Which candidate's campaign website do you like best?

[FuseONE]

Forgive me if anything like this was posted already.

I checked out all the candidates websites to see how well they were put together based on the overall feel of them and the information they contained. Here's what I think:

Dennis Kucinich—Important stories right on the front page, I like that. The design is a little simple though, but not bad, and it's easy to use. He goes into lengthy detail on a TON of issues, which is great, and he gets a lot of credit from me for that. He truly hangs out it all out there unlike most of the candidates. It’s too bad he’s mostly ignored. 9/10

John Kerry-His website is extremely well done. He’s got a ton of different things you can do to help out without it looking cluttered. It’s easy to maneuver around, and all his stances are easily accessible. Problematically, his stances seem really vague, so he loses points for that. Otherwise, it’s a good site. 8/10

Howard Dean—I don’t like the bio right on the front like he has it. It belongs under a link somewhere else. He could also have details on more of his issues, because he’s only got about 13 listed there. Compared to Kucinich, it doesn’t look like much. He was also vague in some, but more specific in others. At least Kerry was vague about everything. Being part Native American however, I really liked what he had in that section, it was impressive. I think I'm a little picky overall here though, because it's really a pretty good site. 7/10

John Edwards—His site seems way too busy and overdone to me. His stances are also a little lacking here. Like Sharpton, his strong point is charisma, and you can’t get that from a computer. I do like his “two Americas” approach a lot, and I think it could very effective on the campaign trail. He needs to be more specific with his issues. 6/10

Al Sharpton—Lots of the site seems strictly based on bringing awareness to certain issues. I certainly can’t fault him for that. The color scheme seems a little too retro and weird, however. I had a hard time finding detailed descriptions of his stances, also, so that’s no good. Unfortunately, the reverend’s strongest aspect, charisma, can’t be translated to a web page. 5/10

Joe Leiberman—A decent design, not outstanding. The overall tone of the site seems very self congratulatory, which put me off quite a bit, although I obviously wasn’t considering him anyway. 5/10

Wesley Clark—I like him ok (although he’s not my first choice), but his site needs work....a lot of work. First of all, the font looks too...fifth grade, I guess? Worst of all...downloading PDF’s to see half his stances??!? No, no, no. Simplicity is the key, General. Much of the population is lucky they can tie their shoelaces, much less figure out how to locate a file they just downloaded, if they get that far. I do like the “In The News” section, however. 4/10

Now, keep in mind, I mostly just skimmed through everyone's sites, since there are seven of them. But those were my general impressions. What do you guys think? How much do their sites even matter?

[spooky3]

1. Don't you think it's just a little unfair to "skim through" the sites

then claim that Edwards' stances are "lacking" or not "specific with his issues"? Looks as if you did not click on a single link nor read a single detailed position, but just looked at the graphics on the home page.

Grade: F

[vanityfair]

4. spooky3

I know what you're saying, but I also think that when people access a website, they do "skim" to determine if they want to keep reading. I think the layout and graphics on the home page are vitally important - from the marketing perspective especially. Image, image, image! Content, however, is extremely important if the candidate wants to get the votes. The more specific, detailed, and on-topic the imformation - the better most people like it.


Image attracts - but content holds!

[newyawker99]

5. Hi vanityfair!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[maddezmom]

2. I'm interested in content, not the look

general impression~all the candidates sites are good.

[adadem]

3. Agreed

Kerry's is clear and concise easy to navigate and not too cluttered.
Clark's site does need work. Kucinich's is very good too.