I think, for my website, I’ll go with a right-column navigation, with a light blue and white color scheme. Other pages will include a resume page, a page on my hobbies and interests, and maybe a small photo gallery.
Ah, ICANN. While I do know of them, I only mostly knew about their general task of assigning domain names and IP addresses (making sure that no two are the same) and that they did not police the Internet (thank the heavens). The minutiae of their tasks and duties were unknown to me. For example, I was unsure under who’s laws ICANN was under. I was thinking it was under the U.S., but considering the worldwide reach of the Net that there would be some more stake from other nations. I was surprised that my first guess was right. I imagine there were and are disputes over ICANN being under California law’s jurisdiction. Now, about the design of the page. It’s pretty well-organized and navigation is easy, with the pages being consistent with each other. Having a search function also helps. Considering that work is in the global stage, it was a good idea (heck, a necessary one) to offer the site in multiple, widely-used languages. For the most part, the contents of the About pages are easy to understand, but there might be some terms that will be a bit hard for some casual visitors to understand. Though I suppose there won’t be too many of those.
The Internet Traffic Support site is pretty good. It fits horizontally on all of my browsers , no matter what the size, thanks to the liquid width layout, though vertically there’s a bit of scrolling down necessary. However, that information is composed of graphs and the eyecatching and most vital information is first seen. As for the content, this is pretty helpful for research purposes and for people like me who look at sites based in other continents , though for certain areas (like Africa), it’s not too helpful. Plus it’s free.
I was a lot less forgiving about Internet World Stats, if only because I was immediately accosted by a small window asking if I wanted to join their newsletter. It’s one of my pet peeves. Plus clicking on the country links opens up another window (which is a second strike). A third strike is sticking related links in the contents on the main page, which not only lengthens the page, but makes it seem more unorganized. In any event, the content is more detailed than Internet Traffic Support’s. The content also takes in information from other sources, which they site. There seems t o be no FAQ, which makes it a bit harder to find information. Still, the charts are easy enough to understand, so users shouldn’t have too much of a problem making heads or tails of the page.
The last two sites also make it obvious that they weren’t made by web designers, especially when compared to the rest of the links. In any event, the two sites serve their purpose adequately.
The CAIDA page is all right. Again, the liquid width lets it fit on different sizes. All of the content on the main page is immediately visible. The drop down menus for the navigation bar also makes it easy to navigate. That being said, there is a lot more content for the site, which is expected, as it is a collection of various organizations involved in Internet infrastructure compared to the two previous sites, which are more limited in scope and obviously less active in developing the Internet . CAIDA’s collection of tools they developed for the purpose of analysis is also impressive. CAIDA also seems to be more involved in policy creation regarding the Internet. The contents are things like research papers, so it’s less friendly to the casual surfer and requires a great deal more thought. The site will probably be more useful for those in research. I’d certainly use it as a resource if I had to write a paper on, say, Internet infrastructure.
Pew is laid out very well. Of all of the sites, it seems to be the most organized. The advanced search is a welcome option as well. Still, there’s a bit of scrolling to do in the main page. While the most eye-catching news titles are still above the cut, some of it does require scrolling down. It’s not as focused as the other sites on internet statistics and covers information on a variety of topics. Their actual internet research focused site, Pew Internet and American Life Project, seems a bit more sparse on information on the main page, but clicking on the links leads to the pages where the actual reports can be downloaded. In terms of design, it doesn’t match the main Pew site, which gives it a lack of visual connection to the main site. I also rather dislike the lightly colored geometric designs randomly strewn about in the background. It makes the site look less professional.
Nielsen really doesn’t look good on Opera. The tabs on the main body don’t stay on a single line. Also, most of the main content is below the cut. It’s not too far down to scroll, though. Also, I find it highly amusing that some of their foreign sites are better designed than the main one. Of all of the information on the site, the one that caught my eye was Nielsen’s VideoCensus, if only because it left me wondering as to why it took them this long to start analyzing online videos.