Sunday, May 13, 2007

What do you think of Clemson's new website?

Clemson just launched a long awaited revision to its website.

What to you think?


Evan said...

OrangeCoat sent a long letter to Jim Barker in 2004, suggesting several broad level steps to improve the website. We were told they were forming a task force. Which I took too mean, "yeah yeah yeah, go away." Maybe task forces just take a few years to show progress.

Regardless, the new site is a huge improvement. It was so bad before that just getting back to par is a huge improvement. I think there's still a lot of opportunity to make it even better. But for the size of the project and the constraints faced, I think they did an admirable job.

Anonymous said...

Evan is on target here. The site is still very weak and poorly designed. Basic navigation and architecture rules are not being followed. Its the basic website with a few more graphics. But then look at Its all a matter of opinion.

Anonymous said...

It is extremely "cookie-cutter" in look/feel. A little more efficient in navigation, but still needs a lot of help.

Anonymous said...

"Cookie cutter" is a huge improvement - the other site(s) seemed to change on a near-daily basis, since every time I went to the site the layout was different. I always had to search for what I needed.

Frankly, the common user prefers efficiency over design for websites - if I can't find the info I need, as fast as possible, I don't care WHAT it looks like.

Good job Clemson on beginning the improvements. But keep going!

Anonymous said...

Good colors, not bad.

However, the site is not W3C for HTML markup and CSS. 14 errors for the CSS validation.

One of the errors is the Property border-bottum doesn't exist : 1px solid #666. Just correct the spelling to fix that.

The other 13 errors is from using IE6 * hacks in the style sheet. Not a big deal. However the IE6 * hacks can break the layout in IE7.

For the HTML markup, they need to reconsider which document type to use.