21–30 of 234 posts
I'm sure everyone else is aware of how local government websites look in their own parts of the world - but for a similar-sized UK city Edinburgh City Council's website is a good (i.e. bad) example for comparison: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk
I really dislike the archaic/gothic use of 'V' rather than 'U' - it looks pretentious and always makes me read it twice before remembering the usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should public services be ugly?
They should be if it's cheaper (while still meeting the goals etc).
I've seen projects that haven't cost more than a few hundred dollars and still look absolutely stunning. I've also seen projects developed this year that look like they have been dragged from the 90s, yet cost millions in today's money.
I'm betting yes, and the cost saved (in terms of time, frustration and maybe money) over a poorly designed yet inexpensive-looking site will be worthwhile.
Side note: Would love to see a blog post about the thought behind the design, either from the design agency or the web manager at Manchester...
Similar: https://www.gov.uk/ http://storify.com/GovUK/gov-uk-wins-design-of-the-year-awar...
https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-ou...
That is brilliant, thank you very much for this.
I'm sure everyone else is aware of how local government websites look in their own parts of the world - but for a similar-sized UK city Edinburgh City Council's website is a good (i.e. bad) example for comparison: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk
I honestly don't mind the Edinburgh site - I'd rather they focus on content and functionality rather than changing it every year to comply with the latest design fad.
If I go to a .gov.uk site it's because a need a specific piece of information, I don't need the design getting in the way.