November 14, 2001

Review of the Liberal Democrats website

www.libdems.org.uk

Recent (31/3/02) snapshot of the Libdems homepage at 1024×768. Click to enlarge.

What’s your initial impression of the site’s design?

First impressions of the site were very good. Viewed at a high resolution, the layout expanded perfectly to take advantage of the space, resulting in a strong visual impact (it copes equally well with 800×600). Update 31/3/02: Pages now scroll horizontally at 800×600. I was also impressed with the site identifying itself effectively straight off (graphically and through compact text), devoting most screen space to what appears to be relevant, up to date content, and clear grouping of information made it very quick to take in, despite being quite busy. Text is large and easy to read, colour is strong and is also good for readability.

What do you think of the site’s navigation?

The real proof of the pudding would be a typical site user trying to accomplish a typical task, which I can only guess at, so my appraisal is necessarily academic. It uses a tried-and-tested system of ubiquitous core categories at the top of the page, with contextual links along the top left-hand side, all well-chosen and well-worded. There are many additional options in the left and right margins, but as these are generally relevant to the page and have explanatory text, do not come across as clutter. The right-hand margin is also switched off on content pages. Links within the content are generally well used, but the linking text is often poorly chosen (a surfeit of “to do this click here”, which is unhelpful when scanning a page.)

And the home page?

In my opinion it is a very effective home page. While the visual branding and site identification is clear, the page is not dominated by logos, welcome messages or purely decorative graphics. Instead it offers topical news items, and is a good navigational centre for everything the site has to offer. Bandwidth-wise it’s on the heavy side, but main content appears before downloading completes, which helps.

What do you think of the presentation of text on the site?

An important point, considering this is a necessarily text-heavy site. A large text size is used (albeit not resizable) which greatly aids on-screen legibility — an important consideration when aiming for broad accessibility — and graphical text is exceptionally clear. All articles are also available formatted for printing. On the negative side, the use of all caps on headings is ill-considered, and in general inadequate use is made of text size and colour (apart from graphical headings). Frequent typographical inconsistencies between pages also occur.

What do you think of the logo?

Used effectively and consistently, although it was an oversight not to link it to the home page.

And the use of photos?

In general the site is let down by the scant photography that it does employ. No consistent presentation style (e.g. borders, tints or sizing) is used, and photos are often of appalling quality, for example in the Parliament or Campaign sections.

How do you rate the search engine?

This was one of the site’s worst features. While it is extremely well presented and its use is encouraged (all articles have a “search for more articles with these keywords” feature), in all my tests the results were unhelpful and frequently buggy (for example, hits not even being hyperlinked.) Most unforgivably, searches for keywords that the site has whole pages devoted to (e.g. “Policy” or “Contacts”) result in anything but those pages.

What would you do differently?

I think the site is already doing the most important things correctly, namely providing the party with a good publishing and publicity vehicle that is easy to keep up to date. I would consider broadening the functionality with more e-campaigning tools — on-line surveys, the ability to fax or email articles, etc.

What do you think of the coding?

Generally impressive. Most importantly, the site’s content appears to be populated by database, which already implies a system well suited to frequent updates and proper archiving (it also allows for the printable formatting facility). Excellent metadata and clean, well-formatted HTML. But the source of the site’s typographical inconsistencies is clear in the lack of a central style sheet and sporadic use of font attributes.

Would you use the site?

Probably not, although that’s not indicative of anything except my general uninvolvement in British politics. I imagine that if I were interested in the Lib Dems, I certainly would, probably even in preference to other media.

Will it get traffic?

A lot depends on how well the site is marketed. The URL is not exactly obvious. For people who are aware of the site and are interested in the subject, there is ample reason to return, in the form of topical and archival content and useful functionality.

Have you ever used a similar site?

I’ve actually worked on one, and in the process, looked at a great many other similar ones. But not for political information, no.

How would you improve the site?

Mainly, the flaws in the search engine should be corrected, and the site is in need of typographical improvement and standardisation. This, with better quality photography and/or illustration, will greatly improve the site’s image. Besides this, I think the most important thing would be to actually listen to the site’s users! The most important improvements would be those that serve their political interests in the party. Doing some qualitative research at this stage would be a very good idea.

Do you think this site typifies the future of politics sites?

No, this is still very much the present. I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet regarding the role of the Internet in politics. If one considers to what degree the recent global anti-capitalism protests were organised via the Internet, one gets an indication of what the future might hold. But “official” party sites like this one will probably stick to fairly traditional approach for a long time.

How do you think political sites differ from the rest for the sites to be found?

Official party sites like these are very similar to most corporate sites — they have the mission statement, news, who’s who, registration facility and contact information. The most important difference from corporate or publishing sites still lies mostly in their potential — in the way they can form the communicative and campaigning hub of an active community of people sharing common goals.

How SHOULD they differ?

I think I’ve answered this already. Political sites should go far beyond merely informing people. They should aim to realise their potential to mobilise and empower people politically.

What differences are there to, for example, US politics sites?

I’m afraid I haven’t looked at enough US politics sites to answer.

How much importance do you think the Parties attach to their sites?

I think the Lib Dem’s site shows considerable understanding and commitment. When one considers the very rapid development of the Internet and the average age of the parties’ leadership, it is obviously still at a learning stage, but I doubt any politician underestimates the Internet anymore. But for that knowledge to translate into a well-resourced Web strategy is often hampered by ignorance and bureaucracy.

Is it the correct amount?

As I said, political websites are not yet fulfilling their potential.

Will political sites have an impact on the election this year?

Doubtlessly, in line with the increasing number of people using the Internet as a source of information, but I don’t think that impact will be measurable. Of course, political sites cannot expect to monopolise their constituents’ attention to any greater degree than objective news sites or competitive political sites.

Should they?

They should try.

VERDICT:

This is the best political website I’ve looked at (granted, in a generally unimpressive field), although it’s not doing anything revolutionary. Rather, it is a thorough, well-organised party directory and newsletter — and a solid foundation for a developing web strategy.

Comments