Module Week 3 Web Critique

NetLingo.com defines "wired" as "To be connected, online; to be a surfer, or part of the digerati. This term also refers to what happens when cappuccino cowboys drink too many mochas. It's also the name of a popular magazine, Wired, a leading publication that covers all things high-tech, thanks to the team of Kevin Kelly, Louis Rossetto, and Jane Metcalfe." Wired News (aka wired.com) is a product of the afore-mentioned publication. I love perusing this site; there is always something new and exciting to be found. It’s like going through the piles of clothes in my closet and finding something with tags attached that I don’t remember buying. However, for this assignment, I will present a non-biased critique focusing on the following ten criteria: readability, navigation, coverage, considerations, accessibility, timeliness, reliability, accuracy, credibility, and peer review. An explanation of each is listed below.

1. Web design/readability: A technical writer by trade, this is of the utmost importance to me. The presentation of a page is the first impression and must effectively represent its company or organization. If the design is poor, I will probably move on to another site without perusing the site’s contents. Specifics I notice are appropriate white space, text size, style, grouping, page length, and excessive graphics or ads. I also include correct grammar, sentence structure, and spelling in this category.

2. Navigation/search: A good Web site should upload quickly and be easy to use. I should be able to scan the page and locate what I am looking for without hunting. Active links should be direct and take me exactly where I expect to go—not to other links, the wrong place, or “around the bush.” I prefer pages that offer a site search; this saves time and eliminates the need to read the whole site, unless you are reading for pleasure. As users, we have also come to expect the following navigational options: index, contents, hyperlinks, bookmarks, and help files.

3. Coverage: A site should have a clear title and purpose and meet my expectations. If I expect to find specific information that (theoretically) should be there and then it isn’t—I’ll be disappointed in the writers and/or the site as a whole. There should be a wealth of information with equal concentration on quantity and quality. A site should be leading; in other words, it should keep me interested. Articles and such should raise additional questions or have segues to related topics. A site should also be original; redundant information is annoying.

4. Considerations: When creating sites, Web designers should always consider users with special needs. Physical limitations may include users with visual or other disabilities. For example, readers who are color-blind will have difficulty seeing text on a screen or page. That is why color choice and contrast for background and text are so important. Colors also have a cultural and social significance; a designer should research his or her audience for color associations. Other factors are technical limitations. Not every user has the same equipment (type of computer or screen size, access, or speed which can hinder readability).

5. Accessibility: When I say “accessibility,” I mean access to information on a site. One of my biggest pet peeves is finding a great site with pertinent articles that is hampered by a membership or subscription requirement. Some sites restrict you from reading anything but titles and sources (to pull you in), while others may at least let you read the front page headings or announcements. I expect full access to news, articles, and archives.

6. Timeliness: A reputable site will usually update periodically—sometimes even daily—and include the date at the bottom of the page. In the field of technology this is imperative! Readers want the latest news on advances (in hardware, software, popular issues, etc.) and want to know what is happening in the business sector (what products are selling, what companies are merging). A site that is slow to report new information will get lost in the pack, and if the same info is on the site day after day, week after week, I won’t visit it unless looking specifically for archives.

7. Reliability: Though keeping a site updated is expected, reliability is equally important. Excessive downtime is not appropriate; no one likes to visit a site and see an “under construction—come back later” sign. Does that mean five minutes, one hour, or two days? In today’s society of instant gratification, we want things now. If you have to check back with a site, that is terribly inconvenient.

8. Accuracy: Does the information on the site correspond with that of other reliable sources? Is the information clear, correct, and concise? Articles and especially news should cover who, what, when, where, and how. Details are a must.

9. Credibility: Though reputation is not everything, name recognition is helpful. If you trust a site, you may not need to verify facts and figures elsewhere. Especially if a site is consistent over time, I’ll return to it and recommend it to other Internet users.

10. Peer review: This goes hand-in-hand with credibility. Usually peer reviews or reputable sponsors will be listed at the top of a page in full view—much like the sanitation grade in a restaurant. Once you see it, you feel more comfortable. I don’t believe everything I read or hear, but I will give it more or less consideration depending on the source. Peer reviews in professional circles add validity.

Critique of Wired News (www.wired.com)



At First Glance

Wired.com can be a bit overwhelming. The number of animated ads vary daily; presently a banner of moving smilies graces the top of the page. They are smiling, crying, frowning, and sticking out their tongues at me--hoping that I will click and download them to my AOL IM. Unlike many of the better sites out there, Wired does not offer a motto or defining statement to identify its purpose. The designer assumes the reader knows this is a site about technology-related news. The color scheme and contrast are suitable making the site aesthetically pleasing. There is an option to resize text, which shows consideration for the visually challenged reader. The sidebar to the left of the screen reiterates the topic buttons found at the top; both provide links to articles about new technology, business, culture, and politics. The right margin contains excessive white space, which could be used to showcase other links or even ads in moderation. The top stories are located in the middle and contain headlines, lead-ins, and brief summaries. Today’s headlines include an array of interesting titles such as A Century of Einstein, Cybersex: Seek and Ye Shall Find, Government IT Blunders Common, Activists Urge Open-source, and Teen Gets Prison for Blaster; it seems that there is something for everyone. Each headline is accompanied by an icon; unfortunately, there is no legend, and the significance of these icons is unclear.

Organization and Content

The search query is easily located in the top margin above the topic tags and the text indicator; the reader also has the choice of searching through the archives, which date back to the year 2000. Wired offers an extensive variety of articles covering everything imaginable from portable gaming to virtual reality to the history of Web browsers. The list is endless (though not literally); one could certainly become immersed and spend days reading if he or she had the time and were so inclined. The articles are pertinent and come from legitimate sources such as BBC, New Scientist, and the Washington Post to name a few. They are accurate and reliable, which establishes credibility, which in turn promotes return visitors. Information is layered mostly by the use of headings and links. Visuals are used sparingly and usually only to emphasize and attract the reader to the headlines. The designer of Wired focuses on text rather than graphics. Since this is a news site, the reader expects up-to-date info and breaking news. You will get that with this site.

Recommendations and Summary

Wired.com is an informative site catering to the technology enthusiast. I would not recommend it to a novice Internet user due to the multiple layers and the sheer amount of information; however, navigation is user-friendly, and the designer clearly considered user limitations in the development stages.

As previously mentioned, the site has excessive white space and needs a legend to identify icons. More conservative ads would prove less distracting, though the animated smilies were appropriate for the intended audience. Overall, I give this site an A+.