Earlier this week, we discussed some keywords that we wanted to focus on when we refined our ideas. Obviously, when you get down to the level of keywords, there are going to be concerns that they’re generic–as in, every project will want to be all of them. However, they’re important for prioritizing: everyone wants to be both fast and thorough, for example, but which of the two is most important to the group? We came up with three for the system of simple reviews we were thinking about continuing with:
Simple: Writing a review should be easy, uncomplicated, and nearly effortless.
Example: Expedia reviews! Just tap something and you’re done.
Fast: Most people don’t want to spend forever writing a review. It has to be snappy!
Example: Lyft or Uber. Enter your location and someone’s already on their way.
Flexible: Five-star systems and block review systems are very static. Review platforms should conform to the needs of the reviewer.
Example: Google Maps takes into account your current location, and even includes an “explore nearby” button for if you don’t have a particular place in mind.
When we received feedback from our last presentation, well, I’ll let the results speak for themselves.
Seriously, look at that. Twenty of the twenty-six people reviewing our presentation identified the simple review idea as one they thought was the best, and only six felt otherwise. Look at the relative thicknesses of those piles.
So clearly we were on to something with that idea. I fully apologize for suggesting it be voted off the proverbial island during ideation due to not closely conforming to the theme of our ideas.
With that in mind, we decided it would be pretty unwise to focus on anything but the simple reviews, and met on Saturday at the research commons to put our heads together and come up with a presentation on the proposed interaction model of our simple review platform. Also, the groups were “reshuffled,” and we picked up a castaway from a dissolved group. Say hi to Zhenxi! Here he is, giving us his ideas:
We spent some time at the research commons identifying the key features we wanted in a simple review system. Note “simple;” we kept features trimmed to the absolute minimum in the interest of abiding by the keywords listed above. I don’t want to go into the exact details of our presentation, because that’s a secret and will probably be significantly different once it’s gone through enough rounds of feedback, but our next step is finishing that up and asking Karen to demolish it for our benefit. See you next week!