Unit 4

---

This assignment asks you to record your first impressions of two web sites. Don't worry if you don't have any prior experience with the subject matter, and don't worry if you don't think you know that much about the Internet. Just do your best to explain your reactions.

Refer to the home page for the journal Kairos.

Page 1, 1: What are some of the strengths of this site?

• It starts off telling the reader what Kairos is and what its goal is. It also highlights what articles are in the journal, ordering them from most important to least important.
• lots of information
• I thought that this site did a good job of explaining what Kairos was all about. I liked how along the way you could click into different links that would explain certain things in more detail.
• There is a search engine right on the home page of the site. Also, there is a lot of information presented on the home page, it seems that it would be very easy to navigate and find what you're looking for.
• The picture of the pen was very visually catching and the page wasn't too long and overwhelming.
• I liked how it stated everyone who worked on this web site. It didn't only mention thier names, but it made sure you saw them by putting them on the left side where the reader is more likely to look first.
• It appears to be very professional, clean and it incorporates graphics as well as the thin division lines. It has a site search function and a navigation table in the upper left. Both of these are often necessary conveniences.
• It has a nice graphic in the upper left-hand corner. It has interseting headlines. It clearly explains it's purpose and why a person should visit the site.
• Nice (and unobtrusive) logo at the top. Easy to find search box. The navigation bar works good for moving around the site.
• I like the readability of the whole thing. It really is crisp and clear. The illustrations aren't over done and the whitespace is utilized very well.
• Each subject can be found at a glance. table format is friendly
• layed out nicely... Both sides of the page are balanced with boxes and a navmap. the visitor learns who is responsible at this page by the names left in the lower left hand corner. Large clear font, with red underlined hyptertext links to there email addresses. Clear mission statement in the middle of the page
• Informative and good links to other infomation.
• The links are convenient and time savers.
• The top part of the web-page where Kairos is presented and explained breifly.
• The information is organized into outlined boxes on the page making it easy to see what is related.
• The different links for navigaiton of the site are easy to distinguish. I like the little blue block that appears next to the java script enhanced menu. It helps you distinguish where I'm going to link to. The list of staff involved makes it easy to contact personnel. I think the explanation of the name of the site is neat.
• There are easy-to-see table of contents with links to articles in this "edition" of Kaitos. There are also liks to things like FAQ's and Kairos' archive, which may be helpful. The site explains right away (at the top)what is for.
• The layout is simple to follow. The explanation of "Kairos" is helpful. Background info. is very helpful. There are plent of places to go from the first page.
• First impression is that the site looks very sharp. The site is tight, without being too tight. Links to other pages are situated near the top of page with the more important links being larger and underlined. The site does a good job of placing bodies of text in long columns so as not to intimidate readers. Big blocks of text can become unattractive quickly if not broken up in some fashion

• I think that a little more variety in colors or print would help to separate the different sections of the page. I also didn't think that it was especially necessary to use quite as much room for the staff names (or maybe they could be at the end of the page instead.) Some of the sentences were pretty wordy and hard for me to understand, however, if this page is intended for teachers and college graduates in that particular field, it may be just fine.
• poor organization, too much info on first page.
• The site, while it looks good, does not offer a first time visitor a lot of help. The color of the links is only a few shades removed from the text and the font size is exactly the same. This is only a small complaint though that is easily overcome with anything more than a casual browsing of the page. The format is a little confusing too. It is divided into three equal columns and nothing is stressed to be read first.
• The site doesn't use the right fourth of the screen. Also, the font size is rather small and hard to read and the text is a long column, so it requires a lot of scrolling to read.
• Nothing really stands out, including the title. There is nothing the catch the readers eye. Everything is pretty much the same font and style.
• There is nothing to "catch the eye" on this page. Most of the text is the same size, font and color. It appears to be one big block of text. The eye naturally skims it without reading it. The layout discourages readers from looking into the site. It appears boring. The information is buried in a block of text. This site would be better if color, arrangement, and different size fonts were used to create hierarchy and draw readers in.
• Although I liked how the authers of this site were mentioned so clearly, I don't really like how I am forced to read down the middle of the page. It is some what distracting. I also feel this web site would be more appealing if it had some colors or something besides black and white to look at.
• I thought the site looked very crowded. With all the different links I could get into I didn't know which one to get into first.
• The abundance of links are a bit of intimidating. The logo could be a bit bigger. The words could be a bit easier to find and read. The font is too small.
• NO COLORS.. The entire page is white and grey with a little red to underline the links.
• It could be more colorful. It's not as aesthetically appealing as some sites I have seen.
• If you want to read about Kairos its is a hassle to scroll down the page because the information is written in only the center colunm.
• One complaint I would have is that the text on the site that is placed in columns is either right or left aligned. In some cases, especially where the columns are narrow, this becomes extremely obnoxious to read. If the text was made to run across the width of the whole column it would neatly package all the text into a box that makes it both easier to read and cleaner looking on the page
• Some of the directory fonts are too small. The "search Kairos" icon is located too far down the page. I'm used to site searches being at the top of the page. I almost missed it was there. When window is maximized the rigth side has too much white space.
• The only thing I would improve on this site based on my first impression is color. Added color to links, areas, etc. might make it easier to find what you're looking for.
• I think the information about Kairos should be in the form of links. Each topic should be divided and then make a link to. This would be easier for reading.
• There is too much text, the navigation isn't emphasized enough (difficult to find), and the format fails to take advantage of screen sizes larger than 640 x 480.
• Text in the middle is not easily read being in a narrow collumn. The window on the right seems to be cluttering up the page. It doesn't scale well to the 1024x768 resolution.

This assignment asks you to record your first impressions of two web sites. Don't worry if you don't have any prior experience with the subject matter, and don't worry if you don't think you know that much about the Internet. Just do your best to explain your reactions.

Refer to UseIT.com.

Page 1, 3: What are some of the strengths of this site?

• good layout, has a nice appearance. Easy to find info.
• Staight forward;no graphics or fancy page design to confuse your search. only two colunms makes this site simple to read.
• The site has a lot of information, which is good, but it isn't presented in the best manner (see next question).
• It makes a clear distinction between new and permanent content. It's links are easily seen. It is easily used and there is nothing fancy or complicated to it.
• This site incorporates color and hierarchy better than Kairos did. Bold font, different size font, and spacing are used to show the reader what items are the most important. There are definite headings on this site. There is good information on this site.
• I felt that this site overall looked more organized than the last page as far as links to choose from.
• The information is presented in an easy to follow outline format.
• I like the way that the page is divided into Permanent Content and News so that you can see both when you log onto the site. If News were at the bottom, for example, I might not have noticed it.
• I liked how the web site was designed to look like a book. It also seems to answer all your questions. Evertime I noticed something I would have added, all I had to do was page down a little more and the answer was there.
• The search box is small but easy to find. No graphics getting in the way of reading the content.
• I liked the many other sites that the reader can go to. They make the original site easier to read and more concises than it would be.
• The permanent content and the news are separated nicely.
• The archives and news are boldly separated form each other making it easy to distinguish. Each secti on in the archives and news are properly headed making it easy to find what you are looking for.
• No strength.
• This site is clearly not as sharp as the first one. It does a good job of organizing its info into to boxes
• I really like the way the name stands out and so does the .com logo. The links stand out really well and the whitespace is pretty well used up.
• Looks good.Easy to follow.

• All the information still seems to run together a little.
• I really didn't see anything wrong with this site.
• There is nothing at the top of the page that says what it is about. My main reaction to the website was "What is this about?"
• I didn't like the fact that there was no information on the first page informing the user what exactly the website was about. You had to first go into other links and I didn't know which one to look at first.
• Information is all jammed together. Concentrate on reading each line in order to find what you want.
• Overall the page is good, the color scheme in the background might upset some people. Could use more bulleted items
• It is ugly. It could use a few graphics to denote the different topics contained in the outline.
• I was confused and a little overwhelmed in the beginning; I didn't really know were to start.
• There is too much text on this page. It could be broken up into areas...too much information is presented at once. The headings need something done to them so more attention is drawn to each section.
• There are no graphics. In addition, links are not in chronoligical order making it really hard to see where you want to go. Again, topics and ideas should be grouped to make selection easier.
• The navigation bar could be better to allow jumping to specific areas instead of just backtracking. Ugly and boring background colors, and could use some graphics.
• It's not very pretty. It perhaps sacrifices too much in appeal for simplicity's sake. It's format is fairly simple too, having the two columns of equal weight and focus. Nothing stands out as the most important thing to read or look at.
• There are two, equal sized columns taking up the entire page. This creates a confusion of hierarchy. The eye doesn't know where to look first. Also, the headings are not informative enough. Who is Jakob Nielsen? What is his website about? I couldn't figure that out until I read the links later down the page, and even then, it was more by inference than by any direct explanation presented on the site. This site would be improved by incorporating headings that explain the purpose and content of the site.
• None that I can tell.
• It's rather long and doesn't seem to organize its links as well as the first page.
• The search icon is practically invisible. I think a little variety in text color could be used.