Skip to main content

About University Websites

I'll get to why I made this post in a little bit. But I thought it would be cool to just browse a couple of different US university websites, and maybe compare the aesthetics. Above are screenshots of websites belonging to (in order from top to bottom): University of California, Los Angeles, Georgia Institute of Technology, Drake University, Georgetown University, Lafayette College, and Harvard University.

So yeah, huge differences, often related to the kind of people each university is trying to attract.

I noticed a wide variety in the usage of graphics and placement on the homepage. I love GeorgiaTech's simple blog-like look. In some cases, such as Georgetown University, because of the wide scope of academic programs, a listing similar to a blog doesn't work since there are major programs, subprograms, etc.

Also many disparities in color usage, since this is related to mascots, logo colors and the overall brand of the school. UCLA's website background struck an odd note with me, but then again, I haven't seen much related to UCLA.

Drake's approach to their website design seemed very formal and corporate, unlike Lafayette's website which has a lot going on.

And that brings us to why I started this post, and that was because Neechi showed me Harvard's fresh homepage. It threw me off because it looked so clean and much less complicated than what you would usually expect from the highest ranking school in the world. Then again, Harvard is big enough to have a serious "home"page and have very few links to their main programs, which can then be branched off into their smaller schools (and respective websites).

Not to make an unusually long post here, but I think it's becoming more and more important for schools to make a bigger presense on the Internet. They already do, but websites like Facebook and YouTube make it easy to access the "general public", and I think interaction between University homepages and other commercial websites is going to grow.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.
Post a Comment
Read more

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov...
4 comments
Read more

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or...
Post a Comment
Read more