Micheal H. McCabe

CSCI-123 Intro Web Development

Assignment 1

August 27, 2012

---

Project 1 – Page #19: Part One – The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly:

· The best overall graphic design on the web!

· Simple, No Clutter, No bandwidth-hogging BS.

· Requires very little overhead processing. No plugins. Scripts run efficiently.

· Works well with most browsers, including those on mobile devices.

· Works under Lynx and similar text-only browsers.

· Compatible with screen-readers for the blind, Braille Terminals, etc.

· Scales well to most screen sizes. Can be used with the magnifier and high-contrast aids to accessibility.

· Although the (recently added) menu bar detracts from the clean design of the web-page, it allows easy navigation to other Google products.

· The default search application is simple, intuitive, and almost idiot-proof.

· Not as simple as the Google Search Page, but it is still sparse, simple, and quick to load.

· Still accessible. No weird plugins that effect cross-platform compatibility.

· No nasty flash content that mobile devices can’t run.

· Although graphics-intensive, there is still an alternate text-only page for use with the Lynx browser, screen-readers, and Braille Terminals.

· Does not scale well, a 16:9 display is necessary to display the page without horizontal scrolling. People with a 4:3 display may not see the entire page immediately.

· Retro green-on-black color scheme recalls the days of green-screen ASCII terminals.

· Once again, the design is sparse and uncluttered with little to distract you from the content.

· No scripts. No flash. No obvious waste of bandwidth.

· A fine example of the KISS philosophy in action.

· Getting somewhat more complex, but still presents content with little clutter.

· The big annoying flash content in the middle is invisible to folks running browsers older than Internet Explorer 6, mobile users, and folks with a text-only display.

· The alternate text-only site presents the same information but there doesn’t seem to be an automatic redirect.

· These folks invented the world-wide-web so who am I to criticize them?

· The design is simple and sparse. The graphical elements are small enough that they don’t detract from the content.

· The site scales well and is designed to fit a 4:3 display; users with a 16:9 display get neutral blue padding on either side.

· No visual clutter!

· Links are obvious, useful, and logically organized.

· Clutter!

· Questionable ads.

· Where is the link to Yahoo Small Business Services? Webhosting?

· A nasty mix of Flash, HTML5, and slow-to-load Javascript makes the site unusable over a slow connection.

· Lack of a consistent “visual language” across pages. No consistent menu bar. No common way of “going back.” Many “blind” links to God-knows-where!

· I love NASA and their mission, but I hate this website!

· Clutter!

· Media Intensive. Low-bandwidth site has different content and is rarely updated.

· Apparently there is no organizational strategy. Where is the link to the current satellite ephemeris? How about the planetary imaging database? Search doesn’t work very well either!

· A classic case of “brochure-ware”.

· Where’s a site map or an index to faculty web-pages?

· Clutter!

· Drive-by scripting.

· Uses Flash and other nasty stuff to display images that could just as easily be served up as a JPG, GIF, or PNG file.

· No thought given to accessibility using something other than the latest and greatest Microsoft browser on the latest and greatest computer.

· God-awful blue/green background and padding. Ick!

· Visual clutter.

· Ads appear above the masthead and use Flash.

· Search doesn’t work very well.

· Would they bother printing an actual newspaper that looks like this?

· Archived articles don’t appear in search results. Although archives are beyond a paywall, I’m more likely to pay for something if I can actually determine that it exists!

· A fantastic website, particularly for a student of computer science!

· Some visual clutter, but the Masthead identifies the website and the minimalist graphics don’t detract from the content.

· Great content!

· Search actually works!

· Good visibility with both a 4:3 monitor and a 16:9 monitor.

· Logical organization of information.

· Clutter!

· Doesn’t everybody hate timeline?

· Annoying column of ads and other useless crap on the right side of the page.

· At least the background is a nice, plain, white and the text is legible!

---

Project 1 – Page #19: Part Two – Sites with “Unique Artistic Features”:

· Two-tone green color scheme makes me think of home appliances from the early 1970’s.

· “Rainbow” Logo recalls the early days of the web.

· Visual clutter contributes to the garage sale / flea market ambience.

· Minimalist design.

· Not much clutter.

· “Personal Letter” from Jeff Bezos on home page is a nice touch.

· Well-organized navigation bar on left side lets you find the correct site.

· Nice use of circuit-board background graphics.

· Again, the green-on-black color scheme is both high-contrast and suggestive of old-school ASCII terminals.

· Simple and effective.

· Index page lists the contents in a simple, compatible way.

· No annoying distractions. No ads. No flash.

· Simple and effective directory listing.

· Reminds me of Gopher and similar Internet services that have long-since perished.

· The folks that created the Internet (Arpanet) if not actually the Web as we know it today.

· A nice public page for a military agency that usually does classified work.

· The black background makes a subtle suggestion as to the nature of the “black projects” that DARPA engages in.

· The graphic on the right is a scanning electronmicrograph of a ~8 nm feature of an integrated circuit; possible a field-effect transistor (FET). It also sparks interest in the knowledgeable observer – “What the heck is that?”

· Another government agency with a nice website.

· Clean and simple design. Obvious links to content.

· Nice background graphics with the ARRL Logo watermark.

· Fairly clean design.

· Navigation toolbar and working search feature.

· Another page that really sucks.

· I hate the ads, the clutter, and the force-feeding of news links.

· This is a service that I actually pay for!

· Why all the links to other (competing) webmail services?

---

Find five sites that have applied to psychology of color effectively to enhance their street appeal.

· These local shysters are following the same playbook as the author of our text; cool, tranquil, and soothing green along with the steadfast and reliable blue.

· Perception is reality, once again. Orange and blue suggest warm fuzzy and reliable for a business that’s mostly about taking granny to her dialysis appointments.

· Hooray! Somebody who actually uses words to convey meaning instead of some artistic / symbolic crap about color schemes.

· The stylized graphic of the sun (?) reading a book confuses me a bit… Are celestial bodies actually literate?

· Yes, they continue to rip me off every year, but they have a nice website.

· The blue color suggests the pretty blue flames produced when their product burns.

· The green highlights suggest the money I will be sending their way this winter.

· Black background suggests outer space

· Yellow lettering is reminiscent of the titles in the original TV series.

· “blue” tinting of photos is stylistic effect suggesting old TV shows / movies.

Find Five Additional Sites that have employed any of the following color schemes: monochromatic, warm, cool, analogous, or complementary.

“Warm”

“Cool”

“Monochromatic”

“Analogous”

“Complementary”

---

Project 1.6 Building Your Own Website, Page 21: