There is a rubric in section 5 of the manual. It gives the EXACT form the judges use to evaluate your teams website.
I'll edit this post with critique later, I've got a paper
Editing, as promised directly from the rubric.
Content (50 points)
How well does the site explain FIRST and promote its vision?
0 - The site doesn't have an explanation at all that I could find but you mentioned there is lack of content so it should be easily fixable.
Is there a prominent link to the FIRST website on the website home page?
4 - There is a link to
FIRST on the home page, that is also on every page, I like that. But the logo you are using is not in compliance with the
FIRST Logo standards which can be found
here
Does the site use correct FIRST terminology and contain the updated FIRST logo?
3 - While the site uses the terminology,
FIRST should be in italics whenever possible, versus just putting down FIRST. I wish this information was overly stressed to teams more becuase it is often overlooked by many websites. You can find a thread about the proper ways to write
FIRST here. Again, the site uses the updated
FIRST logo but does not comply with the
FIRST logo standards.
Does the website clearly tell the team story and contain the team name, FIRST program team number and physical location of the team?
3 - The "about us" page is very weak, it lacks information and I prefer sites that give a more personal feel to the team. Meanwhile, the "team history" page looks like it's one the right track to a very nice way to look back and say "hey this is what we did 3 years ago" The site contains the team name, and number but doesn't clarify if the team participate in FRC, FTC, FLL directly, all it says is "FIRST Robotics team" on the home page.
Does the website contain updated information dealing with the current season?
3 - I really liked the amount of photos in the gallery but it was very slow loading and hard to navigate with. The calender with upcoming events on the right is really nice, but the fact that you loose all navigation when you click on an event is discouraging.
Does the website include recognition of sponsors, mentors and volunteers?
2 The sponsors page was really nice, but there was nothing for mentors and volunteers other than few names listed under some of the sponsors. Also, you might want to try providing a link to the sponsors website.
Does the website include helpful resources for other FIRST teams?
0 - Not much to say here, there just wasn't any
Does the website contain helpful non-text content such as music, sound, animation , or video?
2 - There is a photo gallery, which is non-text content but it's very underdeveloped to be considered helpful or make up for the lack of video/animation
Is this site dedicated exclusively to a FIRST team and its activities?
5 - This one is easy, but you would be surprised at how many teams aren't 100%
FIRST team sites.
Does this site follow copyright infringement rules correctly?
2 - The site violates both the
FIRST logo guidelines and the guidelines set forth by
FIRST for using the Overdrive artwork, which are as follows
Section Score: 24/50
Visual Design (25 points)
Does the website communicate a visual experience reflective of the identity of the team?
5 - I really enjoy the way the identity is shown, it's not too much and it's not too little. A perfect balance between imagery and functionality for the website.
Is the site engaging and does it encourage exploration?
3 - The navigation is unfavorable in my opinion, only becuase you have to wait for it to slowly open the sub menus, if you're looking for important information you should be able to just click.
Does the fort size and format make the site easy to read?
4 - I really like how easy this site is to read but when I lower my monitors brightness, it slowly starts to disappear, you may not believe it but some people still have old monitors that aren't able to display as vibrant of an image as todays LCDs and flat screens.
Does the website contain visuals relating to the current game and the current season’s work as a team?
2 - The site has one visual, one that violates the Overdrive guidelines as stated above, that also makes content seem less important. If you were to correct the violations and make the image smaller, then you would really have something. Also, so my comments about the gallery above.
Is the home pate inviting to all readers, or is it cluttered with team member specific information?
3 - The home page is missing some serious content. There's maybe one or two sentences when you show up there. Check out other team sites to see what they're doing, or go to other websites you frequently visit. Imagine if the CD portal page only had three lines of text!
Section Score: 17/25
Functionality and Interactivity (25 points)
Does the website work well and the homepage load quickly?
4 - There are a lot of images on the home page, but overall decent load time for the amount of images used
Do the links work throughout the site?
4 - The links work, but there wasn't many links to click that were not for content pages
Is important information easily accessible?
3 - Having to wait for the navigation to open was really bothering me, and then not knowing what information would be in the sub menus made it difficult to find what I was looking for.
Do external links open new, separate browser windows?
2 - I found two external links, one to the
FIRST website, and one to the topsite page. The one
FIRST opened in a new window, while the one for topsite did not. There was an lack of external links to test this on.
Can I easily return to the website from an outside link?
5 - This requirement still baffles me today, unless the website shuts down the users computer or closes the browser, I don't see how any team can get less than a 5 on this one. Someone want to prove me wrong?
Section Score: 18/25
Total: 59