When people appraise a website, they pay attention to different aspects of its quality. To some people it’s important that the site uses Web 2.0 techniques or is interactive; others are indifferent to Web 2.0 gimmicks, but appreciate beautiful, sophisticated graphics that indicate that the creator of the website is handy with Photoshop. Copywriters will look at the quality of the copy – search engine optimisers at the quality of the SEO – general webmasters at the source code. Everyone – especially the first-time visitors – will expect good usability; it annoys when you have to think hard to find your way around the site.

Of course, the importance of these criteria depend highly on the purpose of the site itself. Social networks have to be Web 2.0 by definition; for a purely informational website it’s less important, but the quality of the copy (informativeness, grammar, easiness) becomes top priority. Websites dedicated to design, arts and beauty have to be beautiful; websites talking about accessibility, accessible.

Personally, I pay attention to all the criteria above, though unnecessary animation or AJAX used just for the sake of it on an informational website are more likely to annoy me than to win extra points. Being a web perfectionist, I always look at the code – and cringe if tables are used for controlling the layout. But I know that many visitors to the website won’t even know what I’m talking about. WE have to define our priorities clearly before we agree with our webmaster on the future site’s specifications – and consider everything, including the costs.

What I would like to ask the readers is, what do you look at before you decide whether the website you’ve arrived at is good or bad?