Review criteria for evaluating a site

Some criteria for art history web sites: user-friendly, relevant content, visually compelling/appealing (or at least not visually repellent; after all, aesthetics is one concern of art history), ability to adapt as needed, i.e. add content, alter format, etc.

Along with two other colleagues, I evaluated Posts on Art History Teaching Resources:

It was very easy to use. The introduction was succinct. The organization and side-bar were clear. However, much of the (desired) content is not yet available. Could the color of the text make this more apparent?
Relevant Content

This was not easy to evaluate because the content is not very complete. However, if one is just beginning to teach, it is worth searching to see if some lectures, PowerPoints, assignments, and other features will be useful. (This seems geared to Stokstad and Cothren’s Art History.) Some content is very selective, and you may wish to concentrate on material that is not covered here. You may be able to tweak some assignments that are not at the right level for your class.
Visually Compelling/Appealing
Colors, composition, fonts, etc. are very basic. You will not get lost on this site, but you won’t be enchanted, either. Considering the site’s purpose perhaps this does not matter.
Ability to Adapt
The site grows because a variety of art historians contribute to it. There is no consistency right now because not all chapters/periods of art contain instructor readings, lecture notes, slides, assignments, etc. Perhaps one day there will be a range of sources for each chapter.
Several contributions raised questions for me: one assignment for ancient art seems to be “borrowed” from a Pearson “how to” art history paperback book without attribution; one document about writing had serious punctuation errors! Obviously, anyone using features from this site needs to read and adapt them before using.

Source: Review criteria for evaluating a site