Carson's Evaluation Report
Evaluator Participants
Preston Banks: is my older brother and previous Mizzou Graduate. He used to be part of the Mizzou Shotgun Club when he went to school here and was one of the members in charge of the team Facebook page. His current job now he is also in charge of updating the web site, so he knows what a good website should look like, therefore making him a good choice as an evaluator.
George Schramm: is a Senior Journalism student at Mizzou as well as he is also a part of the Shotgun Club. George is the Social Media Officer; therefore he is the one in charge of the Facebook, twitter, and Instagram page for the club. Not only does all his social media experience through the club and his major provide him great experience to evaluate my site, but as well as help me make the website similar in structure to the social media sites we currently have.
Dylan Twehous: is a student who attends the University of Central Missouri. He is the president of the shotgun team at that university and we do a lot of events and compete with him. I thought he would be another great evaluator, as he represents other teams who may visit our site and what information about our events. He also is in charge for the construction of UCM’s website and social media pages so he may have good input on how I can make ours a greater website.
Summary of Evaluator Comments
Overall, all three of the evaluators thought the design for the most part was in good shape, and the site was very easy to follow and very accessible to the user. However, it did seem that they found a common problem within my picture layout needing to be changed as well as making my my pages less cluttered as there is to much text per page. Due to the simplicity in the design, the site is very easy to navigate, yet can be boring to user.
When it came down to the content, all three evaluators noticed that two of the links on the webpage didn't work. They thought those links shouldn't exist on the website if they weren't functional. However, they did think the content of the site was very informative, and would bring users back to the website time after time so they could receive the information they are looking for within events, or the team in general.
As for the credibility portion, it was pretty relevant that contact with email wasn't listed on the website anywhere, making it impossible to contact with the creator of the site or anyone important regarding the club. It also doesn't include the date created or updated next to the site author's name and validation at the bottom of each page. Between the 3 evaluators, they didn't think the site contained any bias opinions, as well as they didn't believe there was any copyright infringements.
| Design | Content | Credibility |
|---|---|---|
| 4.41 | 4.3 | 3 |
Links to Data
Recommended and Planned Changes
The first major change I would like to make on my webpage is put the links down the side of the webpage instead of the top. My evaluators suggested that doing so would make the whole webpage flow better, and I agree it would look better and more professional. Also, I would like to work on the formatting of the pictures on my page as they are crammed together. Not only was it suggested by my evaluators, but I think it looks bad and needs to be separated out and each picture itself, centered.
When it comes to the content of the page, I need to finish putting in all the content for the links as two of the links do not lead to anything right now. Also, I would like to add more photos and borders to the the website to make the website more appealing to the public and keep users on the page.
For the credibility part of the website, there is a lot to be done. All of the evaluators didn't see much credibility on the page, so I am going to add details on the site author, when it was updated, and the credentials of the author of the site. ALso, the website is missing the contact email, so I need to add email and/or a number so there is a way to get in contact with me. I need to go back through and check/fix the grammatical errors, as the evaluators said I had some throughout the webpage.
Reflections on Evaluations
Overall, this evaluation method was very beneficial to the construction of my website. I thought that the process of rating each part and provided feedback to the rating, helps explain what the evaluator really thinks about your website. It also really tells you the author what you need to do to make it better as a whole. I thought it also was very beneficial because it gives the evaluator a good guideline to rate the website making them able to get every detail looked at.
This was very helpful for me as I quickly put together my website and it still is a work in progress. That being said there is a lot of flaws throughout the website and I am glad I was able to have three separate people with different ideals look at my website, and give me some feedback on how I can improve.
