rate this project
We'd like you to rate a project for success in three different areas. Tick looks good if it is aesthetically pleasing, and tick works well if it is technically innovative. Most importantly tick performs effectively if you think it meets all of its professional objectives.
Obviously we don't really expect to see any work submitted that is no good, but you never know.
please log in to add the project rating
posted by Jane Plüer
on 12 February 2009
Oh, this is awful, it lack any kind of personality or character... I couldn't even be bothered to look further than 2 pages into the site.
If this is what British monarchy means, somebody really hasn't done their homework - or have they?
Found this comment as well (last two paragraphs): http://tinyurl.com/dc53g3
posted by Ian Delaney
on 12 February 2009
SEO absent
The Telegraph (yes, really) has published an SEO audit of the site here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/4601422/The-Royal-Website-The-Queens-new-website-SEO-review.html
posted by Matt Cooper
on 16 February 2009
weak
its got all the charisma and style of a google ad bar.
In fact its worse than that, it actually feels like one of the holding pages you get from companies who resell domain names.
When you compare it to http://www.whitehouse.gov/ (which is probably the nearest equivalent in America) you see how much od a missed opportunity this site represents.
And is the typeface at the top Rotis? What is that all about? A german typeface? it that some sort of ironic gesture?
Very worrying.