As we introduce the 2013 Agency Web Review, we are reviewing highlights from the 2004 edition.
It is great for an agency to get numeric ratings on various aspects of its website—especially when comparable ratings for a group of other agency websites are available to show relative strengths and weaknesses.
But the ratings come to life when designers and mobilizers learn the specific reasons beneath the great ratings—or when they get suggestions to improve elements of their site.
Back in 2004, when we first gathered opinions of dozens of agency sites, social media was still in its infancy and dialogue with prospects was much less prevalent—so getting actionable feedback from the target audience was more difficult.
Today future missionaries have more channels to offer ideas—the challenge is getting them to take time to look closely and consider how their input can help.
Next month, the Agency Web Review will provide incentives to those considering cross-cultural service to spend several minutes observing agency websites—and then offering their opinions about them. In addition to numeric ratings, respondents will provide open-ended feedback on their initial impressions, the website’s strengths, and elements that can be improved.
Here are some of the verbatim quotes from future missionaries. Would any of these apply to your site?
It was attractive, but it wasn’t obvious what they did.
It was a little cluttered with things and I really didn’t know what I should click on. But it was VERY informative.
Really liked the home page and the different pictures that come up when you point at the options to enter.
Opportunities— list was hugely long—I had no idea which ones to select. Perhaps narrow the categories a bit for a first selection.
They recommended books which would be helpful for someone looking for more resources and help in a particular area.
I liked the opportunity boxes that popped up over the world and then I could click on them.
Include more stories about past missionaries’ experiences.
I love the emphasis on prayer. I think that it probably points to a good orientation.
Things weren’t hidden in fine print from what I could tell in my brief study. Everything seemed very up-front.
Give more detail about service opportunities without requiring a person to receive mailings.
I could not find a belief statement.
It is impressive they have the site in a different language.
Increase the size of the font, I can barely read it.
Visually a bit sparse, but seemed spiritually grounded.
There is a lot going on, visually creative. I wanted to learn more.
Seemed to be more focused on their organization than on the people they were serving, kind of a turn off.
Mission and values were clearly stated and inspiring.
The global map links on the home page didn’t all work. I couldn’t find a webmaster link to report it.
How do I actually work for (agency)!? I have no idea how to apply or what to do if I want to work with them!
Present more ‘in your face’ opportunities to serve or donate.
I really liked that one of the first things I saw invited me to pray with the group. It gave me a way to get involved right now.
At the agency level, this kind of feedback is especially valuable for designers. Collectively, comments about dozens of sites can be coded and analyzed for helpful trends. Comments in the 2004 study most frequently related to the following:
- Ease of Navigation
- Quantity of Information
- Organization of Site
- Design / Layout / Color
- Graphics / Photos
The most-frequently-mentioned opportunities for improvement fell into these categories:
- Information about Opportunities
- Visual Style / Layout
- Information About the Agency
- Text / Font
- Verbal Style
What kinds of ideas has your agency implemented on its website based on the suggestions of visitors? Add a comment and let us know!