Website+Eval.+form

(//based on UC Berkeley - Teaching Library Internet Workshops//)
 * Website Evaluation Form**

Name: ........................................................................

//Please indicate by checkmark (and/or 'yes' 'no' where relevant) that you have considered each factor below.//

....... What type of domain is this? (e.g., .com, .org (nonprofit), .gov or .us (government), edu (educational))
 * Reading URLs**

....... Is it someone’s personal page? (e.g., a name followed by a ~, %)

....... Who published the page? (in the first portion of URL/address, between the // and the first / - like a print publisher, but can be without the rigor)

....... Who authored the page? (e.g., around perimeters of page, look for ‘About Us, Philosophy, Background, Biography, etc.)

....... Author(s) of the page are clearly identified, and have credentials that insure they are qualified to speak to this topic (e.g., not just a personal opinion)

....... The page gives an E-mail address or other way to contact authors.


 * Content**

....... All information is accurate; reputable links given, etc.

....... Last update listed? Current?

....... Links work? (not ‘dead’)

....... Information is complete but not excessive or redundant.

....... Information is well organized and clearly labeled.

....... Information is interesting, informative, and worthwhile.

....... Information is not redundant to many other sources; there is a good reason to put it on the Web.

....... Level of content and vocabulary are appropriate for intended audiences.

....... Content is free from stereotyping, course or gross language, or information that could be offensive to typical users.

....... Awards or other testimonials from reputable sources evident.

....... Universal design features are built into the site so that the site is accessible by users with visual impairments, physical disabilities, etc. (Bobby designation)


 * Visual and Audio Design**

....... The site has a consistent look.

....... Graphics, animations, videos, and sounds make an important contribution; each serves a purpose.

....... Pages have only one or two fonts.

....... Each page uses a limited number of colors, especially for text (not too busy).

....... Colors have been selected to be compatible with the Netscape 216 Color palate.

....... The colors/styles and text-to-background contrast have been selected for good readability.

....... Each page is limited to 2-3 screens; the most important information at the top.

....... The pages are simply and attractively designed; they make a user want to read the information.

....... The page has been submitted to Bobby and universal design features such as “text only”/’printer friendly’ version of the page(s) are available.


 * Navigation**

....... Pages load quickly.

....... Pages have a simple, consistent navigation scheme to let users get to desired places quickly and easily.

....... The first page indicates clearly how the site is organized and how to get to items of interest.

....... Links (text and icons) are easy to identify. Graphics and sounds are clearly identified.

....... Icons clearly represent the information they link to.

....... Each supporting page has a link back to the home page.

....... Site is directly relevant to your own and colleagues’ professional interests.
 * Overall Relevance**

....... Targeted audience is identified or otherwise clearly evident.

....... On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being poor and 10 being the best, what number would you assign to this site?
 * Evaluator Rating**

Back to Home page.

Back to Course Requirements page.