There are many ways that organized interests try to disseminate information and gather support. This week we should evaluate how effectively some of these organizations are using new tools toward these not so new political goals. I would like to focus particularly on interest groups for this week. Several interest groups representing various corners of the political spectrum are represented below. Take a look at these sites and then comment on 1) what they do well or poorly, 2) how similar or different they are, and ultimately 3) what you would recommend as these groups continue to try to expand their fundraising and member base. Keep in mind that most of these organizations have existed for decades and have transitioned into the internet era, the one exception is moveon.org which was created to utilize the power of the internet to organize in a more modern way.
AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons)
AIPAC
NRA (National Rifle Association)
Moveon.org
The Christian Coalition
The Sierra Club
After looking around on each of these interest groups’ websites, I can say that I am thoroughly unimpressed with Moveon.org. That was probably the biggest thing that stood out to me, because they’re supposed to be an Internet-focused website. Aesthetically speaking, they had the worst layout of the six sites posted, and to me, that’s an immediate turn-off – if an organization is trying to get me to join or donate, I’m typically a little more impressed with sites that look very professional. And compared to the other sites in this grouping, Moveon.org looked the least sophisticated. That aside, it seemed easiest to donate, because the button is the first thing noticed in the top right corner. The other group that did this well was the Sierra Club. Obviously, donations are how interest groups are able to survive and make their message known in Washington, so this was something important that I looked for on each site.
ReplyDeleteAnother important feature that I looked for on each group’s site was how accessible the “About” section was. Some groups had this type of information readily available right on the main page, but others required a little more scrolling and clicking, which really isn’t that big of a deal, but in my opinion, if you’re trying to get people to donate and join, it’s best to have this type of information right in front of you the minute you reach the main page. The site that did this best was AIPAC’s, but I think this is due in part to the fact that it is probably the least-known group of the six. It was harder to find basic information about the group on AARP’s and NRA’s sites, but most people know what those groups are, whereas they are probably not as familiar with AIPAC.
Overall, the sites were pretty similar, because there were opportunities to join, donate, and participate with the group on each site, accessible with relative ease. But that being said, I think that what they can do to expand their fundraising and member base is to be as clear as possible about the goals of the organization on the main page – much like the Sierra Club and AIPAC do on their respective sites. Reducing the amount of advertisements that appear on the page helps to keep it less cluttered, too (I’m looking at you, AARP). The other thing they can do is something like what the Christian Coalition does – on the main page, there is a button to contact your elected officials, as well as a button to register to vote. This is a crucial step in citizen participation. It seems so obvious, but I think it’s a great thing to have on the main page. They also have a pop-up before getting to the main page encouraging the visitor to connect with the organization on Facebook and Twitter. The other organizations should take note, because social media is an extremely advantageous tool to have in an interest group’s arsenal, and the CC does the best job of ensuring site visitors’ participation in this kind of interaction.
[Side note: I found it extremely unsettling that the NRA sells, under the “Women’s Shop” heading (another side note: the NRA seemed the most intent on trying to sell me something, more than any of the other organizations), a “concealed carry handbag” for women to make sure their purse can hold their firearm. I’m definitely biased, but I just thought that was really strange.]
After looking at all of the websites I would say their visuals vary vastly. The NRA definitely had the most visually pleasing website (although like Lauren mentioned it did seem like they were trying very hard to sell something-about 3 or so "slogans" pasted on the homepage). The AARP, Christian Coalition of America and the Sierra Club all had nice interfaces that, while basic, were navigable. The worst of the websites visually were the AIPAC and MoveOn.org. They were bland and showed no real clever use of the internets capabilities. I LOVED the AARP's plug for their dating service on the top of their homepage. They definitely are noting trends in uses of the internet and providing members with access to those trends. While MoveOn.org's interface was bland, they did make great use of including a lot of videos on their homepage. I do want to note that while they may not have the bells and whistles, MoveOn.org is still up to date. The Christian Coalition of America's website had a tweet-feed on the bottom of the page- a sign that they are extremely clued in.
ReplyDeleteOverall the only real differences are due to the interfaces of the websites. They all contain similar amounts of content but the interfaces range from mediocre to spot on. However, in an age when making a web page has become easier and allowed for more creativity there really is no excuse.
I agree with Tyler, all of the websites have the typical cookie cutter corporate internet feel to a certain extent, however they each had a certain wrinkle of personalization that I found appealing. However, the site that stood out the most to me was the NRA's website, which was everything that one would expect the NRA's website to look like. Dominant pro-American imagery abounded, with the site plastered with Bald Eagles and Stars and Stripes. No doubt many a truck south of the Mason-Dixon line is emblazoned with a very similar decorative motif, so they are reaching directly to their support base. Especially in today's rapidly evolving political climate more and more people are clamoring for gun control, it seems that the NRA has realized that they aren't going to be pulling many people in based on how appealing and forward thinking their tactics are so instead they are making an appeal to what makes up the core of their supporters. I think this is actually quite smart, as none of the other interest group's sites stood out at all.
DeleteAfter taking a look at some of theses interest groups websites, the two I liked to most are NRA.org and moveon.org. I thought that these were the most interesting because they have complete different views and target audiences. The NRA website is a little more flashy they have a daily headlines running at the bottom of the page and highlighted news slides with quotes from celebrity actors to pro-NRA Republican politicians. On the other had the Move On website is pretty simple with how to get involved on the left side, social media on the right side, and a news story in the middle with a video directly targeting the NRA. I think that the NRA does a good job targeting gun holders with their sliding quotes promoting the right to bare arms. Move On does a great job incorporation social media because on the top right hand corner I can see which of my Facebook friends like this organization. I would recommend that the NRA incorporate social media on the homepage of there website so that they can target a larger audience. Now for Move On I would recommend that make their website a little more flashy than its white background now. Both of these organizations websites have different ways for targeting their audience but its works well for each.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of the comments that everyone has already mentioned about the "look" and feel of the various websites. Most of them besides the Move On website are very organized and visually pleasing. The visuals on the websites are appealing and can easily draw large amounts of people, but the Move On website does a great job of making donations a focal point of the front page. Ultimately, these interest groups are concerned with getting donations in order to fund their organizations and Move On does an active job in doing this. I also thought that some of the other sites like the Christian Coalition website provided easy access to find who your legislator is, registering to vote, and setting up a seminar with other members. Many of the websites have the same kind of feel and would be hard to distinguish between the other sites if the name on the top was absent. Another important thing that almost all of the websites incorporate is social networking. Almost on every homepage is a reference to a Twitter or Facebook page for users to follow. It shows that these interest groups are moving forward and trying to evolve with technology in order to better insure the success of their organizations.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that these interest groups can do is continue to utilize the popularity of social media like Facebook and Twitter in order to bring greater awareness to their groups. Most people are on these networking sites daily and by increasing the use of these tools, these interest groups can attract a younger audience that may not have been aware of the group or its ideals. Overall, the websites do a great job of providing organized links and access points to different sections of the website. This shows that these interest groups are taking the Internet seriously and are willing to make the effort to utilize its expansive networks and reach. Most of the websites were much more complex than I expected and the continued growth of the pages will only lead to more success.
The MoveOn.org website is the least stimulating or inspiring of the six websites. The most visible feature of its website is the donation bar, which speaks to me that the website is mostly there as a money-maker for the organization, not as a means to reach out to people. "Hello there, my cause is X, please donate" does not reach out to people very well.
ReplyDeleteSomething else which was mentioned was that five of the six websites have a layout theme which is recurring and rather bland: somewhere, in the upper-right region of your screen, is a "Search" bar. The presence of a "Search" bar in that location indicates a hint of unoriginality in the design of the website. However, the websites that are not MoveOn.org are well-organized and laid out neatly despite the unoriginal format of some of them. The most original layout went to the website of the NRA, which appears to be hand-made and not made from a template.
AIPAC, the Coalition and the Sierra Club waste no time in giving you access to their "About" page, which is located right at the top of the website in places which the eyes would meet first. The Coalition and the Sierra do not inundate their visitors with news links related to their topic, which AARP provides by the truckload. At times, the AARP website feels more like a text-based jungle, and the amount of text makes it hard to focus on what you are looking for.
Putting bias aside, let us understand exactly what the websites for the NRS and MoveOn.org are: propaganda websites. The NRA's website, however, does it the best. MoveOn.org's website appears weak and unprofessional in this regard, compared to the NRA's colorful and aesthetically appealing approach. As was mentioned, the NRA also does a good job of keeping in touch with its base by format of the news, in particular the content that it has. The headlines of the NRA's website fade in and out, showing you a headline and giving you thirty seconds or so to decide if you want to read it or not; plenty enough time for thought, as the headlines are also very concise. In the terms of keeping in touch with its base, today's headlines have comments on gun control from Bruce Willis, a Hollywood action movie giant. As Bruce Willis is almost universally-known, comments from him would gain far more attention than an anonymous journalist, making the NRA's approach far more effective than that of MoveOn.org.
Each of the organization websites that you sent us too, have different flairs and qualities, which make them unique if not viable.
ReplyDeleteAARP seems to try to be mimicking yahoo as a side page attempting to be a one stop source for news and information. The similarities seem stunning and the number and variety of articles make it hard to tell the initial goal of the site. It is clearly still geared to the elderly but with articles relating to healthy sex life and other gossip column style pieces it seems more like a teen rag magazine for adults. There are plenty of places to use resources and to donate to their causes but this site makes you get easily lost in the glamor that it portrays. You could easily never find pertinent information amongst the links and not find out what the organization represents amongst the fluff.
The NRA’s site is almost the exact opposite of this, it is stream lined beautiful and of amazing quality. It seems to be made by numerous professional designers and programmers and all that money is set for the single message that guns are important and should be upheld vehemently. They however have very little information on their site and behind all the fancy graphics are links to other sites that hold similar views. Despite the impressive nature of their site it is also very unintuitive and clunky to navigate the magic graphics blending buttons and text into the background. It also does not advocate donations significantly only having one small tab on the main page leading to their donations page.
Move on has to be the least impressive of the sites most significantly because it is exclusively online. I can’t tell what they are advocating (even though I know it already) and cannot navigate their site to find out. They have numerous donation, and social media connections, but their site seems to be dedicated to kicking you off and use the other forms of media to access their information.
The sierra club, the Christian Coalition, and the Aipac sites seem to be very similar, having little that separates one or the other from the pack. They are all bland with no significant innovations from basic user created blogs reminding me a lot of my small eight thousand person hometowns website. They have the donations page and they have a few pages dedicated to information and recent events that are relevant. They are probably the most user friendly of the sites and they accomplish the goals of the site the best but they still remain boring and bland without much user interaction.
I agree with Gabriel in his assessment of each website. AARP seems to me to be too cluttered, mixing in a montage of flashy text, visuals, and video that doesn't seem to do the sites cause much justice. Though the AARP site does speak to its audience (retirees of America) its overcrowded home screen and gossip site feel may be hard for AARP's audience, an older, less technological generation to navigate. I can imagine someone my grandfather's age having a very hard time trying to locate the part of the website they need to access most. I think the chaos of their website interferes with their cause.
DeleteOn the other hand, AIPAC's website is a little less cluttered, more focused, and their message is not easily lost to the website viewer. News stories on the homepage are not linked out to another site and seemed to have been written by AIPAC's journalists. Unlike AARP, AIPAC links social media (Twitter and Facebook) onto the homepage of its website, utilizing one of the internet's greatest inventions and perhaps its most economically marketable arena. While more bland, this site seems much more navigable than that of AARP's site.
If AARP's site is too chaotic and AIPAC's site slightly bland, then the NRA's site is a good combination of visual appeal and easy navigation. Unlike the other 2 sites, I noticed that the NRA's website needs to load before one can enter into the home screen. While not detrimental to the website or the viewer, one would imagine that during this time, loading screens are a thing of the past. Content wise, the NRA links its news stories out to other not so reputable sites (such as FOX news and the like).
Finally, the Sierra Club and the Christian Coalition are both very bland sites like AIPAC but their messages are clear and they are easy to navigate.
Each interest group has a website that is designed to appeal to their target audience. AARP's website is very organized, simple and easy to get around. They have many information available but it is not overwhelming. AIPAC has a very modern and clean looking website. They also contain a lot of information but they have organized in a different way than AARP but still very simple. One of their first tabs/categories is "For Students". Thus, it reinforces my belief that this website is designed for younger or more Internet-accustomed individuals. They do an excellent job in integrating images, videos, articles and social networking sites without overwhelming the visitor. The Christian Coalition's website is very informative and organized. They also succeed in integrating images, information and social media in a American-themed website without being too overpowering.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA's website is trying to appear modern and "tough" by including java homepage and a bright "in your face" red background. Even the regular webpage features a black background. Both are very attention grabbing but the text and their message can easily get ignored. There's too much going on.
For being one of the first websites, Moveon.org is surprisingly bland and boring. But it's relevant to their main message which is not to focus on the "petty" stuff and deal with the real issues. It'll be contradicting if their website was as flashy as the NRA's website.
The Sierra Club's website is very simple, too the point and informative. Their website is appealing to their members and future members because of its simplicity and usefulness. They also excel integrating images, information, store, and various ways to get involved. Most of the other sites also want involvement and participation but none of the other sites featured it as eloquently as the Sierra Club did. Therefore, I believe the Sierra Club is using the Internet in the best way possible.
After exploring these various interest groups’ websites I felt that I saw many similarities throughout. The sites generally were visually appealing, easy to navigate and informative. With the exception to AARP and moveon.org, AARP was a very cluttered and overwhelming, where moveo.org was bland and less than appetizing. The remaining sites seemed to rank within in range of each other. The downside of the AARP website was that it was very “busy”, when thinking about the target audience of the site, being those in the older age range, being user-friendly should be the first priority rather than serving as a news site. I felt that while looking at the site I was bombarded with news articles and less about the organization itself and the services that were offered. Moveon.org was extremely boring and unimpressive, it was supposed to organize the power of the Internet in a modern way? I’m confused as to how this organization believes this site is accomplishing that goal.
ReplyDeleteThe remaining site did a decent job of encouraging visitors to donate and get involved by exploring to navigation tools to find the specific outlet. However, The Sierra Club was very blunt and to the point by having the option to act on the main screen, without having to scroll to find it. I feel that if advertising fundraising efforts and ways to get involved are done in a blunt and obvious yet polite way site visitors will be more inclined to participate. Furthermore, if the articles that explain the depth and purpose of these sites’ were paired side-by-side with ways to get involved on the main screen I believe there will be an increase in fundraising efforts and member base.
Each website, as has been mentioned, attempts to engage, in forms that range from informing to pandering, its audience. I must say that the most shocking page, perhaps because of its simplicity (or dated feel), is moveon.org. Perhaps one could argue that the site is pushing its money into field work and service; however, I would hesitate to make a donation on such an unflattering site (fearing its legitimacy). The AARP's website seems fairly cluttered and rife with small text, which one would assume would be a detriment, especially when catering to older clientele, yet I would posit that they want all of their information to be on the front page. No real digging through pages and menus to reach other pages and menus. Find the link, click it, and read the information, simple but not beautiful. The AIPC and the CCA both have similar layouts, which is not only interesting because of their religious affiliations but also because of their highlighting of several major stories, which they really want visitors to see, focus on and act upon. The two most ideologically opposed groups, the NRA and the Sierra Clubs both seem to appeal to the bases they represent. The NRA's webpage is cinematic, dark, and in-your-face. The feelings experienced upon the page's launch evoke fear and the deep seeded desire for action, "where is MY gun?!" The Sierra club on the other hand has a light, airy, feel, a feeling that they're trying to transpose into reality, "imagine if all the clouds were as white as our background?"
ReplyDeleteEach page clearly places a "donate" and "join" button somewhere near the top of the page. They make it easy and hopefully enticing for you to give. While it is more than important, if not primal, to fund and work towards your stated goal, having an online presence that well represents your organization is important as well. Appearances really are (nearly) everything, and that's why I was stunned, as mentioned, at moveon.org's layout and early 2000's feel. You only have one real opportunity to leave an impression on someone, and portraying a staunch yet unified image is key, branding is all, especially in a market society.
The Christian Coalition, AIPAC, and AARP are the only sites that have an "About Us" tab. The Christian Coalition and AIPAC's sites are definitely more legible and seem more organized in comparison to AARP, for it took me a while to actually find the "About Us" tab on AARP. In my opinion, all of these sites should have a mission statement of some sort, informing the public on what it is exactly that they are lobbying for and/or working towards. I think that AARP's site could, as many of you have said, clean up their page a little for it is extremely cluttered. Additionally, the NRA and Sierra Club should make their motives a little clearer to their visitors by creating an "About Us" tab -I think that is just the clearest and most forward way to promote your cause to others.
ReplyDeleteAARP's site has way too many ads that are just all over the place, whereas sites like AIPAC's homepage are much cleaner, with different articles on the side of their site which directs visitors to reads they may be interested in -all of which are written in a way promoting AIPAC and Israel's existence. Such postings are extremely biased but at the same time successful for people who go to the site either have a pro-Israeli mindset or are looking for reasons to fully side with the Israeli cause and the way that the information is presented, not just asthetically but also information-wise is smart and effective and is probably why AIPAC is still growing, receiving donations, and teaming up with other organizations.
The AARP website is manageable because the tabs are on top and organize all the information. The “Espanol” link is a clever tool used to increase their audience and open up their resources to Spanish speaking individuals as well. One poor aspect about this website is that it is way too busy. I felt like I was on an internet news site due to the various sections, such as health, work and retirement, money, food, etc. The advertisements about AARP on the side were also overwhelming. I would recommend taking down the advertisements and replacing them with buttons, which were nicely displayed on the Sierra Club website. By changing this feature, people might actually click on the buttons because they will not be scared of acquiring a virus from an advertisement.
ReplyDeleteThe AIPAC website is more focused than the AARP website because there are fewer things displayed and those displayed things are very well organized. As a result, it is easier to navigate through this website. I also like the fact that their Twitter Feed is displayed. They also have a slideshow of pictures with headlines. My recommendation to the AIPAC website is to add a forward and back button for the pictures so people can flip back and forth between the pictures without clicking on the miniature versions of the pictures on the bottom.
The Christian Coalition website is similar to AIPAC in terms of organization and easy navigation. They did a great job with their large icons for Facebook and Twitter because this engages the audience. The Twitter icon shows how many followers they have and the Facebook icon shows how many people liked them. The buttons on this page are user friendly, especially the one that says “Contact your elected official.” I do not like that the slideshow has no way of navigation. My recommendation for the Christian Coalition website is to install those buttons because people are impatient and they will not wait to see all the pictures on the slideshow.
Similar to the AIPAC and the Christian Coalition websites, the Sierra Club site is simple. In fact, this website is the simplest because it has fewer tabs and other displays compared to the other sites. The slideshow of pictures and headlines had the forward and back buttons, thus, making it easier to navigate and go back to pictures of interest. I also like the powerful slide with the following headline: “Mr. President, time to act on climate change now.” I like the buttons on the right side to subscribe, donate, take action, join/renew because they are easy to find and look legitimate as opposed to the ads on the AARP website. This site also has an “En Espanol” link on the bottom of the page. I would recommend putting that on top where Spanish speakers could find it easily.
My favorite website is for the NRA because it shows its high technologic capabilities. I like that this site has its own special loading bar. Also, the organization makes their site easy to navigate with the tabs on the left side of the page. I like the slideshow presentation with the powerful pictures and headlines, such as “When it comes to firearms, the media continually misfires” and a quote from the father of a Sandy Hook Elementary student who survived the shooting. I recommend they add the forward and back bottom, as mentioned before with other websites. I like the moving headline on the bottom of the page with updates on bills. While this website is the best, it lacks links to Facebook and Twitter on the main page, which should be added to increase their audience.
My least favorite website is Moveon.org. The layout is unappealing and lacks the tools the internet offers such as slideshow presentations. I would recommend adding a slideshow presentation and more color because this website is very bland. However, I do like the donate button and the Get involved section.
After looking at these websites i agree with a lot of the comments others are making on them. The NRA had a very visually pleasing website that seemed very easy to navigate and professionally done as did the AIPAC website. I thought the sierra club website used great visuals to draw the onlooker in to the website, and right as you open the page its the first thing that draws your attention. In m opinion this would be very effective in getting one interested in the organization and their cause. The AARP and the Christian Coalition websites were too overwhelming for me. The AARP website had too many adds which distracted me from the message of the group, and what they are about, and the Christian coalition had too many visual components such as patterns and different colors going on in the background making it a very busy looking page. Moveon.org was very amateur looking to me and didn't hold the same professional aesthetic as the over websites did. How professional looking the webpage is i think is incredibly important because it gives a sense of credibility or validity to the interest group and what they do and are about. Some of the websites are doing a great job on their webpages already, others could take simple steps like making the backgrounds less prominent and emphasizing the content and material on the website, or following a more professional outline for the website to make them better. These kinds of changes could really help gain money and members for these groups.
ReplyDeleteThe AIPAC site was the best for me to navigate through since as my class mates put it, it is more focused. I also like how it seemed to try to capture a larger audience by apealing to different languages and use of social networks. I agree with Roya about having mission statement, one of the first tabs i'll go to would be the mission statement or pledge to see what the organization is specifically speaking to with their cause.
ReplyDeleteAlthough these sites had a lot of similarities one of the things i kept comparing was their donation tabs notating which sites seemed to specifically send the message "we just want your money" opposed to a site like AIPAC that in my perspective shared more about itself rather then just appealing to those with money. My least favorite as many would agree was MOVEON.ORG Natalie put it well when she said it was bland I feel as though we judge our cause to by looks and this isn't something I would invest in if it doesn't seem like they put the work into keeping up with the times, why invest in them?
I was surprised to see the NRA with such a good site, I guess I use to stereotype members as being older or old fashioned but the site definitely proved me wrong.
Taking the time to look at the websites of these different interest groups was interesting to say the least. They all were similar to one another in many respects. The sites all shared what could typically be expected from a web site. They all did a good job in respect to being easy to navigate. The AIPAC does a good job of presenting a website which addresses their cause and the information that drives them on. The page is not too cluttered and is clear in targeting their audience, doing it very well. All together I feel as though they have a solid home page that promotes their cause and can allow them to gain members. The AARP home page was, as has been mentioned before, is the most cluttered of the pages. They have many features on their page which are interactive and do a good job of putting everything that you could want to know about AARP in front of you and at your finger tips. While all the information is easily accessed by a college student it may be more difficult for those they are targeting. With the wealth of information they present and the clutter of the information it may be difficult for the older generation to navigate through. It is an impressive page but it could not hurt to keep simplicity in mind. The NRA's website, much like the AIPAC, is another good example of a website that is hitting all the right notes. It has a simple layout that presents current stories and issues regarding gun control with the picture of an eagle and the flag in the background. This site points directly at their members and the issues that are affecting them in a clear way. Information about how to become a member, NRA locations, and ways to donate are clear on the side. This is a simple website that presents all the information in an effective manner. As you mentioned in the blog post Moveon.org is a new website attempting to utilize the internet. At the same time they are not doing the best job of making that happen. It was certainly a simple site but there was not much to it. There is the ability to click to follow them on twitter and acknowledges the groups Facebook page which are both positive. The site also contains many stories and videos which can be clicked on to find information of the issues the group is attempting to highlight. At the same time there is not much information about the organization other than what I read in small font on the bottom of the page. They could do a better job in this regard other than having a donate button at the top of the page. Much like the NRA's page The Sierra Club does a good job of presenting an eye-catching web page that is informative to their audience. You can access the page and find your state and be sent to that states webpage to get involved where you are. This is a good example of a way to get people involved in their cause locally and increase their membership. Looking at these sites is an interesting way to see how interest groups are using the internet to get their voice out to many.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed to me that all the websites were good when it came to navigating between the different links and articles they had. To me the AIPAC website looked the most pleasing to the eye because of how professional and clean it looked. The NRA website was also pretty well done in how the news related to guns and guns rights were being presented on their website. You know exactly what the NRA website is all about when you see the headlines relating to "gun rights." The poorest looking website was definitely the MoveOn.org website. It looked very amateurish and nothing really amazed me. However I think that maybe they are going for a simpler look that makes it seem like "less is more." It wasn't by any means hard to navigate, it just doesn't look very good.
ReplyDeleteI think overall all the websites are doing fine in terms of spreading the news about there website and what it supports. Examples of this are the AIPAC website and the NRA website. I think the AARP website can help itself out by not making their website looked all cluttered with links and ads everywhere. A more cleaner look would make some people less overwhelmed when looking at their website. There were so many articles from politics to entertainment, that it makes it seem like the information is all cluttered up together.
Each of these websites are easy to move about. Just from their homepage it is easy to understand what their agenda is and what each organization is about. They all have a home or about page which states their agenda. I noticed each site has a donate tab for some its large and others its small. I feel that the large tab is more successful in drawing attention. Their layouts are fairly easy to use aswell however there is an acception being Moveon.org.
ReplyDeletePersonally if I didn't know their agenda previously I would have no idea what moveon.org is about. Also moving about their site is really confusing. Unlike the other websites they do not have nice organized tabs. On their site is says get involved however there isn't a link or any information on how to get involved with the organization. Whoever created/ runs this site should be fired its pure crap, our own class site is better organized. This is an example of how not to create a website.
After arriving at AARP'S Website, I had this urge to exit the screen. This website goes ALL IN on their homepage with extraordinary amounts of information, ultimately making it rather difficult for the viewer to navigate. The only helpful tab on this page was the "About us" which helped give an insight on this non profit organizations core values and beliefs. AARP reaches out to a nice target audience; which is the reason for their success as a non profit organization over the years.
ReplyDeleteAIPAC stood out to me right from the get-co. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has done a tremendous job over the years by strengthening their relationship with the United States. This Committee has benefited from the expertise of America when it comes to homeland security, defense and counter terrorism; which are just a few of the many accomplishment this achieved by the Israel Public Affairs Committee.
NRA's website caught my attention right away, similar to AIPAC's website. Both NRA and AIPAC make it easy for the viewer to navigate along with a clear picture of what the Association stands for. After browsing all of these websites, I found NRA to be the most efficient website, due to their clarity and numerous amounts of information that the website has to offer.
Moveon.org was the lousiest website and didn't even deserve a donation. IMO, it looked like the management team hired a seventh grader to design their page. They have a donation section which is the first thing that caught my attention, and the last thing I viewed on their page.
Christian Coalition of America was very similar to both NRA and AIPAC, with their features and easy to navigate homepage. Many people in America are religious, which gives this website a popularity vote. They have numerous tabs on how to get involved and take action, which shows their compassion for what they have to offer to the Christian Community.
Of all the websites, the AIPAC website was the most aesthetically pleasing to me. I think the layout was clean and organized, and easy to navigate. The team behind the website definitely knows what they're doing. I also liked how they had a "tweet of the day" section. I think they definitely have an advantage technologlcally-speaking over the other websites.
ReplyDeleteThe other websites were basically pretty similar. They all had options to "learn more," or "join," or "donate." However, I think the Sierra Club organization probably has the best success rate with donations. I say this because this is the easiest website to find the donate button. If I am planning on giving money to an organization, I certainly wouldn't want to fish around to find the place to do it. Although the button may be a bit "in your face," I think it is worth it to have an easy access to it.
The moveon.org website was the least aesthetically pleasing for sure. It was bland and harder to navigate than the others. There just wasn't much there. I would have liked to see a lot more creativity from this website.
By far AARP and MoveOn.org have the worst website designs, for different reasons though. AARP's site is far too cluttered, especially when you consider the demographics of the organization's membership. The site has way too much information on the main page and is hard to navigate. I can imagine much of the membership find the site very difficult to use and therefore they just forego the website entirely. MoveOn's website seems outdated, it is not professional looking in the least. The website looks as if it is made by some small time organization. The site is unappealing and will likely drive people away because of the poor ascetics. For a group that tries to be engaged with youth they are doing a very poor job of trying to engage them through their website. AIPAC, the Sierra Club and the Christian Coalition of America have very similar designs. The layout is simple but ascetically pleasing. The best design by far is the NRA's website they have a very good design they have limited the information on the front page and have easy navigation on the side of the website. Too much information on the homepage can make things feel cluttered and often people will avoid the website if they cannot figure out where they need to go on the homepage to find the information that they would like to find. The NRA has done a good idea of identifying what appeals to people on websites and other organizations would be wise to learn from their design.
ReplyDeleteAARP-After looking at the AARP website for a while I found myself constantly scanning from stories, to polls, to videos, and back to stories because there was far too much information on one page. If I were to continually browser their page for multiple hours I don’t feel that I would absorb all of the information on the page. Having plenty of information for your followers is never a bad thing but if they were going to this page to find a specific article it might be tough. I would suggest AARP condense the information their page and make it “shorter” so that the viewer does not have to scroll so far down the page to find information. I would also have them make their donate button stick out more so that they can take advantage of visitors that wish to donate to their cause.
ReplyDeleteAIPAC-The AIPAC website was a large improvement over the AARP website and probably the 3rd best site out of the 6 that I looked at. I liked the fact that the current news was the first image that the visitor saw and the drop down menu at the top kept the page clean and organized. I also liked the social media integration on the page that allowed you to see tweets and Facebook posts right on the AIPAC website. This allows the visitors to get important information about their organization without even leaving the page. Overall the page was well done, but I still think that this page could have done more to their donation button to catch the visitor’s attention.
NRA-The NRA website was the best at keeping all of their important information on the front page and did not make the visitor scroll at all to see the entirely of the page. The links along the left side of the page could have been a little bigger but that is not a huge problem. The only problem that I had with the page was that as hard as I tried I could not get over the fact that the page reminded me of Fox News because of the fonts that were used and the seemingly over the top headlines that continually scrolled across the screen. I would suggest that the designers of the site take a more subtle approach I the future, but that would go against the NRA’s style which may turn off potential supporters. I would also suggest that the donate button was separate from the rest of the links on the left side of the page so that it will catch the attention of the visitor more easily.
Move On-The Moveon.org website was quite disappointing to me because I expected the site to be more ascetically pleasing. I have heard so much about Move on and I assumed that they would create effective website for getting their message across to visitors but I felt that this page was very ineffective. Although the page was simple, I felt that it was too plain to draw anyone in that was checking the page out for the first time. I also thought it was strange that the news stories on the right were the exact same stories that were lower down on the page. One thing that I did like about the page was that the donate button was at the top of the page/left side of the page and clearly visible. I would suggest adding a bar at the top for news stories, issues, about the organization, etc.
Christian Coalition of America-I felt that this was one of the best websites that I looked at because it was condensed, clean, and visually pleasing. I liked the bar across the tops that allowed the visitor to easily navigate the site and the large scrolling pictures/news which made the reader aware of the top news. I also liked the tabbed browsing lower down on the page that kept the page clean and condensed. Another important aspect of the page that I thought was important was the social media integration that allowed you to like or follow the organization right from their page as well as the ability to contact your congressman from the page. The only thing that I noticed was the donation button blended in slightly so I would make that more visible.
DeleteSierra Club-I felt that this was the best website that I saw out of the 6. I was clean, simple, and got the point across all on a small page that did not require the reader to scroll around too much. The bar across the top was simple and allowed the reader to research the organization and get news easily. I also thought that the donate, take action, and join now buttons on the right side were clear and effective. I also liked the over-sized pictures that scrolled though on the site making the reader aware of news and events. One suggestion that I would have for the site would be to include Facebook and twitter links along with the Google+ link to attract more supporters.
I definitely have to agree with most of the comments about the AARP website. Navigating through is hectic because it clusters all these options and tries to organize them in ways that are aesthetically displeasing. Their transition to website design is very uneasy and the options are sloppily placed all over the site. People like to see concise and simple methods to explore a website.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to the AARP, the AIPAC website seems to definitely place in front of you the option to become a member or to donate. They display their news much more neatly through the slideshow unlike AARP which has bundles of topics at the bottom of the page. The simple white and blue scheme don't seem as exhausting to the eye.
NRA is a little scary because I feel like I have entered to some website with a virus. Its pretty neat overall though but the color scheme is a little too much. The logo on the back seems somewhat unnecessary because it makes it look messy. The option to donate however is small font and Im not sure its the best way to recruit.
MoveOn is definitely the neatest and seems to serve people who know what they are going for. The Christian Coalition similarly does a nice job too. I think the design to that one exudes a lot of patriotism. However, I'm not sure how well this will attract people but my guess is they'll like it. Their membership and donate options are flat out in front of you. I would assume they are doing pretty will since its straightforward.
Comparing all of the websites I noticed that a few of them had some strong points and a few lacked in certain areas. The one that was the most visually impressive to me was the NRA website. It was very visually inviting and fairly easy to navigate. The AARP website had a lot of information and was also very organized and easy to navigate. On both of these websites they made it fairly easy to donate and the NRA even let you use paypal. One of my least favorite websites was the Christian Coalition. On the fundraising page they had the option to set it up so you can donate monthly and it was glamorized more than the one time donation. It said “greatest impact” next to the decision to become a monthly contributor and even if you selected one time donation that “greatest impact” did not go away. It makes you almost feel shameful if you don’t. The Moveon website’s fundraising was a joke. What kind of place makes a person have regulations to donate such as being a citizen? I found that offensive to the people that believed in that cause almost making it as if they have no right to. For the NRA website I found it to be very sexist towards women and that was offensive to me. Having separate classes for women acting like we were not on the same level of defense as men. Being a woman who has been shooting guns since I was a child I especially found that to be discriminatory. Most of these websites has easy navigation which was a plus but I HATED the fact that on the AIPAC website every form of information was in the format of a video. It was annoying. Overall I would say that the NRA website was the best overall and the AIPAC was formatted the worst.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at the six different websites posted by the interest groups, I came away impressed with some, and unimpressed with others. I agree with everyone’s take on moveon.org. It was a very generic looking site that did not look to interesting. There are websites that can get away with this look, for instance Google, because they do not need to provide a lot of information besides results of other sites you want to jump to. AIPAC, besides being the longest page, had a lot of information on its home page. I find this to be helpful because I do not need to be navigating as much or looking for other information through tabs. Something very similar with all the sites is their connectivity with social media. One can easily sign on to their Facebook and twitter, then like the site. It makes the whole social media aspect of things a lot easier for the supporter. A lot of the sites also had videos promoting their values. For instance you can see little clips on the NRA site by gun advocates explaining their stances. They have a target audience, and a good way to reach them is through the promotion of their similarities. Showing pictures of likeminded people can attract or detract. I recommend for these sites and other websites for interest groups to be helpful and easy to navigate. There is nothing more frustrating than not knowing about a subject and then to make matters worse, having a difficult time gathering information about it.
ReplyDeleteAfter taking a look at each of the organization websites, it can be seen that each website holds a unique and interesting ideal. One of the positive aspects that was noticed about each website is that you could spot right away where to make a donation. This automatically becomes appealing to the viewer given the fact that most of these websites also state what their purposes are and what they are advocating for.
ReplyDeleteOf all these websites the least appealing to the viewer is Moveon.org. The structure of the website is the least organized and least appealing to the eye. Although this website is able to display right away where the viewer can make the donation, it is difficult to understand right away what it is the viewer is contributing to.
Of all of these websites I feel that the website for the NRA and for the Christian Coalition, while very different, were the most organized and were able to display right away what it was they were offering. It was easy and simple to understand what they stand for and what the point that they are trying to get across to the viewer.
As far as what it is that these websites can do in the future to better their organization, Moveon.org which is solely based online should look into branching out and trying to open up to a bigger audience. They should also work on making their website easy to navigate and more organized so that is easily understandable what it is they are advocating for and what it is the viewer is making a donation for.
I spend a few minutes looking through each site and first off, the two most unattractive sites were AARP and MoveOn.Org. The other sites were very visually appealing, especially the NRA site. This is extremely important in making a first impression on somebody looking through websites, the more user friendly and visually appealing, the more likely that person will continue to go back to that webpage. AAPP and MoveOn are very boring, basic layouts. While basic can good, and helpful, these sites are too basic and don't really give the user a sense of what the site is for.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA site is easy to navigate and very high tec, compared to other sites. Its got big, bold lettering and catch phrases that catch the eye and just make it very MANLY. I'm sure Arnold Schwartzenegger approves. It has a cool news feed as well, that updates the user on issues regarding politics and guns. The Christian Coalition of America also had a visually appealing site, that seemed user friendly and up to date with layout. It had links available for following via twitter and facebook, which is a smart move. It also had many other buttons that would link you to other pages such as "contacting a congressman" or "buy a sticker" which i believe is very beneficial.
Overall, I believe that the NRA and Christian Coalition have the right idea in regards to websites. They know how to keep somebody's attention, and make it very user friendly and easy to navigate. I think these organizations need to have sites that stay up to date and current with what is popular and high tec.