Website Review 2: Centre for Local Economic Strategies
So, here is another website review. If you didn’t read the last one, check out these previous posts to catch up:
- the purpose of website reviews; its worth checking so you understand why I’m doing this;
- my method for website reviews;
- I mentioned today’s site a few weeks ago as one of several community development websites.
The image on the right is the site’s home page. The reason it’s there is in case the site owners change the site! I shall comment mainly on the home page for this reason! If you click on the image to open it and click again for full size.
The Centre for Local Economic Studies (CLES) uses a web design company, who provide their own content management systems. Their home page raises issues about the strategy of professional web designers. My comments raise questions about how designers and clients made decisions whilst constructing this page. It is important to distinguish between design and content. Ultimately the designer has the content their clients provide and what the client requests is not always the best solution. The designer will discuss options but their wisdom does not always prevail. As a reviewer I will raise some of the issues they may have discussed.
The site has a domain authority of 49 which is not bad and over 6000 back-links from 165 domains. Many of these seem to be links to specific content and so it illustrates how good content is the best way to approach search engine optimisation.
Site Structure
Appearance
The home page is well-designed with one obvious big mistake! (See under Purpose below.) It has minimal distractions from pointless graphics. The background is blue at the top and then abruptly turns grey about two-thirds of the way down my screen. I’m not sure this is a good idea; the site feels a bit constrained. It might be better with grey all the way down. The left hand column below the header is a slider. If you’re using the image you won’t see this, five images circulate and you can click on the tabs below to move to them. I find I’m mostly clicking on the tabs to return to the last one as it cycles away before I can read its contents.
Sliders are very popular and in my experience almost always a bad idea. To be effective a page should focus on one message. Sliders by definition contain several messages. It may be useful to know all this is going on but I don’t know from the slider how I’m expected to respond to the site. Also, they’re usually at the top of the page and so push more helpful content below the fold.
Navigation
This site contains a massive amount of information. I find it fairly difficult to navigate but perhaps that is because I’m not looking for anything in particular. The primary navigation is fine, although they don’t need the “Home” link as the logo already fulfills that function. As you go deeper into the site, the amount of content is overwhelming. I should think use of the search box at the top right is essential.
The three boxes towards the bottom of the page duplicate the corresponding links in the primary navigation. Beneath that the three smaller boxes lead to either the CLES log-in page or in one case to a page that does not appear to be in the primary navigation.
Pages usually have breadcrumbs, so it is not too difficult to work out where you are even if you are unclear how you got there.
Clutter
The main problem I have with the home page is masses of information and no clarity about what the site is about other than in the first frame on the slider. This includes a link to the about page (if you can catch it before the slider cycles on) but that is about CLES and not a really a clear statement of what the site is for and what it offers the visitor.
Instead I’m confronted with loads of links hither, thither and yon, and little to tell me what to expect from the site. A tour of the main resources would be helpful. Experienced visitors will know where to go and so a home page friendlier to the first timer might be worth considering.
Site Content
Market
The first frame of the slider (so not always visible) reads:
Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) is the UK’s leading independent charitable research and member organisation, with a focus on economic development, regeneration and place-making. We think and do – promoting action and implementing new progressive economic activities which create positive environmental, health and social outcomes.
After that you need to click on the link to read more. I don’t get who the members are and I’m not clear from these few words whether there is anything here for me. If I find my way to the “Join Us”, I get an idea of what CLES does but I have to infer from the site who it is for! For example, if I am chair of a small community group, working in a partnership for regeneration, is this site for me? I may be borderline, so how do I find out what is best for me or what sort of membership package would be best for me? This information may be on the site but it is hard work finding it.
Purpose
I had to search on the “About us” page to find out what CLES stands for! There really is nothing on the page that tells the visitor what the site is about. Remember, you have 3 seconds at the outside to communicate your purpose or else your visitor will leave. Maybe this site is for people who know about CLES but is it really an advantage to be so obscure? How many people bounce away who might benefit from the site content but have no idea what it is? As well as expanding the abbreviation , this site needs a tagline in the header that clearly states what the site offers its visitors. This sort of willful obscurity is not clever, it makes the site irrelevant.
The overall purpose of the site appears to be consulting, training and research, going by the three boxes towards the bottom of the home page. They could have more prominence and the home page could spell out the potential benefits of these three activities for visitors to the site. I don’t doubt a motivated visitor could battle through the information on the site but there can’t be any harm in helping them work it out. How many people who would benefit from the site, navigate away in frustration?
Call to Action
You can join CLES on the “Join Us” page but this does not appear to be the main call to action. Every page apart from the home page has a couple of notices pinned to the upper left of the page, inviting visitors to “Join NewStart” (a magazine) and to subscribe to a “Newsletter”. Both links seem to go off the site and are not explained anywhere. These could be on the home page with a clear explanation of the various membership and subscription options. Someone might pay for a subscription to NewStart without realising it is included in the membership fee for CLES.
Neglect
The most recent what’s new is 15 January (I’m writing this on 5 March) so it is very new. The blog posts on the right are better, most recent 4 March. Although this could be better it is clearly an active site.
Verdict: A professional site that has some issues about usability. I would come here to find specific information but would not browse and don’t see any reason to sign up for anything, even if I were a target visitor.
Do you agree? Leave your comments about this site here. Do you find these reviews helpful? Do they help you look critically at your own site?