twe website chat result

http://sparc.nfu.edu.tw/~bio/
They have some page and link that have not to build yet. We can’t get it. The 相關連結 in 知識寶庫 very good. The link of 虎科大is the old website address. Their English vision have not a lot of news and information. The school website is good, but it is not to renew and refine the all content. The school website is old and can’t give us what we want to know.
http://sparc.nfu.ed
We like the相關連結, because we think they have powerful to us. The English view have a useful links that is good. We think that the 應外系’s website of 首頁 let me feel cute. The English version they don't have the 實習實驗室 introduce and photo.

Impressions of website evaluation

In a wide variety of information can be found on the Internet that varies widely in accuracy, value, quality and reliability. On the Internet is so versatile but apt to make people lose one's own original websites wanted to look for, and kill time. Set of criteria can be used that can be divided into two groups: criteria pertaining to the contents of web pages and those pertaining to design and user-friendliness. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the sources, accuracy and objectivity. However, in limited lesson time slots, it is also imperative that the sites are user-friendly, well designed and easy to access.

I read three articles about website evaluation, those all talk about same thing, like design, access, contents, colors, background etc. All these is it inside the following four major project, utilize four major project this is it examine one's own website make website for being abundant eliminate through competition, for example: Update the content of webpage and link fixedly, but in linking, should check whether to link correctly or not, if link it by mistake, it don't let visitors unable to read websites or the picture to revise at once. After reading these three articles, I understand further how to want to go to improve my thing and furnishing above of website.

1. Source Evaluation: Trustworthy source, author’s credentials, e-mail, organisational support, rated by known authority, metainformation, bad grammar
2. Contents: accurate information, up-to-date, comprehensive, rounded story, audience & purpose, objectivity, fairness, reasonableness, moderateness, external consistency
3. Access: standard multimedia formats, does it require extra software or plug-ins, free, easy to reach or overloaded, download time
4. Design: well structured, easy to navigate, interaction, distracting visual elements, does everything function, functional design, working hyperlinks

Website from:
http://www.mediumblue.com/newsletters/website-evaluation.html
http://matrix.msu.edu/educonsult/usability.html
http://home.plex.nl/~jgraus/thesis/content/ch5.htm