1.) Make a list of some web design features that actually work to get your attention and capture your interest.
I really like the first website. The way the photos appear (sort of as an informational file, or a photo album) is interesting, and the visual flourishes that frame the text are interesting and make it seem like you aren't reading much. The unique look of the tabs also makes me want to actually click through the different contents of the page so see what comes next visually, even though I'm not that interested in the topic.
2.) From the examples you’ve looked at, what website elements are the most professional, visually appealing, and persuasive (in terms of keeping your interest)? What features are least persuasive, professional, and visually appealing? Be specific when referring to websites.
Going again off the first website, I think all of the visual elements are quite impressive and professional, and as I said I like the tabs, but the titles given to the different sections are the flaws. Titles like "Traditional Essay," "Visual Essay," and "Prezi" don't tell us anything about what unique information each section will hold. It's very obviously been designed for a class, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing (since it was designed for a class), it kind of limits the audience. The sites about electric cars and antidepressants aren't perfect (or even as visually striking as that first one), but their layouts open them up to a more universal sphere.
Elsewhere, bad font color/background combinations make it difficult to read the text (see: Antidepressants home page), an easily fixed issue that makes the site look both sloppy and unprofessional.
3.) What types of background information and details do you need as an outsider to appreciate the projects posted on others’ websites? Is there such a thing as too much background information? (Give examples.)
I think most of the sites do a pretty good job of telling you right away what they are about and what their goals are. I would argue that the majority of the home pages could actually use more introductory information to orient readers to their cause. If a website is laid out to represent an editorial argument, then shouldn't the entire contents of the editorial's introduction and thesis be represented on the home page?
Where the possibility for too much background information exists is in the background of the class assignment in and of itself. No indication needs to be given that this website has been created as a class assignment. The site should stand on its own.
4.) Consider these two options: encountering links to projects, giving you the option to download them if you want to. Or, alternatively, seeing the full text /project visible on the webpage. What are the advantages and disadvantages (persuasively speaking) of each option? How might a link to a project that includes a screenshot of it (rather than just a text web address link) persuade you to look at that project?
I think the most effective answer is always hosting the file/project/photo/etc. on the page. Links can be beneficial (I am toying with the idea of having a complete "Links" section, where I direct readers to other essential reading about my topic), but there's no need to take readers out of your website to read your content. Such a design disrupts the viewing process and basically makes readers question whether they want to go back to your main site. Attention spans are short enough as is: no need to break audience attention once you have it.
5.) What stylistic features are appropriate for an informative—but also engaging—academic webpage? Think in terms of writing style; amount of background information; color schemes; fonts; and number of images/videos/projects per page.
I think that generally, the fewer colors the better. Professional webpages usually have two-hued color schemes, and those lend a classy atmosphere to the information. In that same vein, more no-frills backgrounds assist in keeping the focus on the text
