It is now
more important than ever before to make certain that a website is
designed correctly. So, let us take a quick look at
www.womenscheapcarinsurance.org.uk to determine if this portal is
properly formatted. At the end of this article, we will rate the
site on a scale of one to ten.
As Google places a high level of importance on textual material, it
is important to examine this metric first. One of the problems with
the main page is that far too much content is presented at once.
Furthermore, there are grammatical errors throughout the text. These
mistakes will take away from the apparent validity of the site and
the insurance comparison service that it claims to offer. The text
should be kept short, actionable and to the point. Finally, there
should be hyperlinks embedded within that will navigate to other
pages or authoritative portals.
This website displays a layout that would have been sufficient ten
years ago. On the positive side, it provides the reader with
relevant information and the page itself loads quickly. As there are
no flash presentations, banner advertisements or popup windows, it
will be functional even with a computer that runs at a slower speed.
However, there is little "pop" to the page that will allow it to
stand out from its competitors. A navigation bar should be present
and unfortunately, it appears that the landing page only navigates
to one affiliated website. This is a rather sparse amount of
content. Of particular importance is that this site does not appear
to display correctly on a smartphone window.
Besides the aforementioned issues, most reputable insurance
comparison sites will have a built-in insurance calculator and (more
importantly) testimonials from existing clients. Neither is present
here. This could present a problem from an end-user point of view.
Of course, it is unknown as to whether further improvements will be
made in the future. This website may merely be in beta testing.
On a scale of one to ten, www.womenscheapcarinsurance.org.uk is
given a three. On the positive side, the layout is easy to load for
slower browsers. However, grammatical errors, a poor layout, few
authoritative links and an incorrect display on a mobile device
definitely detract from the overall presentation and perception of
by Dave Barnes and Colin West, 2010