Each of the sites that our group visited had different navigational strategies. That is, how a viewer would be lead from one topic to another was different for each of the sites. The most common tactic for leading a viewer to another part of an internet site is to use meta tags. Meta tags are word descriptions of where the link is going to take a person. The more advanced sites, like France3 and BBC, used a combination of meta tags and images to give the reader a clearer definition of where the link lead.

Some of the criteria that I used to determine how well the links were on the different pages were the following:

•      What kind of links are used?
•      Are the links easy to find & use?
•      Are the links in some kind of order?
•      Do the links allow some type of spatial format?
•      Do the links add to the site, or hinder its readability?
•      Do the links actually work?

In terms of navigation, this site ranked as the worst. It took a long time to go from one link to another. Once you did get to the linked source it was often something less then anticipated by the links description. Sometimes there wasn't a way back to the original page once you did find the link you were looking for. The overall effectiveness of the links on this site are lacking. They are either covered by something else, or if they are an image, the image doesn't work. Al-Jazeerez may be a great news organization but the lack of navigational ease on their site makes it frustrating. If you can overcome the unorganized links, this site may provide some interest. If you like the web because of its ease, this site may hinder your perception.

• The top link is covered by a picture.***
• Bottom links are pictures that don't work***
• you don't have any idea what they are.
• The site is slow to connect - takes a long time to travel through the site. *****
• Headlines don't have any separation to determine where one link ends and another begins.***
• Links lead to one line descriptions.*****

France 3:

If getting to the actual website can be considered navigation then the French site, like Al-Jazeerez one, has some navigational issues right from the beginning. It takes a long time for the site to actually come up. I had begun to wonder if the site could even be viewed from my computer as I waited for the site to load the first time. I even had to restart my computer to make netscape work with the site. This of course, could just be a problem with my version of Netscape. The French site didn't seem to have any problems with the organization of their links; in fact the French had meta tags and images so the viewer gets a clear picture of where the link is taking them.

The France site also had the best use of spatial layout for their links. It was never hard to tell what link went with what news article. While some of the websites seemed to think they were going to run out of paper to write on, the France site realized that virtual paper doesn't come to an end. This doesn't mean that they wasted space. The links were clearly on the site to guide the reader to their desired destination. Never clustered, never overused, these links added to the functionality of the site. What is even better is that the links actually take the reader to more material on the topic of their choosing. As far as navigational functionality it doesn't get much better then this site. The only draw back is its slow response rate.

• Getting to the page can be painful. Can lockup Netscape.***
• Advertisement pictures that are links may be broken.*
• Front page leads you to believe other pictures will be links, they aren’t.*
• Alternate link strategies. Some meta tags, some pictures.
• Combines meta tags with pictures.***
• Links have great spatial stability. Nicely spaced. Not too much in one area.
• Very easy to determine what takes you where.***
• The whole front page is a link to somewhere, but isn't cumbersome.***

BBC:

There just isn't much criticism that I can give to the BBC. If there was ever any doubt to the saying "practice makes perfect," this site would lay those doubts to rest. As far as navigation goes, it doesn't get any easier then this. Sure the BBC doesn't have all of the cool flashpoint to navigate the viewer through the site, but in reality who has all of the latest technology on their computer. Even if you are someone who has kept up with all the latest technology, specially if you are that person, you know how cumbersome and buggy things like flashpoint can become. In all reality, the simple technology is what makes the site work. There is no bugginess to the site. If you want to go somewhere within the site all that is required is a click of the button. The web designers at the BBC have thought of everything. It is as if though they have the approval from Dianna Booher, Spider Pro, Sucky to Savvy, and every other web style author that one can think of. The simplicity of web travel is what the BBC is all about. Without any prior knowledge, I would have to suggest that the BBC has been on the internet longer then any of the other newscasts. It is only with long term experience to certain style of writing that one acquires the remarkable tact that the BBC demonstrates on their site.

• The Around the World section gets a little cumbersome.**
• Not enough spacing between the meta tags.**
• Top Link bar that guides to main sections. ***
• Allows viewers a way back to main page.**
• Combines meta tags with pictures.***
• A side panel that takes viewers to regional sites. *****
• Links work quickly.***
• Provides a totally integrated low graphics version*****
• Allows spatial viability. Links to the next section of news on the side of front page.
• Viewer can navigate through as if reading the newspaper. *****

CNN:

Being an American, I hate to give CNN such a poor rating but they just didn't compare to the France3 and BBC sites. This site did not lack because they didn't try, they lacked because they tried too much. This site is so full of links that it becomes blurred when one link ends and another begins. It's as if you have just entered a smorgusboard of links. If you were to give a two year-old a bunch of crayons and tell him to draw, you would end up with as many variations of colors as one does of links on CNN. The shear amount of links hindered the site more then they could ever help, and its as if there is only a certain amount of space to put the links in. I beleive that CNN's problem is that they want everything to be at the top of the page, and highlighted. There isn't one thing that is more important then another. Its as, if they don't make a decission on what's important, they wont have to worry about being wrong.

By trying to throw everything at the reader at once, this site becomes very cumbersome and messy. There is no origanization to the site. The way to find a link on this site is to search through the pool of available links and hope that you click on the right word. What is worse is that I wasn't able to stay on the site very long to determine if there was some use to CNN's madness because the site became so buggy that it crashed my Netscape browser and I became frustrated with its inability to keep me focused. If you like Soap Opras and looking through magazines with your ADHD friends then CNN might appeal to your browsing senses. Don't get me wrong, CNN is a great news company, but their navigational strategy needs a major overhaul.

• Pop-ups upon connecting.**
• Pop-ups whenever going to another link***
• Can be slow, freeze netscape or crash it.****
• Links get very cumbersome. Suck to Savvy would say “link lunacy.”***
• Very Buggy Links*****

After reviewing all of the news sites, I have to conclude that the BBC is the easiest site to navigate through. While at times it can become a little cumbersome, it is no comparison to the cumbersome site of CNN. Just like its newscast, CNN tries to do too much in too little space. This makes the site very hard to navigate through, or no where you are heading half the time. Al-Jazeerez has many problems that the BBC seem to have mastered. For one, the BBC site is fast. When you click on a link in the BBC site, you are whisked away immediately to your destination. Al-Jazeerez hasn't figured out how to handle the large amounts of traffic it has been receiving. Due to its inability to handle the traffic, the site is extremely slow. The France site is the only one that is comparable to the BBC. It has mastered most of the things that the BBC has. The France site probably even has a better layout for its links then the BBC. Unfortunately, the French site runs into the same problems as the Al-Jazeerez site; it is slow. The BBC also has a low graphic version that it fully integrated, making it the most technological advanced in terms of navigation. The BBC has all the bells and whistles without all the troublesome bugginess that the other sites still have to work out.

This page was created by Larry J. Colby

    E-mail comments to [email protected]

Check out Larry's Home page!