The best and worst in charity websites: Surveying visual impact and usability

Working in the non-profit sector I frequently see people challenged to create an attractive website that serves its objectives well. Recent trends in charity website design (and on the web in general) are stressing the importance of blog-type content posting an the ability to post video and other rich content. Creating such sites and doing it with an attractive overall appearance that is inviting and integrated with an overall brand identity is very hard to accomplish on a non-profit budget, but some people are doing it well.

Tackling a website development or redesign should involve a measured approach that refers to a strategic marketing plan, with attention to what specific objectives and their related strategies will be served by specific elements of the web design and function. And pulling it togehter in a nice wrapper calls for a survey of the landscape; here are a few examples, primarily from Canada and Australia…

Excellent Charity Websites

Caritas looks very nice and clear

Ecojustice illustrates an important basic lesson in graphic design: “select a couple of good colours and really stick to them”

Asthma UK is pretty nice (not revolutionary, but clean-looking and easy to navigate – impressive for an well-established large-ish organisation)

Design Can Change is very impressive, though this approach is a bit too image-based (vs info-based) for most organisations

CPAWS has a nice, simple look, but only at their main page. If you click-through to the British Columbia chapter there is an ugly page, but it is an example of a blog-format main-page.

Social Edge is not outstanding, but it somehow makes me want to read for a minute

Human Society - Humane Index is technically and creatively brilliant

Angkor Hospital found someone to do a nice design for this tiny, simple site

Starbright is just a really nice idea, putting web 2.0 trends to a good use, so I’ll put it in this group

Charity websites with good and bad elements

The Nature Conservancy is a bit too old-school-looking, but I do think it looks pretty nice

Greenpeace Australia has a modern, clean design and the central blog/news content is good, but the visual clutter is too heavy.

Greenpeace International is almost the same, but the clutter effect is reduced a bit by more consistent use of colour (albeit an ugly colour). This site shows one real advantage of a blog format: you can easily post video into your blog or news posts – looks current and energetic.

Australian Wildlife Conservancy is very slick and different-looking, but demands too much clicking before they give me any information

Guide Dogs US looks pretty good – but don’t they want donations?

Smith Family looks too bland, a bit like a bank website five years ago. But one thing they’ve got right: lots and lots of fundraising-oriented links and content.

WWF has a good structure and a good blog-ish style, but the menus and the banner are a let-down

Cousteau is very very simple and it looks okay for what it is. I wonder what their ’new site in 2008’ will look like?

Michael J Fox has good, unique style and colour (perhaps taken a bit too far?) but needs to provide some straightforward information to catch my interest – and the complex headlines are a barrier to visitors

ACF has good style and interesting (if a bit subdued) colour choices, but the final result is too cluttered

TLC looks very pretty, but they didn’t consider their audience well enough; the navigation is non-intuitive and there are too many PDFs

Breast Cancer Foundation is fresh and different, and really hinges on its blog format, but they slightly over-simplified and the too-pale pink colour is a mistake

Washington Area Women’s Foundation is off-beat looking yet conservative. I think I like it but I’m not sure. Putting ‘Latest videos’ on the main page is good.

Charity Websites with real problems

David Suzuki Foundation is much too busy-looking; your eyes just don’t know where to go, so ‘away’ seems like a good choice

Humane Society US has too much clutter and too many colours and buttons and logos

Western Canada Wilderness Committee just looks unattractive - but they too have gone to the popular blog format which could work okay with a slightly tidied-up design

WPSQ. Oh my. What can you say?

Cancer NSW is just too stiff and makes you click too much

Cancer Council Australia just doesn’t do it for me

Breast Cancer WA is old-school and generic looking

I hope I haven’t done offence to anyone in the latter categories - my comments are meant to be constuctive and to help people look at designs objectively and with audiences in mind - which is what we should all be doing, all the time, when working on non-profit communications.