Let's start with the Criteria for Evaluating a Web sites.
- Purpose - begs the question - what is the sites purpose? Namely check the URL code. The final 3 syllables of the domain name will help you to accessing the purpose of the site.
- Authority - deals with the author. Their credentials, whether or not they are the authority on the topic, and contact information.
- Objectivity - pertains to the degree of bias. Is it hidden or explicit? In what way does it impact the usefullness of the information given. And does the author's identity suggest any form of bias?
- Appropriateness - questions the content. Is it reading level appropriate and developmental level appropriate for the reader and is the subject matter accurate, complete, and relevant for the topic?
- Currency - relates to the material dating. Is the material up-to-date? Can you tell the last time the material was updated?
- Responsibility - questions the authors willingness to give credit where credit. Is a reference list provided? And, is contact information available to validate the information.
- Clarity - deals with the content, or subject matter. Is it clearly presented, legibly written, and well organized for the reader? Are the graphics used in a manner that adds value for the reader rather than distracting them?
- Accessibility - relates to ease of access. Is it quick to load? Is it easily navigated? Is it retrievable?
Hoaxes are out there as well and can prevent challenges to the unsuspecting reader. If "About" or "Contact Us" is not available beware.
In addition to leaning ways to evaluate Web sites, links were also provided for additional tools to use to help identify the criteria needed for good Web sites versus bad.
Below are two Web sites and my evaluations based on the criteria learned in the reading.
http://www.albright.edu/index.php
Purpose - The site informs the reader about the college.
Authority - The college name, address and tab titled "About" is available on the first page.
Objectivity - the only bias in this case is that the site pertains strictly to the school and what is available to the prospective student, current student, parents, faculty and staff, and visitor and community. It is in no way prejudice to the reader.
Appropriateness - everything listed is relevant to the facilty, student, potential student, parents and visitors to site looking for knowelege about the institution and it's offerings.
Currency - the site is continuely monitored and updated with new information (i.e. class offerings, calendar of events, etc.).
Responsibility - I did not see and citations, although in this case I didn't expect to considering the site is being written about the school, for the school, by the school.
Clarity - I believe the site is very well written. The information is presented clearly, neatly and legibily. The graphics illustrate the information in a non distracting way. And at a glance, I didn't note any typigraphical errores.
Accessability - I believe the Web site is very easy to access. It only took a moment from the time I hit enter until the site appeared on screen and once on the site it was just as easy to navigate from screen to screen.
Purpose - The site is a commercial site for the purpose of informing the reader of the company offerings.
Authority - All the critical information is listed on the home page Company name, address, phone number, and links.
Objectivity - Again, I believe the author's only bias is that the site is specific to there area of expertise, other than that the site is objective about the way in which the information is delivered.
Appropriateness - The material contained on the site is accurate, complete and appears to be wel written. I believe the content has been written at a appropriate level for reading and the developmental level of it's audience.
Currency - Within the content of the Web site it is quite clear that the information is up-to-date. (Check press release section).
Responsibility - Again, the site has been written by the author for the company. Hence not reference lists were found.
Clarity - I believe the site has been well written in laymens terms, using font friendly text and formatted quite nicely. The only thing that I didn't like was some of the graphics used. I wasn't quite sure of there relevance in the context of the page.
Accessibility - I felt the accessibility to the site was quite easy, although I didn't like the flow within. Rather than have links on each page to manuvre, I needed to go back page/s.
After taking the time to evaluate Web sites it has been quite the eye opener. I am sure I will be far more critical of Web sites now then I have been in the past. Pretty much like I disect advertising now!
Kim Guenther's article "What's Your Style: Organizing Information for the Web" gives insight to linear versus nonlinear formatting, inverted pyramid writing and organizing information for the web, as well as creating a style for the web.
Her opening is quite interesting. How she lets the reader know that Web site design is usually limited to "look and feel", rather than the way the words or content is layed out on the pages and how sites look great, although people find it dificult to navigate and use the information provided?
The best part is how she lets the reader know and I quote. "You don't have to be a usuability expert or an information arvhitect to successfully write for or organize Web site content. The key is to organize your information before even one line of code is ever written to develoop the site."
No comments:
Post a Comment