Comments on: Golden Spiders Take #2

By: Richard Hearne

Richard Hearne — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:29:19 +0000

Hi Alan

Nice to get you comment.

I will be following up with some details on the most common errors I came across, and to be fair, quite a few problems were caused by what appear to be updates to the site content.

Of course, that’s not to say there weren’t quite a few really dreadful mark-up issues.

Thanks for posting.

I’ll be keeping an eye out for your shiny new version.

Rgds

Richard.

By: Alan O'Rourke

Alan O'Rourke — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:51:59 +0000

I was not looking forward to your analysis of this group.
In our defence, Biology.ie is an old version of the site which the client has been editing themselves in Golive.
The new one is rather nifty, clean and cms driven however it cant go live yet due to grant funding requirements.

By: Richardo

Richardo — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:31:33 +0000

When it comes to design and functionality, what they should be looking for the the “wow” factor [horrible expression].

I have browsed quite a few of the shortlisted sites, and frankly I can see absolutely nothing that would set them apart from thousands of other websites. In my rambles I have come across lots of Irish websites that do have the “wow” factor, but of course they never are entered for the awards.

And Michele is right. My idea of a good car design will be completely different from yours, but I hope we agree that any car should be roadworthy.

Or, to put it another way – would you give a good architecture award to a building with shoddy foundations, just because they aren’t on general view?

By: Mojo

Mojo — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 15:04:19 +0000

Don’t get me wrong. I completely agree that best practice, responsible markup, accessibility and other measurable factors are very important considerations. Particularly when it comes to setting a benchmark regarding what should and shouldn’t be given an industry award! However, I don’t accept that design is totally subjective. Any good designer can pick holes, objectively, in bad design – whether it be layout, typography, spacing and balance, etc. The above is a great start to showing up the Golden Spiders for what they are but lack of respect for standards, accessibility, SEO, etc. aren’t the only disciplines neglected by this sham award ceremony! For shame

By: Michele

Michele — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:01:13 +0000

Compliance with standards is a good starting point.
If a mechanic’s work on your car didn’t render it roadworthy you’d notice immediately. Why should websites be any different?

By: Richard Hearne

Richard Hearne — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:29:34 +0000

I agree Mojo, but the elements you mention are prone to subjective bias. I have tried to highlight an area which can be objectively evaluated.

I also believe that in applying the tests above it is far more difficult to refute the findings. Had I voiced an opinion on the overall design, it would be just that, an opinion.

I am not a designer so I think it better to leave the design evaluation to others

By: Mojo

Mojo — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:14:47 +0000

Some excellent investigation there Richard. However, let’s not get TOO bogged down in standards and accessibility. I think we also need to realise that the quality of design – layout, typography, navigation, usability and overall aesthetic competence of many, if not most, of the shortlisted sites is appalling.