Course: ENGL 3120 Digital Writing and Publishing
Semester taken: Summer 2023
Instructor: Dr. Baotong Gu
For my next assignment, I selected a brief analysis of the design choices of Goodreads. The objective of this assignment was to evaluate whether the website offered a positive user experience by identifying its strengths and weaknesses. As this was my first rhetoric class, it served as my initial introduction to the elements that contribute to a website's effectiveness.
Having encountered negative experiences with Goodreads in the past, I found it insightful to analyze the underlying design choices that contributed to my frustrations. This opportunity allowed me to articulate the factors that detract from the user experience based on the principles I learned in class. I believe I effectively highlighted the negative aspects of the site, focusing on issues such as navigation difficulties and aesthetic inconsistencies. However, given more time, I would have created a wireframe for a redesigned version of Goodreads; this wireframe would not only address the identified shortcomings but also facilitate easier navigation and improve overall aesthetic appeal. By proposing these design changes, I aim to demonstrate how thoughtful modifications can lead to a more intuitive and enjoyable experience for users.
Website Analysis
Website: Goodreads
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/
Goodreads was launched in 2006 as a social blogging website that allows readers to look up books and their authors, annotations, quotes, and reviews. Users can also create lists for books they want to read, and the website even offers new recommendations based on what users liked. It grew significantly over the years, and in 2013, it was acquired by Amazon to mixed reviews, but it allowed users to connect their Kindle accounts, connecting their reviews, annotations, and personal recommendation algorithm. Since the acquisition, there have been no major updates to the website, other than new books or authors getting reviews. I chose this website because I am an active user, and both the website and mobile app can be frustrating to use. As mentioned, the website has been owned by Amazon for the past ten years, and its intended audience are readers. The initial purpose of the website was for users to log and record books they have read or want to read, but since the acquisition it has allowed for the connection of users’ Kindle accounts to keep up with their progress.
Since the website is owned by Amazon, I would expect the website to look more sleek and updated, but it still is the same blocky, boring beige design with black text. The content itself is mediocre; Goodreads prides itself on having a personalized algorithm for each user based on their likes and dislikes, but many users complain that some recommendations aren’t related to whatever they read. Even on my homepage, my algorithm recommends a science fiction thriller because I enjoyed a love poem collection. The website and homepage itself is easy to navigate, but the lack of color requires users such as myself to find links via text and headers, which all utilize small, black fonts. The graphics are all book covers, which all stand out well due to their variety of color against a blank background.
Under the “Recommendations” category, it has different sections split into genres with personalized recommendations, with plenty of white space around. While five books per section may seem underwhelming, the contrast between the colorful book covers and the white background allows users’ eyes to be drawn to the new book covers.
Under the “My Books” category, there is a chart of books saved by users, along with its author, the average rating given by all Goodreads users, rating given by the user (which is left blank if the user hasn’t read it yet), the “shelves,” or lists that the user had saved it to, a review section, and its date read (if applicable) and date added to the list. This chart makes it easy for the user to know when they added it to their “To be read” list, and any other details they may want to know. The book covers are a bit small, however, making them appear very blurry and pixelated.
I think that Goodreads is good as a general form of reference for people who want to keep track of the books they have read or want to read. However, its personalized algorithm doesn’t appear to work until the user has logged a large amount of books. Its visuals can be done a bit better as well, but its organization is simple and appealing, especially for new users.
