Re: Business Site: Invesco

Hi, Chuck,

>My associates and I have recently won the redesign contract for the Invesco
>website located at http://www.invesco.com, ...

>If you would share your advise and recommendations by answering the
>questions below

>1. What do you like about the current site?

I like the "text-only" approach -- investors aren't looking for pretty
graphics; they want substantive information. However, I was quite confused
on the main page where there entire page consisted of  "This site is
designed for Netscape 3.0+ or Internet Explorer 3.0+, or text-only" and my
only choice was to click "text only." ???? Right away it told me that I do
*not* want to invest *my* money through invesco.

>2. What would you do if "you" were the developer of the site? (please, no
>"I would kill myself" answers ... we've already got dibs on that answer
>*grin*)

I'd probably throw it out and start from scratch. <g>

>3. Although there is a complete and functional text-only version available
>(thanks to us BTW), what do you think about the frames and their
>implementation and functionality?

I HATE the frames. I hate frames *anyway,* and three frames on one page is
horrible on a 15" monitor. The main frame where the information is
displayed is just too darn small. I can't see more than a few lines at a
time -- especially once I've increased the font size, as I usually do.
Please, if you keep frames, at least pare them down to no more than 2 per
screen.

>4. Speaking of frames ... how do you feel about the present navigation?

Very hard to follow. Links in the main nav section at the left; more links
in the frame at the top; and yet more within the page I was reading.  The
links for the page you're on are live links. It's very confusing.

One problem I found was on
http://www.invesco.com/Text/Retirement/retiremain.html The nav link at the
left read:

      Click here for an Overview of Plan Types, or click on the Retirement
      Center icon at the center of the ring.

But of course there was no ring, since only the text version was even
available.

>5. In your opinion ... Does the site reflect the nature of their industry?
>(meaning ... does it come across more as a conservative presence or does it
>have a contemporary feel to it?)

Text-only feels pretty darn conservative.  ;-) Sorry -- can't even judge
that. No graphic version was available.

>6. For all those with a fine tuned eye ... how does the graphical presence
>strike you?

n/a. I couldn't get to it.

>7. Any other comments?

I did *not* like the requirement to register just to view a prospectus.
I've done some investment research on the net, and just about every mutual
fund company out there let you view or download a prospectus without
registering. It would be fine if that were offered as a choice, but there
was no choice. Also, why is it called an "electronic consent form"? I don't
need to *consent* to anything just to get a prospectus.

Good luck with this redesign job! It won't be easy.

SM

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA