Develop some criteria to audit a website and then post your comments on your 'good' and 'bad' sites, with comments related to each and your criteria; please do this by Monday 31st January 2011.
- Is it clear to read? not too much information on a page - Is the information relevant? - Do all the links work? - Can the webpage be navigated easily? eg. search bar - Is it suitable for the audience? - Is the information current? Is it updated regularly?
- Appearance; Design, Layout, and Navigation - Quantity of text/information - Size of text/images - Use of menus, dropdown boxes etc. - Ability to search - Use of video/music - Loading times - Use of adverts/pop-ups
Good Website: YouTube (available at http://www.youtube.com)
Positives:
- Simplistic Colour Scheme/Design/Layout - User friendly interface: Spacious layout and easy to navigate - Text is clear, well-placed, concise and uncluttered; headings, titles and logos are distinguishable - Menus are simple and easy to use/navigate - Video and image sizes are standardised - Access to information is almost immediate - Ability to search and filter results; by relevance, popularity and age
Negatives:
- Adverts; No pop-ups, however, advertisements embedded within webpage (not obstructive) - Loading times can be long
Bad Website: LACORS (available at http://www.lacors.gov.uk)
Positives:
- Use of images is kept to a minimum - Fast loading times - No music or video
Negatives:
- Information is disorganised - Small text - Menu headings same size as regular text/hard to distinguish - Significant amounts of text on the Publications page - Lacks ability to search - Confusing and difficult to locate documents - Time consuming - Some pages redundant
The criteria that appear to be useful when assessing a website are:
CONTENT Is the website relevant? Is it up to date? Is the purpose of the website clear? Is the target audience obvious? Does it meet the needs of the target audience?
ACCESSIBILITY Is the website accessible via popular search engines? How easy is the text to read? How easy is it to navigate around the site? Is it possible to search for specifc things on the site by using a search box?
PROBLEMS Are there any broken links? Are there lots of pop ups or adverts? Is it possible to ask for help or report problems?
Is it possible to reference the site?
My 'good' website is http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This is the website of the BBC. It has a huge target audience as it is relevant for and contains information or services for all people who use a radio, television, internet television services or a computer.
It is very relevant for the target audience as there are links for information on sport, BBC iplayer, weather, news radio and TV listings, business, music, entertainment, CBBC and CBeebies, food, comedy and science and nature.
However, the huge amount of information does not make the site difficult to use and it is possible to customise the website to meet your own individual requirements.
The website is very up to date with current news headlines, weather and TV listings.
The site is very accessible and is available via popular search engines.
The text is just various shades of blue on a white background which makes it very easy to read.
It is possible to can navigate around very easily and quickly.
There are no broken links, adverts or pop ups. This is probably because the licence fee pays for the site so no adverts are allowed.
It is very easy to reference the site as there uis a date at the bottom.
My 'bad' website is http://www.silvercloud30.tripod.com/main/index./html
The aim and target audience of this website are not all apparent. However, it seems to be a space for a young person to shoecase their design ideas. It is difficult to say whether or not it meet the needs of the target audience. However, people who like lots of pictures, glittery text and music may like it alot.
The site was last up dated in 2003 and so it is not really up to date.
This site is accessible via popular search engines.
The text is very difficult to read and the backgrounds are distracting. Michael Jackon's 'Ben' plays from the moment the site first loads which to be honest was a nasty shock.
The site is fairly easy to navigate around but it takes a along time for new pages to load due to lots of pictures.
There is no search box available
Adverts load first on each new page but there are no pop ups or broken links.
It is possible to contact the site's author to ask for help or report problems.
There is an author name and date for referencing purposes.
Good website: http://www.redanywhere.co.uk/ Appearance: design lay out, colors Accessibility: easy to search, fast search engine. Provides clear and good information Menus are simple and easy to navigate. Bad website: http://www.airmac.com/index.php Design of the page is very simple Lacks information. Opens in pdf file
Is it clear to read? Not too much information - ‘clutter’ rating
Can it be navigated easily? Do all the links work?
Is it appealing? How effective is the use of graphics and other visual tools?
Does it provide the right information for its audience?
How much knowledge of the topic is required?
Bad example:
http://www.siphawaii.com/index.html
Unable to read clearly as overly cluttered with text and images. Difficult to navigate and overuse of links, although all links appear to work. Graphics are not used effectively as there are too many which makes them visually ineffective. The information is not concise and difficult to understand which means a good gasp of the topic is required.
Good example:
http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/
Information is clear to read and not overly cluttered. Is easy to navigate and all the links work. It is visual appealing to its audience and uses graphics and other visual tools effectively, there is just the right amount. The information is clear and concise and little knowledge of the topic is required to understand the information.
If you want post your criteria first and then your 'good' and 'bad' sites...
ReplyDeleteCriteria:
ReplyDelete1. Is it apppealing to the surfer? Bright colours, text box's, pictures, music.
2. Is it clear and concise? Does it provide the right information appropriate for its users?
3. Are there links to other pages on the site? Are they easy to access and in a significant order?
Criteria:
ReplyDelete- Is it clear to read? not too much information on a page
- Is the information relevant?
- Do all the links work?
- Can the webpage be navigated easily? eg. search bar
- Is it suitable for the audience?
- Is the information current? Is it updated regularly?
blackplanet.com
ReplyDeletecriteria
visual apperance:-
attractive and very eye catching
interaction:-
very good and addictive always being updated
inforamation:-
very interesting and recent
Worcester Warriors Rugby Club website:
ReplyDelete(accessed at: http://www.warriors.co.uk/home.php)
Good points:
Visually appealing- pictures of players that change, intro page, scrolling banner with links to further pages, looks smart and informative.
Bad points:
Changing advertisements that flash up, high use of graphics makes some pages on the site slow to load.
Audit Criteria:
ReplyDelete- Appearance; Design, Layout, and Navigation
- Quantity of text/information
- Size of text/images
- Use of menus, dropdown boxes etc.
- Ability to search
- Use of video/music
- Loading times
- Use of adverts/pop-ups
Good Website: YouTube (available at http://www.youtube.com)
Positives:
- Simplistic Colour Scheme/Design/Layout
- User friendly interface: Spacious layout and easy to navigate
- Text is clear, well-placed, concise and uncluttered; headings, titles and logos are distinguishable
- Menus are simple and easy to use/navigate
- Video and image sizes are standardised
- Access to information is almost immediate
- Ability to search and filter results; by relevance, popularity and age
Negatives:
- Adverts; No pop-ups, however, advertisements embedded within webpage (not obstructive)
- Loading times can be long
Bad Website: LACORS (available at http://www.lacors.gov.uk)
Positives:
- Use of images is kept to a minimum
- Fast loading times
- No music or video
Negatives:
- Information is disorganised
- Small text
- Menu headings same size as regular text/hard to distinguish
- Significant amounts of text on the Publications page
- Lacks ability to search
- Confusing and difficult to locate documents
- Time consuming
- Some pages redundant
The criteria that appear to be useful when assessing a website are:
ReplyDeleteCONTENT
Is the website relevant?
Is it up to date?
Is the purpose of the website clear?
Is the target audience obvious?
Does it meet the needs of the target audience?
ACCESSIBILITY
Is the website accessible via popular search engines?
How easy is the text to read?
How easy is it to navigate around the site?
Is it possible to search for specifc things on the site by using a search box?
PROBLEMS
Are there any broken links?
Are there lots of pop ups or adverts?
Is it possible to ask for help or report problems?
Is it possible to reference the site?
My 'good' website is http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This is the website of the BBC. It has a huge target audience as it is relevant for and contains information or services for all people who use a radio, television, internet television services or a computer.
It is very relevant for the target audience as there are links for information on sport, BBC iplayer, weather, news radio and TV listings, business, music, entertainment, CBBC and CBeebies, food, comedy and science and nature.
However, the huge amount of information does not make the site difficult to use and it is possible to customise the website to meet your own individual requirements.
The website is very up to date with current news headlines, weather and TV listings.
The site is very accessible and is available via popular search engines.
The text is just various shades of blue on a white background which makes it very easy to read.
It is possible to can navigate around very easily and quickly.
There are no broken links, adverts or pop ups. This is probably because the licence fee pays for the site so no adverts are allowed.
It is very easy to reference the site as there uis a date at the bottom.
My 'bad' website is http://www.silvercloud30.tripod.com/main/index./html
The aim and target audience of this website are not all apparent. However, it seems to be a space for a young person to shoecase their design ideas. It is difficult to say whether or not it meet the needs of the target audience. However, people who like lots of pictures, glittery text and music may like it alot.
The site was last up dated in 2003 and so it is not really up to date.
This site is accessible via popular search engines.
The text is very difficult to read and the backgrounds are distracting. Michael Jackon's 'Ben' plays from the moment the site first loads which to be honest was a nasty shock.
The site is fairly easy to navigate around but it takes a along time for new pages to load due to lots of pictures.
There is no search box available
Adverts load first on each new page but there are no pop ups or broken links.
It is possible to contact the site's author to ask for help or report problems.
There is an author name and date for referencing purposes.
Good website: http://www.redanywhere.co.uk/
ReplyDeleteAppearance: design lay out, colors
Accessibility: easy to search, fast search engine.
Provides clear and good information
Menus are simple and easy to navigate.
Bad website: http://www.airmac.com/index.php
Design of the page is very simple
Lacks information.
Opens in pdf file
Criteria:
ReplyDeleteIs it clear to read? Not too much information - ‘clutter’ rating
Can it be navigated easily? Do all the links work?
Is it appealing? How effective is the use of graphics and other visual tools?
Does it provide the right information for its audience?
How much knowledge of the topic is required?
Bad example:
http://www.siphawaii.com/index.html
Unable to read clearly as overly cluttered with text and images. Difficult to navigate and overuse of links, although all links appear to work. Graphics are not used effectively as there are too many which makes them visually ineffective. The information is not concise and difficult to understand which means a good gasp of the topic is required.
Good example:
http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/
Information is clear to read and not overly cluttered. Is easy to navigate and all the links work. It is visual appealing to its audience and uses graphics and other visual tools effectively, there is just the right amount. The information is clear and concise and little knowledge of the topic is required to understand the information.