5 ms·

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

• jenskanis 14y ago
  I fully agree!
• XarotheOne 14y ago
  Exactly agreed.
  • ordinary 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.
    • laumars 14y ago
      Interesting point. I hadn't considered that kind of psychological effect but it does seem plausible given the perverse subconscious crap that people perceive (wine tasters listing off red wine flavors when tasting red-died white wine, miracle healing properties of placebo drugs, etc)
• diroussel 14y ago
  I much prefer the manchester one. They both use icons, which is nice and helps the eye scan the page. But they icons are nicer and share a consistent style. And the look of the manchester one of more balenced, whereas the gateshead one is nice and clean, but doesn't have any beauty about it.
• nnq 14y ago
  indeed, http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/ http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/ is the properly done version of this. it's as if a narcissistic graphic designer took this site, wiped his/her ass on it and turned it into http://www.manchester.gov.uk/.. http://www.manchester.gov.uk/...
• tome 14y ago
  Agreed, and http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ is less "prettily" designed but laid out so the visitor can find exactly what they are looking for.
• isleyaardvark 14y ago
  If I go to any site, I don't need the design getting in the way.
• antninja 14y ago
  Or http://europa.eu/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/index_en.htm which has a massive amount of informations. From a government, we expect transparency rather than design.
• devolute 14y ago
  It feels like the Manchester one is a bit too 'old school' (i.e. maybe started in print) designer lead. For example, rollover states are either missing, inverting to hard to read colors, or... weird. Who designs buttons without designing and testing rollover states?
• dreen 14y ago
  In terms of Manchester's site being more "in your face" - it definitely captures the Mancurian mentality this way. But then again Gateshead is near Newcastle so its hard to argue...
  • toyg 14y ago
    Was going to say this. "Of course it's 'in your face', it's Manchester!" This is where the council paid to erect a London Eye replica in the middle of the bloody town; a city quite proud of featuring the tallest and ugliest hotel in the land, and where the main attractions are a stadium and one of the largest shopping centre in Europe (certainly the tackiest -- think Las Vegas' Bellagio, triple the size, add "paintings" of Wayne Rooney and Winston Churchill). Mancunians are a lovely bunch, but damn don't they half-like being in-your-face.