National Parks Service
This is a website I have mixed feelings about. I don’t think it’s the best, but I don’t think it’s the worst either. One thing I have mixed feelings about is the font. On some images the font is well used, I think on the header image they wisely put the phrase “Hispanic Heritage Month” against a dark, opaque box rather than purely against the image, which wouldn’t have worked. The text below in the subheadings is a bit too small for me. The hierarchy of the site, while it draws the eye clearly, could be designed better. At the bottom half of the site are two images titled, “Find Your Park” and “Discovering America’s Story” that catch the eye and look like they should be on top of the site. The site’s ease of use is mixed as well. When you click on some links it takes you to succinct information and other times the link will take you to a search engine.
I think this is an ok website, but it could use some improvements. I wouldn’t be turned away from using the National Parks Service by this website, but I wouldn’t be drawn in either. I think the concept of this website could be improved with more emphasis on how special the parks are. There should be all sorts of impressive imagery on the front page, but most of it currently is very small. I think a basic reorganization of the page should happen too.
Gates N Fences
I think out of all of these examples this website might be the most flawed. It’s a downright ugly website that doesn’t fulfill the C.R.A.P.H.T.E.D criteria. A big problem with the way this website is designed is its hierarchy. Where is my eye supposed to start and then go from there? It seems to draw my eye towards the images of fences in the middle, then towards an image of a welder on the left, and then from there, my brain sort of short circuits and is pulled in a bunch of directions. The typography is also much too small and sometimes hard to see when it turns different colors. Contrast is not used well, only the black on the green at the top makes the text stand out. Everywhere else the contrast is muddled.
This website definitely does not come off as professional. It looks like it was made by a time traveler from the 90s. I definitely would not want to use this business based on its website. A big way this website could be improved would be to reduce clutter. There’s way too much text on the main page which could be broken up and put on separate pages. The links on the left-hand side of the website should be categorized better as well, with none of the subcategories showing. I would make the intro webpage emphasize the product they are selling more with an automated slideshow.
Apple
This is a well-designed website. The front page is simple and emphasizes its most purchased products. The hierarchy of the site is very well done. I’m never really in doubt of where my eyes should go. My eyes are first drawn to the text of the first image and then the header, from there I scroll down to various new products emphasized with large imagery. The text is easy to read as well. It’s in an easy-to-read font, and there isn’t a lot of upfront information; the sentences after the subheadings read like teasers to the link you click on. The use of repetition is well done on this site. Each image of the product with text mostly matches the one below it. Then comes a break in the middle where the images of products are broken up into quadrants. It’s repetitive, but it doesn’t let itself get tedious.
This website does come off as professional and it makes me want to purchase a product from their business. I think it’s because of how sleek the photographs are as well as because of how clear it is on what it communicates. What does Apple sell? You absorb all that information within about 10 seconds of getting to the site. Where do you want to go if you want to purchase something specific? That isn’t in doubt either as the links on the top are clear and unambiguous.
California Center for The Arts
I thought this website was pretty well designed and my quibbles with it are minimal. One of its strengths is repetition. You can clearly tell when you are on a new section of the main page due to the format changing. Below, “Find Your Center” is a series of similarly designed links for different uses of the arts center. The same is done for a section called “Featured Events.” Navigation of the website is easy due to the reasons I mentioned above. The titles of links are also clear and concise. The depth of content is well done too. Each link takes you where you need to go without it becoming a maze. The website is filled with succinct information to peak curiosity and it has links to its social media accounts.
This website does come off as professional and piqued my curiosity about the California Center For the Arts. I think it has a nice aesthetic design. It’s clear but doesn’t come off as simple. The imagery in the header image of the website was a nice touch too. It gave me all the resources I needed in a very clear way.
Lessons Learned
I think a big takeaway for me looking at these websites is that a website can be just as important as a well-made (or poorly made) ad in determining whether you use a business. I feel more interested in buying from Apple and going to California Center for The Arts after visiting their sites. On the other hand, I have no interest in using Gates N Fences. Whether I liked a website was often determined in seconds. My brain unconsciously knew whether I would like to stay before I consciously knew why. The most important reasons for me staying on a site were whether it was aesthetically pleasing, whether it was clear on what service it was providing, and whether it was clear on how to navigate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment