Websites We Did NOT Like:

www.netscape.net

GOOD: moving pictures

BAD: too much information, not 100% width

www.d2l.com

GOOD: does help students

BAD: navigation is taken over by graphics.

www.bmw.com

GOOD: provides a lot of info

BAD: it’s too plain and boring; it’s also hard to navigate

www.uwosh.edu/tw/

GOOD: provides “help” phone numbers and their availability

BAD: it’s time consuming and badly organized; not very sequential

www.nacnet.org/assunta/dead.htm#traditions

GOOD: We didn't like anything about this website

BAD: Very Very boring; No pictures; All just information with a boring grey background.

www.moklerproperties.com

GOOD: easy to find what you’re looking for; gives info about specific houses

BAD: There are no pictures of the houses; Mostly white space; No color; Waste of space; Just a long list of

their properties.

Angelfire.com/ultra2/literingisextreme/index.html

GOOD: links work, not too much info.

BAD: Colors don’t match well, constant Any Way you want it audio, pictures have no purpose, not sticky.

members.visi.net/~mtoscano/crap/pcs/odd/whiteblack.swf

BAD: Has no known purpose, everything up for interpretation, white guy is ugly, annoying sounds.

http://www.lyrics.com/

GOOD: The website is visually appealing, easy way to access the songs by artist.

BAD: You have to know complete artist and title of song to find the lyrics, too many ads, only a small

selection of songs.

http://www.bostonstore.com/home.jsp

GOOD: The website is visually appealing, easy to find your way around.

BAD: You are not able to purchase products, not all products are listed on the website, and not all brands

are on the website

http://www.uwosh.edu/tw/

GOOD: It is easy to add/drop classes and allows you to return to the UW Oshkosh website.

BAD: The back button is not accessible. There are too many steps when trying to look up a course. For

example, you must know the semester code, the subject area of the course, ect. It is a long process.

http://members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/nz5.htm

GOOD: There are some cool colors used. The sections also utilize borders.

BAD: The text is too loud and it does not have a clear purpose. The website is not easy to navigate. There

aren't many graphics, and the ones they do have don't seem relevant and are strewn about the page.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

GOOD: The layout isn't bad, but could be better. It also has an RSS feed.

BAD: The menu system is really slow, there are lots of ads that look like part of the website.

http://espn.go.com/

GOOD: The menus is much faster than MSNBC's. The articles are good.

BAD: Random, delayed pop-up ads. Ads that look like part of the site. Horrible layout that's very cluttered.

Difficult to find information.

www.truthout.org

GOOD: Good information; Search engine within the page.

BAD: Random pictures; No clear menus; Left side in not an acronym; No background; Links are not clear;

no clear purpose.

www.jefflindsay/appleton.com

GOOD: Very good info, thorough. Search engine within the page.

BAD: Too much text; Links not easily found; Too many links; Organized poorly; Text goes all the way

across the page; Hard to find info.

www.dnr.state.wi.us

GOOD: a lot of info provided

BAD: links lead to really long pages, a lot of reading material, on that note, a lot of text, few graphics, sidebar

navigation is sometimes confusing, sidebar is long, could resolve this by having three columns in tables.

www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us

GOOD: interesting info (assessors office shows all land, price, and a picture), links to forms.

BAD: intro page has poor layout, doesn’t give you a good feel for Oshkosh.