Homepage Review: Government of Yukon
I’m pleased to present the second review in my continuing series: Government of Yukon.
Perhaps it’s best if I reiterate my comments from the intiial post:
As Jakob Nielsen states, “Homepages are the most valuable real estate in the world…your company’s face to the world. Potential customers look at your company’s online presence before doing any business with you…if the homepage doesn’t communicate what users can do and why they should care about the website, you might as well not have a website at all.”
The following screenshot was taken on December 19, 2005.
1. Is that a background image in your pocket or…
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a background image as big as the one on the Yukon Government (YTG) website. It’s over 46 kilobytes of distorted, repetitive and poorly colour-corrected ugliness. The image has a slightly hazy brown tinge to it, making the Yukon landscape look like it’s a suburb of Detroit.
Solution: YTG has plenty of excellent photographs in its public collection - take 5 minutes to consult with a designer on a suitable image. Better yet, don’t use a large photograph at all - go with a solid colour or a subtle pattern that’s tiled across the background of the page. The result will be a fast-loadng design that’s easy on the eyes.
2. Pseudo-list of links with no common logic
I assume these are supposed to look like buttons that link to important content. In reality they come off as a lottery of windows into obscure areas and actions, sometimes external websites. YTG has inappropriately applied this button style to dissimilar destinations: tangible links to Maps or Departments are buffered by links to At a Glance, Tour Yukon or Yukon Facts. When you inject marketing jargon into the mix you only end up with confused visitors. The stock photo of two suits shaking hands - why? All 3 of these images are so small. Just take them out and don’t bother. Concentrate on producing good content and services instead.
Solution: Admittedly, this really is the best part of the whole homepage design. Links generally look like links and they’re easy to click. Despite this, the way in which text labels for these links are written could be improved. Don’t be afraid to use more than 1 word to describe what a link does. This helps improve information scent and allows visitors to figure out what a link does before they click.
3. Underline your links
It’s difficult to tell what is and isn’t a link on this homepage. While the jury is still out on always using underlines with links - not me, I think they’re key to making a site usable - in the case of the content under Features, Events and Notices and News Releases, it could use some distinction.
Using dark purple links that turn to black when you roll over them does not provide enough of a visual cue that something is clickable. That’s the power of underlines - an easily recognizable way to communicate what is, and isn’t, a link. Do I even need to comment on the flashing NEW NEW NEW icons? YTG seems to have a real affinity for these.
Solution: This is easy. Use underlined links. It’s a simple and quick way to improve the usability of your site. In the case of the footer, change the dark blue background to another colour that you can actually read link text on.
4. Less is usually more. But not in this case, where more is definitely less
If there was ever a list of websites to which your membership required a design-by-committee implementation approach, the YTG would be a shoe-in for top prize. If I could dig up the planning document for this website (can I? I don’t dare touch that search engine) I’m sure the mandate would read: Put everything and anything you possibly can online. Then link it from the homepage.
I’ve been in the web development business since 1999. Back then, it was common for government websites to have next to nothing on their websites - some photos, perhaps a telephone directory, a cheery Welcome to our webpage!! message and for the more advanced sites, a link to an email address. Countless links titled with click here! rounded out the feature-set.
Nowadays, this sort of everything and anything strategy is a crude approach to making your web presence effective. I would go so far as to assume that YTG has massive quantities of content online just so that departments can say that “it’s on the web”. Thing is, quite a lot of it is badly written and poorly organized. But regardless, it’s on the web, and I’m sure YTG believes that it’s job is done. Simply because every department in the Yukon government feels they need to have a spot on the website doesn’t mean they should.
Instead, the government should be asking citizens what they really want on their site. What services are best suited to the web and what services are better delivered over the phone or in person? To me it means being able to find what I need quickly and with as little pain as possible. If I am required to use an online application form, then I want it simple, quick and short, not a confusing maze like our old friend in BizPal.
Why does this sort of disaster happen? You can likely sum it up in two words: Senior Management. They’re the ones who drive the strategy, request features and sign the approvals. Problem is, they often lack a genuine understanding of what the web is actually useful for. YTG needs to let its website grow up.
Solution: Get real. Start and finish with a hardcore business focus. Employ a small, agile team who are empowered to make big, immediate decisions. The Yukon is full of highly talented folks including Information Architects, Web Developers and Interface Designers - make use of this incredible pool of talent that surrounds you.
Don’t involve bureaucrats who only have their own best interests in mind. Instead find people who can adequately represent their department’s voice and have them contribute in important, but non-vital ways. Make their opinions count, but ensure their ideas don’t completely sway the final outcome. There’s many ways to manage a huge website re-design or re-alignment project and not have it end in up in the toilet.
As 37signals states in their infamous No Functional Spec commentary:
Functional specifications document are “yes documents.” They’re political. They’re all about getting to “yes” and we think the goal up front should be getting to “no.” Functional specs lead to scope creep from the very start. There’s very little cost in saying “yeah, ok, let’s add that” to a Word document.
Functional specs are often appeasement documents. They’re about making people feel involved. But, there’s very little reality attached to anything you do when the builders aren’t building, the designers aren’t designing, and the people aren’t using. We think reality builds better products than appeasement.
Functional specs are about making decisions before you have enough information to decide. They are about predicting the future and we all know how accurate that is.
‘Nuff said.