Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

Wow, Craig, I`m surprised  that you found it difficult to know what the site was all about. For me, I have an excellent test to see if a site meets the first basic rule. I go to the site and notice what`s the most prominent element on the page. If that element tells me something basic about what the site is all about, then the designers have at least passed a most basic necessity for an effective site. So, for this site I would suggest that the graphic element in the upper left with the name of the site, the issue number, and a quick blurb about who the site is for, is the most prominent element on the page. No?

Beyond that, it`s about effective navigation elements (in this case, 6 basic areas are clearly situated and linked at the top).  The heads and subheads and links are all given a different value (weight/color) to quickly indicate the hierarchy. The page is not cluttered.

All of these things are developed with a clear understanding of how folks process and use content on a web page. These designers and content developers know their medium forwards and backwards.

I might add, the articles themselves are well-written and  are  quite informative for someone wanting to know more about the semantic web and the important role it plays  in web development.

There`s much to learn from this site.

Cheers.


-------------------------

Mac-Sage "Complete Mac & OS X Consulting"      www.mac-sage.com

Alright, I looked at the site again, this time to see where my eyes go. Turns out my eyes tend to start in the middle, then spiral outward. So the first thing I saw was, "Stand & Deliver." Next, I saw "Educate your Stakeholders."

By this time, I`m confused. Stand and deliver what? Which stakeholders?

So my eyes move outward to the next "ring" of the imaginary bullseye. Saw "A book apart," and something about "T-shirts." Saw the logo, "A List Apart."

At that point I gave up. No clue what this site does, what it`s about, and lost interest....again. So I guess I don`t see it as a strong example of the semantic web.

To each his own.

Perhaps you can share an example of a website which you feel is particularly effective, and explain why?


-------------------------

Mac-Sage "Complete Mac & OS X Consulting"      www.mac-sage.com

I always come back to Amazon.com. That`s been my benchmark, and continues to be so.

Primarily, it`s the ease of finding anything. The search engine on the site isn`t too constrained, but also not hard to understand. Then, having found what I`m looking for, it`s easy to drill down. Not only can I find what I was looking for, I can almost always find something that I`m reminded of, but can`t quite remember the title.

The shopping cart is brilliant, it`s easy, it has every feature I`ve ever wanted or needed, and it remembers other ship to addresses. Then there`s the 1-click shopping.

The reviews are better than testimonials, and I can now drill into a book to see what it is, just as if I were in a regular bookstore or the library.

All things considered, I can`t think of any Web site on the Internet that does a better job than Amazon.

Amazon is a relatively good example. And, what makes Amazon work so well has nothing to do with well-written prose. It`s much more about well-designed navigation, good use of categories, hierarchies and searches, and especially it`s social networking design.

In fact, it`s really the social networking aspect of Amazon`s user experience that sets it apart.




-------------------------

Mac-Sage "Complete Mac & OS X Consulting"      www.mac-sage.com

Okay, then focusing only on the written content, I use Wikipedia as the benchmark (in my mind) for a content-driven site. What`s ironic is that anybody at all can write articles for that site, there isn`t any real editorial oversight, and the whole world (sort of) has the option to change the writing.

Despite there being nobody in charge, so to speak, the net result (no pun intended) is a highly useful site, providing rapid search and find, with almost all queries resulting in a satisfying result.

Hmmm... sorry Craig. I can`t really agree that Wikipedia is either particularly well-written nor a reliable source of information.

It`s a cool idea. The "collective wisdom" and all. But it`s got a ways to go before it becomes a stellar example of well-written prose--or even a reliable source of information. (By the way, much of Wikipedia is now full of editorial oversight, precisely because they`ve begun to realize their shortcomings.)

I like the philosophy behind sites like Wikipedia and encourage their growth. (I have installed a MediaWiki wiki [the opensource wiki software of Wikipedia] at our university`s Center for Teaching & Learning.) But I am wary of the potential for dis-information from these types of enterprises.

Do we want our wisdom to be defined by folks who simply have more free time to make more posts at these social hubs?

Cheers.



-------------------------

Mac-Sage "Complete Mac & OS X Consulting"      www.mac-sage.com

Well, if the point of communication is to transfer information in an understandable way, at the right level for the audience, with "speed" being variable, these two Web sites work for me. Whether or not Wikipedia is accurate is debatable, but not the point. As I understand it, we`re looking at an example of "semantic web." 

I don`t follow your logic, but I do admit that you have created more posts.

-------------------------

Mac-Sage "Complete Mac & OS X Consulting"      www.mac-sage.com

Craig, I respect ya man but you have to admit that is pretty funny!!!

The one thing about Craig, he can really help you put your thinking cap on~

-------------------------

Make it count! My Passion: www.jdawgdesign.com - My Rush: www.wyliephotos.com