Here you will find I.C.W.D.I.C. 2005 judging criteria which can be useful for team members as well as for judges in order to evaluate the contest websites.
1. Website Usability – maximum 20 points
|
1. Evaluate the site structure and navigation system used |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
|
Website is too hard to navigate. You can’t find the information you need in 3 mouse clicks. You can hardly understand the structure of the website at all. |
Website has well realized clear structure. The most pages can be reached in 3 mouse clicks. However, the navigation is hard to be used by average Internet surfer. |
Website has perfect structure for the info it has. You can find the page you need in 3 mouse clicks. You are pleased to use the navigation system it provides you with. You always know where you are going on this website. |
| 2. Evaluate the level of a proper interaction of website design and web standards |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
|
The website has unclear styles implemented, so that it’s easy to get lost there. You are unsure the links are links until you click them. Usability is sacrificed for the unusual design. |
The interaction between design and common sense is average. Some navigation elements of the website confuse you so that you can’t understand what they are for and if they are for navigation. |
Website is original, exemplifies excellent graphic design and uses the many capabilities of the Web. However you also know where you are right now and where you should click in order to find the certain info. |
2. Website Design Quality and Adequacy – maximum 20 points
|
1. Evaluate the site’s graphical appearance and creativity. |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
| Website uses simple text design without any enhancements. It’s unpleasant and aimed mainly to give the info to its visitors. The content is hard to read and poorly structured. |
Website is well designed. However, it lacks creativity. Some design elements seem to be inappropriate. |
Website is well designed. All graphical elements are appropriate and form clear and pleasant picture in addition to the website’s content. |
| 2. Evaluate the level of website optimization for different browser viewing and fast load. |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
|
The website is optimized for only one of popular web browsers (MS IE, Mozilla, Opera etc.) and its page load time exceed 30 sec. on an average Internet connection. |
The website has average page load time 15 sec. and is optimized for 1-2 most popular browsers. |
Website’s look is perfect in any popular browser as well as its page load doesn’t exceed 10 sec. |
3. Content Quality and Adequacy – maximum 20 points
|
1. Evaluate content adequacy for the site’s main goals. |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
| Content is inappropriate for the college/university website. The language is poor. Translation has many mistakes. |
Website has good content, well translated and appropriate. However, it seems to be unnecessary long and too informative. It’s hard to read it all. |
Website’s content is perfectly developed. It’s not to huge and not too small. It has the info visitors may need and is well structured. Content is well translated. It’s pleasant to read it. |
| 2. Evaluate content optimization for search engines. |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
|
The content lacks keywords it should have. Links, headers, titles etc. do not work for the SEO too. |
Content includes main keywords. Their density is 3-4%. However META tags, titles and alts are out of usage. |
Content includes main keywords. Their density is 3-4%. However META tags, titles and alts are out of usage. |
4. Usage of Xitex WebContent M1 Modules – maximum 20 points
| 1. Evaluate the level of usage of built-in content markup features. |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
| The source code of content parts is clumsy and has many unnecessary tags. |
It seems that developers have used CSS and built-in Xitex WebContent M1 features however some source code has been entered manually while it’s possible to automatize it. |
Content part is developed with built-in Xitex WebContent M1 features. The source code is clear, without unnecessary tags. |
| 2. Evaluate the level of usage of Xitex WebContent M1 modules. |
|
Give website 0-3 if: |
Give website 4-7 if: |
Give website 8-10 if: |
|
Website is build like a static one without the usage of Xitex WebContent M1 modules. All dynamic parts are written on JavaScript, VB, PHP etc. |
Website uses some modules such as contact forms, search etc, however some other features written manually could be developed with Xitex WebContent M1 modules. |
Website is fully automatic. It uses dynamic modules properly wherever they could be used. The output website is pure HTML based without scripts etc. |
5. Overall Appearance – maximum 20 points
| 1. Evaluate the synergic effect brought by design, content, interactivity, usability etc. |
|
Give website 0-6 if: |
Give website 7-14 if: |
Give website 15-20 if: |
| Website looks like a set of uncoordinated parts such as content, design etc. You can’t feel its finality and overall view. |
The most parts of the website are well interrelated. You feel them like a part of the same. However, few parts of the website are separate and not interrelated with others. |
All design, content, interactivity, usability etc. make you feel the website like a perfect tool of the college/university information getting. They are relative and make great synergetic final effect. |
|
Participation
