<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>JJB Blog &#187; architecture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/tag/architecture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:47:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comparing the Taxonomy of the Obama and Clinton Website Issues Menus</title>
		<link>http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2008/02/10/comparing-the-taxonomy-of-the-obama-and-clinton-website-issues-menus/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2008/02/10/comparing-the-taxonomy-of-the-obama-and-clinton-website-issues-menus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:56:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[architecture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barackobama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[informationarchitecture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidential]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2008/02/10/comparing-the-taxonomy-of-the-obama-and-clinton-website-issues-menus/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama on the left, Clinton on the right: First of all, Obama just plain covers more issues that Clinton: 21 vs. 14. Clinton has no technology section. Even Obama&#8217;s &#8220;Additional Issues&#8221; section covers some important points missed by Clinton. In this section Obama specifically covers dealing with the hurricane Katrina tragedy. (Although, to Clinton&#8217;s credit, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.barackobama.com/" title="Barack Obama campaign website">Obama</a> on the left, <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/" title="Hillary Clinton campaign website">Clinton</a> on the right:</p>
<p><img src="http://jjb.blogs.jjb.cc/files/2008/02/obama_issues.png" title="Barack Obama campaign website issues menu" alt="Barack Obama campaign website issues menu" align="left" /><br />
<img src="http://jjb.blogs.jjb.cc/files/2008/02/clinton_issues.png" title="Hillary Clinton campaign website issues menu" alt="Hillary Clinton campaign website issues menu" /></p>
<p>First of all, Obama just plain covers more issues that Clinton: 21 vs. 14. Clinton has no <a href="http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2008/02/10/barack-obamas-technology-platform/">technology section</a>. Even Obama&#8217;s &#8220;Additional Issues&#8221; section covers some important points missed by Clinton. In this section Obama specifically covers dealing with the hurricane Katrina tragedy. (Although, to Clinton&#8217;s credit, via a google search I did find <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/katrina/" title="Hillary Clinton's hurricane Katrina policy">an article</a> on hurricane Katrina policy, but it&#8217;s just not listed in the issues menu.)</p>
<p>Second of all, compare the language/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_architecture" title="Information Architecture article on wikipedia">IA</a>  of the menu itself&#8211; Clinton&#8217;s is so contrived and superficial. The menu items aren&#8217;t even consistent in tense, tone, and style. Some of the items describe what she is going to do (&#8220;Strengthening the Middle Class&#8221;), others describe what content is linked to (&#8220;An Innovation Agenda&#8221;), and then there&#8217;s an item that just says who/what Clinton is (&#8220;A Champion for Women&#8221;). This &#8220;sentence&#8221; style, and the fact that the sentences aren&#8217;t even in a consitent style, makes the information much more difficult to navigate. It&#8217;s as if the website architects forgot that they were making a menu for users to access content, and just took every opportunity to communicate the perfect &#8220;message&#8221; whenever and wherever they had the attention of a voter, at the cost of making the information easy to access in the first place.</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s menu is very well done&#8211; it&#8217;s extremely clear what each item links to. Users who are looking for the platform for a particular issue can find it very quickly, and users just perusing the website see a very accessible and comprehensible top-level list of issues. In fact, the items in the menu are in alphabetical order! Be still, my beating heart!</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s menu says &#8220;Education&#8221;; Clinton&#8217;s: &#8220;Improving Our Schools&#8221;. You almost don&#8217;t have to click on Clinton&#8217;s&#8211; why read her plan when she already told you: when she is president the schools are getting more better. If you do click through, you will find that Obama has about twice as much content on his page, plus <strong>links to pdfs with much more detail on subtopics</strong>. Clinton&#8217;s page does have a &#8220;Hillary&#8217;s Plans&#8221; section on the upper right, but this is a list of links to a hodge-podge of feature articles and press releasees  and is not done in the thoughtful and consistently-organized platform presentation of Obama&#8217;s website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2008/02/10/comparing-the-taxonomy-of-the-obama-and-clinton-website-issues-menus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

