Comments on: Good (and Bad) Design in Politics, Part 2 http://www.studionashvegas.com/old-posts/good-and-bad-design-in-politics-part-2/ Nashville, TN's Best WordPress Designer/Developer Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:09:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: studionashvegas http://www.studionashvegas.com/old-posts/good-and-bad-design-in-politics-part-2/#comment-152 studionashvegas Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:03:16 +0000 http://www.studionashvegas.com/2008/11/03/good-and-bad-design-in-politics-part-2/#comment-152 Thanks for the list! There are quite a few great sites on here! Thanks for the list! There are quite a few great sites on here!

]]> By: Darrin Dickey http://www.studionashvegas.com/old-posts/good-and-bad-design-in-politics-part-2/#comment-151 Darrin Dickey Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:00:27 +0000 http://www.studionashvegas.com/2008/11/03/good-and-bad-design-in-politics-part-2/#comment-151 Below, I added a few more examples. What I think would be an interesting study, and a pain to do, would be to define what makes a good political website, then do an analysis of a large number of sites. Is there a difference between the quality of Republican, Democrat and third-party sites? Does one party seem to produce better websites? Does one group "get" social media better than another? Are state candidate sites better or worse, on whole, than national candidate websites?<br><br>Some further random websites.<br>Here's one that's table- and div-based. Nice graphics, but WAY too busy Move some of that stuff off of the front page. People are overwhelmed by too much stuff hitting them in the face right off.: <a href="http://www.charliebrownforcongress.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.charliebrownforcongress.org/</a><br><br>This one's not eye-catching and it's DotNetNuke-based so it's got divs AND tables. But it's nice and clean.: <a href="http://www.tammybaldwin.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tammybaldwin.com/</a><br><br>This one is far too text-based and some of the images are blurry. Looks kind of homemade. They need brighter, fresher, focused images. Keep the front page simple and put all of that text inside and broken up by white space and images.: <a href="http://www.sestakforcongress.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sestakforcongress.com/</a><br><br>This one's not beautiful, needs some style, but it is very clean and almost completely div-based.: <a href="http://www.maffeiforcongress.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.maffeiforcongress.com/</a> Below, I added a few more examples. What I think would be an interesting study, and a pain to do, would be to define what makes a good political website, then do an analysis of a large number of sites. Is there a difference between the quality of Republican, Democrat and third-party sites? Does one party seem to produce better websites? Does one group “get” social media better than another? Are state candidate sites better or worse, on whole, than national candidate websites?

Some further random websites.
Here's one that's table- and div-based. Nice graphics, but WAY too busy Move some of that stuff off of the front page. People are overwhelmed by too much stuff hitting them in the face right off.: http://www.charliebrownforcongress.org/

This one's not eye-catching and it's DotNetNuke-based so it's got divs AND tables. But it's nice and clean.: http://www.tammybaldwin.com/

This one is far too text-based and some of the images are blurry. Looks kind of homemade. They need brighter, fresher, focused images. Keep the front page simple and put all of that text inside and broken up by white space and images.: http://www.sestakforcongress.com/

This one's not beautiful, needs some style, but it is very clean and almost completely div-based.: http://www.maffeiforcongress.com/

]]>