1. Observations: Tom- 
This is a good observation, about the right length, and focusing on the activity and your experience with it. You can paste it directly into your LRO text file and continue keeping ongoing observations there. (I agree with you about the site) Nice job! 

Project 1 
2. Inventory: Tom- 
This looks great. There’s a clear sense of both the structure and the content that will be very useful as you work on the redesign. Nicely done! (By the way, you should use either the margin controls or tabs to indent lines, rather than spaces, in order to get things to line up properly. See the example in Part I below. 

3.Audience analysis:  
Christopher, Spence, and Tom- 
This overview combines general summaries with specific examples in a helpful way. The classification of the responses among beginners, intermediate,and experienced viewers allows you to make some important distinctions in potential audiences for the site. It is funny that the beginners seem to feel the site would be more useful for experts, partly because of the interface design, while the experts felt the content was more suited to beginners. 

On the interviews: 
Tom, you managed to find excellent respondents for your questionnaire, and you've given them a good set of questions to respond to. The information they provided is valuable feedback that really helps understand this part of the audience. 

I think this set of interviews overall was very well done, although there are no direct observations in the set. Good job in general, though. 

Final Prototype 

Overall impressions: Site is generally clean and attractive. Loads fast. 
Audience considerations: Audience is stipulated in the introduction. However, the "How to Use This Site" section does not reflect the changes you've made in your redesign. 
 

Content: Provided by client. You've done a great job of incorporating so much of the text from the original site. 
Text: 
 Graphics: use of client's graphics is handled very effectively. Turning the Ease of Use banner right side up makes it easier to read, if a little more conventional in design terms. Table borders also serve as graphic elements. 
 
Organization 
 structure: The redesign causes some confusion about the structure. There is an implied process model in your main categories, but under "Production" we find a main subsection called "preparation," which includes some preparation that needs to be done earlier than the design stage. This is part of the problem with a process structure which gives the impression of a linear process, when in fact, web design is very recursive, moving back and forth between planning, design, production, maintenance, and so forth. 

Overall coherence is generally maintained through the use of navigation menus, though a site map would be a help. 
Navigation 
 Formats: multiple menus that need to be stepped through before getting to the content can be frustrating. I suggest putting your submenus on the main index page so that readers can get more directly to the information they are seeking. There is plenty of white space on the main index page, which could easily accommodate the submenus. Once readers are in the main section, I'd put the submenus in table format in the left column, to allow direct and easy navigation within sections. The "forward to" and "back to" links are wonderful, giving readers a preview of what they are going toward or back to. 
Interactivity: 
There's not much interactivity built into the project; it's basically point and click and read. This is one of the key concerns expressed by the client. The simplest form of interactivity is via a "mailto:" which would allow readers to contact you with comments and suggestions. And of course you need a credits page which tells who is responsible for the project. Other forms of interactivity include forms, message forums, and javascript, but we haven't really covered these in class. 

Style 
Text: In some pages the text is coming up as courier (see Design/Content). I would not specify courier as an onscreen font except for short sections of contrast text, as to show keyboard commands, or typewritten documentation. It is very hard to read, both on the screen and on paper, and very ugly. It was designed for typewriters so that each letter would have equal spacing, a good example of art subverted to machine requirements. 
 Color: The color basically reflects the IBM blue motif. I would use a lighter version of the same shade of blue for the highlighting, rather than the robin's egg blue here. Or, use a different color altogether. The blues are clashing with each other.  The black/gray scheme of the original banner is not picked up for the rest of the site. It makes it seem out of place. One way to resolve that is to incorporate those colors in other decorative elements. 

Screen size: The site fits nicely on a normal or small screen and allows resizing which does not distort the design. 

It's a very nice implementation overall!