...
Design 1 focuses on an all-in-one interface that is designed to be relatively safe and efficient. Tabs at the top of the screen allow music directors to switch between modes (uploading and tagging). The entire interface is drag-and-drop-friendly, and responds to dropped files and URLs by uploading the corresponding file. The left half of the screen is taken up by a list of uploaded albums which may be selected and shown in more detail on the right. Albums may be deleted before entering the database by clicking on the "X" in the top right corner (for which the hot area extends into the "tabbed" area. Editing data is performed by clicking on any piece of text which acts as click-to-edit. The item which will be edited is highlighted on mouse-over. Album art may be uploaded by clicking on the album icon in the top left corner of the right pane, and comments may be freely added at any time. When the data is approved as correct, the "OK" button may be clicked to upload the digital download to the database.
Analysis
Learnability
This design makes use of a number of features that are externally consistent with other UI elements. The row-based selection colors in the selected row which also responds by displaying the details in the right-hand pane, making it extremely obvious what the focus is at any given moment. Responsiveness to mouse events by changing the cursor and highlighting text to be edited increases the ability of a user to understand that the static text may be interacted with (and a simple click should reveal that it will open a text box). However, this is not externally consistent, as users may anticipate a proper text field to indicate that it may be edited, especially as the comments field is an obviously editable <textarea>.
...
Design 2 focuses on a simple interface for interaction with recent play counts. Since the track count data digitally may only be partial (some plays may not make use of it or may depend on CDs), the design simply offers a preview of the plays with two additional buttons allowing the user to export the plays as an Excel spreadsheet or to Google Docs.
Analysis
Learnability
This design is extremely learnable. Only three major elements exist, and the distinction between "Download (as Excel)" and "Export to Google" is clear and obvious. The table of the preview should be consistent with previous external representations (i.e. existing Excel and Google spreadsheets of play counts)
...
Once approved, or if "YES" is clicked initially, a "complete" screen is displayed.
Analysis
Learnability
This design is moderately learnable. While the window-pane approach may be unfamiliar to non-Windows-8 users, the reactivity when the mouse is over each pane (i.e. changing the pane's color and changing the cursor to a pointer-hand) and consistency of the placement of the panes make this portion of the design relatively learnable, although even then it may not be sufficient due to a lack of external consistency with expected editor behavior. Perhaps the least learnable portion of the interface is the lack of consistency between the "YES" and "NO" responses to the "IS THIS OKAY?" question on the second view. Since these two actions do not show the same screen, it is possible that users will have a difficult time learning how to pull up the editor, as the two actions are not internally consistent. This said, the questions posed on each page help to suggest to the user what the page is about (if the album data is okay, presumably only a "NO" answer would bring up an editor; if something is suggested to be wrong, clicking on the incorrect item correctly brings up the editor for that item.) A final less-learnable point is the presence of the "NOTHING" button on the "What's Wrong?" page. While this is a correct response to the question, it is not externally consistent with other forms that a user may encounter in other applications.
...