 |
The 2008 Candidates’ Websites: A Usability Study |
 |
Contrary to the current style of American politics, I care what my candidates think about the issues, not what he or she does on weekends. Ah, the issues. That often overlooked word that some say is nothing more than a bunch of empty promises. Sure, faced with a hostile Congress and low political will any President can fail to deliver on his or her campaign promises. But for me, a candidate isn’t really a candidate unless I can find out where he or she stands on the issues. This is even more true for campaign websites. I don’t visit campaign sites for news. Come on! Everyone knows they are about as fair and balanced as Fox. If I go to a campaign website I want information on a candidate from that candidate’s mouth. The issues link is the most important thing I’m looking for.
So, with the 2008 election season in full swing well over a year in advance of election day, how many “Presidential candidates” are true candidates? How many candidates make it easy find information about where they stand on their websites? Surprisingly, the candidates are all over the map. Here’s a quick tour…
The Democrats: Bleeding Hearts, and Some Bad Usability
Both Barack Obama and John Edwards make it easy. Though the Edwards website has an annoyingly cliche splash page when you first visit (see screenshot at right), hoping you’ll hand over your email address to mountains of Edwards induced political spam, he does put a nice issues link right in the main navigation bar. Barack goes one step further with a easy-to-use drop down menu allowing quick access to the topic you care about most. Well done guys!
This, of course, brings me to Hillary Clinton. While her website looks nice, a quick rundown of where she stands on the issues is nowhere to be found. You can read an extensive Hillary bio, check out news clippings and photos, read a blog written by Hillary campaign staffers, and of course donate money, but any discussion of real topics is truly hard to find. In fact, while researching a past article for The Seminal, it took me over 15 minutes to find out where Hillary stood on Iraq, what’s sure to be the premier issue of the 2008 campaign. I didn’t end up finally finding the information in a clear and concise outline for victory (or whatever you want to call it), I had to dig for it in a speech she made before Congress over a year ago
This lack of clarity means that there are really only two Democratic candidates, and neither one of them is married to a man named William. Without an easy way to find out where she stands on the issues of our time, Hillary is not a real Presidential contender. She may be running, and she’s certainly spending a lot of money, but without addressing real substantial policy points she is just spinning her wheels. No wonder Obama tied Clinton in 1st Quarter fundraising. She may have more “experience” but Obama is actually speaking to the American people about something.
Republicans: Black and White and Red All Over
John McCain’s somber website opens with another stupid splash page exhorting visitors to sign up for his email list. And it is all done in Flash (gasp!). It is also worth noting that a Google search for McCain brings up his Senate website, but I have to click on his Google ad on the top of the page to get to his campaign site (just cost him $0.04 too!). His MySpace page even outranks his presidential site, which doesn’t show up until page 4 on Google (though McCain seems to love advertising on The Seminal even though we continue to trash his campaign…click those ads people!). All in all, it looks like the link-building campaign didn’t go so well. Time to fire your SEO guy.
Anyway, once inside you can find a laundry list of McCain’s issues, but it is buried in a menu under the cryptic heading “Informing You.” A bit hard to find if you ask me, seeing as your stance on the issues is the most important part of your campaign. All this is executed in patriotic black and white, except for John’s wise visage, which comes through in muted earth tones. It feels like a funeral in here!
Rudy Guiliani’s site opens with another splash page! Boy I’m getting sick of these. However, once on the main site there is a nice “On The Issues” link right up top where it should be. Bonus points are due to Rudy for having social news buttons at the bottom of his issues page for easy digging, emailing, RSS-ing, and saving to del.icio.us and other such sites.
Next, Mitt Romney’s website clearly takes the cake in the Republican half of the field. No splash page (thank god), a clean layout, and a nice “Issue Watch” link with a drop down menu for easy pickings, all right up top. I must say, making that important information so easy to find really makes Romney seem like the front-runner candidate. And raising the most money doesn’t hurt either. While the other guys, with their splash pages begging for email addresses, seem like they are overeager for involvement, Mitt’s site tells a visitor what they want to know quickly, just like any good website should. Two thumbs up!
Now maybe I’m wrong here. Maybe visitors to McCain’s site really want to read about his wife’s volunteer efforts and recipes for farfale [sp: farfalle right?] pasta with turkey, sausage, peas, and mushrooms, accompanied by creepy black and white photos (see screenshot at right). Maybe visitors to Hillary’s site want to watch seven videos about her without knowing where she stands on public policy. Maybe I’m just asking too much when I say that you need to talk about the issues no matter how early you enter the Presidential race. Especially with youth voters, your campaign website is your public persona. To me, you are not a candidate unless you tell me what you are going to do with the enormous power my vote will help give you. Until you tell me that, put up or shut up.
Readers: what do you think? Visit each of these campaign websites and tell me if you think they are easy to use. If you had to pick a President based on the quality of their website alone, who would you vote for?
Of course Hillary makes the issues section hard to find . . . she’s still got her finger to the wind trying to figure out what the hell she thinks people want to hear.
Interesting assessment, J-Ro. Next time I need a good recipe for casserole, I’ll know where to go…
With younger (read: web-savvy) generations gaining a stronger voice in the political process, it is necessary for candidates to consider both the form and the content of their websites. We not only expect candidates to have a website, but we want that website to be good–in terms of layout, content and usability. The Internet WILL play a major role in the upcoming presidential race and I am only willing to click so many times to get the information I want from the candidates.
I do wonder, however, if the lack of emphasis on the Issues reflects a growing trend in American news-media, where the gossip reel garners more popular attention than the news reel.
Perhaps it is our responsibility to push the issues to the mainstage during ths upcoming campaign. How good someone looks in a suit should be less important than where he/she stands on Iraq.
E-Lho raises a good point about the lack of emphasis on issues already being a trend in the media. With any luck, though, the increasing importance of the Web in political campaigns could help change this. Using the Internet is more active than watching TV, and I think our generation (and those younger than us, and even our parents’ in many cases) is changing its expectations. We want definitive information to be readily available with as few roadblocks as possible.
I’d hope the web would bring some more information-centric campaigning. It is much harder to project pure personality on the web and people seem to be able to cut through the crap. Especially when candidates aren’t limited by 30 second commercials or timed debates, I would think that on the web they could really take the opportunity and expound on their positions. The upside is there is a lot of time left, so maybe we’ll see some of this.
these candidates have to deliver the goods. the dem sites are mired in IRAQ, IRAQ IRAQ. the republicans are mired in Abortion, and Iraq. there is more to life than these 2 issues.
http://www.mysuccessgateway.com/candidate.php
You’re just jealous, because you don’t look as gorgeous as the lovely Cindy McCain. Cindy is a real woman. Cindy can cook, which is a BIG PLUS.
Michelle Obama probably hasn’t cooked a single dish in her life, probably relies on servants and personal chefs.
Cindy is down to earth, rides horses on her ranch, and helps children worldwide with cleft lip. Cindy adopted three children, and goes on world tour, giving money to unfortunate children.
Michelle hasn’t donated a single dime to ANYONE, and hasn’t adopted any children.
Michelle is a selfish money-grubbing power-hungry degenerate.
Cindy is a true patriot and generous motherly honorable woman, who we can all admire.
Cindy McCain is going to be a find first lady that we can all learn from
McCain 08!
I’m not sure where you came from or where you got your crazy ideas, but this post is about candidates and their websites, and it’s over a year old.
This comment is a testament to the power of marketing. People have actually bought into the propaganda that the Obamas - who both came from humble beginnings and have worked to get everything they have - are somehow elitists. And Cindy McCain - who inherited a beer fortune - is “salt of the earth” common folk like you and me.
Democrats need to learn from this technique.
eat shit