1. 3 good websites. What makes them good for digital reading or enjoyable to interact with?
Twitter.com – even the face page (not logged in) is ‘clean’. It’s either fashionable or good design to imitate Google – as little clutter as possible – and while Twitter is moving (trends across the top, updates down the middle – the other bits are where you expect… Highlights in the F zone (across the top, down the left), log in top right as many websites have, conspicuous but out of the way SIGN UP link. Pictures are just the icons users have selected, very small pictures.
http://discworld.atuin.net/lpc/ – Discworld MUD home page. This is aimed at text-willing participants, given taht the purpose it serves is a web-portal for content related to a text-only MUD (Multi-User-Domain) RPG. It’s got delicious white space, a few important headlines down the middle, some frequently used links down the left, maybe doesn’t make enough use of the horizon of the F. The content on the top and left of the page does not change – the content at the bottom (polls and quote) does, so perhaps this isn’t ideal design – but it’s nice to look at. The logged-in-forums are pretty good as well.
Wikipedia: White space (or grey) again, yay! Gentle on the eye colours (grey, white, black), logo top left, login top right, main headings down the left, and in an article, links and headings down the left, maybe a photo top right, stuff gets less important the further down you are.
3 bad websites: Why are they so bad?
Afl.com – designed by Telstra. Not quite as bad as white pages website (one day, someone may teach them how to write a search engine – for now, there’s google…), but Telstra want full credit for this mess: They’ve plastered ads everywhere, using bright red and blue, the telstra overlay takes prime top spot, and the everyday content – the news articles and opinion articles that they offer that is different to the information available everywhere else – is restricted to about 1/10th of the screen size. Trying to promote so many different things at once that most users won’t care about. Then again, the small chunks might make it readable?
Because I can’t resist – and Geocities is gone forever – http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2009/11/geocities – bright colours, crappy backgrounds, crappy fonts and you have to scroll across and down to get to stuff. Yay! Geocities! The infancy of web-design-for-everyone…
Colour. Photo. Centre-aligned text but not word-wrapped… the textured background (and pink on pink) makes it hard to read, it’s a static page but not updated regularly enough to be meaningful.
Task 2 probably needs its own post. brb.