week seven
Gill’s analysis of the opposing candidates websites may at first glance seem like dissecting minutiae but in fact those small details speak worlds about the candidate’s targeted audience and their usage of the internet to communicate with them. Both need to be easily accessible by using lowest common denomenator standards of web presentation. But they differ – I especially love that the Bush site is designed for 1024×768, which Gill suggests that the developers imply their audience has “up-to-date technology” – or, essentially, money. Is it reading too much into it to say that the Republican party is focusing most of its attention on the wealthy and ignoring a good chunk of American voters? Maybe, but it is still an interesting topic to explore. And their extensive use of Microsoft services is quite telling.
Even with concluding the Kerry site having a slighter edge (regarding loading time, organization of content, etc.) I find it interesting that Bush won the election. Essentially, these websites are reflections of the candidates and their goals and while Kerry is generally more “user-friendly” his campaign did not get him the presidency? What gives? I suppose this article is a good indicator for the future of design issues and how to alleviate them rather than implying the successfulness of a site as a fortune telling win for one party or another. Maybe the Republican party can work on contradictory problems such as the general bandwidth weight of the site when many of their constiuents are in rural areas with limited/slow internet access.
This reminds me of an article I found when the campaign was ongoing about design elements incorporated into each of the banners. This one is quite similar, highlighting that in terms of graphical visability, the Kerry/Edwards banner is much less effective (weak typography, use of positive/negative space) whereas Bush/Cheney has a dominating precense and the aesthetic organization is much less cluttered. While my blog post souns like a Bush sympathizer (which, I can safely proclaim that I am definately not), I do feel that his public image behind colors and shapes during such a crucial time in his campaign helped him earn another term. People, whether corporations, candidates, or otherwise need to realize the importance of strong design principles and artistic creativity/innovation as essential to identity formation and recognizability in our mass mediated world.
Internet technology directly correlates with politics whether it is the pervasion of new information constantly unearthed (through news filters or on popular media organizations) as well as serves as an interactive experience. As seen (albeit poorly) on the Bush site, the use of polls engages the viewer, making them feel more important in the process. In addition, it is a cheap and effective way of reaching a candidate’s constituents, through email and discussion boards. It is reshaping the way we look at relating politics to the public, or even incoming candidates (as seen with the recent online self-nomination slew of videos).
1) To what extent must sites with heavy traffic and important information resolve to using web usability standards? If it is presented aesthetically pleasing and organized but with new coding that not every machine supports should they muddle their site to conform or wait for society to catch up?
2) How will politics be further reshaped by internet technology? What examples give precedence to continued development?
3) In light of recent candidacy announcements and considering the economic benefits, do you think candidates will make announcements over internet first instead of costly television messages?
