then they have the option of playing their own music to sympathise with their own mood. Evaluator Comments (cont.)

16. The canvas size could have been bigger - Our point regarding the size of the canvas is documented in the storyboard, (frame ?) it shows how the user can select a certain piece of mood art and 'walk toward it to get a closer look' this is done by bringing the canvas towards the user until it fills ¾ of the screen. This is not shown in the prototype. Evaluator Comments (cont.)

17. Downloading time was too long - this could be due to heavy traffic, the director movie is saved as a shockwave so as to load faster. Submit mood - too vague, needed description. Allocating music with the mood art upon submission. If in a bad mood, should you not want to be cheered up! Most people like listening to sad songs when sad - actual quote. Evaluator Comments (cont.)