13 ms·

Manchester City Council

363 points by mattwritescode 13y ago

thirsteh 13y ago
Similar: https://www.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/ http://storify.com/GovUK/gov-uk-wins-design-of-the-year-award http://storify.com/GovUK/gov-uk-wins-design-of-the-year-awar...
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Holy hell, I've been going through accountants and the HMRC and things for years and nobody has been able to answer me and tell me what this page told me in two clicks! https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-out-of-a-limited-company https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-ou... That is brilliant, thank you very much for this.
- marknutter 13y ago
  Now this is what a government site should be. Sterile, cold, lightweight, and functional. Give me as many of the most common links as you can on the front page and make it easy to find the less common stuff. Period.
- swatkat 13y ago
  gov.uk looks like a domain squatter webpage :)
  - arethuza 13y ago
    I must like that look then :-)
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  gov.uk feels like hostname ad site.
onion2k 13y ago
It looks lovely. But it's hard to find things. Consequently it's not how a government website should be designed. Try finding, for example, the cost of a planning application. It's a few clicks away from the home page, which is fine given that it's reasonably logical if you can spot the initial starting point on the homepage ... but the search is poor. For the terms "cost of planning", a link to http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/5865/planning/4 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/5865/plann... is hidden at the 6th result in a page of links that's essentially a wall of text. Search results are likely to be a very important part of a large data driven site, so they should be much better.
- arethuza 13y ago
  If you search for "cost of planning application" it's on the first result - in the context of a council website "cost of planning" could mean lots of things (e.g. how much do they spend on managing planning across the entire organisation).
ch0wn 13y ago
I think this takes mobile first a bit too far. On my desktop with a high resolution this feels a bit odd. That said, it's really refreshing to see government sites properly designed and UX and mobile friendly.
eitally 13y ago
I personally think the redesigned site for my county (Wake County, NC) is far, far superior. It looks nice -- not quite as "modern startup" as the Manchester site -- but is so much easier to use. http://www.wakegov.com/ http://www.wakegov.com/
- Sodaware 13y ago
  I'm not a big fan of the huge menus, but every time I've had to use the Wake site I've been able to find what I need pretty quickly. One improvement would be an auto-complete feature on the main search box, but I think I'm in a pretty small minority that would benefit from that.
  - eitally 13y ago
    I agree completely, on both counts. I think I've used it for the few things I use it for, enough times to have just memorized what's where. It's definitely a huge improvement over the old site, regardless!
smcl 13y ago
I'm sure everyone else is aware of how local government websites look in their own parts of the world - but for a similar-sized UK city Edinburgh City Council's website is a good (i.e. bad) example for comparison: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk
- verygoodyear 13y ago
  That actually looks like a domain holding page when you glance at it... My http://glasgow.gov.uk http://glasgow.gov.uk isn't any better
- jibbist 13y ago
  I really dislike the archaic/gothic use of 'V' rather than 'U' - it looks pretentious and always makes me read it twice before remembering the usage.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    That's not really the fault of the website - as far as I know it's part of the brand for Edinburgh Council.
    - smcl 13y ago
      Correct this branding is all over Edinburgh, perhaps to hark back to some ancient celtic roots. I'm not a fan either.
- arethuza 13y ago
  I honestly don't mind the Edinburgh site - I'd rather they focus on content and functionality rather than changing it every year to comply with the latest design fad.
  - smcl 13y ago
    True but nobody's saying they should - it's just a good example of a cluttered and disorganised website
DanBC 13y ago
I love some of the new gov sites. Yes, there are some problems, but compared to the god-awful mess we had before they're amazing. It's important to have good machines for development. But I wonder how many people have terrible machines for testing. As for local government: Here's an example. Gloucestershire (http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/resident http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/resident) - imagine you want to report a child at risk. The search gives you useful results, but also sends you to the Safeguarding children website. (http://www.gscb.org.uk/ http://www.gscb.org.uk/) The Gloucestershire site is good[1] and the GSCB site is terrible. [1] for some values of good, including 'you should have seen it a few years ago'.
jerguismi 13y ago
No. Goverment web sites should be minimal design & content - black text on white background, no extra graphics. I don't want to pay taxes so that these latte-sipping designers can create cool projects.
- blowski 13y ago
  Why should public services be ugly?
  - switch007 13y ago
    They should be if it's cheaper (while still meeting the goals etc).
    - nwh 13y ago
      What correlation is there between expensive design and good design? I've seen projects that haven't cost more than a few hundred dollars and still look absolutely stunning. I've also seen projects developed this year that look like they have been dragged from the 90s, yet cost millions in today's money.
      - blowski 13y ago
        A lot of the time the design probably was sketched out in the 90s, and it's taken until this year to reach the development phase.
    - blowski 13y ago
      Making the website more appealing for non-geeks results in more non-geeks using the website. The website is a more cost-efficient way of servicing non-geek citizens. So spending money on good design can definitely be worth it. Assuming every penny spent on aesthetics is a penny wasted is a developer fallacy.
  - laumars 13y ago
    Why do people insist that services which exist purely for quick searching of information have to be design-orientated and pretty? I hear the same arguments about developer sites (eg PHP manual) but frankly I prefer layouts with an emphasis on conveying content rather than watering down that content behind a wall of epic sized fonts, fading effects and huge scrollable areas. There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site. NB this is coming from a dyslexic who equally hates being presented with walls of text.
ohwp 13y ago
In The Netherlands these two sites score very high every year: http://www.capelleaandenijssel.nl/ http://www.capelleaandenijssel.nl/ http://cms.dordrecht.nl/ http://cms.dordrecht.nl/ They contain a lot more useful information above the fold than the linked one. Good design involves a lot more than eye candy.
- harshreality 13y ago
  How do you find anything on those two pages without first mentally parsing the layouts? On the first link, the search bar is in the middle of the damned page, even though the site seems designed around search (meaningful static nav is confined to one element, the Information mouseover at the top)! By comparison, the manchester site is dead simple, and search is at the top corner where it should be. That style of design reduces content areas (with a corresponding boost to element/object/image size, since there's less stuff competing for the space). Call it eye candy, but it's a lot easier to use for people who aren't used to visually parsing complex page designs. My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, and some of the icon choices, not the basic design style.
  - ohwp 13y ago
    "... search is at the top corner where it should be." Did you ever visit the Google homepage? Why should search be at the top corner? I don't know if you understand Dutch but since text is part of the interface maybe this is why you are having issues with the design? "My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, not the basic design style." Well I was talking about exactly this. The Manchester site may look nice but it is lacking overview. Design is more than looks. It is also about text, interaction and so on.
    - harshreality 13y ago
      The search box goes in a top corner normally because putting it elsewhere disrupts the content layout or takes unnecessarily long to find. If there's no other content, the search box can go anywhere. I use google chrome which translates the page well enough for me to understand. There are too many visually distinct sections on those Dutch websites for someone who isn't familiar with the site to find anything quickly. There are non-tech-savvy folks for whom anything more complex than the manchester site, or Google's front page search box, is too complex for them to deal with. They wouldn't be able to visually scan the Dutch pages for what they want. Whether it's lack of technical familiarity, lack of attention span, or something else, I don't know. Lots of text divided up into arbitrary sections simply doesn't work well for them. How is the manchester site lacking an overview? It has four major categories near the top, another tier of categories which expands into 20 categories with one click, and if that doesn't find what you're looking for, or you're lazy, you can type what you want into the conveniently located search box. I agree that the manchester site be improved (most of the stuff at the bottom should be eliminated or turned into links in the top bar), but I think it's closer to ideal than the two sites you linked are.
_delirium 13y ago
I personally don't like this. 1) I don't like this style even when web startups do it... too much vertical scrolling, empty space, giant images, and icons; and 2) it just looks weird for a serious site to look like a web startup. This is a modern government website design I like better: http://www.kk.dk http://www.kk.dk
appplemac 13y ago
It's good to hear that governments start to pay attention to the UX. Their webpages are just the first step to making the govt services better.
goyalpulkit 13y ago
I am really amazed how most of the comments assume that beautiful sites cannot provide the same amount of information as their uglier counterparts.
- yashodhan 13y ago
  Most beautiful sites can. This one does not. Those icons are confusing. Click expand to see the whole list together. What a mess! Ideally they should be using glyphs with much bolder lines, or if they're really set on using the current ones, place each on a solid white circle. Right now they blend in with the text and seem to add to the overall visual noise. Scrolling down the page, why the hell am I looking at a gigantic picture of a girl staring back at me? That image would be better placed on an interior decorating portfolio, not a city council website. Ideally the images shouldn't be so large and vague, but if they're set on using it, they should've overlayed the image with its headline in a large white font (currently relegated to the invisible location of below the image) I have issues with their color scheme too. I think most governmental websites should use white as their dominant color, for clarity's sake. GOV.UK is a website that is worth aspiring towards, not this. Very much not this.
  - goyalpulkit 13y ago
    > Those icons are confusing. Click expand to see the whole list together. What a mess! Ideally they should be using glyphs with much bolder lines, or if they're really set on using the current ones, place each on a solid white circle. Right now they blend in with the text and seem to add to the overall visual noise. I always prefer iconic interfaces as compared to the ones with just text. Try to think of one thing that you would like to find and go to gov.uk and then to manchester.gov.uk. See which one is easier to find Icons vs Labels vs Both: http://edwardsanchez.me/blog/13589712 http://edwardsanchez.me/blog/13589712
  - yen223 13y ago
    Seriously disagree with your analysis. I have a 24" monitor, and this is one of the few websites that makes excellent use of all that real-estate. I found that the icons are large, relatively clear and straightforward in meaning, making it much easier to hunt for content than if you were to visit the other single-column, text-heavy websites. I would hold GOV.UK as a site that's too minimalist. A person could be forgiven for thinking the gov.uk domain is still up for sale.
akakey 13y ago
https://www.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/ looks like a better example.
benrmatthews 13y ago
Looking past the knee-jerk reaction to "this design looks expensive", would love to see how the Manchester Council site performs from a service design perspective. How do local residents use the site? Can they find what they need quickly and easily, from both a desktop and a mobile? I'm betting yes, and the cost saved (in terms of time, frustration and maybe money) over a poorly designed yet inexpensive-looking site will be worthwhile. Side note: Would love to see a blog post about the thought behind the design, either from the design agency or the web manager at Manchester...
- jerguismi 13y ago
  I'm not sure of that all. First of all, is the contect well indexed for search engines? At first glance, doesn't look like it is. When I need information related to goverment services, first thing where I look are search engines.
dan1234 13y ago
I think I actually prefer http://www.gateshead.gov.uk http://www.gateshead.gov.uk, which is a lot less "in your face". If I go to a .gov.uk site it's because a need a specific piece of information, I don't need the design getting in the way.
- jenskanis 13y ago
  I fully agree!
- XarotheOne 13y ago
  Exactly agreed.
  - ordinary 13y ago
    Hi. I see you're new here. "I agree" is a contentless response that adds nothing to the topic at hand. Feel free to post if you have something interesting to say, but "+1" is discouraged here.
    - XarotheOne 13y ago
      Okay thank you for that, I am still getting used to putting high-quality replies and posts because I am used to short posts from social networks etc.
- laumars 13y ago
  Totally. One of my pet peeves is people who insist that "good design" has to have an emphasis on being pretty. Design is as much about function as it is form, and in the case of government sites, having easy navigation, accessibility and relevant content is far far more important than being pretty. Sadly, most UK government sites are both ugly and horrible to navigate. Or at least that was the trend until recently, thankfully it seems some of those organisations are starting to re-fit their site.
  - rusew 13y ago
    But users who perceive a site to be "pretty" will usually experience it as easier to use than an uglier site, even if the uglier site is easier to use structurally. "Pretty" often translates to "easy," because users trust the design more.
tudorconstantin 13y ago
If there were more sites like this, I'd visit them by pure pleasure from time to time
tobeportable 13y ago
I believe the "/ home / ... " toolbar should be on every pages first page included.
PhilipA 13y ago
Great design. I don't know the rules in the UK, but shouldn't the site work without JavaScript enabled (For the visually impaired)?
ronaldx 13y ago
What I typically go to a council website to do: find out the cost of council tax in band D in 2013-14. I am still clicking around... can anyone find it, I wonder?
- smiler 13y ago
  Yup. Click on "Council Tax" on the homepage... then "Can't find it? Other council tax services"... then "See your council tax band" (Rounded red button)
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    So you're 3 clicks deep (having searched around a bit, I guess) and you still don't have a number...
    - jwarren 13y ago
      That's not too bad for an information-dense site. You've not had many page loads. Plus, you can find it very easily by putting "council tax band" into the search box.
      - ronaldx 13y ago
        Maybe you think "very easily", but I searched around for 10 minutes unable to find the numerical information required. I had concluded it didn't exist in tabulated form, so thanks for confirming I was wrong - although I'm still not sure if this is accessible via natural links. Here's a particularly unhelpful FAQ, which says the data is "displayed on our web pages" http://www.manchester.gov.uk/faqs/faq/19013/what_can_i_do_if_my_property_has_not_yet_been_put_into_a_council_tax_band http://www.manchester.gov.uk/faqs/faq/19013/what_can_i_do_if... What I find bad about that - is that I know my way around a website, and I couldn't find the required information. I found it with ease on other council website suggested in the comments (Lambeth, Gateshead, Birmingham: all 2-3 links deep) If we want people to look for information on the web rather than blocking council call centres: this website is not the right way.
- deleted 13y ago
adaml_623 13y ago
I'm not sure the accessibility is 100% correct. I think you should be able to use the tab key to get to the links but tabbing skips the top row of icons... Which aren't technically hyperlinks I suppose..
- adaml_623 13y ago
  And some of the images don't have alt text. I think that's important as well
  - dpcx 13y ago
    Not all images need alt text. See the documentation from the spec[1]. [1]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-1.html#the-img-element http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...
EnderMB 13y ago
I don't mind a bit of design, as long as the design is fully functional for EVERYONE that needs to use it. Yes, that means people using older browsers/machines, users with restricted vision, anyone that requires access to a council website, or requires information about council services. On IE7, this website works, but it takes a very long time to load, probably because the home page is 1MB, with just under 950k of this being images, and this isn't acceptable. The average user couldn't care less if the site looks nice, or is aesthetically pleasing, or if they are using a browser that StatCounter claim is at 1% worldwide. They want their information. I picked up a council project a few years ago, where an agency had built a nice looking website. However, it had not been tested using screen readers or tested using a focus group. After a few months they had received complaints about users using screen readers not being able to read the pages regarding council services for visually-impaired people.
- marknutter 13y ago
  Yes, but if the site is designed poorly then the user will spend as much time trying to figure out how to navigate around it than they would waiting for this modern version to download. I'm not saying the new one is easier to use, but you get my point.
  - EnderMB 13y ago
    A basic site doesn't have to be designed poorly. My opposition is against design for the sake of designing, and in turn code for code's sake. A page doesn't always need to be loaded to the brim with JavaScript, and a home page doesn't always need a slider. A good designer will create the bare minimum for a functional site, and a good developer will use the best tools for the job, instead of the tools that everyone else uses.
XarotheOne 13y ago
Definitely, I really like the layout and use of modern styles.
vilius 13y ago
Encouraging change! Typically before entering a any .gov site something like this goes in my head: "I'm about to enter a boring website that makes getting to a point super challenging unless you read tons of word documents." On entering manchester.gov.uk "Oh look at this! They did a recent update to their design. It feels fresh and trendy. Maybe they actually care. Maybe they were able to update their information architecture as well! There is hope that I won't have to spend an hour reading a bunch of text." The majority of government websites are very apathetic and poorly implemented. I am very happy to see that this is starting to change!
timrogers 13y ago
For me at least, http://gov.uk http://gov.uk is a lot better - it's far more minimal and puts the information first, whereas I can't help but feel that this Manchester City Council site is more about the sexy design that it is about usability and actually giving you the information you want.
telepoiss 13y ago
I'm pretty happy with our government's website. The first few versions where a complete data overload and looked liked they were made in MS Excel. Now its pretty fresh and well structured in my opinion. link: www.eesti.ee
nnq 13y ago
UX fail: Big useless slider/carouse with the slide captions obscured under the huge pics, way under the fold... and to prevent this big fat carousel from being too low on the page (...but it still is), useful services links are one click away under that 'other services' button, instead of being able to just scroll to them! ...it's amazing how many people totally miss the point of sliders/carousels/slideshows: to sell profitable products or showcase important site content! if you use them, put them at the page top and have relevant captions with links that people actually click.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  That's what they are doing -- they are trying to "sell" adoption and a city festival.
  - wisty 13y ago
    Really? I didn't notice. The caption was under the slider, and I couldn't see it. I just saw some picture of a family.
muratmutlu 13y ago
This page is a bit of a mess http://cl.ly/image/203V2O40372b http://cl.ly/image/203V2O40372b
RyanONeill1970 13y ago
Looks like a template as http://KashFlow.com http://KashFlow.com seems eerily similar. Better that than a custom design though, I imagine it saved a fair bit of money.
- dan1234 13y ago
  They look very similar but the markup is quite different (KashFlow is a Wordpress blog, Manchester is "Jadu CMS") so I don't think they just used a template unless they went back to the original PSDs. FWIW, http://www.jadu.net http://www.jadu.net are the agency who made the Manchester site.
cjfont 13y ago
Another example of a well-designed gov't site: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/ http://www.consumerfinance.gov/
ses 13y ago
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/5615/get_a_council_tax_discount_or_exemption_or_claim_benefit http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/5615/ge... 404 - not so sure
apidoc 13y ago
Design is nice, but "baaaam" too much for what the page is and for who the page is. Why i have to click to open the services? Better show them directly.
huhtenberg 13y ago
How come this and all .gov.uk sites mentioned in the comments include Google Analytics scripts? I would imagine that the sharing of the data collected on government websites with 3rd parties be rather strictly regulated. Especially when it's collected as a part of a tracking infrastructure that spans beyond said sites.
- brador 13y ago
  I recall last year the Uk wanted to integrate mandatory Facebook logins into all their sites. Looks like they've since dropped that idea.
DigitalSea 13y ago
I applaud the change and thinking outside of the box, but the Manchester City Council website looks like a $45 Wordpress theme off of Themeforest. The slider appears to offer no value to the site other than taking up a massive amount of room without really justifying its existence. I'm not a designer, I'm a developer and I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind that slider. While I agree that the trendy look of the site is better than most Government sites, it tries too hard to the point the change and potential this site could have had is gone. The reason Government websites are usually ugly is not because Government's are afraid of change or can't justify the cash it's because there are content accessibility guidelines to adhere too. And when you've got to make your content accessible to people with disabilities well your options can be somewhat limited (especially colour use). This is the perfect example of everything wrong with modern web design. Instead of thinking, "What can we NOT add to this site design" designers seem to be thinking, "How many full screen images, rounded corners, parallax effects, CSS animations, Javascript effects and large amounts of custom fonts can we cram into this site?" I can foresee a lot of issues for people with eyesight problems on this site, aren't Governments supposed to adhere to WCAG rules and a lot more stricter than non-Government websites do? The images don't even have alt tags on them, Web Developer common sense rule #1 — Always put alt tags on images, especially when they're being used as icons in content sections, wow.
- mattwritescode 13y ago
  Whats wrong with a $45 wordpress theme ;-P
- thegoodlab 13y ago
  >This is the perfect example of everything wrong with modern web design. This seems to be quite the hyperbole. Sure, it might over use some modern design trends, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Also, what is wrong with themes on themeforest? Many are built with great design in mind. More than anything govt. sites are not friendly, don't organize their content well, and do a horrible job at engaging their users. I would say this site does all of three, making it at least a decently designed and well built site.
  - 13y ago
Noughmad 13y ago
On my screen size and browser chrome, the little girl's eyes are just above the bottom of the browser window. With the rest of the picture out of focus, it looks positively creepy.
S_A_P 13y ago
I totally love that there is a link that says "Report dumped Rubbish" on that site! That is fantastic. I am not sure if the preteen girl was thinking about adoption or the adoptee, but otherwise I think the site is great.
jwarren 13y ago
I'm going to go against the HN grain and say that it's great. Frequent complaints I hear about local authority websites boil down to: 1. Too much top-level navigation - choice is confusing. 2. No idea which information is in which section. This one gets you to (what they believe to be) the most-commonly requested issues instantly, and gives you a quick idea of what you can find in each section. This is the perfect place for search results suggestions too. Remember, most visitors to these sites are not going to be frequent users - they won't have the time or inclination to learn a more complex system. I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's a great idea that just needs a bit of extra polish.
_k 13y ago
Government websites need to start with the user. What's the point of showing all the information if it's not relevant ? What's the point of showing me permits that only apply to residents, if they don't apply to a business owner ? What's the point of showing me tax information if I'm a tourist ? They shouldn't make you look at all that. They should make it easy. 3 buttons to start with : resident, tourist, business. Add 3 photo to make it attractive and a few language choices.
andreasklinger 13y ago
If you are interested in this take a look at: https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/govuk-goes-worldwide/3036144.article http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/govuk-goes-worldwide/30...
- loupeabody 13y ago
  Good call, I was also going to mention this until I saw your comment. It appears there are many UK city sites that are trying to implement these principles. Given that the principles include accessibility guidelines [0] and transparency of intent [1], I'd prefer to see more city sites designed this way. (That is if the sites in question faithfully implement the design principles) Regarding the site OP linked, even if a little glossy, it's certainly not a disaster of usability. In fact, I tend to believe in the aesthetic-usability effect [2] in the case of not-so-design-savvy users, the added sheen might actually motivate them to use the city portal more often. [0]https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#sixth https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#sixth [1]https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#tenth https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#tenth [2]http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design_at.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design_at.html
jchn 13y ago
Looks really nice, but at first I thought I needed to scroll down to see the other services instead of clicking the button first. After clicking, it was clear to me that this obviously is a button. But this wasn't my understanding when I saw the page at first. Anybody else had the same issue? When I go to a service, for example "Roads, parking & transport" and I go to the bottom of the page there is a section called "Policies, statements & resources". Now I need to click it in order to see the items, why not have it in this state by default? I've checked some of the other pages and there never really are a lot of links underneath there anyway, so this won't make the pages a lot longer.
jonhmchan 13y ago
I'm the front end technical lead for a major department in a top 10 U.S. State (that's all I can say). As much as I love the way that certain public sector entities are embracing modern design principles for their sites, there is a balance to be struck. Form always follows function when it comes to design, and when it comes to government, function requires that the site is as accessible as possible. Color selection, JavaScript use, and extended backwards compatibility with older browsers are among the the many considerations one has to take into account for the elderly, the impaired, and those who simply don't have access to modern browsers. That being said, it's definitely possible to have stunning design with these things taken into account, we just can't implement every bell and whistle we're used to.
- stedaniels 13y ago
  "that's all I can say". Lame. Put your money where your mouth is. It wouldn't take much work to find out just which State department has got Deloitte in.
pessimizer 13y ago
The only reason that this has been driven up to the top of HN is because of its title. If it had been titled "A Nicely Designed Government Site", it would have gone nowhere. As for the site, I can't see how the navigation would have me pulling out any fewer hairs than any other government site, but it is very large, multicolored and slidey, so if I were putting together an iPad commercial I might use it in a couple of shots.
- noselasd 13y ago
  I'm sure it all depends on what info you're after. But the site here have the typical info that people are after regarding the gouvernment on the front page. Most of the links there are related to the reasons we have government at all. That's not how most government sites are structured in my experience, though I'm not from the UK.
epo 13y ago
This is just this week's trend, it'll look really dated by the end of the year. And yes it does look like an off the shelf theme. A government site has a job to do, primarily to provide information and contact details, this is more suited to someone peddling organic food.
capex 13y ago
In Australia, as of now, the website of every council presents the same information in a different way. What's required here is a consistent UI across the entire .gov sites. Government sites by default need to cater for every edge case in terms of accessibility, and so functional takes precedence over pretty every time.
eike 13y ago
I'm just going to leave this right here: http://shetland.gov.uk http://shetland.gov.uk
- jabbernotty 13y ago
  It times out at the moment, we may have killed it?
oceanician 13y ago
I feel like it's a step improvement, and will help people use the site. However, what I'd have really liked to see is machine readable minutes of the council. This is something that's a bit of a bug bear having ended up setting up a project awhile back to try and bring-out the minutes etc of the council meetings. We called it MCC Work For You: https://code.google.com/p/mcc-work-for-you/ https://code.google.com/p/mcc-work-for-you/ Sadly within the confines of a hackday we couldn't get as much progress as we'd have liked. However, as a proof of concept it was useful, and did inspire @CountCulture to go forward with his site: http://openlylocal.com/ http://openlylocal.com/ I'd really like to see progress in this area, and the encouragement of councils to make progress with making the minutes readable. Definitely helpful for investigative journalists, as well exposing the good work of councillors. I wonder if there's a plan somewhere for this? I couldn't find it on the site.....
- oceanician 13y ago
  Lots of pdfs with no alternatives here: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/meetings_index.php http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/meetings_index.php
efields 13y ago
The site tries too hard to be eye-catching, and like other commenters have already stated, looks like the latest, trendiest WordPress theme. Gov't sites should maybe be the opposite of this: as little art as possible and squeaky clean navigation getting you to your desired municipal information as possible so you can do what you came to do then get on with your day. Anything else is _distracting_. The designer and developers behind this are talented, of course, and to sell a redesign often involves these sort of hero shots and contemporary flourishes. But a bigger accomplishment would have been to pitch and win a design that is minimally invasive and efficient.
htmcer 13y ago
The swiss gov info portal is quite decent too https://www.ch.ch/en/ https://www.ch.ch/en/
- stblack 13y ago
  It's an interesting new take (new to me) on responsive design too.
nfoz 13y ago
Please tell me you're joking. The #1 priority of government websites should be accessibility, not looking cool with whatever garbage unusable web trends are popular du jour and supported by only a handful of desktop browsers running on modern hardware.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Totally agree. All I see is the web site equivalent of William Hague in a baseball cap.
RossDoughty 13y ago
I think the design of this site is very good, using modern styles and code, however I do personally find it a little "In your face." as it were.
acido303 13y ago
Love it!
madoublet 13y ago
Beautiful design, bad navigation. Not bad in the sense that it is difficult to learn, but bad because I have to learn it (if that makes sense).
balqan 13y ago
I wonder if they did a proper usability test on this website?
sanwar 13y ago
The slowest site ever and it is in sync with how government works :-)
emehrkay 13y ago
I like this site. The theming is broken though. When you choose creme, it messes up some of the layout elements
ycom_g 13y ago
not gonna nitpick because this is the first government site that actually looks decent.
matthuggins 13y ago
I can't believe how many upvotes this difficult to navigate website has.
nness 13y ago
Since this is a UK Government site, I think the Equality Act 2010 requires WCAG 2.0 AA compliance. As difficult as WCAG is, and I've yet to see a fully-passed implementation, the lack of no-JavaScript support probably means they haven't met the accessibility mark. All that aside, I actually like the design, seems they got their IA in order, with a good prioritisation of content.
humbyvaldes 13y ago
A great example is www.miamidade.gov It's simple and designed to get things done.
twoodfin 13y ago
I know the students who put it together probably thought it was cute, but the "Join the Apprentice Revolution!" photo[1] strikes me as rather tasteless, given the ideology and events that inspired it. [1] http://www.manchester.gov.uk/images/75583_Apprenticeships_banner_1000x550px.jpg http://www.manchester.gov.uk/images/75583_Apprenticeships_ba...
kevinpet 13y ago
It's pretty, but go and try to solve the problem "I want to see what library is open today so that I can take my kids there". The best I could do involved clicking through to find a local library and then an alphabetical list that forces you to click through on each letter.
sailfast 13y ago
I am becoming more and more a fan of the Jeckyll trend for front-facing web sites for government. I believe Hawaii.gov just rolled out their new site and it looks fantastic. The Manchester city page is certainly better than a number of government sites I've seen in the past, (kudos) but might benefit from a bit better economy of screen real estate.
jstrate 13y ago
I'd prefer most government sites not designed at all, rather apis. And for whatever sites actually needed user input, etc just a header and form tag will suffice. I'm also in the minority which finds most modern web design intrusive. I want to use the service, not look at your art project.
gverri 13y ago
The amount of hate against design work is high in the last days. For every programmer here trying to be a DESIGN CRITIQUE: Do you know that annoying type of intern that thinks he knows more than you about programming even when you have 20 years more experience? You right now. 242 points means that the Design is a success. So stop being a dick, you're not better than anyone for pointing failures that doesn't exist. If you really want to critique Design work, at least make sure you understand everything said here: http://ia.net/blog/learning-to-see/ http://ia.net/blog/learning-to-see/
- joeframbach 13y ago
  > 242 points means that the Design is a success No, 242 points means that the design critique is a successful conversation engager. I upvoted to give "government sites should give function more importance than form" more visibility.
jason_pr 13y ago
I half expected to see a disclaimer, "We use biscuits on your computer or mobile device to help make this website better."
mkopinsky 13y ago
While in general I approve of the policy here of renaming posts to match the title of the page, the change here done by the mods (to simply "Manchester City Council") makes the whole discussion make no sense. (The original title was "How government sites should be designed".)
- aendruk 13y ago
  This wouldn't have happened if the original submission had followed the site guidelines[1]: > If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead. I view it as similar to Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. [1]: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lucb1e 13y ago
    If we're gonna follow the guidelines, then the Boston bombing was entirely off-topic and should have been removed immediately instead of getting thousands of points. The only Boston-related on-topic story was Bruce Schneier's view on it, which is also the reason why the other stories should not have been on HN. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. Edit: Well that was a quick downvote. Guess the Boston bombing strikes a nerve. But is it so hard to be objective about it?
zwischenzug 13y ago
Title: "Manchester City Council" which links to a the website of MCC. Is that supposed to be sufficient to explain why this is on HN?
- carlesfe 13y ago
  I think the title was changed; the original one was something like "All institutional webpages should be like this one"
  - mkopinsky 13y ago
    The original title was "How government sites should be designed".
    - mixmax 13y ago
      changing it was a bad decision IMO. Without the context this submission makes no sense at all.
      - evo_9 13y ago
        Yes, the title changing has gotten seriously out of hand lately. I don't get it either, it's not like the original title was confusing (unlike the new title).
        lucb1e 13y ago
        I was thinking the same. Could a mod elaborate on this please?
        charliepark 13y ago
        I don't know that any of them will actually respond … a number of people have been complaining about this, and I can't recall a time when they've responded at all, let alone with anything reasoned, or reasonable. But it's ridiculous. The best word I have for it is that it feels paternalistic. I think there are many occasions where HN commenters write dumb things and reflect on themselves poorly. And in many cases, the original title of the linked page is fine. But people writing blog posts (or just titling demo pages or other sites, like the one linked here) aren't writing their titles with the intent that their title will give context to the readers of a random forum. It's bizarre that HN mods change the titles, and I really wish they would stop.
simonswords82 13y ago
It would surely be better if all government websites adhered to a predefined structure, layout and general look/feel standard.
- desas 13y ago
  It's interesting to see many local government websites now have a section of their website called "do it online" with sub-headings of "pay it online", "report it online", "request it online". It all seems a bit weird to me but there's obviously some communication channel.
ryanAmurphy 13y ago
I'm going to regard all the negative comments on here as failed attempts of understanding Britishness.
xlevus 13y ago
What's with the last image in the carousel? It seems to take strong cues from soviet propaganda. The red flag, workers holding their tools, ready to fight. Did Manchester become the Soviet Republic of Manchester? http://img0083.popscreencdn.com/101036667_amazoncom-chinese-american-people-propaganda-poster-home.jpg http://img0083.popscreencdn.com/101036667_amazoncom-chinese-...
- DanBC 13y ago
  People in the UK are fine with such images. Soviet imagery (usually fake cyrillic with reversed capital Rs) makes its way into advertisements and such pretty often. Most youth will only be vaguely aware of the origins of that style of imagery. It is a bit weird, now that I think about it. It's a bit like Korean bars being "Hitler themed". It would have been a lot more weird if they were showcasing actual Manchester City Council workers. EDIT: Here's a great book about soviet political posters. I won an award at school, and I chose this book. It was handed to me by, I think, Baroness Warnock. I can't remember what she said, but it was kind and funny. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Soviet-Political-Poster-1917-1980/dp/0140081879 http://www.amazon.com/The-Soviet-Political-Poster-1917-1980/...)
- arethuza 13y ago
  If that image was based on a picture of a Soviet leader then I do think it would be odd. However, as its clearly based on an image of the Soviet people then I don't associate anything negative or inappropriate with it. After all, a lot of people in the UK still remember that it was mainly the Soviets who defeated the Nazis - resulting in incredible suffering and hardship for the people there.
adamwintle 13y ago
Its pretty good for a government website, but the more I dig around the more I find a lack of attention to detail. For example, switch the theme to creme and many elements break: http://www.adamwintledesign.com/screenshots/Manchester_City_Council_Homepage-20130503-011017.jpg http://www.adamwintledesign.com/screenshots/Manchester_City_...
merlish 13y ago
It's quite pretty, but I worry it's a bit cutesy. Lego people next to a link for reporting child abuse?
padseeker 13y ago
Try to keep things in perspective - for a government site it is truly impressive. The usability should be the most important issue and in that category I Manchester did a bang up job. I'm impressed - and no framework it appears, the css is custom then?
jimktrains2 13y ago
This changing the title thing really needs to stop. This title is completely useless to spur the discussion that the original one did.
benatkin 13y ago
I couldn't dismiss the cookie message on Chrome for Android on my Galaxy Nexus.

363 points by mattwritescode 13y ago

Similar: https://www.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/ http://storify.com/GovUK/gov-uk-wins-design-of-the-year-award http://storify.com/GovUK/gov-uk-wins-design-of-the-year-awar...

StavrosK 13y ago
Holy hell, I've been going through accountants and the HMRC and things for years and nobody has been able to answer me and tell me what this page told me in two clicks! https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-out-of-a-limited-company https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-ou... That is brilliant, thank you very much for this.
marknutter 13y ago
Now this is what a government site should be. Sterile, cold, lightweight, and functional. Give me as many of the most common links as you can on the front page and make it easy to find the less common stuff. Period.
swatkat 13y ago
gov.uk looks like a domain squatter webpage :)
- arethuza 13y ago
  I must like that look then :-)
cLeEOGPw 13y ago
gov.uk feels like hostname ad site.

onion2k 13y ago

It looks lovely. But it's hard to find things. Consequently it's not how a government website should be designed. Try finding, for example, the cost of a planning application. It's a few clicks away from the home page, which is fine given that it's reasonably logical if you can spot the initial starting point on the homepage ... but the search is poor. For the terms "cost of planning", a link to http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/5865/planning/4 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/5865/plann... is hidden at the 6th result in a page of links that's essentially a wall of text. Search results are likely to be a very important part of a large data driven site, so they should be much better.

arethuza 13y ago
If you search for "cost of planning application" it's on the first result - in the context of a council website "cost of planning" could mean lots of things (e.g. how much do they spend on managing planning across the entire organisation).

ch0wn 13y ago

I think this takes mobile first a bit too far. On my desktop with a high resolution this feels a bit odd. That said, it's really refreshing to see government sites properly designed and UX and mobile friendly.

eitally 13y ago

I personally think the redesigned site for my county (Wake County, NC) is far, far superior. It looks nice -- not quite as "modern startup" as the Manchester site -- but is so much easier to use. http://www.wakegov.com/ http://www.wakegov.com/

Sodaware 13y ago
I'm not a big fan of the huge menus, but every time I've had to use the Wake site I've been able to find what I need pretty quickly. One improvement would be an auto-complete feature on the main search box, but I think I'm in a pretty small minority that would benefit from that.
- eitally 13y ago
  I agree completely, on both counts. I think I've used it for the few things I use it for, enough times to have just memorized what's where. It's definitely a huge improvement over the old site, regardless!

smcl 13y ago

I'm sure everyone else is aware of how local government websites look in their own parts of the world - but for a similar-sized UK city Edinburgh City Council's website is a good (i.e. bad) example for comparison: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk

verygoodyear 13y ago
That actually looks like a domain holding page when you glance at it... My http://glasgow.gov.uk http://glasgow.gov.uk isn't any better
jibbist 13y ago
I really dislike the archaic/gothic use of 'V' rather than 'U' - it looks pretentious and always makes me read it twice before remembering the usage.
- arethuza 13y ago
  That's not really the fault of the website - as far as I know it's part of the brand for Edinburgh Council.
  - smcl 13y ago
    Correct this branding is all over Edinburgh, perhaps to hark back to some ancient celtic roots. I'm not a fan either.
arethuza 13y ago
I honestly don't mind the Edinburgh site - I'd rather they focus on content and functionality rather than changing it every year to comply with the latest design fad.
- smcl 13y ago
  True but nobody's saying they should - it's just a good example of a cluttered and disorganised website

DanBC 13y ago

I love some of the new gov sites. Yes, there are some problems, but compared to the god-awful mess we had before they're amazing. It's important to have good machines for development. But I wonder how many people have terrible machines for testing. As for local government: Here's an example. Gloucestershire (http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/resident http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/resident) - imagine you want to report a child at risk. The search gives you useful results, but also sends you to the Safeguarding children website. (http://www.gscb.org.uk/ http://www.gscb.org.uk/) The Gloucestershire site is good[1] and the GSCB site is terrible. [1] for some values of good, including 'you should have seen it a few years ago'.

jerguismi 13y ago

No. Goverment web sites should be minimal design & content - black text on white background, no extra graphics. I don't want to pay taxes so that these latte-sipping designers can create cool projects.

blowski 13y ago
Why should public services be ugly?
- switch007 13y ago
  They should be if it's cheaper (while still meeting the goals etc).
  - nwh 13y ago
    What correlation is there between expensive design and good design? I've seen projects that haven't cost more than a few hundred dollars and still look absolutely stunning. I've also seen projects developed this year that look like they have been dragged from the 90s, yet cost millions in today's money.
    - blowski 13y ago
      A lot of the time the design probably was sketched out in the 90s, and it's taken until this year to reach the development phase.
  - blowski 13y ago
    Making the website more appealing for non-geeks results in more non-geeks using the website. The website is a more cost-efficient way of servicing non-geek citizens. So spending money on good design can definitely be worth it. Assuming every penny spent on aesthetics is a penny wasted is a developer fallacy.
- laumars 13y ago
  Why do people insist that services which exist purely for quick searching of information have to be design-orientated and pretty? I hear the same arguments about developer sites (eg PHP manual) but frankly I prefer layouts with an emphasis on conveying content rather than watering down that content behind a wall of epic sized fonts, fading effects and huge scrollable areas. There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site. NB this is coming from a dyslexic who equally hates being presented with walls of text.

ohwp 13y ago

In The Netherlands these two sites score very high every year: http://www.capelleaandenijssel.nl/ http://www.capelleaandenijssel.nl/ http://cms.dordrecht.nl/ http://cms.dordrecht.nl/ They contain a lot more useful information above the fold than the linked one. Good design involves a lot more than eye candy.

harshreality 13y ago
How do you find anything on those two pages without first mentally parsing the layouts? On the first link, the search bar is in the middle of the damned page, even though the site seems designed around search (meaningful static nav is confined to one element, the Information mouseover at the top)! By comparison, the manchester site is dead simple, and search is at the top corner where it should be. That style of design reduces content areas (with a corresponding boost to element/object/image size, since there's less stuff competing for the space). Call it eye candy, but it's a lot easier to use for people who aren't used to visually parsing complex page designs. My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, and some of the icon choices, not the basic design style.
- ohwp 13y ago
  "... search is at the top corner where it should be." Did you ever visit the Google homepage? Why should search be at the top corner? I don't know if you understand Dutch but since text is part of the interface maybe this is why you are having issues with the design? "My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, not the basic design style." Well I was talking about exactly this. The Manchester site may look nice but it is lacking overview. Design is more than looks. It is also about text, interaction and so on.
  - harshreality 13y ago
    The search box goes in a top corner normally because putting it elsewhere disrupts the content layout or takes unnecessarily long to find. If there's no other content, the search box can go anywhere. I use google chrome which translates the page well enough for me to understand. There are too many visually distinct sections on those Dutch websites for someone who isn't familiar with the site to find anything quickly. There are non-tech-savvy folks for whom anything more complex than the manchester site, or Google's front page search box, is too complex for them to deal with. They wouldn't be able to visually scan the Dutch pages for what they want. Whether it's lack of technical familiarity, lack of attention span, or something else, I don't know. Lots of text divided up into arbitrary sections simply doesn't work well for them. How is the manchester site lacking an overview? It has four major categories near the top, another tier of categories which expands into 20 categories with one click, and if that doesn't find what you're looking for, or you're lazy, you can type what you want into the conveniently located search box. I agree that the manchester site be improved (most of the stuff at the bottom should be eliminated or turned into links in the top bar), but I think it's closer to ideal than the two sites you linked are.

_delirium 13y ago

I personally don't like this. 1) I don't like this style even when web startups do it... too much vertical scrolling, empty space, giant images, and icons; and 2) it just looks weird for a serious site to look like a web startup. This is a modern government website design I like better: http://www.kk.dk http://www.kk.dk

appplemac 13y ago

It's good to hear that governments start to pay attention to the UX. Their webpages are just the first step to making the govt services better.

goyalpulkit 13y ago

I am really amazed how most of the comments assume that beautiful sites cannot provide the same amount of information as their uglier counterparts.

yashodhan 13y ago
Most beautiful sites can. This one does not. Those icons are confusing. Click expand to see the whole list together. What a mess! Ideally they should be using glyphs with much bolder lines, or if they're really set on using the current ones, place each on a solid white circle. Right now they blend in with the text and seem to add to the overall visual noise. Scrolling down the page, why the hell am I looking at a gigantic picture of a girl staring back at me? That image would be better placed on an interior decorating portfolio, not a city council website. Ideally the images shouldn't be so large and vague, but if they're set on using it, they should've overlayed the image with its headline in a large white font (currently relegated to the invisible location of below the image) I have issues with their color scheme too. I think most governmental websites should use white as their dominant color, for clarity's sake. GOV.UK is a website that is worth aspiring towards, not this. Very much not this.
- goyalpulkit 13y ago
  > Those icons are confusing. Click expand to see the whole list together. What a mess! Ideally they should be using glyphs with much bolder lines, or if they're really set on using the current ones, place each on a solid white circle. Right now they blend in with the text and seem to add to the overall visual noise. I always prefer iconic interfaces as compared to the ones with just text. Try to think of one thing that you would like to find and go to gov.uk and then to manchester.gov.uk. See which one is easier to find Icons vs Labels vs Both: http://edwardsanchez.me/blog/13589712 http://edwardsanchez.me/blog/13589712
- yen223 13y ago
  Seriously disagree with your analysis. I have a 24" monitor, and this is one of the few websites that makes excellent use of all that real-estate. I found that the icons are large, relatively clear and straightforward in meaning, making it much easier to hunt for content than if you were to visit the other single-column, text-heavy websites. I would hold GOV.UK as a site that's too minimalist. A person could be forgiven for thinking the gov.uk domain is still up for sale.

akakey 13y ago

https://www.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/ looks like a better example.

benrmatthews 13y ago

Looking past the knee-jerk reaction to "this design looks expensive", would love to see how the Manchester Council site performs from a service design perspective. How do local residents use the site? Can they find what they need quickly and easily, from both a desktop and a mobile? I'm betting yes, and the cost saved (in terms of time, frustration and maybe money) over a poorly designed yet inexpensive-looking site will be worthwhile. Side note: Would love to see a blog post about the thought behind the design, either from the design agency or the web manager at Manchester...

jerguismi 13y ago
I'm not sure of that all. First of all, is the contect well indexed for search engines? At first glance, doesn't look like it is. When I need information related to goverment services, first thing where I look are search engines.

dan1234 13y ago

I think I actually prefer http://www.gateshead.gov.uk http://www.gateshead.gov.uk, which is a lot less "in your face". If I go to a .gov.uk site it's because a need a specific piece of information, I don't need the design getting in the way.

jenskanis 13y ago
I fully agree!
XarotheOne 13y ago
Exactly agreed.
- ordinary 13y ago
  Hi. I see you're new here. "I agree" is a contentless response that adds nothing to the topic at hand. Feel free to post if you have something interesting to say, but "+1" is discouraged here.
  - XarotheOne 13y ago
    Okay thank you for that, I am still getting used to putting high-quality replies and posts because I am used to short posts from social networks etc.
laumars 13y ago
Totally. One of my pet peeves is people who insist that "good design" has to have an emphasis on being pretty. Design is as much about function as it is form, and in the case of government sites, having easy navigation, accessibility and relevant content is far far more important than being pretty. Sadly, most UK government sites are both ugly and horrible to navigate. Or at least that was the trend until recently, thankfully it seems some of those organisations are starting to re-fit their site.
- rusew 13y ago
  But users who perceive a site to be "pretty" will usually experience it as easier to use than an uglier site, even if the uglier site is easier to use structurally. "Pretty" often translates to "easy," because users trust the design more.

tudorconstantin 13y ago

If there were more sites like this, I'd visit them by pure pleasure from time to time

tobeportable 13y ago

I believe the "/ home / ... " toolbar should be on every pages first page included.

PhilipA 13y ago

Great design. I don't know the rules in the UK, but shouldn't the site work without JavaScript enabled (For the visually impaired)?

ronaldx 13y ago

What I typically go to a council website to do: find out the cost of council tax in band D in 2013-14. I am still clicking around... can anyone find it, I wonder?

smiler 13y ago
Yup. Click on "Council Tax" on the homepage... then "Can't find it? Other council tax services"... then "See your council tax band" (Rounded red button)
- ronaldx 13y ago
  So you're 3 clicks deep (having searched around a bit, I guess) and you still don't have a number...
  - jwarren 13y ago
    That's not too bad for an information-dense site. You've not had many page loads. Plus, you can find it very easily by putting "council tax band" into the search box.
    - ronaldx 13y ago
      Maybe you think "very easily", but I searched around for 10 minutes unable to find the numerical information required. I had concluded it didn't exist in tabulated form, so thanks for confirming I was wrong - although I'm still not sure if this is accessible via natural links. Here's a particularly unhelpful FAQ, which says the data is "displayed on our web pages" http://www.manchester.gov.uk/faqs/faq/19013/what_can_i_do_if_my_property_has_not_yet_been_put_into_a_council_tax_band http://www.manchester.gov.uk/faqs/faq/19013/what_can_i_do_if... What I find bad about that - is that I know my way around a website, and I couldn't find the required information. I found it with ease on other council website suggested in the comments (Lambeth, Gateshead, Birmingham: all 2-3 links deep) If we want people to look for information on the web rather than blocking council call centres: this website is not the right way.
deleted 13y ago

adaml_623 13y ago

I'm not sure the accessibility is 100% correct. I think you should be able to use the tab key to get to the links but tabbing skips the top row of icons... Which aren't technically hyperlinks I suppose..

adaml_623 13y ago
And some of the images don't have alt text. I think that's important as well
- dpcx 13y ago
  Not all images need alt text. See the documentation from the spec[1]. [1]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-1.html#the-img-element http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...

EnderMB 13y ago

I don't mind a bit of design, as long as the design is fully functional for EVERYONE that needs to use it. Yes, that means people using older browsers/machines, users with restricted vision, anyone that requires access to a council website, or requires information about council services. On IE7, this website works, but it takes a very long time to load, probably because the home page is 1MB, with just under 950k of this being images, and this isn't acceptable. The average user couldn't care less if the site looks nice, or is aesthetically pleasing, or if they are using a browser that StatCounter claim is at 1% worldwide. They want their information. I picked up a council project a few years ago, where an agency had built a nice looking website. However, it had not been tested using screen readers or tested using a focus group. After a few months they had received complaints about users using screen readers not being able to read the pages regarding council services for visually-impaired people.

marknutter 13y ago
Yes, but if the site is designed poorly then the user will spend as much time trying to figure out how to navigate around it than they would waiting for this modern version to download. I'm not saying the new one is easier to use, but you get my point.
- EnderMB 13y ago
  A basic site doesn't have to be designed poorly. My opposition is against design for the sake of designing, and in turn code for code's sake. A page doesn't always need to be loaded to the brim with JavaScript, and a home page doesn't always need a slider. A good designer will create the bare minimum for a functional site, and a good developer will use the best tools for the job, instead of the tools that everyone else uses.

XarotheOne 13y ago

Definitely, I really like the layout and use of modern styles.

vilius 13y ago

Encouraging change! Typically before entering a any .gov site something like this goes in my head: "I'm about to enter a boring website that makes getting to a point super challenging unless you read tons of word documents." On entering manchester.gov.uk "Oh look at this! They did a recent update to their design. It feels fresh and trendy. Maybe they actually care. Maybe they were able to update their information architecture as well! There is hope that I won't have to spend an hour reading a bunch of text." The majority of government websites are very apathetic and poorly implemented. I am very happy to see that this is starting to change!

timrogers 13y ago

For me at least, http://gov.uk http://gov.uk is a lot better - it's far more minimal and puts the information first, whereas I can't help but feel that this Manchester City Council site is more about the sexy design that it is about usability and actually giving you the information you want.

telepoiss 13y ago

I'm pretty happy with our government's website. The first few versions where a complete data overload and looked liked they were made in MS Excel. Now its pretty fresh and well structured in my opinion. link: www.eesti.ee

nnq 13y ago

UX fail: Big useless slider/carouse with the slide captions obscured under the huge pics, way under the fold... and to prevent this big fat carousel from being too low on the page (...but it still is), useful services links are one click away under that 'other services' button, instead of being able to just scroll to them! ...it's amazing how many people totally miss the point of sliders/carousels/slideshows: to sell profitable products or showcase important site content! if you use them, put them at the page top and have relevant captions with links that people actually click.

Spooky23 13y ago
That's what they are doing -- they are trying to "sell" adoption and a city festival.
- wisty 13y ago
  Really? I didn't notice. The caption was under the slider, and I couldn't see it. I just saw some picture of a family.

muratmutlu 13y ago

This page is a bit of a mess http://cl.ly/image/203V2O40372b http://cl.ly/image/203V2O40372b

RyanONeill1970 13y ago

Looks like a template as http://KashFlow.com http://KashFlow.com seems eerily similar. Better that than a custom design though, I imagine it saved a fair bit of money.

dan1234 13y ago
They look very similar but the markup is quite different (KashFlow is a Wordpress blog, Manchester is "Jadu CMS") so I don't think they just used a template unless they went back to the original PSDs. FWIW, http://www.jadu.net http://www.jadu.net are the agency who made the Manchester site.

cjfont 13y ago

Another example of a well-designed gov't site: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/ http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

ses 13y ago

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/5615/get_a_council_tax_discount_or_exemption_or_claim_benefit http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/5615/ge... 404 - not so sure

apidoc 13y ago

Design is nice, but "baaaam" too much for what the page is and for who the page is. Why i have to click to open the services? Better show them directly.

huhtenberg 13y ago

How come this and all .gov.uk sites mentioned in the comments include Google Analytics scripts? I would imagine that the sharing of the data collected on government websites with 3rd parties be rather strictly regulated. Especially when it's collected as a part of a tracking infrastructure that spans beyond said sites.

brador 13y ago
I recall last year the Uk wanted to integrate mandatory Facebook logins into all their sites. Looks like they've since dropped that idea.

DigitalSea 13y ago

I applaud the change and thinking outside of the box, but the Manchester City Council website looks like a $45 Wordpress theme off of Themeforest. The slider appears to offer no value to the site other than taking up a massive amount of room without really justifying its existence. I'm not a designer, I'm a developer and I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind that slider. While I agree that the trendy look of the site is better than most Government sites, it tries too hard to the point the change and potential this site could have had is gone. The reason Government websites are usually ugly is not because Government's are afraid of change or can't justify the cash it's because there are content accessibility guidelines to adhere too. And when you've got to make your content accessible to people with disabilities well your options can be somewhat limited (especially colour use). This is the perfect example of everything wrong with modern web design. Instead of thinking, "What can we NOT add to this site design" designers seem to be thinking, "How many full screen images, rounded corners, parallax effects, CSS animations, Javascript effects and large amounts of custom fonts can we cram into this site?" I can foresee a lot of issues for people with eyesight problems on this site, aren't Governments supposed to adhere to WCAG rules and a lot more stricter than non-Government websites do? The images don't even have alt tags on them, Web Developer common sense rule #1 — Always put alt tags on images, especially when they're being used as icons in content sections, wow.

mattwritescode 13y ago
Whats wrong with a $45 wordpress theme ;-P
thegoodlab 13y ago
>This is the perfect example of everything wrong with modern web design. This seems to be quite the hyperbole. Sure, it might over use some modern design trends, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Also, what is wrong with themes on themeforest? Many are built with great design in mind. More than anything govt. sites are not friendly, don't organize their content well, and do a horrible job at engaging their users. I would say this site does all of three, making it at least a decently designed and well built site.
- 13y ago

Noughmad 13y ago

On my screen size and browser chrome, the little girl's eyes are just above the bottom of the browser window. With the rest of the picture out of focus, it looks positively creepy.

S_A_P 13y ago

I totally love that there is a link that says "Report dumped Rubbish" on that site! That is fantastic. I am not sure if the preteen girl was thinking about adoption or the adoptee, but otherwise I think the site is great.

jwarren 13y ago

I'm going to go against the HN grain and say that it's great. Frequent complaints I hear about local authority websites boil down to: 1. Too much top-level navigation - choice is confusing. 2. No idea which information is in which section. This one gets you to (what they believe to be) the most-commonly requested issues instantly, and gives you a quick idea of what you can find in each section. This is the perfect place for search results suggestions too. Remember, most visitors to these sites are not going to be frequent users - they won't have the time or inclination to learn a more complex system. I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's a great idea that just needs a bit of extra polish.

_k 13y ago

Government websites need to start with the user. What's the point of showing all the information if it's not relevant ? What's the point of showing me permits that only apply to residents, if they don't apply to a business owner ? What's the point of showing me tax information if I'm a tourist ? They shouldn't make you look at all that. They should make it easy. 3 buttons to start with : resident, tourist, business. Add 3 photo to make it attractive and a few language choices.

andreasklinger 13y ago

If you are interested in this take a look at: https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/govuk-goes-worldwide/3036144.article http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/govuk-goes-worldwide/30...

loupeabody 13y ago
Good call, I was also going to mention this until I saw your comment. It appears there are many UK city sites that are trying to implement these principles. Given that the principles include accessibility guidelines [0] and transparency of intent [1], I'd prefer to see more city sites designed this way. (That is if the sites in question faithfully implement the design principles) Regarding the site OP linked, even if a little glossy, it's certainly not a disaster of usability. In fact, I tend to believe in the aesthetic-usability effect [2] in the case of not-so-design-savvy users, the added sheen might actually motivate them to use the city portal more often. [0]https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#sixth https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#sixth [1]https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#tenth https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#tenth [2]http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design_at.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design_at.html

jchn 13y ago

Looks really nice, but at first I thought I needed to scroll down to see the other services instead of clicking the button first. After clicking, it was clear to me that this obviously is a button. But this wasn't my understanding when I saw the page at first. Anybody else had the same issue? When I go to a service, for example "Roads, parking & transport" and I go to the bottom of the page there is a section called "Policies, statements & resources". Now I need to click it in order to see the items, why not have it in this state by default? I've checked some of the other pages and there never really are a lot of links underneath there anyway, so this won't make the pages a lot longer.

jonhmchan 13y ago

I'm the front end technical lead for a major department in a top 10 U.S. State (that's all I can say). As much as I love the way that certain public sector entities are embracing modern design principles for their sites, there is a balance to be struck. Form always follows function when it comes to design, and when it comes to government, function requires that the site is as accessible as possible. Color selection, JavaScript use, and extended backwards compatibility with older browsers are among the the many considerations one has to take into account for the elderly, the impaired, and those who simply don't have access to modern browsers. That being said, it's definitely possible to have stunning design with these things taken into account, we just can't implement every bell and whistle we're used to.

stedaniels 13y ago
"that's all I can say". Lame. Put your money where your mouth is. It wouldn't take much work to find out just which State department has got Deloitte in.

pessimizer 13y ago

The only reason that this has been driven up to the top of HN is because of its title. If it had been titled "A Nicely Designed Government Site", it would have gone nowhere. As for the site, I can't see how the navigation would have me pulling out any fewer hairs than any other government site, but it is very large, multicolored and slidey, so if I were putting together an iPad commercial I might use it in a couple of shots.

noselasd 13y ago
I'm sure it all depends on what info you're after. But the site here have the typical info that people are after regarding the gouvernment on the front page. Most of the links there are related to the reasons we have government at all. That's not how most government sites are structured in my experience, though I'm not from the UK.

epo 13y ago

This is just this week's trend, it'll look really dated by the end of the year. And yes it does look like an off the shelf theme. A government site has a job to do, primarily to provide information and contact details, this is more suited to someone peddling organic food.

capex 13y ago

In Australia, as of now, the website of every council presents the same information in a different way. What's required here is a consistent UI across the entire .gov sites. Government sites by default need to cater for every edge case in terms of accessibility, and so functional takes precedence over pretty every time.

eike 13y ago

I'm just going to leave this right here: http://shetland.gov.uk http://shetland.gov.uk

jabbernotty 13y ago
It times out at the moment, we may have killed it?

oceanician 13y ago

I feel like it's a step improvement, and will help people use the site. However, what I'd have really liked to see is machine readable minutes of the council. This is something that's a bit of a bug bear having ended up setting up a project awhile back to try and bring-out the minutes etc of the council meetings. We called it MCC Work For You: https://code.google.com/p/mcc-work-for-you/ https://code.google.com/p/mcc-work-for-you/ Sadly within the confines of a hackday we couldn't get as much progress as we'd have liked. However, as a proof of concept it was useful, and did inspire @CountCulture to go forward with his site: http://openlylocal.com/ http://openlylocal.com/ I'd really like to see progress in this area, and the encouragement of councils to make progress with making the minutes readable. Definitely helpful for investigative journalists, as well exposing the good work of councillors. I wonder if there's a plan somewhere for this? I couldn't find it on the site.....

oceanician 13y ago
Lots of pdfs with no alternatives here: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/meetings_index.php http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/meetings_index.php

efields 13y ago

The site tries too hard to be eye-catching, and like other commenters have already stated, looks like the latest, trendiest WordPress theme. Gov't sites should maybe be the opposite of this: as little art as possible and squeaky clean navigation getting you to your desired municipal information as possible so you can do what you came to do then get on with your day. Anything else is _distracting_. The designer and developers behind this are talented, of course, and to sell a redesign often involves these sort of hero shots and contemporary flourishes. But a bigger accomplishment would have been to pitch and win a design that is minimally invasive and efficient.

htmcer 13y ago

The swiss gov info portal is quite decent too https://www.ch.ch/en/ https://www.ch.ch/en/

stblack 13y ago
It's an interesting new take (new to me) on responsive design too.

nfoz 13y ago

Please tell me you're joking. The #1 priority of government websites should be accessibility, not looking cool with whatever garbage unusable web trends are popular du jour and supported by only a handful of desktop browsers running on modern hardware.

alan_cx 13y ago
Totally agree. All I see is the web site equivalent of William Hague in a baseball cap.

RossDoughty 13y ago

I think the design of this site is very good, using modern styles and code, however I do personally find it a little "In your face." as it were.

acido303 13y ago

Love it!

madoublet 13y ago

Beautiful design, bad navigation. Not bad in the sense that it is difficult to learn, but bad because I have to learn it (if that makes sense).

balqan 13y ago

I wonder if they did a proper usability test on this website?

sanwar 13y ago

The slowest site ever and it is in sync with how government works :-)

emehrkay 13y ago

I like this site. The theming is broken though. When you choose creme, it messes up some of the layout elements

ycom_g 13y ago

not gonna nitpick because this is the first government site that actually looks decent.

matthuggins 13y ago

I can't believe how many upvotes this difficult to navigate website has.

nness 13y ago

Since this is a UK Government site, I think the Equality Act 2010 requires WCAG 2.0 AA compliance. As difficult as WCAG is, and I've yet to see a fully-passed implementation, the lack of no-JavaScript support probably means they haven't met the accessibility mark. All that aside, I actually like the design, seems they got their IA in order, with a good prioritisation of content.

humbyvaldes 13y ago

A great example is www.miamidade.gov It's simple and designed to get things done.

twoodfin 13y ago

I know the students who put it together probably thought it was cute, but the "Join the Apprentice Revolution!" photo[1] strikes me as rather tasteless, given the ideology and events that inspired it. [1] http://www.manchester.gov.uk/images/75583_Apprenticeships_banner_1000x550px.jpg http://www.manchester.gov.uk/images/75583_Apprenticeships_ba...

kevinpet 13y ago

It's pretty, but go and try to solve the problem "I want to see what library is open today so that I can take my kids there". The best I could do involved clicking through to find a local library and then an alphabetical list that forces you to click through on each letter.

sailfast 13y ago

I am becoming more and more a fan of the Jeckyll trend for front-facing web sites for government. I believe Hawaii.gov just rolled out their new site and it looks fantastic. The Manchester city page is certainly better than a number of government sites I've seen in the past, (kudos) but might benefit from a bit better economy of screen real estate.

jstrate 13y ago

I'd prefer most government sites not designed at all, rather apis. And for whatever sites actually needed user input, etc just a header and form tag will suffice. I'm also in the minority which finds most modern web design intrusive. I want to use the service, not look at your art project.

gverri 13y ago

The amount of hate against design work is high in the last days. For every programmer here trying to be a DESIGN CRITIQUE: Do you know that annoying type of intern that thinks he knows more than you about programming even when you have 20 years more experience? You right now. 242 points means that the Design is a success. So stop being a dick, you're not better than anyone for pointing failures that doesn't exist. If you really want to critique Design work, at least make sure you understand everything said here: http://ia.net/blog/learning-to-see/ http://ia.net/blog/learning-to-see/

joeframbach 13y ago
> 242 points means that the Design is a success No, 242 points means that the design critique is a successful conversation engager. I upvoted to give "government sites should give function more importance than form" more visibility.

jason_pr 13y ago

I half expected to see a disclaimer, "We use biscuits on your computer or mobile device to help make this website better."

mkopinsky 13y ago

While in general I approve of the policy here of renaming posts to match the title of the page, the change here done by the mods (to simply "Manchester City Council") makes the whole discussion make no sense. (The original title was "How government sites should be designed".)

aendruk 13y ago
This wouldn't have happened if the original submission had followed the site guidelines[1]: > If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead. I view it as similar to Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. [1]: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lucb1e 13y ago
  If we're gonna follow the guidelines, then the Boston bombing was entirely off-topic and should have been removed immediately instead of getting thousands of points. The only Boston-related on-topic story was Bruce Schneier's view on it, which is also the reason why the other stories should not have been on HN. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. Edit: Well that was a quick downvote. Guess the Boston bombing strikes a nerve. But is it so hard to be objective about it?

zwischenzug 13y ago

Title: "Manchester City Council" which links to a the website of MCC. Is that supposed to be sufficient to explain why this is on HN?

carlesfe 13y ago
I think the title was changed; the original one was something like "All institutional webpages should be like this one"
- mkopinsky 13y ago
  The original title was "How government sites should be designed".
  - mixmax 13y ago
    changing it was a bad decision IMO. Without the context this submission makes no sense at all.
    - evo_9 13y ago
      Yes, the title changing has gotten seriously out of hand lately. I don't get it either, it's not like the original title was confusing (unlike the new title).
      - lucb1e 13y ago
        I was thinking the same. Could a mod elaborate on this please?
        charliepark 13y ago
        I don't know that any of them will actually respond … a number of people have been complaining about this, and I can't recall a time when they've responded at all, let alone with anything reasoned, or reasonable. But it's ridiculous. The best word I have for it is that it feels paternalistic. I think there are many occasions where HN commenters write dumb things and reflect on themselves poorly. And in many cases, the original title of the linked page is fine. But people writing blog posts (or just titling demo pages or other sites, like the one linked here) aren't writing their titles with the intent that their title will give context to the readers of a random forum. It's bizarre that HN mods change the titles, and I really wish they would stop.

simonswords82 13y ago

It would surely be better if all government websites adhered to a predefined structure, layout and general look/feel standard.

desas 13y ago
It's interesting to see many local government websites now have a section of their website called "do it online" with sub-headings of "pay it online", "report it online", "request it online". It all seems a bit weird to me but there's obviously some communication channel.

ryanAmurphy 13y ago

I'm going to regard all the negative comments on here as failed attempts of understanding Britishness.

xlevus 13y ago

What's with the last image in the carousel? It seems to take strong cues from soviet propaganda. The red flag, workers holding their tools, ready to fight. Did Manchester become the Soviet Republic of Manchester? http://img0083.popscreencdn.com/101036667_amazoncom-chinese-american-people-propaganda-poster-home.jpg http://img0083.popscreencdn.com/101036667_amazoncom-chinese-...

DanBC 13y ago
People in the UK are fine with such images. Soviet imagery (usually fake cyrillic with reversed capital Rs) makes its way into advertisements and such pretty often. Most youth will only be vaguely aware of the origins of that style of imagery. It is a bit weird, now that I think about it. It's a bit like Korean bars being "Hitler themed". It would have been a lot more weird if they were showcasing actual Manchester City Council workers. EDIT: Here's a great book about soviet political posters. I won an award at school, and I chose this book. It was handed to me by, I think, Baroness Warnock. I can't remember what she said, but it was kind and funny. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Soviet-Political-Poster-1917-1980/dp/0140081879 http://www.amazon.com/The-Soviet-Political-Poster-1917-1980/...)
arethuza 13y ago
If that image was based on a picture of a Soviet leader then I do think it would be odd. However, as its clearly based on an image of the Soviet people then I don't associate anything negative or inappropriate with it. After all, a lot of people in the UK still remember that it was mainly the Soviets who defeated the Nazis - resulting in incredible suffering and hardship for the people there.

adamwintle 13y ago

Its pretty good for a government website, but the more I dig around the more I find a lack of attention to detail. For example, switch the theme to creme and many elements break: http://www.adamwintledesign.com/screenshots/Manchester_City_Council_Homepage-20130503-011017.jpg http://www.adamwintledesign.com/screenshots/Manchester_City_...

merlish 13y ago

It's quite pretty, but I worry it's a bit cutesy. Lego people next to a link for reporting child abuse?

padseeker 13y ago

Try to keep things in perspective - for a government site it is truly impressive. The usability should be the most important issue and in that category I Manchester did a bang up job. I'm impressed - and no framework it appears, the css is custom then?

jimktrains2 13y ago

This changing the title thing really needs to stop. This title is completely useless to spur the discussion that the original one did.

benatkin 13y ago

I couldn't dismiss the cookie message on Chrome for Android on my Galaxy Nexus.