Interface Design Critique

Cmap and FreeMind

On Information Design

* Who are the users? The users are often educators that want to assist in integrating technology and graphic organizers. Also, users are often individuals that want to illustrate important information or data.

* Information chunk: FreeMind and Cmap are both easy to use and offer help features and preference settings. I feel that FreeMind is simpler to use and to create new graphics of information. However, Cmap is easier to link concepts and I like how the menu is similar to Word.

* Relevance: The tools are used to construct, analyize and share information represented as concept maps. They help individuals illustrate and organize their thoughts and important information.

* Labeling: The labels on FreeMind are graphics that may be more "child friendly" than Cmap. However, it was difficult for me to make the connection without testing out the function. Cmap was easier to navigate because the menu was familiar, since I have used Word for so many years.

* Consistency: They both feature consistent patterns and preference settings. The graphics default to their previous colors and settings. They are fairly consistent.

* Detail: I feel that FreeMind does have an overwhelming menu which is why I prefer Cmap. There are so many controls and buttons that it can make me overwhelmed. I know some people prefer that but I prefer less controls. Cmap has a lot of detail as well but it is in the toolbars. Both have a lot of functions that should be simplified. Neither are the most user friendly.

On Interactivity

* Orientation: You have to practice and play with both FreeMind and Cmap. Neither tool is the easiest to navigate.

* Navigation: The navigation is very linear, but it can make me feel all over the place. The tools are not always easy to find and the features are not obvious.

* Functionality: The tools work well and can be imported and exported. I wish they had more import and export capabilities. I also wish they had more graphic functions and libraries.

* Information access: There are some supportive sites, but they are not great. There are mostly reviews on the products. Information can be published and the software is open source.

On Screen Design
Attractive: The design is blank and basic with question marks on both FreeMind and Cmap.

Resolution: The resolution is fine and easy to use.

Color: Basic color choices and features are simplistic.

Lay out: The layout is basic and could be better in both tools.

Readability: The readability is also acceptable for both pieces. However, FreeMind and Cmap could improve.