Authors: Gene Petersen and Joe Hansen
Overall Impression: A fun site that explores one of
my favorite questions, How should we define
Most pages are augmented with an interesting and appropriate picture.
Validation: The validator is unhappy that it can't find a character encoding, but I've said that's okay. You can fix the problem by adding the following line to the head of your document
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
The organization is a particular weakness of the site. For most of the
site, you can only go to a definition and then back to the main page. At
the minimum, it would have been nice to have
next definitinon and
previous definition links. It might also have been interesting to
have links that compared the various definitions. Right now, your site
reads as little more than a linear story that you happen to have segmented
I find it problematic that I cannot reach your definition or the citations page from the front door of your site (particularly that I can't reach the citations page).
It would also have made sense to put links to your individual pages (which
I know you created for my class) somewhere in the site (perhaps on the
front page, in the
Hi, Gene and Joe are here to ... text).
Similarly, it would have been nice to have included links to others sites when you referenced other sites in your text.
Citations: You've done a good job of citing everything on your hard-to-find citations page. However, this seems to be an instance in which it would have made more sense to cite things on the individual pages.
In formatted text, book titles should be italicized rather than underlined (particularly since underlines represent links, but the comment held even before the Web was created.
Other Strengths: As I said earlier, the pictures are great. I also like the variety of types of sources you consulted in building the site. (However, it would have been nicer to see definitions from a few books, a few dictionaries, or a few departments.)
Other Weaknesses: The quote from the University of Chicago is odd, since it describes the department, rather computer science.
Authors: Holly Maness and Jenni Niemiec
Overall Impression: Very thorough coverage of an important
topic at Grinnell. I'm particularly impressed that you took the time to
write a lot about workshop in each department and that you wrote a short
workshop English (based, it seems, on a course
from Jenni's high school).
Validation: The HTML generally seems to validate, which is good. However, it looks like you automatically generated a lot of the HTML from some Windows program, which suggests that the effort to get it correct was not all yours.
Site Organization: Like Joe and Gene, your site generally has the organization of a central page which you must return to after viewing each information page. It would be nice to have seen some compare-and-contrast links between the different departments. (One easy thing to do would have been to create separate chemistry and physics pages and have the chemistry page contain little more than a link to the physics page. You could also have made links when you compared bio's take on workshop to everyone else's.)
You've done a fairly good job of linking to related pages that are not part of your site. However, I'm not a big fan of using uncaptioned pictures for links, since they give little clue as to their destination.
I like the
where did we get this information link at the end of
each page. However, it's hard to tell what link is the source of what
information. Using more traditional citation format in the text would
The citations page should also use traditional citation format (author,
title, source, etc.) for each citation. If you can't figure out the
anonymous or something similar. I, for one, find it
particularly awkward to figure out which
Course Syllabus might
Some of your citation links don't work, such as the one to Curriculum Guide.
Other Strengths: You've done a very nice job of pulling stuff together and writing surrounding text. I'd suggest that you talk to the science division about using your stuff as part of the division Web site. (Talk to Mark Schneider, or I can do so if you'd prefer.)
I also like that you've put your names at the bottom of every page, as well
as a last-modified date. It might also be nice to have a
Other Weaknesses: I know that many people do it, but requiring people to figure out that they're supposed to click on a picture to enter the real part of your site is generally a bad idea. First, if they care about the content, they'd prefer to start with the content and not an essentially useless title page. Second, not everyone will guess that they're supposed to click on the picture.
Yes, I know it's very Grinnell-like, but I'm not sure that red-on-black is the most readable way to present information.
I'll admit that I"m not a big fan of
font tags. I'll also
admit that I didn't really teach you alternatives.
Authors: Davis Hart, Philip Morse-Fortier, Stephane Nyombayire
Overall Impression: Your site looks very nice. Clearly, at least one of you knew a lot of HTML before starting this project, since you're using style sheets to good advantage. You've also done a very nice job of gathering information on Scheme.
Validation: Your HTML seems to validate. I'll trust your claim that your CSS validates.
I like that there's a nice
navigation bar that runs across the top
of your page. I also like that you've linked to the various references
you've made. Unfortunately, your site also has a similar problem to
the other two: there's no attempt to think about interesting or significant
ways to link your pages together.
The quality of your citations is inconsistent. I much
prefer citations like those you used on the Background
Information page (which has the interesting URL of
than those on pages like the one on
Why is it Called
Scheme?, which leads to a page which doesn't seem to be the
source of your information.
Other Strengths: While much of your text is taken from other sites, I also like that you've spent some time commenting on the materials you've added, such as in the Scheme Underground page.
Other Weaknesses: You've chosen some odd things to highlight. For example, one of your examples of Scheme is use is the Kali implementation of Scheme, which has all sorts of interesting things that I bet most introductory programmers don't understand in the least.
Some aspects of your site are awkwardly designed. For example, it's not clear why you have links to more information about Scheme on your front page.
I usually create these pages
on the fly, which means that I rarely
proofread them and they may contain bad grammar and incorrect details.
It also means that I tend to update them regularly (see the history for
more details). Feel free to contact me with any suggestions for changes.
This document was generated by
Siteweaver on Wed Dec 4 08:45:30 2002.
The source to the document was last modified on Wed Sep 25 14:58:25 2002.
This document may be found at