Post for Hannah

GOOD WEBSITE: http://www.rfu.com/

For my example of a good website I looked at the Rugby Football Union webpage. I use the framework below in red to evaluate it.

Relevance of Information:

›› Content

›› Understandable

›› Updated

The information provided on the website was of high relevance as well as being understandable. The content was covered a broad range of topics and was clearly updated regularly.

Layout of webpage:

›› Easily accessible

The website was easily accessible and clear for viewers to navigate themselves round the different elements of the website.

Navigation:

›› To much or to little information?

There was enough information on the webpage without it being overcrowded, it also had different sources of media such as photos and pictures which broke up the text and gave it a refreshing look.

Links:
›› Any broken links?

›› Problems accessing webpages

There were no broken links or any problems with accessing webpage’s shown on the RFU site and all the information in the links were relevant.

Searching:

›› Search Bar/Menu/A-Z

As well as a search bar to search the website there is also a search bar to find your local rugby club which is very useful and is also located on the front page which allows the viewer easy access rather than searching the whole website for it.

Downloadable resources:

›› Problems with downloads

I had no problems with downloading word documents or e flyers from the rugby website and it was still easy straight forward in completing this task.

BAD WEBSITE: http://www.moosenetwork.com/

For my example of a bad website I looked at the Moose travel tours webpage. I use the framework below in red to evaluate it.

Relevance of Information:

›› Content

›› Understandable

›› Updated

Although the information was of relevance some was not as clear and understandable; it did not seem to be updated as prices of tours had changed when I later emailed them.

Layout of webpage:

›› Easily accessible

The layout was a little confusing as there is so much going on on the front page at once.

Navigation:

›› To much or to little information?

There were links but I had to scroll through a lot of pages to find the information I needed.

Links:

›› Any broken links?

›› Problems accessing webpages

There were a few broken links which were not updated and fixed which made the website look unprofessional.

Searching:

›› Search Bar/Menu/A-Z

There is no search bar which made it more effort to find relevant information.

Downloadable resources:

›› Problems with downloads

I did download anything simply as this was not relevant for this website.

Website Evaluation

Okay never done this before so lets hope it works, knowing me i'll post this to the wrong place but never mind!!

Okay my outline for auditing a website:

Good colours
Clear text
Relevant content
Clear Visuals
Good download tools
Good layout/design
Hyperlinks should work
Good search bars

My good website: www.musicroom.com

The home page is clear and has a good layout. The information on the homepage is all relevant to the genre of the website, for example the advert on the homepage is for music lessons, given they sell this type of stuff people may go through this kind of place to gain access to such teachers.

The menus on this site are very useful, firstly you have the main search bar across the top of the page which enables you to search the whole site or if you prefer there is the drop down menu which enables you to search in certain areas. Secondly, for example, if you choose to view sheet music, the side navigation bar allows you to choose what intrument you want the music for and some, like strings, even have a sub category like, violins, viola or cello. This all makes it much easier for the viewer to find the type of music they are looking for quickly and easily.

Another great part of this site is the download tools, a lot of times you can onto websites and you have to download some software before you can look at what you want, however, the download for the program is never on the site and you have to go searching all round the internet for what you want, not here though! On the musicroom they have an automatic down if it is not detected on your computer and once again saves you time and is very user friendly.

The colours are bright and make the page nice and visable and the size and style of text are very clear and easy to read. This website also has a high Google ranking therefore making it easy to locate in a search. All hyperlinks on this website work.

Bad Website: www.allpoetry.com

Well to start with the homepage is very dull, its all of a very basic layout and website design. Search bars are hard to use because they are drop down menus and if you move slightly off the title for example, it flicks to the drop down menu next to the one you want. Another problem is the log in details they are not in a very visable place, and logins to accounts can take some time to load. At times not all information is viewable.

Another problem with this website is that it has a 'chatterbox' at the side of the screen that everyone can view all the time so when your trying to read someones poetry all you can see at the side is someone conversation being updated second after second which puts the reader off what they came to the site for! Another problem with the site is that a 'comments box' comes across the screen when you are viewing someones poetry however, this can get in the way of the poem so you have to scroll down further than you want to to view it.

The colours of some pages also make it very difficult to see the content of the page, some of the fonts are also small and hard to read and the content of some of the pages is not at all relevent to the site. Not all of the hyperlinks on the website actually work either so you end up with a 404 which is always annoying!

Another problem is the use of their search bars, you can search for a poet if you know their name however, most websites have if you spell a word wrong will give you w link to what they think you meant however, AP does not do this and given the fact that some of the names on here are very difficult to spell this could be a useful tool for them!

Okay I think thats finally it. I'm sure I'll think of something I've missed out though!!

Claire - website evaluation

Our Criteria for evaluating a website:

How easy it is to find, (e.g. on google)
How easy is it to navigate?
How often the website is updated?
Name of the website – is it relevant?
Is there an index on the website?
Is there a search box?- so its easy to find what you want
Are the links valid on the website?
Who are the authors of the website? – are they credible?
Is there an author/date etc for referencing? – is this easy to find?
Is it clear and easy to read? Presentation
Is the information current?
Access – Do you need to be a member/or pay to use the site?

BAD website: http://www.ski-utah-rentals.com/

Annoying cheesy Christmas music that repeats and there is no way to turn it off! I don’t want to even stay on this website long enough to read any of it!! All the colours clash making it very difficult to read, with snow falling in the background annoyingly. The spelling and grammar are incorrect with caps lock in some places and not others and mistakes. There is no search box or index, it is very basic. I cannot tell if the information is current, who the authors are and it would not be possible to reference this website. It is simple to navigate because there is not that much information. The links I clicked on seemed to work, but I couldn’t tell you much about what the site is about as I can’t stay on it longer than ten seconds!!


Good website: http://www.film.com/

This website includes movie reviews, clips, zine & lots of things to read & see including news & box office statistics, superb use of technology & user friendly shopping facilities. The name of the website is relevant to the content and it is easy to find on Google. It is easy to navigate around and also has a search box so it is easy to find any film or anything you are looking for. The text is clear and easy to read, the lay out is well structured with everything in categories, again making it easy to read and find what your looking for.

It is updated daily and all the information is relevant and current. All links work and none are broken. There are no pop ups or problems caused. It is a creditable website and can be referenced if needed and there are direct contact details. Anyone can use the site, it doesn’t require registration to be able to get the information.

New Post on Behalf of Andrea Palfreman

Andrea’s critique of two websites

Our group discussed most of the points covered by everyone else as to what was good and not so good in the design of a website.
My choice for the good website was that of www.chocevent.co.uk. The company, based in East Sussex hires out chocolate fountains for special occasions, and claims to offer the ‘ultimate chocolate experience’, which interestingly ‘whet’ my appetite immediately. The home page was very easy to navigate, there were no ‘pop ups’ and all the links were live. I also thought that the chocolate dripping off the end of the strawberry was an especially good advert to sell their product.
Conversely, for the bad website my choice was that of www.cafeintl.net which I acquired through Google ‘ing’ bad websites. This website had a tune in the background which was irritating, and the only way that this could be turned off was to turn the volume off on my computer. The menu, which interestingly should be their biggest selling point could not be read as the font was too small, furthermore there were no instructions as to how to increase the size. Then I double clicked just by chance to find that the menus spun round and I could read it. It would appear that the proprietors of this café have not thought out or communicated what they wanted to communicate to their customers.

You're getting in to this Blogging thing

Hi Folks, just reviewed the blog posts and nearly half of you have posted something on your website audits. There is also evidence that you have read what others have written too, although no one has actually commented on other people's posts yet!

Main message is to the other 13 who haven't posted yet - don't be shy!

Once you have mastered blogging we can move on to wiki creation!

Ann

I've been having all sorts of electronic problems, trying to "post" remotely!

So I think I'll begin with comments about all websites-this covers my "bad" website bit!

There is a general assumption that everyone, everywhere, can get access to the net. This isn't true! There's a vast amount of the population that have never accessed a website-& probably never will.

I'm not being a technophobe but I think that every website should have some support mechanism for those that are having problems accessing. Furthermore, I think they should try to make sure that their information can be gleaned from other sources, to ensure that they are inclusive & not exclusive!

That's my rant over....I do like some websites & the one I feel is addressing my points, as for each category, the information could be obtained from other sources, is:

www.direct.gov.uk

This has been re-launched to supply web based information to those that have ready access & a "glossy" advertising campaign is being run to raise awareness. (I won't comment on the adverts!)

The website itself is very user friendly as it takes you to where you want to go.

It is easy to read & each category is well laid out.

All the usual features (such as a search facility) are included &, in my experience, they have helped me in my endeavours, instead of causing me immense frustration!

I'd give this website an overall 9/10.

Nicola's Websites

Hi all,
Generally our group discussed criteria factors for good and bad websites in areas of layout, content, and purpose.

This seems to be the general consensus for most and having cheated slightly and searched google for 'good websites' and then 'bad websites' then this also seems to correspond. The two links I am posting will give you more information into these specific criteria.

The first for good, which is: http://vandelaydesign.com/blog/web-development/success-factors/ is useful because as well as describing good criteria it is an good version itself. For example, it is easy to read and find links on, and provides a blog for feedback, which means that it has the potential to be updated regularly.

The second is, http://www.angelfire.com/super/badwebs/
and it is an example of a website that has been specifically designed to show the flaws of a bad web page such as bright colours with flashing pictures, having links to out of date material etc. It also specifically states what all these bad points are as well in case they aren't obvious!

Hemma's Website Audit

Based on each auditing item a score of 1-5 will be given. The higher the overall score the more the site is able to meet the auditing criteria which in the opinion of our group contribute to characteristics that make a good website.

The websites will be audited against the following criteria:

Relevance: Is it appropriate for the audience it is aimed at?, is it fit for purpose, good use of link and relevance to the website.

Aesthetic qualities: Design- including good use of colour, good layout, font, good use of images

Language: What language is used, easy to understand, free from grammatical errors.

Advertisements: Are they relevant/necessary, no pop ups

Usability: Easy to navigate around website, easy to identify topic areas of interest

Support and help: Contact information, ability to report issues, allow user feedback

Good Website http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/

GCSE Revision Bitesize is a website aimed at secondary school aged children who are taking their GCSE’s.

Relevance: 5/5

The information on this website is relevant to it’s target audience. Even the games seem to provide some form of educational purpose. Contains a variety of media which would engage teenagers

Aesthetic Quality: 4/5

Good bright colours are used which would engage the target audience. It may not be to everyone’s taste, for this reason a mark was deducted

Language: 4/5

Advertisements: 5/5

No annoying adverts!

Usability: 4/5

Easy to navigate around various GCSE topic area, can be difficult to navigate back to the main menu.

Support and Help 5/5

Has a FAQ section as well as feed back forms. The availability of users to contact the BBC is easy to do.

Overall Score: 27/30

Bad website http://www.alluc.org

This is a website that allows you to watch free movies and T.V programmes

Relevance: 3/5

Not easy to establish who the audience is targeting except it for those who want to watch film. Some one visiting the site for the first time may not be aware of this. Sometimes links are missing.

Aesthetic Quality: 2/5

The layout is not very appealing. Just lists of information some in small fonts

Language: 3/5

Not much language used on the website.

Advertisements:1/5

Too many advertisements make it unappealing, a lot of them totally irrelevant

Usability: 3/5

Can be simple to navigate, but at times can be difficult when searching for specific programmes. Some programmes can be difficult to locate and the links contain no information.

Support and Help 1/5

Looking at the website could not really see any contact info for the website. You can register with the website that may allow you to do this but who knows.

Overall Score: 12/30

James' First Blog. Ever.

Hi

Not sure what’s going on here much. I missed last Monday, but I know I'm in Katie's group. Apparently that means we're using the same criteria to evaluate a good and a bad website?

Therefore, "my" criteria is: (Copywright Katie Meyer 2010)

Name of the website - is it relevant to the content
How often has it been updated?
How easy is it to navigate?
Is there an index on the website to help users navigate the site?
Who are the authors of the website, are they credible?
Is there an internal search facility to help the user find the information they require?
The number of hits the site has received - determines how many people use the site
How easy the actual site is to find, e.g. is it available through all search engines - google, bing etc
Are external links valid/active?

My pants website: www.dokimos.org/ajff/

This is the official website of the church "Dokimos". After recovering from an unexpected photosensitive seizure, I was immediately drawn to the delightful colour scheme and corporate branding. As I ventured through the site:

- Some links were totally dead (disappointingly, this included the prayer request page)
- Some links took ageeeeees to load
- I felt especially privileged that the banners page was working, meaning I too could enjoy the quality graphics used on their home page
- I enjoyed the 134 pages of guestbook comments, most of which we're commenting on their website rather than their church.
- I was impressed to see the website had won no less than 22 awards, from the "Awesome Christian Site Award" and "Disciples of Christ Christian Site of Excellence Award", to the no doubt much coveted "Glory to God Award", and the bizarre "Excellence in Fishing Award" (or should that be phishing?)
- I was delighted when I clicked "send email" and my normal email box popped up, complete with "ACCEPT JESUS, FOREVER FORGIVEN!" in the subject heading - which saved me the job of typing it.
- However, the very best bit was at the top of the home page. A warning bar came up, the same as the ones you get for viruses, untrusted sites etc (yes, the ones you ignore). However, this one said: “You are possibly not secure in your own personal faith. Trust in God solely through His Son Jesus for the forgiveness of all your sins and the free gift of eternal life. Click here”.

Surprisingly, it doesn’t do too badly in the criteria. But for the reasons above, it’s pants.

My good website: http://www.arrse.co.uk/

Don’t panic, it’s not porn! This is the website of the ARmy Rumour Service, aimed at people serving in the British Army, although many members are not (apparently the majority). I’m an occasional poster on there, anonymous of course! The most popular part of the website is the forums, although there is an ARRSEpedia (like wikipedia) with such gems as: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walt

The forums have plenty to interest everyone, not just those that have a link to the forces (be warned – some threads are not to everyone’s taste). There are more than 50,000 members. The website is managed by 2 people “Good CO” and “Bad CO”, assisted by lots of moderators – most are/have been in the army. It is updated regularly and the forums are always in use (358 members online as I type).

It is very easy to navigate and is well laid out, with a good search function. It comes up when searching in google for a wide range of subjects to do with the army, which is how most people find and join the site. Especially young people who aspire to join the army, and they face endless amounts of grief when posing stupid questions like “do I need a hot water bottle for training”, “can I buy my own rifle as I don’t like the look of the issue one’s” and “how long will it take for me to be in the SAS”. It is often used by reporters, when you read in a newspaper “one soldier said….” it is probably something they cut and paste from ARRSE. It is known that the MOD monitor the site to evaluate reactions to changes, gauge morale etc – which proves the value of the site.


James

Slightly better than Mike and Chris' assessment tool

My assessment tool…
Information
A. Relevant and Credible i.e. trustworthy author and updated regularly.
B. Useful and Understandable.
Operational
A. Speed, Links
B. Features
Aesthetics
A. layout,
B. Colour scheme and readability

Much like mike’s each of these areas is scored 1-3 with 1 being poor and 3 being good, however my scoring system adds an additional score 1-5 for an overall feeling about the site from a; did it deliver to your expectations? Go below or beyond? point of view, this is to balance out weighting between the three areas of Information, Operational and Aesthetics this is because these areas can be of different importance to people. Secondly if a website accumulates three scores of 1 then 2 points are deducted from the total, this allows a greater ability to determine a website as truly awful.

The maximum score is 23
The lowest score is 2 (with 4 points deducted for accumulations of 1 point scores)


Good website; http://www.myspace.com/theirondoorclub

Information
A. Relevant and Credible i.e. trustworthy author and updated regularly. 2
B. Useful and Understandable. 2
Operational
A. Speed, Links 3
B. Features 3
Aesthetics
A. layout, 3
B. Colour scheme and readability 2
Overall feeling 4
Overall score 19
Thoughts: My-space is a well established website that is regularly policed by administrators and updated by its contributors. It is clear and easy to navigate due to being quite minimal. It supports a multitude of content, including video and audio, also if your computer does not have the facilities to use some of the content it will talk you through downloading applicable software. Each registered user can fully personalise their page (this of course can be bad and good). In addition its search engine is Google powered. The site does not suffer from pop ups although advertising is creeping in more and more. Also check out the Iron Door Club; very good drummer!

Bad website; http://www.cieh.org/

Information
A. Relevant and Credible i.e. trustworthy author and updated regularly.2
B. Useful and Understandable.2
Operational
A. Speed, Links 2
B. Features 2
Aesthetics
A. layout, 1
B. Colour scheme and readability 1
Overall feeling: 2
Overall Score: 12
Thoughts: This site is certainly not truly awful, but it has several aspects that are very irritating, the text is very small and can strain the eyes, menu’s and the grouping of information are not always logical. The colour scheme is bland and unappealing. From personal experience downloading is a problem and out of date files have been known to be posted from time to time. Having said this there is a lot of information present and the recent addition of the EHN library is a nice feature.

Rod - Website Evaluation

Hi all, I based my evaluation/assessment on these criteria:

Authority - Author - affiliations, contact information.

Currency - Dated, outdated/dead links, quality of references.

Audience and Purpose - Audience and purpose of information - inform, persuade, sell, etc.

Accuracy - Proper grammar and spelling, relevant links to sources - verifiable.

Objectivity - Biased, sponsor.

Access and Design - Software/hardware requirements, free, registration, logical, easy navigation, loading time.


Good Website: Audit Commission

The author is the Audit Commission with contact details and a brief description of what the Commission does (free objective information intended for all to read) set out clearly. There are no deadlinks (links are relevant), and the information given is informative whilst using good grammar and spelling. The site is arranged logically with choices of navigation given to the reader and does not require registration or additional software/hardware with the load time being good. As an additional bonus the website conforms to the World Wide Webs content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 to aid those with disabilities.

Bad Website: HavenWorks

This is the worst website ive ever seen, its supposedly an American News website blog but there doesn't appear to be any contact details to verify this. It does have a date and the spelling/grammar seem to be acceptable, but the layout is illogical and its hard to see how anyone could find anything they are looking for. The information that I did read appeared biased and I would doubt the credibility of the sources (especially with outdated links). Despite this, the website is free and requires no registration, nor any additional software/hardware and although the load time at first was bad, this didn't carry on throughout the rest of the website.

Chris - Website assessment tool

Good website – www.hypem.com - This website gathers data from hundreds of music blogs and displays newly talked about music, along with the music in a simple format.

Easy to read: 7/10 – the text is clear and in a standard font and size.

No appearance of pop-ups: 10/10 – no pop ups appeared

Good links to other sites: 10/10 – has links to hundreds of other music blogs, as well as to websites of artists who are on tour so the user can easily see who is playing and where

Site updated regularly: 10/10 – new music is added hourly

Aesthetically pleasing: 7/10 – the green banner at the top often doesn’t go with the sponsorship images that appear down the side of the page.

Reputable: 8/10 – for music lovers this is a trusted site to listen to new music and hear remixes and bootlegs

Use-ability of website: 9/10 – you simply click and play

Function-ability of website: 8/10 – it is simple to use

Navigation-ability of website: 8/10 – the website has several headers that take you to different areas of the site such as ‘latest songs’ or ‘popular’. If you find a song that you like you can also read the blog entry by clicking on the song and it takes you to the blog.

Support and help section: 8/10 – the creators of the site have added their names to give a personal touch to the website. There is the ability to contact the creators via email

Ability to contact a website e.g. telephone, email: 7/10 – there is email contact but not telephone

Relevance to subject: 10/10 – this website sets out to bring together music blogs and it does so in a simple to use manner

Suitable language for topic: 8/10 text on the website is suitable for the music scene

Fit for purpose: 9/10 – does what it says – follows music blogs

RSS feed: 0/10 – no ability to encompass an RSS feed

Suitability for target audience: 10/10 – this website is excellent for those who want to hear new music first

Overall score: 9/10

Review: This website is a good example of an easy to use website that allows users to listen to music at the click of a button. The website is generally aesthetically pleasing and it is suitable for its purpose. The ability to navigate to different sections of the website and it is easy to go to other music blog sites.

Bad website - http://www.angelfire.com/super/badwebs/ - this website is designed to be a poor website and it is.

Easy to read: 4/10 – sections of the text are unreadable due to colour of text and background

No appearance of pop-ups: 0/10 – Pop up appeared

Good links to other sites: 2/10 – Links are to sponsorship websites, which I am not interested in

Site updated regularly: 0/10 – No date of last update

Aesthetically pleasing: 0/10 – Multi-coloured with disgusting and horrible word box colour

Reputable: 0/10 – from a web host that allows any person to create a website and add whatever text

Use-ability of website: 9/10 – the website is simple to use

Function-ability of website: 9/10 – it serves its purpose of being a rubbish website

Navigation-ability of website: 2/10 – it only has one webpage so all information is on one page, making it a long page

Support and help section: 0/10 – there is no support on the website

Ability to contact a website e.g. telephone, email: 0/10 – no contact details are available

Relevance to subject: 10/10 – this is a very poor website, which is what it says on the tin

Suitable language for topic: 9/10 – yes

Fit for purpose: 10/10 – it is a very poor website

RSS feed: 0/10 – no ability to have an RSS feed

Suitability for target audience: 9/10 – it targets people wanting to know how not to make a rubbish website

Overall score: 1/10

Review: This website is truly awful. The page is very busy with lots of text and it is hard to concentrate on sections as words fly across the screen and the background twinkles. There are numerous word boxes, all different sizes and all have different word box background colours and thus have different text colours. There is background music that is very annoying. The page looks tacky and there is no navigation away from the solitary page.

Website Assessment Tool

This website analysis tool works by giving a website 1, 2 or 3 points for each category. The user is able to determine how effective the site is in that assessment area. Points are then added together for a final assessment score, giving the user an overall score as well to help judge the website’s efficacy.

The scoring works as follows:

1 point = Poor: The site is inadequate in this area

2 points = Satisfactory: The site is ok in this area, but issues do exist

3 points = Excellent: The site is very good in this area and no faults could be found

The scoring areas are as follows:

1) Clear and concise use of text; which is both easy to read and understand

2) Good site mapping; allowing the user to browse the site with ease, finding information required without issue, thus making it user friendly

3) Website is designed well for all browsers and screen sizes; with no clipping issues or elements not working due to browser incompatibility

4) Provides help and further information; providing useful links to relevant websites as well as contact details, with ability to comment or request help

5) Is the site reputable and fit for purpose; or does it provide misinformation to users, does it fulfil the perceived objectives of the site, and does it use inappropriate advertising or pop-ups

6) Functionality; using appropriate technology to maximise the site, e.g. through use of video, RSS, Flash, etc.

The highest score that can be achieved is 18, the lowest is 6. Scoring categories are as follows:

6-9: What a rubbish site – screaming at the screen will do little to appease the flaws that plague it. Likely to cause a rise in blood pressure, just keep searching!

10-13: An average site, useable, but suffers from annoying faults that are likely to cause a tic if used for too long. Will get the job done, but probably worth looking elsewhere, there will be better sites doing the same job.

14-18: A solid site that is easy to use and is likely to give you what you want. No site is perfect but these ones aren’t far off, and are thoroughly recommended!

The sites I reviewed are:

BBC SPORT – FOOTBALL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/default.stm

1) 3

2) 2

3) 3

4) 3

5) 3

6) 3

Total Score: 17

ALLSP: http://www.allsp.com/

1) 2

2) 2

3) 1

4) 1

5) 2

6) 2

Total Score: 10

Katies Website Review

Criteria for evaluating a website:
Name of the website - is it relevant to the content
How often has it been updated?
How easy is it to navigate?
Is there an index on the website to help users navigate the site
Who are the authors of the website, are they credible? Is there an internal search facility to help the user find the information they require? The number of hits the site has received - determines how many people use the site
How easy the actual site is to find, e.g. is it available through all search engines - google, bing etc
Are external links valid/active?




A Good website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website
This website contains an encyclopaedia of information, which can be edited by other users, either to make corrections or updates. The name of the website is relevant to the content – combining ‘wiki’ – where users are able to edit and update information in a web-based format, and ‘pedia’ – a shortened version of encyclopaedia.

The layout is plain and simple, and easy to read, with black text and a white background, similar to a text book or article. It also contains text underlined and blue in colour over certain words, and when these are clicked, they can be used to further knowledge in the subject area.

The site is easy to navigate, and contains and index, and a search engine
It also contains references of where the author gathered their information, and these usually are hyperlinked taking you directly to the cited article.

Access is open to anyone, there is no need to sign in or join to view information.


The Wikipedia website is easily found when searched in google, and when searching for a specific topic or event, for example, ‘pollution’, or WWII in a separate search engine such as google, wikipedia is one of the top results produced.

To conclude, Wikipedia is a good tool for general knowledge, and widening ones horizons, but the reader must be cautious by using this website, as the authors are not accredited or academic writers, and there is not way to validate whether or not the information they provide is correct. However, this work can be edited and corrected by someone else if they know it is wrong. Therefore this website should not be used as a basis for academic referencing, but to provide as basic understanding, and then the reader can gather keyword from this and carry out further research.








A bad website:
http://www.zyra.org.uk/index.htm
This is a very strange website. The website’s name does not relate to its content. The website has been designed to contain ‘a bit of everything’, but really it just contains random things which do not seem to be linked together.
Within the website, there are a large amount of bright colours, different size texts, and random images. These are all very distracting and make it difficult to read the text and find what you are looking for.

When it comes to searching for information on this site, it becomes very complicated. There is no search box or index at the side or top of the page. To find anything there is a choice between the options whether to search by ‘categories’, ‘Site Index’ (A-Z), ‘What New Index’, ‘Random Selector’ ( As if it wasn’t random enough already!) and the final option is ‘Everything’, which is just a duplication of the site index, which both have 36,869 index entries. Even if you choose to find items in this way, some of the indexes are labelled in a way that means you cannot identify what is on that page (eg: ‘000; !;’ ‘die Fluglinie mit den günstigen Preisen etc’)




This website does not state when it was last updated, and a few of the links display ‘page not found’ when they are clicked on.

Any of the information on this site is not suitable to be used for academic work, as there are no references, and these sites and links are not accredited or validated.

This site has a hit counter, stating it has had 569,572 hits since it has been created, so it must be quite popular.

To conclude, If you have a lot of time on your hands or are bored then this is a good site to learn random facts and information, but other than that it is not really useful.

Nancy's Website Audit

The Two Websites I Decided to Audit Were:
The Health Protection Agency Website - the Good
The Marcus Cake Website – the Bad and Ugly

This is the Criteria I used to assess the Websites
Clear to Read
Good Links are they active?
Good Site Mapping
Information fits the page
RSS links in place to tell you when the site is updated.
Is the information current
Works on Multiple Brower’s
Has good functionality
It has easy to find contact details
Has no pop ups
Provence issues : Author of the site, does it specify qualifications /expertise
Is their a sponsoring agency group or company
Is it obvious what the purpose of the site is
Is there information on when the site was up-dated

My Thoughts on the Evaluation Method
I decided to judge this criteria qualitatively, rather than quantitatively by using a scoring system. This is because I think I would get more material to justify my choices if asked about the sites. Also using this method I thought it would be easier to play towards my skills.

Site Evaluation: The HPA: The Good
The site itself definitely makes clear what its purpose is. It was clear to read, the right text size and the colours used did not clash making it easy on the eye. The page was laid out well; also making the in take of information easy. The site was to navigate around, including contact details which were in places essay to find which also gave access to email of phone someone direct.

All of the links were live none were broken, when I was being transferred. It also told you when the site was last updated and the information was very current. I think that because this is an important public government website it would have the capacity be used on multiple browsers. So that everyone can access the information.

There were no pop ups causing problems. Importantly provenance was not an issue as it clear could prove all the professionals that worked for the HPA all had recognised qualifications many had PHD’s Masters etc. The sponsorship was not in question as it was a government agency.

Site Evaluation: Marcus Cake: The Bad & Ugly
To begin I was unsure what the site itself and it was about. I had to read for a few minutes to determine this. It wasn’t to clear to read purely because of the font colour used was a very bright blue. Plus there was one side of A4 worth of them down the left side of the page.

I found that these were meant to be links that were meant to take you to the relevant section, but they didn’t work. You had to scroll down manually. As a consequence I didn’t think the site mapping or page layout fitting on all the information was very good. Contact details were very difficult to find to speak to a human contact was all via the web.

I do think it would be compatible with multiple servers because it had feeds to all the social networking sites which universally nearly all browsers use. One plus point is it did have no pop ups although it may just that my virus software stopped them form appearing.

Provence well it did state the provenance of the man that was running the business , which was selling browser software to enable social networking sites . (This is gleaned form my very limited knowledge of computers) . He seems to have done a bit of everything from a degree in economics, a software entrepreneur and an unfinished law degree, which makes me suspicious. I couldn’t find anyone that sponsored the website I am assuming it is the company itself. But the purpose is definitely to sell software. Finally there was no indication was last updated, which is surprising when computer technology is what they deal in.

Thanks for your post Rose

Thanks for your post Rose - everyone, don't forget to post your own assessments etc (before the 25th January if you want) and also don't forget to offer comments on the posts of others. Hopefully from this you will develop some criteria which you can use as a basis for your own web portfolios.

Roses Website Auditing

Website Audit Checklist:

Authority:

• Contact details or means of communicating with the author? Qualification of author to write about the topic, are they an expert? Citations - Is a source bibliography provided to consult?

Navigation:

• Is the site easy to navigate? "Findability" - Is there a table of contents or index? Does the site include a search engine? Are headings of relevant topics provided, rather than reading through the whole document?

Currency:

• Is the information current? Can you identify when the webpage was written, recently updated, revised? Are all external links active?

Efficiency:

• Traffic on the site - which may affect the speed at particular busy times.
• Download speed.
• Does the site have a tendency to crash, and not safe your details!

Graphics:

• Spelling and grammar, presentation of info, use of colour for those who may be visually impaired, font adjustment option.

Requirements:

• Does the site ask for a submission of registration before you can view its content?
• Spam free.
• It's compatibility with browsers

Other:

• Number of hits

My choice for a 'bad website' goes to www.tanningtruth.com . The domain name it would appear prides itself on "tanning truth", however the majority of the content on the site is very biased, with some very distorted statements being made throughout. There appears to be no source bibliography, or details for the author, which questions it's credibility further. Many so called "studies" are made reference to throughout to back up its arguments, however these are not named or referenced. A lot of the information goes against information provided by Cancer Research UK which I would regard as a credible source. Apparently tanning is not damage to your skin and the risks associated with UV overexposure are manageable!

My choice for a 'good website' goes to HSE www.hse.gov.uk which I tend to visit on a recurring basis. It ticks the majority of boxes on my checklist. It's a credible source, easy to navigate, it's quite current, with good graphics. Although it could improve it's efficiency, as downloading videos tends to be slow.

The Great Unknown Part Deux

Trying again to post blog.
Hi Everyone , I am just practicing posting a blog. I didn't know is blogging was for asking questions or stating subject matter ? I thought I would ask a question anyway - I wondered if the websites we had to look at related to our relevent communities - Mapperely, or whether the websites must be course related ( sustainable communities in general) or can it be any website on the net. What does everyone think? Thanks Nancy

Hurrah, I can now post to the blog!

Ann

Posting

Once you have joined up as a follower of this site please email me (Richard; via my NTU email address) letting me know the email address you have signed up to the blog with and I will add you to the authors list for the blog. You will then be able to post - for some reason this is not happening automatically.

Website Audits

Please post your comments on your 'good' and 'bad' sites and comment on each others submissions and the approach used to assessment. Please do this by Monday 25th January 2010.