Scribd
Upload
107 views2 pages

Webfmword

This document provides a framework for evaluating websites based on 5 criteria: authority, objectivity, accuracy, currency, and usability. For each criterion, the document lists types of evidence that could be used to rate a website on a scale of 1 to 5. The evaluator would then rate the website being evaluated for each criterion, add up the total points, and use that to assess the overall quality of the site as poor, fair, good, or excellent. The evaluator is also asked to provide an overall personal assessment of whether they would recommend the site and why.

Uploaded by

Sam Gitonga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views2 pages

Webfmword

This document provides a framework for evaluating websites based on 5 criteria: authority, objectivity, accuracy, currency, and usability. For each criterion, the document lists types of evidence that could be used to rate a website on a scale of 1 to 5. The evaluator would then rate the website being evaluated for each criterion, add up the total points, and use that to assess the overall quality of the site as poor, fair, good, or excellent. The evaluator is also asked to provide an overall personal assessment of whether they would recommend the site and why.

Uploaded by

Sam Gitonga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Web Site Evaluation

Name:
Course:
Instructor:
Web Site Title:
Web URL:
Date Visited:
Brief description of the contents of the site:

Criteria and types of evidence How the Web site being Rating
evaluated met the criterion
1 2 3 4 5
(low) (high)
1. Authority with regard to topic
who is responsible for the site?:
Author of site
(individual/institutional affiliation,
organization
Credentials, expertise, experience
Contact information (name, e-mail,
postal address)
URL type suggest reputable
affiliation (.edu=educational
institution; .org=non-profit
organization; .com=commercial
enterprise; .net=Internet Service
Provider; .gov=governmental body;
.mil=military)

2. Objectivityis the purpose of


the site clear, including any
particular viewpoint?
Statement of purpose/scope
Intended audience
Information presented as factual or
opinion, primary or secondary in
origin
Criteria for inclusion of
information
Disclosure of sponsorship or
underwriting
Criteria and Types of Evidence Web Site Evidence Rating
1 2 3 4 5
(low) (high)
3. Accuracyis the information
accurate?
Facts documented or well-
researched
Facts compare to related print or
other online sources
Links provided to quality Web
resources

4. Currencyis the information
current?
Evidence of current content
Pages date-stamped with latest
update

5. Usability:is the site well-


designed and stable?
Site organization logical and easy
to maneuver
Content readable by intended
audience
Information presented is error-free
(spelling, punctuation)
Readily identifiable link back to
the institutional or organizational
home page
Site reliably accessible
Pages loaded quickly

Sub-Total by rating of points


awarded for each of the five criteria

Assessment of Web Site


Rating based on the total number of points: Your personal assessmentwould you recommend
this site? Why or why not?
5-9 points: poor
10-14 points: fair
15-19 points: good
20-25 points: excellent _____________

Kent State University


Libraries & Media Services, BFS, 10/99

You might also like