Part 4 of my possibly tiresome campaign site review series finds us staring at the grim, unblinking visage of John McCain! The (mostly) black and white maverick of the campaign design world sure has its share of detractors. The monochromatic palette seems to evoke a love it or hate it vote. I happen to think it does not work, but that the site can look very solid with a few edits.

If the idea of the black and white design is a metaphor for strength of purpose or a stance on an issue (or issues), I understand that, but I think that any of those metaphors can be realized (as much as these design decisions can trigger an emotional response) with a much lighter and better-designed approach. My fix would be to add color to every obvious space within the interior real estate of the site. For example:

• The logo remains black and white, as does the background of the site including the flag imagery.

• The navigation can remain as is until mouse-over. Color could be introduced here in the nav field, not just the text, and the menu should open in that color as well.

• The left navigation/latest news fields and icons would all be in full color and the three very heavy bottom video invitations (Involving You | Informing You | Connecting You) could simply be full color versions of the existing photography.

• I would also make sure to put as much color as reasonable into the footer, and I would add the infamous DONATE button in its red glory.

My hope when I saw the first version of the site was that the black and white motif would give way to a full-bodied rendering once McCain announced and launched a full site. Dramatic entrance or something. Onward, minus any color remarks.

The structure of the homepage is fine with me and I appreciate the compact design here. The logo is strong and unique for a campaign logo and I assume the attached mark is the Silver Star, which McCain was awarded, and therefore cannot be questioned by a sissy like me. The flag background is pretty muted and therefore doesn’t offend. The universal navigation is easy to locate and use and the Undecided? navigation point is a fairly  unique keyhole. Reads better than About John McCain, I guess. One point about the photography that I’ll mention; McCain is a mechanical, unnerving subject to view in some of these shots, and his people should realize that we understand that he’s serious about this. More shots of him smiling and or looking presidential. Less of him appearing as if to ask me my intentions with his daughter.

In conclusion, I think the site is problematic in this rendition because of the black and white template choice, but feel that it could be very strong if edited discreetly.

• Launch Flash Review
• View other design reviews here

My third presidential candidate website review is Barack Obama (previous reviews were of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards' sites). My first impression is a positive one, as this site is constructed very solidly and allows for all of my essential user needs to be met in one pass (mostly. I have to scroll a touch to get to the networking/sharing options).

Before I get into the layout of the index page, which I like, let's get this logo figured out. On the plus side, this logo doesn't resemble any other campaign logo that I'm familiar with and that aspect alone scores big with me. The American flag, which is abused/used incorrectly on so many of these logos is pretty muted here and is part of what has to be intended as farmland. The white sunrise is a new day, I'm guessing, and the whole package creates a strong "O" that is sure to be translated to T-shirts and buttons easily. That's a lot of thought into a campaign logo. When I saw this a week ago, I didn't like it. I thought it was too Web 2.0 driven. I was probably wrong. And to the designers who came up with it, thanks for not making the O icon the first letter in his name.

As we enter the site, the Web 2.0 design elements are all there, but not too over the top or distracting. The gradients, the curves, the muted grays all exist here, but within a solid design, work well. The logo isn't reflected. Points there. The red and white flag stripes are in the header though, and that decision lost you some of those points. 

The universal navigation across the bottom of the header is clear and the menus are easy to work through. The donate button is pretty obvious. I am under the impression now that "donate" must always be rendered with white letters in a red field.  I have no idea why.

The main story is where my eyes travel next, and is done in a pretty unassuming way. Just a simple headline, a big image and a click through to its home in the newsroom. My.BarackObama.com feels a little weird to me, and as much as I dislike the term "Action Items", I would have preferred it here. I understand that the campaign is about me, but using the My prefix reads sort of creepy, in my opinion. The section itself is well designed and the icons + keywords look is solid.

BarackTV is where I am drawn next. The layout and navigation are very simple here and the video pulls up quickly enough. When I saw the temporary site, my fear was that users would be inundated with video. I thought that with all the excitement over viral marketing and videos from the mid-term elections that Obama's site would be really saturated with that experience. It isn't.

The site seems to fit in Upcoming Events and In The News headlines as an afterthought, but they are far from hidden. Just not given the importance of the previous sections. No real concerns there.

The page is finished with the networking links that are now part of the campaign site standard.

Overall, pretty high marks.

Click on the screenshot and rollover the numbers for further, but more trivial rumblings.

Part 2 of my presidential campaign site review series (Hillary was the first) finds us staring into the guts of the Edwards effort. We have clicked through the initial splash page, dodging the listserv sign-up and chose instead to enter the site.

I’m puzzled at the lack of photography on the main page. No John Edwards picture to be found. He’s the pretty boy of the group, and he is notoriously absent. Because of that, my eyes go first, to:

The logo.

Using what has recently been a Republican treatment, the font is sans serif and devoid of anything cute. Wait. Is that swinging star followed by a green trail? I get it. Green means environmental. And the star means…fancy. Even with the unnecessary mark, I like the logo as it works well within this site and has a contemporary feel. It also does not rely on any ponderous emblems or flags (looking at the giant O in the striped farmland, senator…).

The structure of the page is solid, but I am not really pulled in any direction. The big pull here should be the Universal Health Care plan, I’m assuming, but because the palette of the site is very closely adhered to, I pass by the big title image and move horizontally to the right-hand navigation. I do like the way these elements are put together though. Each action item (sorry) is given enough real estate to be seen and considered. The design style/font choice/minimal drop-shadow works well here. I was compelled to click on the One Corps logo thinking it was some type of Marine Corps charity/information. It wasn’t, and it locked up my browser.

The universal navigation across the top of the page is also a little buggy in IE7, but the drop-down menus are succinct and very easy to read and navigate.

Below the fold contents include his latest video, some platform issues highlighted, blog headlines, press headlines, testimonials and quite a few social networking options.

Whether or not users will scroll that deep on the home page is a concern, and I think the design has crammed as much as possible into this first page.

Click on the screen image below and rollover the numbers for further comments. 

Part one of my review of the top presidential campaign sites starts with Hillary Clinton's (exploratory committee) site .

As I've mentioned in a past post, this site impresses me with its lack of fluff and solid design. The red, white and blue palette is toned down for a less giddy experience. The user's eye doesn't bounce around. It goes where it was intended to go: the logo to the video to the action center. It's also only as Web 2.0 as it has to be. The background and internal use of the gradient when applied judiciously is one of the appealing aspects of the 2.0 design mantra and works just fine here. No reflecting pool logos (author guilty as charged) are to be seen. The text contrast has been subdued for maximum readability. No high contrast or color/font choices to vibrate through. The Contribute button, although in stop-sign red, is placed between the Action Center and Featured Clips, halfway down the page. Not exactly screaming at users, which is a nice change of pace. You don't see it repeated in the milder universal navigation until you're already working through the site. The overall initial experience is refreshingly pleasant here and I am into the content quickly without having to click through any registrations or toil through a video or splash page. High marks.

Click on the screenshot below and then roll over the numbers on the various page elements to see comments.