04 – Reflection/ critical analysis

by | Mar 13, 2022


After finishing the project the main question coming to mind is ‘How might we?’ – check if the solution works for wider audience, improve the flow of tasks and user experience.

To address the needs of all people experiencing permanent or temporary disability the project would need to have much wider scope.

In depth research regarding only one aspect of the visual impairment and work towards digital solution for two tasks was a great point of understanding how many other impairments and unfulfilled needs is still there to solve.

Strengths & weaknesses

The strength of the project lays in the time spent on research on the topic of impairment and possible solution. I consider the theoretical part as well as mock-up design as strong points of the project.

Paradoxically – due to almost exact application of the design language in the first iteration there were only minor changes done to the wireframe in iteration 2. 

The project required redesign of the menu – the final version, being far from original could be too far for user that got used to the look of the page. This would need to be assessed.

The overall flow of the blog post could also be improved. This can be achieved with more practice. 

Changes & future work

As much as fulfilling needs of one person with visual impairment is satisfactory – only by testing more users we could be sure the solutions actually work for wider audience.

Future work would need to be therefore focused – first of all on information architecture. This would eliminate overwhelming amount of links and menu items.

Focus group research could highlight if there is a need of improvement of other sections.

Vital part of any redesign work undertaken in the future would be responsive (if not mobile first) approach to work.

By Sebastian Hartleib