Good and bad design

I think an example of good design is the old Facebook.com, which was simple in design and didn't have many of the bells and whistles it does today. It was an effective tool for socializing online because there wasn't a bunch of nonsense you had to sort through in order to get to what your friends were trying to say to you. It was a simpler time.

An example of a Web site trying to do too much with its layout would be new Facebook. I think Facebook has gone off their rocker and 99% of the stuff on the site now is worthless. What's up with that map with people in different countries having lines drawn between them? I don't need that. I've been used to the little log-in box being in the same place for the past four years. Why change it up on me now?

Facebook: Don't mess with success.

Yahoo!'s 2008 Political Dashboard

One interactive news site that presents information interactively that couldn't be done in print is Yahoo! News, which presents the electoral college map in its "Political Dashboard." The dashboard encourages users to take the map, which is pre-set with current poll data, and create their own scenarios as to how the election will play out.

Just for fun, it includes the scenarios drawn up by Arianna Huffington (which has Obama winning with 306 electoral votes) and Newt Gingrich (who says McCain will win with 300). In addition to the create-your-own-scenario interactivity, users can also view past maps for American elections dating back to 1988.

God-O-Meter rates high on Rob-O-Meter

The God-O-Meter, by beliefnet.com in association with Time Magazine, won for online commentary at a large site.

This caught my eye in particular because of the term “God-O-Meter.” Any site that combines cutouts of people’s heads with arbitrary meters has my attention, and I particularly liked this site because, as the description on the ONA site said, it covers the topic of religion in politics in a unique way. The design is snappy, and they make full use of the ability to use multimedia and interactivity. I feel like it’s an especially hard topic to present commentary on, but they do a good job showing both sides and being as objective as possible. It seems to be equally critical of both candidates for president, and that goes a long way in establishing credibility.

I also like the quirky “God-O-Meter” itself. Even though it’s really arbitrary, it amplifies the entertainment value of the material and allows people to get a gist of what each post is going to cover. For instance, when readers saw on Sept. 9 that John McCain’s reading was a “8,” which is practically theocratic, they knew immediately that on this day, religion was an especially hot topic for McCain. I enjoy that kind of functional quirkiness.