Each student in Senior Seminar evaluated and ranked 4 out of 19 websites created by students in over the past three years. Each bulleted item is a separate evaluation. The number at the end of each evaluation gives the rank out of four the student evaluated. Non-integral numbers, like 3.5, represent equal rankings, e.g. 3=4.

Go to the evaluation for Web-site:

• This was a very informative and interesting assignment. At first, I thought that it would be really hard to judge and rank web pages, because I thought that they would all be really similar. However, after reading the assignment, I found that they really stuck out in a clear order of supremacy. Although some sites were better and more complete than others, I found each groups page to be informative and objective. This was accomplished by the use of good statistics and facts. Each group kept their personal opinions out of the issue so that the reader could make an informed decision of their feelings on the topics (too bad Bush and Gore can't do that!). Overall, I found this assignment to be beneficial. I now know what I want and don't want to do for my group web page.

• There was a tie for last place between pages 1 and 13. Each one had its own problems, but all in all, they seemed to be not as informative or effective as the other sites. My big complaint with site number 1 was the misspellings. I counted at least 6. For instance, "alot" instead of "a lot," "diarhea," instead of "diarrhea," "stirct" instead of "strict," "minierals" instead of "minerals," "cntact" instead of "contact," and "ect." instead of "etc." This was detrimental to their assignment because it takes all credibility away from the research presented. It seems like if they can't even spell " a lot," why should their research be trusted or respected? Also on this page, I noticed an extreme lack of chemistry, whereas the other two pages had quite a lot. One positive thing that this page did have was some real life examples, such as how bottled water can ruin kids teeth and why it shouldn't be used as a contact lens cleaner. They also had a nice picture at the "contents" page, as well as all of the e-mail addresses of the group. They dida very good job presenting the different types of water purification methods as well. [3.5]
• This website also needed some organization help, it lacked links that overlapped topics. You would have to return to the homepage to continue with your research. This also could have contained links to the email account instead of just listing email addresses for contact. [4]
• I enjoyed this web site and learned a good deal about bottled water. I would have assigned this web site as being much better than the other three if there were not so many misspelled words. The number of misspelled words detracted from the web site and its credibility. The authors of this web site had email addresses to contact them for specific questions. They made good use of color and texture for the background which made the written material easy to read. I especially enjoyed their use of pictures which added to the overall grade of the web site. In addition, they provided many links which could be used to get additional information on many subjects. The web site was easy to navigate from page to page by using the next feature on the bottom of each page. The information provided appeared to be well researched. Last of all, I liked that their position on the topic was concisely stated at the beginning of the web site. [1]
• Site 1 had all the links but I thought that the ideas were not well developed and that the large print covered for a lack of information presented. Also the random layout was not as pleasing to look the eye. [4]
• I felt that the #1 was an informative web site, but I personally did not like the way it was set up. You had to return to the home page then click on another link to get to where the list of topics were. The other web sites were set up so that you could go back tot he list of topics in one click. [4]
• Web site 1 had figures that were more distracting than helpful, numerous misspellings (Spell check????), and the positions expressed seemed to be based more on opinion than scientific data. [4]
• The last two sites 1 and 12 were plain to me. Yes they were informative and gave a lot of important information however they lacked excitement. Site 1 did do a good job by using an outline of the sub-topics and the beginning of the pages. As well they mixed both the truth with their own ideas. Site 12 was listed last since not only was the info just thrown out but there were no links to other pages and no e-mail for comments. As well, they used long paragraphs and only diagrams of certain molecules. [3]
• This site was tiring to read because the text contained no margins, and was quite large. Also, with four authors, I was surprised to find several typographical errors and misspellings. The caliber of the writing was rather poor for college level, containing run-on paragraphs and many clichés. Nonetheless, the site was easy to navigate, had many excellent links, and was very informative. I'm definitely sticking to tap water henceforth. [3]
• Web site 1 was good in that it had the raw information needed to understand the point of the site, but did not look interesting. The extremely large font was annoying, and took up more space than it should have. The links to other sources were still good, and informative, but it appears as though they used other web sites links to make their own site better. The authors were all listed and had links to their email addresses. The problem with this site is that I didn't feel that they could teach me anything about the quality of my bottled water, because it's a pretty common topic. There was little discrimination between spring water and "purified" water. This would make the point clearer if it was stated that it refers to the latter. This point was only inferred. [3]

• The sub-topics are fully developed. Font color in bright yellow against greyish background makes it hard to read. It has more dead links than 4. The picture on top frame is bad and doesn't add anything to the argument. Inconclusive answer, the site concluded that two views are in conflict. The question of who got it right, Bible or science, still not answered. [2]
• The title to this website is very informative and the authors are identified with their email addresses. The illustrations on this site seem to be appropriate and are very attractive. This website was very easy to navigate and the text was very easy to read with the yellow letters and gray background. There was also a concise introduction along with the purpose of the site on the main page. This site included many links to the sub-topics being discussed and these sub-topics were developed very well. There were also multiple links to other sites which all seemed to work except for one. This is a topic that I personally am very interested in, and I learned a lot of useful information. The overall message was not biased in my opinion and gives plenty of evidence to back up the argument being made. [1]
• Number 2 about god vs. science was neat in the way it was set up and it was also informative. I like using web sites that have the side bar to click to to different topics then the other topics were in the middle. I felt that it was a well-researched topic with reliable information. There were just couple of things that I didn’t like with that web site in that it had a problem with some words being cut off in certain places which wasn’t a big deal but I thought that #3 was the best. [2.5]
• Website #2 had a good layout, and the guidelines to creating a website seemed to followed perfectly. The website had a link that I clicked on, but the link was not informative as a search engine. This did not seem convenient. Also, the subject of religion verse science is a difficult topic to handle. It is hard to relate the two, therefore the website is based on opinions. Religious theories are not scientific. Besides the topic issue, the website was terrific. This site won my second place. [2]
• I think that this site provides a good deal of information about the topic but is somewhat biased. There are several reasons given for why the religious view is wrong but there is nothing offered as far as a reason why scientific view may be wrong - i.e. God placed evidence to the contrary to fool those with no faith. All the links are in working order and the information is described in detail without being overly worded. I would rate this web site a C. [3]
• Site 2 was last. While there is nothing particularly wrong with the web site, I just did not find it interesting. I felt the issue and argument were rather trite. As far as appearance, while this web-site was probably produced with the most sophisticated software of the four I evaluated, the layout of the text, and color motif were taxing to one's concentration on the argument being presented. [4]
• This was a very attractive web site but it was clear that the authors felt the answer was obvious to EVERYONE and therefore they provided a minimal argument. The text felt arrogant and superficial. In addition, the authors appear to have devoted most of their time to making their site artistic instead on finding content. [3]
• "Age of the Earth: Religion vs. Science", was very informative and easy to navigate. The title explicitly tells you what the site is about, and the layout is very easy to follow and pleasant to look at, with a good contrast between the writing and background colors. The graphics that were supplied well supplement the topics with which they appear. It provides a very balanced view of the argument (i.e, explaining in some detail methods for the calculation of the earth's age), while also giving the religious side of the argument thorough coverage (summaries of Genesis, Biblical timelines, and a link to an on-line Bible are provided). A lengthy list of references and other sites that provide similar material is given. Both of the authors have provided links to their own email, in case a reader chooses to contact them with any questions or comments. The best feature of this web site is that all of the links provided work, making it easy to move back and forth between the main page and the subtopics presented on subsequent pages. [1]
• The next web site I liked was number 2. The presenters provided both a religious view and a scientific view to explain why they felt the bible was an inaccurate representation for the age of the earth. They provided both the religious theories and timelines and also the scientific proof of U-238 and dating methods. I felt there was a very clear description of the goal of the web site. There was a very clear argument for the age of the universe and the age of the earth. The information from the Bible was covered very clearly. They provided information I was unaware of and it raised some questions for me. There was a very clear comparison between the biblical time frame and evolution, and good explanation of 1/2 half-life. The conclusion of this site was very good in that they didn't disrepute anyone's religious views or beliefs. They handled a tough topic in a very unbiased manner. The only thing I didn't like about this site was the coloring of the words. Yellow is a hard color to read and some words were cut off. However, the links all worked and were clear. [2]
• The purpose of this web page is to attempt to answer whether the Bible’s story of creation is correct or whether science has the true date of creation. The author’s of this web-site have come to the conclusion that the Bible’s version of creation is incorrect and that today’s technology’s version has the version that is closer to the truth. The authors site several passages from the King James Bible to describe the Bible’s version of creation. There are two divisions in Christianity over this issue. There are strict-interpreters who believe, word-for-word, the story of creation in the Bible and there are the loose-interpreters who believe that the Bible is only meant to be used as a guide and it is only the human interpretation of God’s work. According to the Bible, the Earth is only 6002 years old. This is in conflict with the science version of the story. Uranium-238 is used to date the earth because it cannot be synthetically created nor can it be made from nuclear decay.

• Out of the four of the web pages that I read, 1,3,13,17, I found that by far, the best one was number 3. It was extremely informative, and made the subject matter interesting. They gave informative links to places such as ABC news, the FDA, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, as well as to pertinent lawsuits. No other group had this many informative links. Some groups did not have any links. This group also gave real world examples, which is important because it lets the reader know why issues such as these should be important to them. They also had some very good pictures, and I found the detailed account of the FDA approval process to be informative and interesting. It was also possible to contact each of the authors, because links were provided to each ones address. [1]
• Web site 3 was very organized, all the links worked and the pictures were attractive and relevant. This site also had many links, which were helpful to the topic and easy to access. [1]
• "The FDA: Does it Hinder the Development of Potentially Useful Drugs?" was also a very good site but did not flow as well as site #6. The information was displayed well and the accompanying bar graphs showed one of the reasons they reached their conclusion. This web site was better than the other FDA drug approving web site in my previous assignment (#10). The links that this site used as examples were also concise and helpful. [2.5]
• The title to this web-site is informative, but the flashing of the title is very annoying. The authors are identified and email addresses provided. There were a few illustrations but I believe more would have been beneficial to the overall attractiveness of the site. The layout is a little boring but is easy to navigate. It does have a concise intro and summary of the site’s purpose. Multiple links were provided to other sites, which were very interesting. These seemed to be reliable sources since they came from big name companies and magazines. The text was easy to read and did not contrast with the background. I felt that the conclusion could have been a little longer and more convincing. I learned quite a bit from this site, especially from the timeline of getting a drug passed which was very interesting in my opinion. The overall message was based on evidence and little more of it would have been nice. [2]
• This web site was definitely my favorite. The authors made good use of colors making the web site very easy to read. The written style of the web site was excellent which allowed for a continual flow from topic to topic and page to page. They made use of a picture on the title page, which was very relevant and definitely added credibility and interest to the topic. I enjoyed their many links to other web sites. This web site had the most links than any of the other seven I evaluated. This clearly shows that the authors researched the topic very well and adds credibility. Their use of many examples also strengthened their position. This web site was overall very persuasive. The only improvement I would make for this web site is improving the "time line" for the FDA approval process. The quality of the picture is not very good. [1]
• I found that I liked sites 3 and 19 the best. As to prefer one over the other, I like 19 better because it offers an alternative to the position they were attacking. I also liked the flow treadmill which helped me to visualize the situation. Site 3 was thorough, but a proposal, even the slightest one, for a solution to the FDA process would have finished the argument. [2]
• I thought that the website about the FDA from last year was the best web site that I had to evaluate #3. The website was full of useful information on the FDA. Number 10 was on the same topic but they did not go into as much detail as the group from #3. I found that almost all the links on all the web pages worked except for like two so that was not really a choice in my decision of who had the best web site.#3 was well organized with working links and some good illustrations that were informative whereas the other didn’t have very useful illustrations. All in all I thought all the websites were worked out well, it was just that 3 was worked out better then 10 with more information. One other thing about 10 is that it was all written information with no illustrations whatsoever. Just made it look bland though it also had informative information. [1]
• It had a good title and cover, plus this was the only site where all the sublinks still worked...probably because they used non-obscure websites. Plus sublinks were very informative and really helped to tie in the information being presented. It's easy to read and to follow from one page to the next. My only complaint--lack of good graphics--but it's hard without a scanner. [1]
• I feel that the layout of the site was very good and easy to navigate. I liked that each page had a link to the following page so that you did not have to keep going back to the main page - as was present in other web sites. The title was informative and the authors were identified with corresponding email addresses. The illustrations and graphs provided helped to develop their argument and were very informative rather than a distraction. The introduction did indicate the purpose of the project and the main page provided a clear gateway to the rest of the web site. The text was very clear and easy to read with the background on the page. Another good aspect of this web site was that there were multiple links to related sites in each subsection in case you wanted to read about the FDA topic in more detail. Every link that I tried worked on this site. I felt that the arguments developed were convincing, persuasive, and backed up by appropriate evidence. I also found that the background information and examples provided were helpful and even necessary in proper understanding of the opinion presented. Two things that could have been helpful on the web site were a section devoted to related links and a section for references. [1]
• Nice picture on homepage. Nicely organized, lots of good links. [1]
• This website stressed that the FDA should make drug processes more efficient rather than faster to ensure protection against harmful drugs and their long term effects. The website included the FDA's approval process and actions and a supporting article on their opinion. I would rate this website an A. [1]
• This site was least easy to navigate from topic to topic. Email contact and text format was accessible and easily read. The logical order of sections ie: they put their opinion on the topic before the explanation of the problem and the facts- was questionable. Figures Were not necessary, but not detrimental. I felt that this was weak on science and more just an argument of opinions. This might be due to the nature of the topic itself. There were some useful links incorporated into the text. I could not find references, aside from those links. [3]

• Site 4 leads you to what information you want. It also provides good background on the issue. They [4 and three others]are not websites they are just some papers which people split up and added links to in order to create a "website". You can be making a great point and no one will care If your presentation isn't interesting. If I wanted to read papers I would look for something in that package instead of masquerading as a webpage. [2]
• The sub-topic are fully developed. Font color and background color of black/white make it easy to read. Learn more from site 4 than site 2. Conclusion based on evidence. [1]
• This site was not nearly as easy to navigate as #3 due to the need to go back to the main page to advance in the presentation. I also did not feel that the chemistry of Vitamin C section was relevant to their discussion. I did think that the functions and sources sections were important to the development of their argument and were a good inclusion. The title of the site was informative but did not go along well with their position - the "How much is too much" subtitle counteracts their argument that megadoses of Vitamin C are beneficial. The authors were clearly identified and email addresses specified. The text and background worked well together but few links were provided in the text. I liked that they had a page devoted to related links. The pictures on the site were more or less irrelevant except for the chemistry pages, which I felt were not necessary for the presentation. The links that I attempted to use did work. The site itself was informative, however, it was also confusing with information unrelated to the topic at hand and the evidence presented was not as clear cut as their conclusion makes it out to be. [2]
• This website featured an informative title and a concise synopsis. The authors were clearly identified at the bottom of the first page and links provided to their respective email addresses. The color scheme chosen was easy on the eyes without being dull. The graphics, for the most part, were excellent and included concise, understandable captions. However, there were some animated graphics that I found a bit annoying while browsing. I also discovered 2 broken links, but do not consider this a major flaw as the page is 2 years old. Overall, the facts contained within the page were very informative. [1]
• The Web site was simple in its presentation - more so than #5, #10, and #12. The illustrations provided, though little there was, provided chemical structure and possible synthetic pathways. The layout was consistent though it may not have been as flashy as others. The multiple links did work except for the Vitamin C. The overall message did not seem biased in that it provided the possible effects listed for vitamin C overdose. [2]
• Well organized home page. Like "Chemistry of Vitamin C" link Conclusion could be a little bit better. [2]
• First off, I think this site is extremely easy to navigate, I had no problems what so ever finding my way around. In terms of graphics, text, colors etc, I thought the graphics illustrating the vitamin C chemistry were very unclear. Also, there was not enough contrast between the red atoms and black background. The atoms themselves could be increased while decreasing the bond size. In terms of information, I enjoyed this website for the fact that it was very informative. There could be more links however, many famous names were mentioned and little was said about them. This group links one person to an autobiographic web-site, but more of these were needed. Some information seemed a little out of place, in the affects of megadoses, there was information explaining possible concerns, but none of the malign affects were proven to be correct. Maybe instead of putting this info under side affects, it could go under general health concerns. Overall, this web-site was very informative, well thought out, although there were a few typographical errors, and the presentation was very good. [2.5]
• I liked the web site, some new information was learned. Some changes which might be made are to show the chemical reactions and explanations on the same page, but more importantly the conclusion of the webpage was that Vit C in large quantities was not bad- but the hypothesis was that These quantities were good.
• Web site 4 had a clear and concise table of contents from which one could navigate the entire site (all of which was easily readable). They had helpful figures, and a clear statement of the purpose or goal of the web page. I found the figures in the vitamin C synthesis section to be very helpful and informative. The conclusions were made based on factual analysis. Also, on the contents page, they had links to the creators' e-mail addresses. [1]
• Again, topic to topic naviagation was forced through the homepage. Email links available, and references/related sites easily found. Excellent use of diagrams/ reactions, especially in explaining the chemistry of Vitamin C. The science of this article seems sounds, and the order of topics is logical. One problem was the lack of a space between "ofVitamin" in the title. Just thought i'd mention it. [2]

• I thought that Web-Site number 5 was very well organized. The initial topic of Ozone was broken down into subtopics that contained a brief description, which lets the researcher/reader get to the information efficiently. The chemistry of the ozone was also explained in detail accompanied with charts, flow diagrams, and reactions. The website also had a good appearance. I thought overall this was my first choice out of the 4. [1]
• This web site was also very good. I like the fact that they stated their opinion of the topic in the actual title of the web site. The title page contained a graphic of the increasing hole in the stratospheric ozone layer which added interest to the topic. I especially enjoyed their reference page with links to obtain more information. In addition, I liked the title page which quickly summarized the information of the following pages. Their research on the topic appeared to be very thorough and I learned some information from this web site. The material contained in the web site was well written and easy to follow. My only suggestion would be to add information that differentiates between stratospheric and ground level ozone. May people do not understand that one is good and one is bad. [2]
• A well designed site with a nice navigation bar at the left. I particularly like the ozone link to the EPA. The site is relatively well labeled, but some links are a little vague as to their content. [2]
• This site is by far the most excellent out of the four I reviewed. All of the topics are well developed and the short summaries of each discussed topic on the home page greatly helps to serve as a of table of contents. The pictures and diagrams are laid out very well and really add to the understanding and clarification of the material. The site is well organized and the information is clearly presented. The only critique that I would make would be that maybe there could be additional links on the web site to other related sites. Otherwise this is a tremendous job. I rate it an A. [1]
• The overall graphics were very technical in nature compared to the others. I liked use of side outline. The use of figures, tables, and multiple links were a nice touch, too. However, these figures and links also cluttered the web page in such a way that it was distracting. The use of bold fonts also made it harder to read the text. I think it may be rectified with the use of different font. It was also distracting to have Y!Geocities come up every time the sites moved forward or backward. Although the web examination of the ozone and the organization exceptional, it was distracting. [1]
• This website argued that megadoes are not harmful. It included historical and chemical backgrounds of Vitamin C and the effects of megadoses. I would rate this website a B. [2]
• The worst problem with the site was the quality of the writing. It was grammatically lacking. If this had been done for an English class it would have received a D. Also, I found the style of writing to be too flowery. When I read science related literature I expect it to be clear and concise. The title was not informative. The home page just contained the purpose of the article and nothing about what was in the other parts of the site. More links were needed. The visuals were good. One of subsections repeated part of another. The diagrams were nice, but needed to be explained and introduced better. No counter arguments were presented. Off hand I remember some talk about exhaust from the U2's effecting ozone, that they could have mentioned. More actual data would have been appreciated. I did not learn a lot from this site. There was a bit a bias present. [4]
• I thought that 5 was the best since it was very easy to navigate around and had good descriptions of the background information on the topic. As well, it used an assortment of diagrams and charts to illustrate their points and make them more clear. As well, the test was both for the science oriented and non. The only thing lacking was that there was no real links to other sites shown easily...they were under the references they used. The other factor that is important to me is the form of the text. If it is in long paragraphs and boring sentences I am not likely to read everything. [1]
• Website 5 on whether or not the chemical industry reacted responsibly with respect to CFC's, was a well-designed site. The use of frames to put a table of contents that was always available on the right side of the page was extremely useful for reviewing specific points of discussion. However, I did not think they spent enough time trying to prove their point, that is, why the chemical industry did not act responsibly. If the industry were decimated, no commercially viable alternative would be available. Allowing them to sell a less dangerous form for a short time to allow development of safer alternatives was only reasonable. [3]
• I felt that the overall appearance of the website was concise and attractive and there were no contrast of background colors. The introduction was alright however more should have been said about the actions of the industry. The group in my opinion did provide evidence for their research and all the links provided worked. The only problem I had was with the picture underneath the title, this was a bit ambiguous and the group should have written underneath what it was a picture of instead of the reader having to click on it to find out its significance. The group did provide email addresses. [2]

• The content is ok but there are way too many links to the glossary. One per page would be nice I don't like to see so much colored writing. They [6 and three others]are not websites they are just some papers which people split up and added links to in order to create a "website". You can be making a great point and no one will care If your presentation isn't interesting. If I wanted to read papers I would look for something in that package instead of masquerading as a webpage. [3]
• Generally this web site is good. All the bases are covered as far as web design. The title is informative, you can e-mail the authors, the structure of the web site is easy to navigate. The information in the site was good and offered good information about the topic and I do think the overall message of the site seems factual and not based on opinion. But I really do not think this is a good web site. As far as content it is good and seems to cover the basics of a web page, but it is set up like a paper. Web pages are easy to make and I think that they could have been a bit more creative in the design. The one picture they put in does not load correctly. Also I think having frames helps a lot when navigating someone's web site so you do not have to keep pushing the back button. [3]
• Site #6 was chosen as my favorite site for many reasons. Its contention "The Subtherapeutic Administration of Antibiotics to Animals in Feed a Threat to Human Health?" was well organized and information packed. The home page stated a clear purpose and gave backround on the topic for people less knowledgable towards the subject matter. The site even contained a glossary. The text was very easy to read and the diagrams went with the text very well. [1]
• I found this site to be very informative on the topic, however it was slightly biased in giving more substantiation for the opinion that the authors held. Illustrations were appropriate and informative, and the layout was easy to follow. Also the illustrations were relevant to the topic and helpful. The links to words in a glossary were very helpful in understanding the text. [2]
• At first glance, this site is very bland, but appears to have a great deal of links and information. Upon evaluation, however, it is simply a short paper translated onto a web site. The links all point to a glossary, for the most part, which is an excellent feature, but should not be the only one. [4]
• This web site offers an informative title with newly introduced words linked to a glossary of terms. Although useful at the first appearance of a new term, the glossary was used too often for identical terms throughout the site. The layout is easy to navigate, but lacks creativity in the singular use of black text on a gray background. Major points could be highlighted more and possibly set apart in an outline structure. The conclusion is brief and would benefit from a restatement of the key information found. Other than these minor flaws, this site is well presented with much useful information. [1]
• The topic was well researched and will be very informative to the target audience. The glossary was an excellent idea, as well as links to the UD. This site was easy to read and navigate. [1]
• This was the best site. Clickable definitions, a logical order to sections which included short descriptions of the section contents on the home page. The navigation bar provided on bottom, led to references as well as the other topics, and chemistry pages. Use of diagrams was effective at showing concepts and details otherwise difficult to phrase conceisly. The science is balanced and the conclusion is well grounded in the arguments presented. [1]
• I also felt that 6 was pretty good. I enjoyed the fact that even though it used a lot of scientific words, it provided links to the definitions of those words. This page was very straight forward and also informative. [2]

• Site 8 was of the same quality as site #3. The text was easy to read and follow. The links were in to big of a font and should have been more strategically placed on the home page. Allot of the example links were complementary to the text but some of them didn't work at all. The main links should have lead into each other but they only just returned to the home page. [2.5]
• I thought that Website #8 lacked some organization. You had to scroll down the opening page until you could even get to the topics of interest. It was informative, but the lack of organization, made the site somewhat tedious when trying to obtain the information needed. [3]
• This web site was also very good and informative. I like that their position on the topic was stated on the first page. The information was presented in a clear and precise way. This web site seemed to contain more information that the first web site with many more pages of information summarized in an easy to read format. Unfortunately, this web site had some broken links so that it could not be evaluated as well as the web site 1. Their use of lime green lettering, although unattractive to me, does help sell the topic of hazardous waste since this color is usually associated with toxic or radioactive waste. The part I found most disappointing about this web site was that the user had to keep hitting the "back" button to go back to the title page so that the next page could be brought up. Although I agree with part of their position that pollution prevention is key point to the solution of hazardous waste, one must realize that many hazardous waste sites were created before any regulations were around. One last suggestion for this web site would be to use an example of a Superfund site from Delaware to gain interest. Unfortunately, there are many sites in Delaware. [2]
• The most annoying part of this site were the adds that popped up from Angelfire sponsors as a result of access to the web page. The text was easy to read but the navigation was not as smooth as 3 or 15 because you had to go back to the index to continue with the presentation. There is an informative introduction and conclusion, which aids in the arguments presented. However, it appeared to me that the arguments were somewhat disorganized. The authors provided external links and most of them worked and most of the sublinks could have been developed further to aid the arguments presented. I did learn some from this site but not as much as from 3 or 4. I think that the overall message of the site had a slight tendency towards bias but not so as to overwhelm the facts. [3]
• Site 8 was a site about the need for reassesing waste cleanup costs. I found the layout somewhat annoying with the subtopics linked in huge lettering, and the subtopics could have been more developed giving more info. I didn't really feel as if I learned anything new by visiting this site, but the overall look of the site was pretty good, with the subtopics linked, readable lettering, and a good background. [4]
• This web site had everything that was required. All the pages in this site had nice backgrounds, but needed more pictures. The mailbox with the hand was very cute. However, the information was not too interesting. It had more evidence than bias. [2]
• Home page could use some work. Some links didn't exist. [3]
• "Risks and costs of Cleaning up Hazardous Waste Dumps Need to be Reassessed" was overall, a good website. The title page lays out the argument and includes very large links to the subtopics that will be discussed. There is a nice contrast between the white and green lettering on a gray background. The size of writing on subsequent pages is a good, easy to read size. Within the body of the articles, there are links to other sites with related information. All of the links work, including those to return from the subtopic pages to the main pages. The authors provide links to their email should a reader choose to contact them. Unlike the other sites, this one has a fun visitor counter bar. Unfortunately, no references are provided. [2]
• This web page laid out well. The introduction was complete, a little lengthy for a web page, but very informative. It did site the intention of the creators. I felt the title was too long and the links were too big (causing the reader to scroll a lot). These are all cosmetic complaints but the most easily seen. All links did function and many provided relevant information. [1]
• Web site 8 was the best web site partly because of its flare in design, and it's organization as a whole. There were little things that made you enjoy looking at the screen such as the little trees at the head of each new topic, to the spinning globe at the top of the page. The colors and fonts of the text gave good contrast to the background, making for an easy read. The navigation was simple and worked from the homepage. The links were all good especially considering that the page isn't new. There was so much information to be taken from this web page that I couldn't possibly navigate the whole thing. This was a plus, and could be a new good resource for future reference. The conclusion made by the group was definitely based on fact, and evidence, which was all present in the web site. [1]

• This was the second best site in my opinion that I evaluated. Although the neon green text is not very attractive, it is easy to read and does stick out very well. All of the links work and are easily found. The site contains useful information and the subtopics are developed. I did not think the group’s conclusion was firm enough and some of the pages could have been organized better. [2]
• The worst part about this web site were the choice of colors - bright green and red on a black background. These colors made the material seem elementary and reminded me of Christmas. The authors had good links between pages and I especially enjoyed the "Quizlet" at the end. I would have preferred to have their stance on the topic stated at the beginning and then concluded again at the end. I did like their "time line" for the approval process in a graphical representation. This clearly represented the entire approval process. The web site did include some broken links which detracted from the overall message but the authors did include their email addresses. [4]
• Although the subject was discussed thoroughly, the graphic nature was a bit distracting. The colors scheme used was detrimental to the actual reading of the text. Although the many links provided were helpful, it was also distracting to the overall reading. Also, some of the links were not working: AZT, Beta-blockers, and the FDA vs. Reform. What I liked, though, was the survey question included in the Conclusion, with the immediate result viewing. [3]
• I thought that the website about the FDA from last year was the best web site that I had to evaluate #3. The website was full of usefull information on the FDA. Number 10 was on the same topic but they did not go into as much detail as the group from #3. I found that almost all the links on all the web pages worked except for like two so that was not really a choice in my decision of who had the best web site.#3 was well organized with working links and some good illustrations that were informative whereas the other didn’t have very useful illustrations. All in all I thought all the websites were worked out well, it was just that 3 was worked out better then 10 with more information. One other thing about 10 is that it was all written information with no illustrations whatsoever. Just made it look bland though it also had informative information. [2.5]
• Web site 10 stated that the FDA takes the right balance between safety and timeliness. i felt that the web page had a lot of interesting examples of past incidents that helped to illustrate their point. I believe that the argument was relatively sound and struck the right blend of compassion for the sick that need drugs and the safety required to protect others. [1]
• The first thing that caught my eye was the horrible color scheme and lack of graphics. I liked the black background, but the neon green, white and red text was overwhelming. This factor, combined with text that was too large even at a very high resolution, made the page very difficult to read. I did appreciate the links that were provided at the bottom of each page to the "previous page" or "next page". This feature made navigation simple. I located 5 broken links but, given the extraordinary number of links this number seems trivial. The information was informative, but seemed like it was limited to a couple of exclusive cases for the most part. [4]
• Least informative of the four. Least attractive, black text on grey background. Same layout problem as number 18 w/ everything subdivided on the page. Large pictures are modem-unfriendly to users. More of a list of notes for a presentation than a presentation of ideas with full sentences and drawn out discussion. [4]
• This site had almost everything needed, but the introduction was very weak. This site needed more pictures and colors. I have noticed that all the web sites lack the pictures and colors that would draw one's attention. All of them had very strong supporting evidence for their topic. [4]
• Good links, Easy to read, needed more numerical data, not biased, learned about what the FDA is considering and doing to speed up the process but not if it is presently taking excessive amounts of time to clear drugs, and did well on all other areas listed on the yellow hand-out. [1]
• Seems good to me, the individual links within each page allow for a more in depth look... quiz at the end very nice touch.

• Of all the web sites I evaluated I think this one is the best. The page is done in frames, so you can easily navigate to any of the other pages without going back to the home page. The pictures are nice and the colors are good and not distracting. The site was very informative. They had links to other sites that offered additional information , which was helpful. Overall this site was really good, in terms of web design and in content. They give enough information to understand the topic of the site without reciting an entire molecular biology book. [1]
• Web site 11 is my favorite site for many reasons. The summary is clearly displayed on the first page with an accurate and informative title. The page is attractive and allows for easy access of all link at all times. The web site includes imported diagrams which are easily understood and help the text explanation prove its point. The only downfall with this page is that the links are a little tough to read and should be in a bigger font, but that is my only major complaint. [1]
• This page was full of a lot of unbiased information but much of it seemed to be extraneous and I do not think that enough support for the conclusion of the page was given. The introduction was also very long and got too much into the conclusion before any background information was given. The layout was easy to follow and reference links were given, however, after reading the page I still could not form an opinion about the title question. [3]
• Website #11 had a great setup. I am impressed by the bar that continuously remained on the screen at all times, even when links were clicked upon. The site could have used more illustrations, and the only links were for the methods of treatment for cancer. There should have been more links on the molecular basis of cancer. I expected more molecualr cell biology by the name of the title. [1]
• I liked 11 very much. I think it had strengths in most of the areas that are important to an informative website. It was well organized and had a clear sense of continuous reasoning in presenting its argument. Moreover, it had a nice appearance. Also, it was informative, which was probably the highest weighted criterium that influenced my ratings. [1]
• I thought that number 11 was best, because it was an extremely informative web site. The presenters provided a very well organized web page. They started by defining cancer and then the causes of it such as carcinogens and genetics. They went through describing in detail the methods of treatment: chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, immunological methods and hormone therapy. They then provided current advancements, Herceptin (a breast cancer drug) and the development of cancer vaccines. The graphics were very colorful and professional looking, the text was very easy to read, and they provided informative diagrams. I felt that a few of the diagrams weren't explained very well though. One in particular was the one on the Cell Cycle. I didn't quite understand how that tied in with cancer causes. Their links were very informative (although some had expired) and I liked how by clicking on a link you could still access their original site on the left side. In general, while the site was extremely informative about cancer and I learned a great deal, I wasn't convinced of why we need to understand the molecular basis. I felt as though the purpose wasn't fully explained. However, I definitely liked this web site the best because it was extremely well organized and very user friendly. [1]
• Some of the illustrations were very informative. The e-mail address was identified at the end of the page. The title was not too clear. There were some knowledgeable information. This site was easy to navigate. I like this web-site. [1]
• The purpose of this site is to determine whether understanding the molecular basis of cancer is necessary for its treatment. The authors briefly describe the cell cycle and how cancer relates to the cycle. Possible causes of cancer are also describes, such as: environmental and genetic. The authors continue on to describe the methods of combating cancer: radiation, chemotherapy, surgery, and immunological methods. In addition they have also included new advances in cancer therapy, including Herceptin and cancer vaccine. After examining the evidence, the authors have come to the conclusion that an understanding of the molecular basis of cancer is necessary. The new molecular based treatments (Herceptin and cancer vaccine) attack a more specific site and have the possibility of being more effective and less damaging to the overall health of the person. Treatments like chemotherapy and radiation do not target the specific cells that need to be killed. Chemotherapy has the potential to kill the person before the cancer is even in remission.

• It is informative but no reference as to where the info comes from. Also, there is no link in the sub-topic sections. The sub-topics are fully developed.. [4]
• #12 was really bad for number of reasons. There was no author contact number of e-mail address The text was too large, I had to scroll up and down, left and right to read them. Most importantly, the information was too complicated. It was hard to understand and hard to follow the context. [4]
• This web site did not seem to contain that much information (four pages and a title page). In addition, the web site appeared only informational and did not have view point on the topic. Much of my low ranking of this web site may be due to my lack of interest in the topic as well as the degree of biology and biochemistry involved. I did not like that there were no links between pages so the "back" button had to be used to return to the title page each time to then go to the next page. The included structures of the compounds were good and informative. Last of all there were no links to other web sites for additional information. [4]
• Ummmmmmm.....nothing exciting here. No way to contact the authors. No sublinks to other websites to support their findings. No links in subsequent pages of their website...the back button must always be hit to get to the main page to go onto the next topic....a real pain. The colors are the classic white background with black text...gets the job done but really boring to look at. And I didn't feel there was a good summary of the topics...just a bombardment of information....must of which was good if you take the time to read it and want to play with the back button all the time. [4]
• The incorrect spelling of the word "combating" in the title is one of this sites many flaws. Although the purpose seems to be stated, there is no subtitle to let the reader know. I can't find any bias one way or another throughout the site. There are no links to the authors, UD chem site, CHEM465 page, or references. The content is presented with virtually no creativity. Also, the structure of a molecule on the"Epivir and Retrovir" page has no label. [4]
• Website #12 needed some improvements. There were no links back to the main screen. The web pages varied in color, which is not very attractive. Some illustrations were needed to aid with the complex explanations for those unfamiliar with biochemistry. No email address was given, and there were no links at all. This website ranked last. [4]
• This was the least informative in that although the control, types, and treatments were listed, the other issues of HIV were not thoroughly investigated. It was dry and narrow in its investigation. Also, the figures provided were not mentioned or explained in the text. There were little or no links provided. The subdivision of the HIV related topics were not provided nor were they discussed. [4]
• Homepage kind of excludes the general public with "This information is targeted towards an audience with a small amount of general biology and chemistry background". I think a web page should be made to include the general public more. [4]
• This site was a little short on content but stayed on the subject. In addition, it had a nice clean appearance that made it easy to read. [2]
• The last two sites 1 and 12 were plain to me. Yes they were informative and gave a lot of important information however they lacked excitement. 12 was listed last since not only was the info just thrown out but there was no links to other pages and no email for comments. As well, they used long paragraphs and only diagrams of certain molecules. [4]
• Site 12 has a detailed and clear discussion of the topic, but it lacks an email contact and citation of the reference. Moreover, the presentation of the material is rather dry (diagrams and pictures may be helpful). [3]

• What was so detrimental to page 1 also afflicted page number 13: lack of credibility. They misspelled the words "eradicate" and "rapidly", instead using the words "eradiacate" and "repidly." This also took away from their credibility. Another thing that took away from this site was the its length. It was a rather short page, and there weren't any links to articles or current science publications. There was also no way of contacting the group members, such as e mail, etc. However, on a good note, this page had more chemistry involved than the bottled water page. They talked about how different drugs work, and the different classifications and characteristics of some drugs. They also had some good scanned diagrams as well. [3.5]
• #13 was well organized, and had neat, power-point looking appearance. The article was not interesting at all. May be because I am not interested in that field but at least they could've done something to attract the readers. Putting some pictorial aids, or more easy explanations... [2]
• The title is informative and makes you want to read on. The authors are identifies along with an email address. The illustrations are not really explained and very unclear. The layout is rather boring and the site only contains 2 pages. The intro seems to be a little to brief. There were links to the sub-topics but they were never used because all of the information is on the same page. The text was readable but the background could have been more attractive. In my opinion the sub-topics were not well developed and there were no links to other sites to back any evidence up. I learned very little from this site and what i did learn i am sure i will not remember for very long. Overall this site did not convince me that a vaccine can't be found. [4]
• This site provides more notes than explanation for what is being addressed. Although this is good for the upcoming expert, it is not good for the common reader. The site is informative and well diagramed, but could use a little more description and explanation. [3]
• I realize that appearance isn't supposed to weigh heavily in the evaluation but the BRIGHT green on black is too much for me. I do like the format as it is like #19 in that there are separate pages. The example of AZT is well done. Very informative and its main setback is the extremely large, bright print. The voting checkbox was a GREAT touch, though. [3]
• Site 13 was a site dealing with the possibility for finding a cure for HIV in the next decade. The site contained no additional links to supporting web sites, and the site itself did not really capture my interest. The info provided was not really discussed but given in outline form, but The info itself seemed pretty good though. So overall I would say the site was OK, with somewhat poor pictures, poorly presented info, but fairly easy to navigate. [2.5]
• This one had everything that was required, except for e-mail info. They had a very nice homepage, but needed pictures to draw attention. It had more evidence than bias. The links were good. [1]
• This site is poorly composed and constructed - the first, and probably most important illustration is not even legible. There are many facts about HIV and AIDS listed, but virtually no text. In addition, there are no reference pages or external links. [4]
• Site 13 was rated higher because it has a clear, attractive and easy-to -read layout. It also has an email contact for the author. The info on the web may be relatively brief compared to the other three, but I personally find it easy to follow and to-the-point. [1]

• Website 14 had attractive images of rain clouds throughout the site. Although they were attractive, these images were distracting from the text. This site also had the text all on one page. Personally, I did not like this aspect because of the confusion and clutter. [2]
• This title shows bias before any information is given, and opinions were given before the conclusion. The most distracting thing about the site was that the background and choice of color of text and links made it very hard if not impossible to read in some places. There were also many typos and spelling errors which took away from the sites integrity. There is also no e-mail link to the authors. This site seemed to be very informative except for the difficulties in reading it, which I find to be very important. [4]
• Site 14 discussed the problems of acid rain. The site contained good pictures but the text could not be seen with the background. It contained great info, but the sub topics where not linked from the main page, which was annoying. the site also had no email addresses to reach the web master, and some of the links did not work. [1]
• This site had so much in the way of graphics, photos, and background that I was unable to read most of the text. If I came across this site while searching for material I wouldn't even bother trying to read it. [4]
• I found this website hard to read because of the background and the coloring. It spoke of the combustion of fossil fuels and their effect on the atmosphere arguing that there can be prevention to the amount of acid rain. It included the chemistry of acid rain and had many visuals, some of which were hard to decipher but were still good illustrations. There was also no links to email the authors. I would rate this website a B. [4]
• My first impressions of this site were that the color choices for the backgrounds of various links were not well thought out. Initially, a panoramic sky view to a weird green color caught my eye as being totally unrelated. Why not keep everything the same according to a template. Also, the graphics were horrible. I don't understand how anyone could decipher the figures. The first page is a little judgmental as well. It says suggested audience, undergrads with background in science; however, lawyers could use this site in order to obtain factual information to help them in their litigations. Also, because this is an undergrad presentation, it could serve as a good intro to AIDS and HIV etiology. Another point is that the text does not flow smoothly, it seems to be unorganized because sub-topic or point blocks/cirlces are not used consistently. Also, in the introductory section, why not have a really general intro with its own link, because I did not initially realize that sub-topic in the intro had their own link on the title page. Furthermore, I thought the info was useful and informative, and effort could be taken to make this public interest issue more easily understood by a general audience. [4]
• Web site 14 makes a strong case that acid rain can be significantly reduced with technology available today. i did not loke the single long page format, however, as it was difficult to access the information I wanted. The font was also difficult to read against the backgraound and sometimes was completely illegible. They should change the background or chande the font to make the page easier to read. [2]
• I placed page 14 in last place because it didn't have any links, and although the graphics were nice, it was very hard to read the words. [4]
• The major flaw of site 14 is that the background is too complicated. It is hard to read the text, and I basically gave up reading it. However, it does have nice graphs and links to some related sites. [4]

• 15 has a definite plan and puts their point right in the front. I presents the sides and raises the new issues. They [15 and three others]are not websites they are just some papers which people split up and added links to in order to create a "website". You can be making a great point and no one will care If your presentation isn't interesting. If I wanted to read papers I would look for something in that package instead of masquerading as a webpage. [1]
• This also was a good web site. I did not particularly like the background color, but overall I think this web site was good. The organization is good and it is very informative. Being that their topic is so subjective, I think that they presented it well, offering information without to much opinion. Letting the reader draw their own conclusions. [2]
• I ranked this third out of the four sites. The site seemed sort of jumbled judging by th home page due to the way the links were presented. I think that if the were incorporated into some sort of introductory summary. The site was very informative and proved its point well but some of its topics should have been outlined better. This site was unbiased on its topic and should not have put its neutral conclusion on its home page, I think that this should have been on a separate link and reiterated some of the facts the site went over. The text on this site also did not stand out very well on the dark blue background. [3]
• This would of had my number one vote if it weren't for one little annoying problem. The background colors were way to dark making it an eyesore to read. And in web design no matter how good you present the information, if everybody finds it a pain to read...no body's going to read it. On the plus side though, it had great links within the site...the navigation bar at the bottom is a great idea (one I want to keep in mind) as well as a link to your website and the rest of the class websites, and the fact that the incorporated their powerpoint presentation into adobe form is awesome. The info was great and you could tell the topic was well researched. A lot of the sublinks were down....but that's hard to control when you don't own those web pages and you don't update yours. Pictures would have been nice as well as a link to the author's websites. [2]
• The first thing that I noticed about this site was that it was difficult to read the black lettering on the dark background. I felt that the navigation of the site was very easy and especially like the navigation bar at the bottom of each screen. However, the material shown was not clearly related to the topic and seemed like it was just put there to fill space. The opinion which the site was trying to convey was not exceptionally clear. There was no clear introduction and no clear conclusion, which I felt detracted from the overall presentation. If this was supposed to be an opinion-based web site, the title did not reflect that. The author of the web page is identified and an email address is given. There were no pictures to comment on and some of the links from subtopics did not work - which may only reflect the age of the page without updates. The overall message of the site was fairly clear although many of the questions posed and examples given made me think of more about what I see rather than the opinion of the site. [4]
• Too much information on each line... colors are no good... not a good read, even though information may be good, ease of reading is more important.
• This site lists some of the possible genetic testing that can be done, what they will detect, and why they may be beneficial. Then it gives insight into why some people may to want to be tested. I didn't like this web site because it wasn't very well organized. Almost all of the links had expired. The page titles were not an accurate description of what was really on the page. For example, one page entitled, Counseling, provided no information or help only more examples of why you wouldn't want to be tested. The questions asked at the bottom of one page to link the next weren't really answered in my opinion. Their was no conclusion or a purpose statement to provide their opinion of the subject. [4]
• The color of the back ground was very distracting. I had trouble reading because of the bright color. Some of the links does not work. Also there were barely any illustrations. There was a lot of useful information. [4]
• I enjoyed 15 the most because it was extremely informative, very easy to read and navigate through, and had good links. The one thing that separated this web page from all of the others was that it appeals to non-science majors as well as science majors. I felt that the language was easy to understand and I wasn't bombarded with a bunch of scientific words. [1]
• Web site 15 about genetic screening and blood analysis ran a very close second to web site 8. The informative title grabbed your attention, and gave you a good idea of what the site was all about. The navigation was simple, and allowed for the browser to learn more about most things, if they so inclined. I especially liked the pages dealing with the case studies and genetic disorders that could be screened for. While the color schemes, and lack of flare (due to a dearth of visuals), were discouraging, altogether the web site was very good. It's just too bad that I can't tell them all that, because there was only one author referenced, out of four. [2]

• 16 not much content, not much site, not much reason for me to care. They [16 and three others]are not websites they are just some papers which people split up and added links to in order to create a "website". You can be making a great point and no one will care If your presentation isn't interesting. If I wanted to read papers I would look for something in that package instead of masquerading as a webpage. [4]
• I liked #16 for it had an interesting introduction. They used lots of pictorial aids, that really helped me to understand what is going on. Even though you are not a science person, you can easily understand the information, but it also was a professional article for the science person. They had author e-mail like, and all the links worked well. [2]
• Although there is no way to contact the creators, this site appears to give the greatest deal of information in a nicely organized fashion. The diagrams provide good visual help, and all appear to be working. All the links are working, and everything is well labeled. My only complaint is the small font. [1]
• The color scheme featured in this site was rather dull (mostly black and white), but it was a blessing to my eyes after the neon fiasco on the previous site. The graphics featured in the first two articles were excellent and complimented the facts very well. Navigation within the site was easily accomplished and all but two of the links are found were functional. Unfortunately, there was no way to contact the author of this page. While the information contained in the pages of this site was quite interesting, the title seemed rather vague and uninspiring. [2.5]
• Sites 16 & 21 tied for the middle platform. While both had a very standard, rather drab appearance, I found both of them completely informative. I don' think that there was anything earth shattering about the arguments presented. However, the most pleasing thing to me is to go on a web site and learn about an issue so that I can form my own opinion about it. I was determined not to let 16's austere appearance, "de-weight" the informative criterion. Consequently, I thought this was the most informative web-site, which landed it in the number 2 ranking despite its appearance. [2.5]
• The site had no fluidity. It seemed four people did separate reports and just listed them on the same site. Also, the font was too small and no links were presented. The first "article" was great over all. No data on actual mistake were listed, good diagrams with OK explanations. None the other 3 "articles" addressed any controversy on the subject. Only one was informative on something. The other 2 sections were D- quality. [3]
• Web site 16 had text that was too small to read, and there was no link to authors' e-mails. Although fact based like the other web pages, this page was more like an outline of a book chapter than a web page. Keeping with the concept map theme, this web page would have been better handed in as a paper report. [3]
• Web site #16 discusses genetic blood analysis. Examples in the form of articles are provided about different situations in which genetic blood analysis could benefit humans, for example to screen for and correct sickle cell anemia. The writing in black and blue is well contrasted to the white background, but on the main introduction page is very small and therefore somewhat hard to read. Several links are provided to other sites that contain similar material, and all of the links to other parts of the web site are functioning, although no links exist to return from the subtopics to the main page. Very few illustrations are provided. There are no links through which to contrast the authors. Although a lot of factual information was provided, but almost everything was in favor of doing genetic analysis. The web site was, in general, biased in favor of analysis and didn't really provide the contrasting view at all. [3]
• I felt the overall appearance could have been improved by adding more color especially to the title to make it look more like a website than a paper. The introduction was concise but the group should have stated that they only looked at the diseases Sickle Cell and Huntington's disease. The group did provide a way to contact them but I felt that it was unnecessary to put names next to the parts done by each member since it is a group project. The paper, however did provide some useful info. [3.5]
• The purpose of this website is to analyze the societal and scientific implications of molecular genetic blood analysis. The authors of the website analyzed four different situations in which blood testing is used: forensics, sickle cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and prenatal testing. In each topic the authors describe how the technology is used and why, as well as some of the social ramifications that each use could bring. In the forensics sub topic, the author’s detail how genetic analysis is performed in a very simple and understandable way. The authors came to the conclusion that research into genetic blood analysis should continue because the benefits outweigh the negative consequences. However, the authors bring up many ethical questions that need to be resolved before these techniques are abused.

• The next best group by far was number 17. Although not as complete as number 3, this was also a good page. They definitely had more chemistry than anybody else, because their topic related to a specific molecule. Another good thing about this page was that it had some excellent pictures of molecules, and a way to e-mail all of the authors. A big complaint that I had with this site is that it had a distracting background. It was very clever by using a dioxin molecule, however, the repetitive nature on the back ground and the oddly colored writing made it extremely hard to read. They definitely didn't convey as much or as easily as the other group. [2]
• I ranked #17 last out of the four. Its title could have been better and the whole site was very hard to read due to the wallpaper it was on. There was a lot of useless icons and pictures and some of the links did not work. The home page lacked any type of written purpose and if one ventured through out the site to find it he/she might end up with a migraine due to the contrast of the red font and Dioxin molecules. It could have been organized better too because all of the links lead to the same page only at a different point. [4]
• This web site would have been rated much better if there were not so many broken links. In addition, although I liked the background containing a dioxin molecule (TCDD), it made some of the pages very hard to read. The links to the authors email addresses was also broken. Last of all, I may have been a little more judgmental since I do not agree with their position. The title page was definitely very good, colorful, and eye catching which brought interest to their topic. The material was well researched and I liked their reference page with links. Discussion of different dioxins compounds with structures was very informative. The most interesting part of the topic was that I learned about Agent Orange and how it may react to form dioxin. One suggestion would be to add the temperature dependence for the formation of dioxin during incineration. [3]
• A visual antithesis to the previous site, this site was loaded with graphics, colors, and fancy backgrounds. Unfortunately, the neat background was a distraction to the reader. The animated bullets were tastefully done, but too much for the noisy background. It appeared that the entire page had been entirely relocated since its development, resulting in many broken internal links. Due to this factor, I didn't get an opportunity to view the series of slides included in the site, all of which sounded very interesting based on their captions. The facts contained within the site were highly informative and readable. [2.5]
• The first thing that caught my eye was the background of a dioxin molecule. The black text is large enough and readable, but on the information pages the red text is tough to read on this distracting background. The introductory page is well organized in outline form, however all 8 parts are linked to the same information page. The information is organized but the links to slides and jpegs do not work. The links to the references cited and contact information also are broken. If the missing pictures and slides support the text well, than this site works well overall. [2]
• This site is very difficult to read and the selected background makes the text barely visible. All the links to the slides do not work and I think that some of the information could be more developed. Some of the added icons make the web site nice to look at but really don't have that much to do with the topic. The site is straight and to the point but it seems more of a paper summary rather than the discussion of a topic. I would place this site last in my rankings. [4]
• The back ground made it hard to read, links did not work, lacked specifics and data, learned a good amount from it, visually enticing icons, the conclusion needed to be explained a little better, and did well on all other areas listed on the yellow hand out. [2]
• In this site they defined dioxin, how humans are exposed, the health effects and how animals are exposed. Their purpose statement was very clear and to the point. The text was very hard to read though because of the pictures of chemical structures in the background and the coloring of the words. They had very cute pictures for the links, but the web site was very brief. There wasn't very much information. However, at the bottom there were attachments for their slide presentation, but these had expired. I'm assuming based on the titles of the slides, that these would have provided more information. They were very non biased though, just informative. [3]
• The structures on the background make me dizzy. All the links on the sites for the slides do not work. There were some illustrations that were very creative. Also there were too much evidence not enough observation. I like most about this site are the illustrations. [2]
• Although very nice looking, this site did not have an opening introduction on the first page. Also, it did not have any links that gave relevant information. Rather all the links lead to a different part of the same presentation page. The background made the page difficult to read as well. [3]

• This web site also reads like a paper. The picture or flow chart was nice, but not very informative. This sites offers basic information, but seems to be lacking. Being that one of the other papers I had to evaluate was on the same topic, I found the other web site (#6) much better. I do not like the organization of the site. There are basically only 2 pages and the content is very general. This web site presents facts and does not seem to be based on opinion. But I do not think it gives enough information present a clear enough argument against using antibiotics in animal feed. [4]
• It has less sub-topic then site 2 and 4. It doesn't have link anywhere in the sub-topic. But does have Ref Page, thus ranked above 12. [3]
• Website 18 was also done in this one page style. On the other hand, there were no attractive images in the introduction which gave the site an uninteresting beginning. This website had a lot of information and was very organized and concise. [3] I thought this site had many down falls. The text was easy to read and informative, but the Home page lacked a summary or introduction leading into the purpose of the site. The links were just placed on the home page one after another and all lead to the exact same page. This site took a neutral position when writing their conclusion but spent the majority of the site explaining the downfalls of antibiotic use. If one is going to construct an unbiased site I think they should not over develop one side of the argument. [4]
• The color choice is slightly less attractive than 19. Putting all of the data on one page and linking to it in the page (the # command) is NOT the best way of organizing things and I feel that it distracts the reader and in fact makes the entire table of contents basically useless for first time reading and only marginally useful for later reading. The content is informative and well arranged however. [2]
• Site 18 dealt with the effects of antibiotics in animal feed. The site had no authors or email given, no introduction on the main page, no links, no pictures, and a fairly boring look. The information Presented in this site was probably the best of all the sites though, giving well developed information on the subject. [2.5]
• This site does a good job of getting the information out. It is organized well and I think discusses the topic in good detail. It would be nice if there were more pictures and links to other sites but with the overall goal to provide information about antibiotic resistance/feeding livestock antibiotics, a good job was done. I would rate this site a B. [2]
• I think this site was also very easy to navigate and I found it very informative. The colors were ok, and the graphics were excellent. After fist noticing the simplicity of the web page, I realized that the links were really good, and the information was presented in a way that the general public could understand. The only thing I noticed is that there were very few links in the actual presentation. A lot of factual info was presented and it seems as though the reader has to trust very few sources. Perhaps more links could be provided to give a broad understanding of economic and biological issues pertinent to the costs of research to find new antibiotics and the severe crisis of limited back up antibiotics. [2.5]
• This website attempts to describe the effects of the use of antibiotics in farm animals. The first describe using an attractive flow chart the transmission route of bacteria from farm animals to the general public. Following that they describe the use of antibiotics in animals by listing the antibiotics currently used in farm animals and the methods of administration. The antibiotics currently in use are chlortetracycline, procaine penicillin, oxytetracycline, tylosin, bacitracin, neomycin sulfate, streptomycin, erythromycin, linomycin, oleandomycin, virginamycin, and bambermycins. In general antibiotics are used in animal feed to improve feed consumption, increased growth rate, and a lower mortality rate. In addition the authors compare and contrast the benefits and risks of administering the antibiotics to farm animals. Some of the benefits of administering antibiotics have already been listed. The major risk associated with administering antibiotics is the production of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The authors describe how resistance occurs and how it can be transferred to other bacteria. The authors failed to make a conclusion about whether the benefits of using antibiotics outweigh the risks.

• Site 18 is clear, easy to read and informative. [2]
• This site basically just had information. There was no introduction and no goal presented. The pages just consisted of tons of information and no real breaks. The links did work but were not in convenient places. [4]

• Website 19 was ranked last because most of its links did not work. This is very frustrating to someone wanting to view the page. If the links worked, this website could have been very good. [4]
• To me the title is not very informative and uninteresting. The authors are identified and there is an email address. There was one illustration on the site and i believe that more would have added to the attractiveness of the site. The layout is a little boring and it is extremely difficult to navigate since the links referring to the next page did not work. The only way to continue was to go back out to the main page and click on the sub-topic from there. The intro was concise and there was a summary of the groups intentions provided. The text was easy to read against a yellow background. The sub-topics were well developed, once i got there. There wasn't really any links to other sites concerning this topic. I did learn a fair amount and the message of the group is backed with lots of evidence. [3]
• Website #19 was also well organized; breaking the topic into subtopics with brief description of the purpose. This website was informative, showing flow charts. The one major problem that was found with this site, is that the links at the bottom of the page for the subtopics do not work. [2]
• I found that I liked sites 3 and 19 the best. As to prefer one over the other, I like 19 better because it offers an alternative to the position they were attacking. I also liked the flow treadmill which helped me to visualize the situation. Site 3 was thorough, but a proposal, even the slightest one, for a solution to the FDA process would have finished the argument. [1]
• The color scheme is well-chosen, the layout is well done and easy to follow. The inter-page links that allow you to jump around or go to next/prev page are a nice touch. Finally, the content of the page is well presented and very clear. [1]
• Web site 19 also had a clear table of contents from which the rest of the pages were easily accessible, and they had links to the authors' emails as well. In addition, the facts and statistics provided illustrated the thorough research behind their position. However, this page was less creative with figures and layout overall, and the "next page" links did not function. [2]
• Web site #19 had would have been a good website had it not had so many problems with its links. There is a good contrast between the black and blue writing on a yellow background, and the writing was an easy-to-read size. Very few illustrations or photos are provided. There are many links within the body of the web page, including links to references and other sites, to subtopics within the page itself, and those that one would use to return to the main page. However, none of these links work. This made navigating the site very cumbersome because a reader would have to "back" out of where ever he was to get back to the main page and only then would he be able to view other parts of the web site. [4]
• Lengthy title is a bad start, but does convey the point. Entirely text base, this was boring to read, but the science was there and logical. No diagrams were presented, some may have been appropriate to eliminate some of the wordy explanations. Couldn't find any references, but there were links to related webpages. The navigation bar at the bottom of the page didn't work, probably because the site was moved, or cached. [4]
• I felt that the website was attractive and there was nothing else to be done with the appearance. The group provided substantial evidence to their opinion and their information provided was useful. There were email addresses provided and the only problem was that some of the links didn’t work. [1]

• The great thing about #20 was they had each author's e-mail link on their sub-section. They explained well on different kind of power sources. Very well organized, easy connection to the sub-sectons, perfect font size... #20 was a good one. [1]
• This site was very easy to follow, giving a link from one topic to the next. The title also showed that it would present different sides to the argument. There were no illustrations but there was really not much need for them. Each sub topic was very informative and developed well. The information was unbiased and gave many alternative possibilities. I think this was overall the easiest site to follow and none of the criteria for a good web page were left out. [1]
• Site 20 had substantial evidence and although their position was stated, I did not get the overall feeling that they defended their side thoroughly. I felt like I just read a webpage on the kinds of energies available. And reading from the printed copy was quite annoying. [3]
• This web did not have any pictures at all. I like the split in the clicking options. The colors should have been changed for each page to make it more exciting. It didn't more pictures. [3]
• First of all, the background colors and text colors did not contrast well, I found myself having to squint and what would color blind navigators do. I liked that this presentation was referred to as an informative presentation, because this topic is pertinent to the general public. I do like how the sub-topic are separated from the intro, It makes the site easier to navigate and eliminates any simplistic undertones, like subtopic links listed one after another without being numbered. I thoroughly enjoyed reading about what kind of energy sources are available to the world. I think just about all the necessary background information was presented and I feel more secure about the energy problems, because the solution to the lack of fossil fuels are many. Another thing I liked is that sufficient links to other sources of info were presented. There was variety in sources and it is reassuring to know that information found from many places correlate indicating reliability. [1]
• Web-site 20 does not make a strong enough case about alternative energy sources other than nuclear power. the actual web-site is relatively well laid out, but I was confused about what they were trying to prove. i do agree with their opinion, but I think they could have gotten more to the point. [4]
• Number 20 did a good job of breaking down the topic into categories easy to find and easy to read. Short paragraphs to the point. However diagrams would have been useful as well. Also it needed more links as well to other sources. [2]
• Good side bar energy information options, conclusion soft but it's a tough subject to attain such surety.
• This site had a lot of knowledgeable information. The site was easy to navigate, because the options were always on the left. There were barely any illustrations. The subtopics were reliable and relevant. [3]
• This is a very attractive web page. The layout makes it easy to read and quick to get from topic to topic. The links were not the most informative but were present and functioning. There is no extras on the page for decoration. [2]

• This web site was also very good and informative. I especially liked the easy links between pages making the site very easy to navigate. Unfortunately, a large number of links were missing to gain more information on the topic. Their picture of fruits and vegetables containing Vitamin C detracted from the site primarily because it was elementary and did not go with the well written pages before and after. I liked that the first page contained their view on the topic. They should have included their email addresses. Last of all, I enjoyed their chemical structures included on the various pages and their moving molecule on the title page. [3]
• WOW!!! MOVING PICTURES....someone knew java. Too bad it went all downhill from there. The colors are nice, great use of pictures and diagrams but it seemed like they relied too much on sublinks to support and explain their positioning. And the worst part was the sublinks (not all of them) were down. Made reading and understanding their thoughts annoying. Also, no way to contact the authors. [3]
• The cool, blue background with a dark blue text allows for easy reading throughout the site. The introduction is well written and concise, but the main point that it raises is summed-up too briefly in the main pages of the site. The History and Chemistry of Vitamin C are only touched upon in the site with two links meant to supply most of the information on these topics. Other underlined terms have broken links, and no contact information or list of references is given. [3]
• Website #21 seemed to be an average website that was put together as a project. It needed to be upgraded a bit. The majority of the links were not found when clicked upon. The illustrations were attractive, but different colors were needed on the background showing the chemical structures. No email address wass provided. [3]
• Websites 16 & 21 tied for the middle platform. While both had a very standard, rather drab appearance, I found both of them completely informative. I don' think that there was anything earth shattering about the arguments presented. However, the most pleasing thing to me is to go on a web site and learn about an issue so that I can form my own opinion about it. I was determined not to let 16's austere appearance, "de-weight" the informative criterion. Consequently, I thought this was the most informative web-site, which landed it in the number 2 ranking despite its appearance. [2.5]
• It was straightforward with good content. I was able to learn from the content without struggling to find the value in the site. One weakness was the use of color in the ascorbic acid chemistry - it tended to cause some of the structures to fade into the background and therefore difficult to assess. [1]
• Unlike #5 this website believed that too much vitamin C can be harmful. It included a lot of the same material as #5 but like #14 there were no links to email the authors. I would rate this website a B. [3]
• This site is very easy to navigate as the bottom of each page provides the choice of "previous page, next page, or home page," in addition to external links. The site is very informative and well organized. [2]
• In Website 21, I felt that the overall appearance was more of a paper rather than a website and the group didn’t need to put directly under the title the subject and professor they did the project for, it should have been included in the end. The group doesn’t give any introduction so I didn’t know where they stood on the project. The title was informative, but there was a lot of color contrasting especially with the diagrams of the Fisher projections of certain molecules eg. dehydroascorbic acid. There was no email contact and many of the links didn’t work. [3.5]
• I thought 21 was okay because it was also informative, but it didn't let the reader skip around through the pages. There was a list of the different pages on the introductory page, but you couldn't go from page 2 to page 4 without going through page 3, so it wasn't very easy to navigate. [3]
• Web site 21 was not a very interesting site. It used links to other sites to make it look better, such as scientific facts and whatnot. Some links that it referred to were simply entire pages written by Other, people about their own topic. The one page about sources of vitamin C was a little silly. It simply had pictures of fruits and vegetables, without any other information. A lot of the links had expired, and gave no more useful information. The introduction was wordier than it needed to be. It brought up points that should have been saved for later. The title was clear, and the authors did not give their email addresses for any feedback. [4]