Color:

I thought the colors were rather uninteresting. Mostly black/white with links in blue. There was no continuity in color schemes, each main heading was slightly different in backgrounds/colors and many links to departments within the school were totally different.

Graphics:

The school web site had very flat, uninteresting graphics, but some of the links to department web sites had animated sites. Again no consistency.

Organization of Data:

The information was easy to follow. Many things within curriculum were unfinished and the ones that were finished linked to personal web sites of teachers, departments, etc. Within each main topic, there were links to return, etc. Once you got to individual web sites, those links did not exist and you had to back-up. Some links didn't work. No continuity of orientation.

Loading:

I didn't have any problem with the speed. Even the outside links loaded fairly quickly.

Quality:

I liked the various opportunities that you had to give feedback to the principal, teachers or webmaster. I thought the inconsistencies were distracting.

Color:

Very simple color scheme and was very consistent. Each page,was designed in the same colors as the main page with consistent color schemes throughout.

Graphics:

Very simple graphics of "Impala" school mascot and hoof prints down the side. The graphics that I observed were very consistent with the whole web design. Some were animated, but not in a distracting way and continued the color scheme.

Organization of Data:

Everything seemed to be organized in an efficient manner. Easy to go from place to place. Although, I kept wanting to see staff and possibly class descriptions someplace and never did see them. The only phone numbers I saw were those of counseling and no e-mail addresses other than to the school or webmaster.

Loading:

All pages seemed to load quickly.

Quality:

Overall I thought this was a very good, but needed more.

Color:

Simple background that you saw on many pages. Easy on the eyes.

Graphics:

Major use of graphics from gifs, photos, videos, audios, etc. The variety within one page, may have been a little too much, but certainly the information was very inviting for further looks.

Organization of Data:

There was so much information presented that it was a little over-whelming as presented. I thought a little more organization could have improved the surfing a little. Links worked, but navigation was a little confusing.

Loading:

Loading was a little slow, but not bad. I imagine the reason was all of the video, jpgs, etc. used had an impact on this.

Quality:

This was a very interesting site. It is interesting what different parts of the world value in information displayed. Here we are interested in the nuts and bolts, but this site displayed many things including cultural history, interesting events, etc. (4)

Color:

I thought the colors were a little blah. They used gray throughout. Color backgrounds were different on different pages. (3)

Graphics:

They used many gifs and I think they would have been more if they had been arranged a little differently and possibly a little smaller. It became a too busy at times. (3)

Organization of Data:

They used a stationary navigational bar on the left hand side of page. This allowed the reader to return to main topics, but there were few navigational tools on the individual pages. (3)

Loading:

Loading was a little slowed, but they had many gifs. (3)

Quality:

Overall I thought the site was a little busy and not as user friendly as others. (3)

Color:

The audience was very much elementary school students and parents. Very bright and colorful. Backgrounds were the same and color schemes remained constant for fonts and text.

Graphics:

Graphics were gifs and there were many of them. Certainly this would be good for younger children, but for me to review, I thought scheme was busy and cluttered. Gifs were not links.

Organization of Data:

I found it difficult to maneuver in. Navigational tools needed work to move around in the web site. Returning to the home page was not on every page. The organization may have been better with better navigational tools.

Loading:

Loading was a little slowed, but they had many gifs.

Quality:

I found myself turned off more than turned on to this site. I thought the layout to be distracting and difficult.

Color:

Backgrounds, colors, fonts remained constant.

Graphics:

They used gifs and pictures throughout site. This site wasn't too busy with these. Very simply used.

Organization of Data:

I thought it was easy to maneuver around in. I did think the order of surfing was a little backwards, but they had their own priorities.

Loading:

Loading was a little slowed, but they had many gifs.

Quality:

It was very simply designed and it allowed you to maneuver with ease. It contained much information about the area (Seattle) and things of interests in their neighborhood as well as school information. That might be something to think about also when designing these sites for global visitors.

Color:

Simple and consistent.

Graphics:

They used both gifs, animated gifs, and pictures very well. The gifs/pictures were links. Not overdone.

Organization of Data:

This was easy to maneuver in and easy to see where you were going. I thought they missed out on telling us more general information and spent a lot of web space highlighting their science, math, and technology projects and philosophy.

Loading:

Loading was a little slowed, but they had many gifs.

Quality:

They not only wrote this site for elementary school age students, but also parents. They highlighted their accomplishments and I liked the way they introduced their staff (picture, background). However, they did fail to give phone numbers or e-mail addresses.

Color:

Very consistent colors. For a district site, I thought appropriate.

Graphics:

Used few gifs, but did use pictures and I think that this is an excellent way to introduce your district to the world. A header on the pages was constant with the school district name and logo.

Organization of Data:

They used drop down menus which were very nice. This is a small district, but they didn't showcase their "schools" as much as district news. It was easy to navigate in.

Loading:

Downloading sites went pretty fast.

Quality:

Overall, it was easy to maneuver and get information.

Color:

I wasn't fond of the color scheme. The gold and turquoise was "ugh".

Graphics:

Simple and didn't use very many.

Organization of Data:

I found this site to be very difficult to maneuver in. I thought at first the left bar was a navigational tool, but it was just a information heading for the long scroll. It was a bit cluttered and I didn't think friendly.

Loading:

Loading was OK.

Quality:

I didn't find this site appealing as discussed in class. It was hard to maneuver in and I thought the layout was confusing. Not many links and mostly text.

Color:

Colors and fonts consistent for the district information.

Graphics:

They used some animated gifs and gifs. On the district website, I didn't see any pictures. There are a couple of different logo's that were displayed through links of DVUSD, but the district web site again was consistent.

Organization of Data:

Actually it was easy to maneuver in, but there were no pull down menus that I think would have helped with the cluttered effect. Navigational tools were not consistent, but were there.

Loading:

Loading was good. The outside links were a little slow.

Quality:

Overall, I think it was pretty good. It was a little cluttered with information and I think that a little better organization and better navigational tools would have made it even better.