Website Evaluation
TeamAltman :: Evaluating Your Website
Widener Criteria Website Evaluation site:
http://www3.widener.edu/Academics/Libraries/Wolfgram_Memorial_Library/Evaluate_Web_Pages/Checklist_for_an_Information_Web_Page/5720/
It is important to look at a website with an insightful eye. There are some fundemental guidelines when creating a website and below is an example of how to evaluate a website. The website chosen is important for many different reasons and places high in our evaluations process.
Gapminder.org Website Evaluation::
This is a Website Evaluation of the Gap Minder organization using the Widener criteria. According to all the criteria listed and reviewed the website seems to be accurate, well designed, and currently maintained. The site uses a blog to let users know of current updates and news. I have found this site to pass the Widener criteria for site design and content.
Taken from the about section of the site. “Gapminder is a non-profit venture promoting sustainable global development and achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by increased use and understanding of statistics and other information about social, economic and environmental development at local, national and global levels. We are a modern “museum” that helps making the world understandable, using the Internet.”
Criterion #1: AUTHORITY
1. Is it clear who is responsible for the contents of the page?
http://www.gapminder.org/about-gapminder/staff/ This link is to the staff and positions. The content is supplied by the staff from what I can tell.
2. Is there a link to a page describing the purpose of the sponsoring organization?
http://www.gapminder.org/about-gapminder/constitution/ This is the constitution for the organization. This is very clear and thorough.
3. Is there a way of verifying the legitimacy of the page’s sponsor?
http://www.gapminder.org/about-gapminder/contact/ There is adequate contact information that includes address, email, and phone.
4. Is it clear who wrote the material and are the author’s qualifications for writing on this topic clearly stated?
http://www.gapminder.org/about-gapminder/ This reviews who is responsible for the content and the organization of the presented material.
5. If the material is protected by copyright, is the name of the copyright holder given?
© Gapminder Foundation is printed at the bottom of every page.
Criterion #2: ACCURACY
1. Are the sources for any factual information clearly listed so they can be verified in another source?
We need to write to gapminder.org for the documented indicators
2. Is the information free of grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors?
The site appears to be well thought out and free of any noticeable errors.
3. Is it clear who has the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the content of the material?
From what I can tell the staff link above includes who is responsible for the content of this website. All the data has been arranged by this group and maintains the documentation for the indicators.
4. If there are charts and/or graphs containing statistical data, are the charts and/or graphs clearly labeled and easy to read?
This site contains many videos and charts that are dynamic, easy to use, and allows us to use this software for our own needs.
Criterion #3: OBJECTIVITY
1. Is the information provided as a public service?
http://www.gapminder.org/faq_frequently_asked_questions/#tou
The rights for this site have been made public and all information is free to use as needed. This link is the terms of use. This states that anyone can use the data.
2. Is the information free of advertising?
Yes, the information is free of advertising.
3. If there is any advertising on the page, is it clearly differentiated from the informational content?
None that I can tell.
Criterion #4: CURRENCY
1. Are there dates on the page to indicate:
http://www.gapminder.org/blog/ This blog has posted dates.
a. When the page was written? I see a copyrighted date for google of 2008.
b. When the page was first placed on the Web? The blog has dates. Not main site.
c. When the page was last revised? Unsure from what I have read.
2. Are there any other indications that the material is kept current?
The blog gives indication that the material is being monitored and maintained. Any new indications and data is added to the blog to let us know the data is current.
3. If material is presented in graphs and/or charts, is it clearly stated when the data was gathered?
Yes, the date and year is clearly printed in the background.
4. If the information is published in different editions, is it clearly labeled what edition the page is from? Not sure if this applies to the site.
Criterion #5: COVERAGE
1. Is there an indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction?
The page looks clear and well thought out. There is also a box in the lower left corner that represents new blog posts. There is also a box to subscribe to updates. Nothing on the site, as far as development, seems to be in progress.
2. If there is a print equivalent to the Web page, is there a clear indication of whether the entire work is available on the Web or only parts of it?
All the graphs and material are present on the site for public use according to the frequently asked questions.
3. If the material is from a work which is out of copyright (as is often the case with a dictionary or thesaurus) has there been an effort to update the material to make it more current?
It appears that this organization is open to others data with documented material. All the data is documented and all indicators used in the site have been documented according to: http://www.gapminder.org/faq_frequently_asked_questions/#indicators
