Reviewing SCaRF Website & Stakeholder
Analysis
Organisation Name:
|
SCaRF
|
Website URL:
|
|
Site’s Main Objective:
|
Raise
Donations
|
Global
Navigation Consistency
Local
Navigation for sections
Effective
navigation system
Is it an
intuitive navigation system?
Return to
Homepage from any page
Broken Links
|
Navigation style looks consistent, but is way too poor
(3/5)
Only one navigation section which is poor, but looks
consistent (3/5)
Very poor navigation system, both in terms of
content and design (1/5)
It gives you a hard time to go through the options
(1/5)
Messy paths, you cannot return to the HP from all
webpages (1/5)
A link takes you to a completely wrong website which
is in another language, but most links work properly (2/5)
|
Logo
(Effectiveness, Distance Effect, Communicates Identity, Suitable Colour
Scheme, Prints well on B&W, Scalable)
Website and
Logo colour scheme matches?
Authentic -
Unique
|
Very bad designed logo that has none of the
characteristics of a good logo and the idea behind it is not effective (1/5)
No consistency between the logo and website (1/5)
There is no sense of identity at all from SCaRF
website (1/5)
|
Font Size
Contrast
Assistive Technology
|
It could be slightly bigger (3/5)
There is contrast throughout the website, but poorly
done (3/5)
None (1/5)
|
Suitable for
slower connections?
Browser
Capability
Responsive
Design
|
Yes, because anyway it is a low constructed website
(5/5)
It is displayed fine on basic browsers (4/5)
Not responsive (1/5)
|
Is there
enough advice and prevention?
Meet audience
needs?
Information about
organisation itself and what they do
Search
Facility
Other
resources available?
Videos or
articles of true stories
Easy to
donate?
Content
available in more than 1 language?
Contact
Information
Are there any
attractions (campaigns, events, competitions, freebies) clearly displayed?
Do they
publish results of research findings or money that was raised etc?
|
Not much advice and prevention, hard to find
anything easily (2/5)
Some content is not important and it exists in large
amounts and some important content is missing (2/5)
There is information about the organisation, but not
clearly displayed (3/5)
None (1/5)
There are several links to other websites, but they
could also offer download of leaflets etc (3/5)
There are no shared stories (1/5)
It takes time to find how to donate on this website,
gives a link which is poorly displayed (1/5)
English only, however this website does not require
more than this(4/5)
The website displays plenty telephone numbers, but
there is no formal e-mail to contact them (3/5)
There are some competitions and campaigns, however
they are very poorly displayed and they could have more activity going on
(2/5)
The annual report of the funds raised is published,
but no information on what they are working on (3/5)
|
Hover on
links
Visited key
property
|
Hover only on the navigation, not on the rest links
(3/5)
Yes (5/5)
|
Intuitive URL
Is each
information type displayed correctly?
Spelling
suggestions
|
Too long, but can be memorised after a couple of
tries (3/5)
The information architecture is totally ineffective
(1/5)
No spelling suggestions (1/5)
|
Easy to read
text (Right font type, size and colour)
Effective
line lengths
Ease of
scanning
Easy to
understand the website
|
It is not hard to read the content, but it gets
tiring very easily due to the bad layout design (2/5)
Innefective (1/5)
There is no chance given on scanning information,
poor grouping and styling of content (1/5)
It is hard and needs a lot of effort to get what you
want out of this website (1/5)
|
Easy to
distinguish links
Buttons look
clickable
Is the
website communicating intuitively?
|
Yes, but there is no consistency of the style of the
links (4/5)
Bad button affordances (1/5)
No, it is very hard to flow around this website
(1/5)
|
Consistency
within the whole website
Title
correctly positioned and styled?
Is the style
and size of the content appropriate?
|
Only the background is the same throughout, no
consistency (1/5)
It is very hard to distinguish which one is the
title or heading of each page (1/5)
Through the website there is poor style and size of
content, not appropriate (1/5)
|
First
Impressions
Users’
attention focused on the right elements in the right order?
Suitable
graphics
Does the
homepage loads fast?
Clarity and
organisation
|
Looks like a very unprofessional website, does not
look like a Skin Cancer Research (1/5)
There is no guidance at all on where to concentrate
first, except of looking at the logo for a long time wondering what can it be
(1/5)
No (1/5)
Yes (5/5)
Website looks messy and there is no organisation at
any point (1/5)
|
Management statements
- Authenticity – Does it feels trustworthy?
Are the site
objectives delivered clearly?
Is the website
concentrated on its audience group?
Ease of
updating (Flexibility)
Is the
homepage informative?
Social Media
|
If you invest time to look around the website you
can find clues of authenticity, but the website does not offer trustworthy
feelings (3/5)
No (1/5)
It does only through the content provided, not the
design (2/5)
No flexibility at all, hard to add new posts and
keep it organised (1/5)
Yes, but it gives the user a bad time to browse
around (2/5)
They do not have their own social media accounts,
but they link you to Just Giving that has several ones (1/5)
|
TOTAL
|
102/260
|
SCaRF
Strengths: This website does
not have any particular strength.
Weaknesses: It is poorly
designed. Visually, there is no identity and personality for the organisation.
The users need effort to browse through and get to where they want to go to get
the results they need. The content should be grouped in a more appropriate way
than it is and menus should intuitively guide users to the correct path. There
are no links towards the homepage from all webpages and there is too much
clutter. It also lacks of different types of media like images or video. The
logo is a very bad design and bad quality picture. The information architecture
and the structure of the website fail to deliver a good user experience.
Improvements
SCaRF (Skin Cancer
Research Fund) is an organization with absolutely no present identity to the
world. The existing website is very poorly designed in every way and it seems
there is no branding at all. Firstly, a branding process should occur for the
creation of SCaRF’s identity. The suitable colour scheme, graphics and logo
must be created to first establish the client. A list of more specific site
objectives should be worked on so that the analyst and designer will know what
the important components are and from then on work on how to achieve those set
goals. The redesign of SCaRF website should have a standard menu in every
webpage which will always link to the main webpages consisting of drop-down
menus. The content provided should not be blocks of massive text but
information cleverly put together by different media types in a structured way.
This will help on guiding users in the order they shall scan the page and help
them get the results they want as effective as possible. It is very important
to have a clear link to Donate in every single webpage; as raising funds is the
main goal of the organization. Another vital improvement should be the
consistency of both information architecture and visualization. This will
improve the readability of the website and succeed in making measurable goals
increase their numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment