In Class Assignment 5-11-2006
Impressions
- Cantwell: Her site is very pleasant to the eye. The site feels almost laid back for the lack of a better term. Having Clinton's picture on the front page automatically adds credibility for Democrats.
I find it interesting that she has a sponsorship link for the Roadless Area Conservation Act on the front page, encouraging viewers to participate by adding their signature. This gives voters an immediate call for interaction. Along those same lines there are links for volunteers, petitions and contributions right on the main navigation bar which further encouraging participation.
At first glance at the "About Maria" page I found information on her history with a range of topics I was interested in, but I couldn't seem to find her stance on gay rights. While the page is sufficient to give a general feel her her position on many topics, it would have been more useful to find some sort of bullet point list on stances in addition to the simple overview of the candidate.
- McGavick: At first glance, his site is a bit more garish and in your face then Cantwell's. It for some reason comes off to me as a paysite, one in which you have to pay to access whatever the site in question provides. This of course isn't true, but something about the layout says it.
The news on the front page is nice in comparison with Cantwell's site where such information wasn't immediately available. I dislike who there are three pictures of him on the very front page however, two of which link to what appears to be the same video file.
I still can't find a place where he talks about his stance on gay rights but he provides a bullet point list of stances unlike Cantwell which is nice. The problem I find with his list and his whole site in general is that while he provides a good deal more information, its presented in an abrasive manner. The thing that bothers me the most is the repeated use of large red exclamation points throughout the site and generally the large use of red everywhere.
- Cantwell: Her site is very pleasant to the eye. The site feels almost laid back for the lack of a better term. Having Clinton's picture on the front page automatically adds credibility for Democrats.
I find it interesting that she has a sponsorship link for the Roadless Area Conservation Act on the front page, encouraging viewers to participate by adding their signature. This gives voters an immediate call for interaction. Along those same lines there are links for volunteers, petitions and contributions right on the main navigation bar which further encouraging participation.
At first glance at the "About Maria" page I found information on her history with a range of topics I was interested in, but I couldn't seem to find her stance on gay rights. While the page is sufficient to give a general feel her her position on many topics, it would have been more useful to find some sort of bullet point list on stances in addition to the simple overview of the candidate.
- McGavick: At first glance, his site is a bit more garish and in your face then Cantwell's. It for some reason comes off to me as a paysite, one in which you have to pay to access whatever the site in question provides. This of course isn't true, but something about the layout says it.
The news on the front page is nice in comparison with Cantwell's site where such information wasn't immediately available. I dislike who there are three pictures of him on the very front page however, two of which link to what appears to be the same video file.
I still can't find a place where he talks about his stance on gay rights but he provides a bullet point list of stances unlike Cantwell which is nice. The problem I find with his list and his whole site in general is that while he provides a good deal more information, its presented in an abrasive manner. The thing that bothers me the most is the repeated use of large red exclamation points throughout the site and generally the large use of red everywhere.
posted by Theo at 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home