Preserved Topic: Check List (Page 1 of 1)

This thread is mainly directed at twitch^ and Mikey since they usually give the harshest (and most honest) reviews. What do yuo generally look for when reviewing sites? Personally when I look at sites, I look at the stuff such as the colors, ability to navigate and so forth.

The initial reaction that I have when I see a site generally determines whether I like it or not. If something catches my eye I'll stay for a bit longer....

tough one. generally, i take it on a case-by-case basis, but i'll narrow it a little bit for you all...

:: first, i look at the colors. behind every color is a meaning. i like to check to see if the meaning is being conveyed through the choice of colors. since web sites are generally commerce-driven (i.e., you want to make some money, prestige, or indirect marketing ploys) , you need to make sure that all the parts flow together, that they all work as one, that they are driven by the same cause.

:: that being said, i pick out what the cause is; personal, adaptive, commerce, etc. from that, i can determine whether or not the 'layout' is being useful towards the 'direction' of where it wants to be. i.e., if you're selling soap that is shaped like precious little cherubs, you're going to want a layout that is clean, organic, and almost 'heavenly.'

:: the next step, though some people have decided it's pretty useless, is to examine the load balance on it--if 200 people are looking at this site, how is my download time going to be affected? what kind of a server is driving it, and what kind of equipment is enabling it? true, this isn't really a step i use when i am looking at personal sites, but if it's planning on growing, you need to know these things.

:: next is the cloudy one; where will the site be in a year? is it still going to be conveying the messages with this sort of layout? is it going to have to be constantly updated to keep in touch with itself, or is it a timeless design that will forever work (like the mobil logo)? interesting, poignant, and useful.

:: navigation is going to be the next step. after assuming i understand the purpose of the site, i check to see if it's a seventeen-click-process to get to the information i want, or if it's going to be as simple as 'here is the link you're looking for.' over-graphication is going to muddle this. if every link has to be a graphic, you're going to have a lot of pissed off people trying to buy your shit.

:: finally, i put in personal commentary; the feel, how i like it as a user, and whether or not i will ever go back to it again. this is a super-important spot for me, but less so for other people that don't really care about my ideas and perspective. however, most of the time, i attempt to put myself into the shoes of someone that would be going there with a purpose, and whether or not i would enjoy the layout. in this area, i look at the techniques used to create the layout, whether or not those techniques are new or abused, and whether or not i would like to steal them at some point. :: smile ::

that's it in a nutshell. i generally use more than this, sometimes i use less, but that's a good mid-range template for how i work when it comes to reviews.

(nickname=twItch)(realname=steve)(email=steve@th-inknet.com)(chatname=8520632)(minutiae= whatthefuck)

hey Twitch you don't like fun sites do you.....

i'm of the (clearly stupid) viewpoint that the web is for the transferral of information, essentially. fun? i have fun with words. i love words. i have fun with conversation, with information...i have fun with looking at people's images, layouts...i have fun with all these things.

but since you like taking the offensive with me, that's all i will say.

(nickname=twItch)(realname=steve)(email=steve@th-inknet.com)(chatname=8520632)(minutiae= whatthefuck)

Great points twitch^ and Boudga.

Geez twitch^ fun doesn't stop with you huh? j/k

Whether i wanna stay and check it out determines how much i like it initially...from there i analyze the things that catch eye in order...i guess my initial thing to look for specifically is how fun/cool the site is...then once i've had enough time to absorb information/content i judge it how well the site is displayed in terms of information architecture...i'm not sure if this is how i design sites but it probably is...
-j



www.netmosis.com - we're on the leading edge of a false reality...

Great comments. Seeing twitch's post, I can see how he comes by his reviews. It's very methodical and if it comes across as harsh it's just a by product of being so thorough.

As for me, as an average net user I'd say: 1) content, 2) display

After surfing the net for so long, the bottom line is whether or not a site has the content I or someone else is looking for. If it looks good as well, that's a plus.

However, the most points lost for a site are when the interface is beautiful and the contents are average. Sorta like putting a ferrari body on a pinto.

Twitch....take no offense I mean no harm....you ::cough cough:: pear eating dog fucker!