Here i will review some websites under the following criteria:
Usability, Page Design, Content Design, Site Design.

Usability

w3.org
GOOD
  • Clear and efficient formatting and display of information
  • Obvious navigation choices; little overlap between them
  • Quick download due to use of Cascading Style Sheets
  • Cross browser back to versions 4 of IE and NS
  • Easy return to top level page
  • Links are obvious - both in labelling and display - making navigation easier
  • Easy access to search facilities


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://www.w3.org/

Click image to go to site.
SONY
BAD
  • Cluttered look
  • Hard to find some things on the page - eg. support
  • Navigation conventions not reused on different sites
  • Not obvious navigation options - what is "My Sony"?
  • Slow download on slower connections - lots of pictures, lots of HTML tags which could be avoided by using CSS


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://www.sony.com/

Click image to go to site.


Page Design

Mozilla.org
GOOD
  • Navigation conventions reused
  • Clean & clear
  • Creates an identity with logos and symbols for its products, making spotting sections, links and information for them easy
  • Simple
  • Small filesize due to use of CSS
  • Cross browser
  • Aesthetically pleasing


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://www.mozilla.org/

Click image to go to site.
Happier Days
BAD
  • Difficult to find out what the site is about, what its for, why anyone would want to read it
  • Difficult to use navigation, navigation is not repeated, is inconsistent across pages
  • Difficult to find links - images are used for links but no border or anything making them obviously links
  • Abstract images used as links - makes navigating the site extremely inefficient as the user has to guess at navigation


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://adaweb.walkerart.org/context/hd/
Click image to go to site.


Content Design

YAHOO.COM
GOOD
  • Clear separation of content and sections
  • Easy to read
  • Ability to personalize the site & content
  • Acting as a portal, the site provides more information than the user may initially have come for, but will keep the user coming back


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://www.yahoo.com/.

Click image to go to site.
Pete's Webshop
BAD
  • Use of non-standard web fonts
  • Text colour changes with no pattern or meaning
  • Underlines used to draw the eye to text, breaking the convention that has always been part of browsing since text based browsers, which is that underlined text is always a link
  • Content topic changes too much for it all to be on one page, should be broken down onto separate pages.
  • Nothing really interesting to say, no information is imparted that most people would be interested in


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://www.oocities.org/pete6334/index.html.

Click image to go to site.


Site Design

Joshua Davis
GOOD
  • Attractive design
  • Easily memorable and learnable navigation conventions
  • Obvious sections
  • Easy to find information
  • Professional feeling
  • Obvious what Joshua Davis does
  • Easy to get to his portfolio


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://www.joshuadavis.com/pound.html.

Click image to go to site.
VicRoads
BAD
  • Navigation is not consistent
  • Hard to navigate and find what you want exactly
  • Some navigation is hidden away
  • Non standard text/link colour/size on different pages
  • Button to return back to toplevel page is small and tucked away
  • Badly structured information


    • Referenced on April 26, 2004, from http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/

Click image to go to site.