The lowdown on Rose’s website

If you missed the all-campus email, I’ll bet that you were a tid bit surprised when you opened your favorite browser Monday afternoon and Rose’s homepage popped up (what? Rose’s website isn’t your homepage? What’s wrong with you?). Rose’s new look was developed, according to the all-campus email, “after much study and consultation with various campus constituencies including: current students, prospective students, the president’s office, the president’s executive cabinet, academic department heads, alumni, and various administrative departments.” Now there’s an exhaustive list if I’ve ever seen one.

And that’s exactly what the new layout of Rose’s new homepage reflects; too much input, not enough decision. I could go through every major design faux pas, but then this article would be about twenty pages long and our newspaper is only eight, so I’ll keep it brief.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the new layout has some redeeming features, especially in the more graphics-intensive pages. Sometimes the text of the old look got a bit heavy. I also appreciate many of the color choices. The Web 2.0-ish colors are a nice touch. As an added bonus, the photographs on the new webpage show a level of artistry unfamiliar on the Internet. Very nice. Overall usability is generally unaffected as one of the site’s creators had an absolute stroke-of-genius by leaving the quick links alone. I don’t know about you, but I rely on those quick links like none other.

However, despite the good elements of the redesign, I can’t help but feel that the site has regressed rather than evolved. Some of the elements, especially color selection, are reflective of the growing trends in the Web 2.0 design language. Even some of the layout elements also reflect Web 2.0, most notably in the rounded rectangles that now highlight everything. But that’s it. Our new website speaks in a confused design language, more akin to a Web 1.0 page dancing in Web 2.0 clothing. Whereas the original site was strictly 1.0 in both design and content structure, the new design is kind-of Web 2.0 in design and strictly Web 1.0 in structure, making it a hybrid of two styles that should never be mixed.

Here are some fundamental questions that I have and simply don’t have the answer to:

1) Why are there three navigation bars on the front page and why don’t they stay constant as you navigate through the site?

2) Why are links in counter-intuitive or nonsensical locations (i.e., the “Business Connections” link in the top menu bar on the front page or the “Give to Rose-Hulman” link on a navigation bar that seems to be dedicated to internal Rose stuff)?

3) Why does the “President’s Office” disappear when you navigate away from the main site? If it’s important enough to be on the front page, why not place it on subsequent pages?

4) Why is the homepage floating in a sea of gray? Why not the white that is easier on the eye and serves as the background to so many other pages?

5) Why doesn’t the webpage render properly in all browsers?

6) Why do the items under “Rose-Hulman Events” not link to anything? They look just like the links in the third navigation bar!

I don’t mean to rag on the people who put this together. I can’t imagine the amount of work involved in revamping an entire website. However, the majority of people I’ve talked to (more than a dozen and counting) like it less than the old one... not the greatest news for the fledgling site.

Here are my suggestions to whomever is in charge of making the new new website: either completely embrace Web 2.0, or disregard it as a fad and create a unique, coherent style... not the current hybrid we have between a struggling Web 2.0 page and a decent Web 1.0 page. (I suggest fully embracing Web 2.0, if the corporate world is any indication.) The new website needs to be redone...because the old one was working just fine and has been “fixed” by a broken replacement.