Micheal H. McCabe
CSCI-123 Intro Web Development
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.
· Questionable ads.
· Where is the link to Yahoo Small Business Services? Webhosting?
· 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!
· 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?
· 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.
· 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.
Project 1.6 Building Your Own Website, Page 21: