Author: Rachael

This week, write critiques for two groups’ advocacy website first drafts. Your critiques should be approximately 400 words each, and they are due on Wednesday April 29. Please write your critiques in two separate Google docs and move the documents into the correct folder for your section and for the group:

– section D01 (11:15AM) folder is here

– section D03 (9:05AM) folder is here

Title your documents with a logical file name, like “Tim Tebow’s critique of family farms advocacy website.” I know that’s long, but it will help avoid confusion.

Be helpful (not just nice) when offering feedback.

Use these questions to shape your critiques. Please refer to specific examples of things you see and read on the site. Use quotes, screen captures… the more specific the better.

• First, look over the website carefully and read the About page if one is available.
• First impression. What immediately catches your attention?
• Purpose. What is the purpose of the project, from what you can tell? What real-world effects or outcomes is the project hoping to produce?  Does the purpose seem worthwhile? What specific things on the website make the purpose seem worthwhile?
• Audience. For whom is this website advocating? How do you know? Is the group the site is advocating for (or speaking up for) the same as the site’s target audience? What signs do you see that the website creators are targeting this audience specifically?
• Context. Given the site’s purpose and audience, is there anything happening in the world today or in the past that the website creators might be missing? How can they do more to incorporate context, such as background information or a mission statement, and better accomplish their purpose?
• Design. How exactly is the site trying to reach its target audience through the graphics, videos, or other visual elements on the site?Is the content high quality: well edited, organized, web-friendly? Which item on the site seems most effective and successful, given the purpose and audience of the project as a whole?
• Research. Do the site’s creators appear to use reliable and authoritative information to support their recommendations and arguments? Is the information credited or cited somewhere on the site?
• Arrangement. How does the structure of the site help visitors see the problem or encourage them to act? Are there any confusing navigational elements?
• Little things that matter. Do you see any low quality images, broken links, weird alignment, or other technical problems that distract you? Do you notice typos or other sloppiness? Please point these things out!