Document Actions
Evaluating and Benchmarking – how does your site measure up?
by Catherine Elder — Think of your favourite website. Now think of six reasons it is your favourite. Now think of your own website, assuming it’s not your favourite, and ask yourself how it ranks within the six criteria you chose.
We all do it – judge websites. But most people rely on their first impression (see: You’ll never get a second millisecond to make a first impression) and can’t articulate the criteria that they are using to judge a site. Some may indicate colour, photos, fonts and general layout. The savvier user will mention ease-of-use and ability to find information. But in general, people don’t have the words or experience to tell you what is wrong with their site. They just know it sucks and isn’t working for them.
Getting users to be more specific is the value of good
interviewing and focus group assessments (see: Business Requirement Interviews and Gut instincts vs. data – What would you rather present
to get intranet buy-in? ). Interviews and focus groups will reveal
problems and provide invaluable suggestions for improvement, but
understanding where a site goes wrong and what direction it should be
going in can be best ascertained through a thorough evaluation and
benchmarking against competitive sites.
Evaluation and benchmarking criteria for a good site
What are the best practices that make up a good evaluation?
According to “How visitors rate sites” by Larisa Thomason on Netmechanic
here are some things to look for:
-
Visual design or a “professional look” is the first test of a site’s credibility and first impressions have the biggest impact on a user’s overall impression.
“Choose a color scheme that reflects your audience’s preference not your own,” writes Thomason.
-
Typography: use safe fonts that are common to standard use.
-
Images and Multimedia: dazzle but don’t annoy. Photos should be real and, where possible, action oriented – they should tell a story. Multimedia should have a purpose and should be quick to load.And you should always have alternative information for those who don’t want to go the multimedia route.>
-
Layout includes the overall structure and bullets and headings as well as the placement of information. (Plan where your information goes – don’t leave huge blocks of white space).
-
Content: according to Netmechanic “sites should be designed to deliver information to visitors.” Never forget that “content is king”.
Indeed, content is very important (see:
Intranet Design Melds to One) and so is planning – which is why
Prescient Digital Media double weights these categories when conducting
evaluations and site benchmarks. If you don’t have a plan, it often
manifests itself on the site in the form of poor information
architecture and usability. Intranets are especially known for getting
out of hand with multiple “micro-sites”, lack of standards and no
governance model. The poor person in charge of posting information
(yes, most don’t even have a qualified webmaster and some don’t even
have anyone with web responsibilities listed in their job
descriptions), is told to “just put it on the intranet” without
instructions as to placement, inter-linking, or archiving.
Consequently, the site is a hodgepodge of materials without a plan to
support and standardize what, where and how information is
available.
Aside from content and planning, Prescient also evaluates sites
based on look and feel, usability, layout, and tools and
innovation.
Some basic criteria we recommend:
- Content: needs to be current and frequently updated to be considered trustworthy. It should be written for the web, in scannable chunks with lots of headings to break up content – not just print material that is posted.
- Planning: “most intranets in a mess lack a common vision for what the intranet should be,” according to Jerry Stevenson in “Taming a Chaotic Intranet” in an item posted with IABC. Does the site have a mission, vision and goals? Are content owners identified? Is there a governance model? Are metrics being recorded and analyzed?
-
Look and Feel: consistency is vital – set and follow standards and guidelines. If you find microsites popping up using every colour scheme imaginable, your site loses credibility.
-
Usability: all sites should have a sitemap, breadcrumbs (path trail), a good search engine and a taxonomy that works with your audience. Avoid using acronyms and non-descriptive words that don’t tell the user what content can be found under that category.
-
Layout: scrolling should be kept to a minimum and white space should be part of the design, not an indicator that you ran out of content.
-
Tools and Innovation: can people do what they need to do? A good search engine that provides forgiveness for misspelling is one standard tool. Consider collaboration tools like wikis, communication innovations like blogs, and applications like calculators. Make sure that if a page is likely to be printed, it prints well or has an alternate format. And if you have online forms make them easy – the best are forms that can be completed and submitted online. It is not innovative to make people print a form, fill it out in ink, and then send it somewhere.
Once you evaluate your own site and give it a score, you should do
the same to about four other competitive sites. Granted, it is
difficult to benchmark against other intranet sites, which is why it is
best left to professionals who have the expertise and relationships to
get permission to look at intranets for various organizations. But you
should still be able to evaluate your site with best practices.
Best practices are good ideas that work: when you see a good idea
put it to use on your site and track it to make sure it works for you.
You should evaluate your site on a regular basis; after all it is a
work in progress and should be continually updated to meet the changing
needs of your organization. Don’t leave your evaluation to phrases like
“it sucks” it might be easier to improve then you think.
Catherine Elder is a Business Consultant with Prescient Digital
Media and specializes in the delivery of strategic web solutions. She
has a diploma in public relations and certificates in Desktop
Publishing and Media & New Technology Management with over 18 years
in designing communications material.