VA: Rapid Prototype Feedback

My audience that I showed these name iterations to responded most to zip and tagalong. They thought that these names were expressive of the concept, but not so literal as to avoid mystery. They felt that both would plant the name in the ear of an eavesdropper, and possibly prompt them to look up the name online.
The two stylistic iterations that they responded to were these. They thought the typography was friendly, and would work well with the concept by making it appeal to a range of users. The thought the top version, while they liked the translation of the "o" into a tire, they thought it should look more tire-like, and less like a cookie.

In this wire frame version, they didn't like a non standard nav. They understood the need and want to be innovative on the web, but in terms of a tool that a variety of user types, and experience levels would be using, they wanted a more standard wireframe. I think this makes sense for something that requires a range of support from across ages and technological expertise, so making it more standard is probably a good idea.

This is the aesthetic they liked most. The rounded content areas appealed to them, as being helpful friendly and non-threatening. They also liked the idea of a more direct relation between the amount of money saved by the user, and the user. It was suggested that in the beginning, it might not be such a large number of savings, and could be potentially discouraging. So they thought it would be a good idea to switch between different views of that number e.g. actual money saved, predicted money saved in a week, predicted money saved in a month, etc.

This wireframe is the one they responded to most, and thought I should marry the aesthetic of the one above this with this wireframe. The only problem they had with it was they wanted the profile and the suggestions switched. Since a user naturally reads from left to right the progression of information should go "Me, things that pertain to Me, and other people interested in Me" so logically there is a path to follow.

Moving forward I plan to consider all their various commentary on the site objectively and really examine the data to decide if these are comments based on preference or real usability and clarity concerns. I feel most fall into the latter, which is good for me. I plan to revise based on those decisions, and my compatriots have agreed to meet with me again to review my revisions.