WEB CRITIQUE
December 8, 2008http://www.monitor.co.ug
1. First Impression
• The design is not appealing.
• The name of the site, DAILY MONITOR, is not easily readable, it looks like an advertisement,
• Too many colours and they contrast greatly.
• Too many blinking adverts that compete for one’s attention thus very destructive to the reader.
• Screen leaves one very confused.
• No harmony on the page as some advertisements flash, others
scroll upwards and some downwards at opposite sides of the screen.
• It is not 2.0 site because it does not have any form of multi media.
• No specific colour scheme.
• The site is not centralized hence; there is too much white space on the right side of the site.
• Pluses: – It has a centralized, functional navigation system on the left hand side.
- It has a comments section, which facilitates feedback.
- Important content is placed at the upper fold
- A consistent font is used on the site.
2. Writing
• The writing is not tight.
• The first paragraph is not highlighted, and the sentences are separated by single spaces.
• It does not follow the F-Style of writing.
• The content runs across the whole screen, there are no columns present.
• The sentences are too long.
• Very long paragraphs.
• No hyperlinks.
• No background stories.
• The font used is not Verdana.
• Some stories do not flow.
3.Content
• Too many advertisements.
• No pictures or videos on stories.
• Stories are either very short or very long.
• Its unique selling point is the large number of comments.
It lacks both video and audio inputs.
4. Navigation
• Clear navigation
• Very consistent.
• No sub navigation bars.
• Content is organised by topic.
• Lacks both deep linking and generic linking.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Reduced advertisements.
2. Harmonization of the colours on the home page/ colour scheme.
3. Use of multi media.
4. The writing should follow Jakob Nielson’s rules.
5. Use of online font, i.e. Verdana
6. Use of hyperlinks
7. Use of pictures.
