1.     SCOPE

1.1.  Subject matter appropriate for target audience at NIH; intended audience.

1.2.  Level of information, point of view.

1.3.  Content of external page.

1.4.  Perceived permanence.

1.5.  Innovation.

1.6.  Acceptable sources, free from bias.

1.7.  Types of files, i.e. .pdf, .mov, .asp

2.     SELECTION CRITERIA

2.1.  ACCESS

2.1.1.     Costs not frivolous.

2.1.2.     Site readily accessible.

2.1.3.     Downloads are quick and easy.

2.1.4.     Navigation easy.

2.1.5.     Links to relevant sites.

2.2.  AUTHORITY

2.2.1.     Sponsor clearly identified.

2.2.2.     Purpose of the organization stated.

2.2.3.     Legitimacy of the organization; recognizable.

2.2.3.1.          Phone number given.

2.2.3.2.          Mailing address given.

2.2.4.     Author of material stated with qualifications that can be validated, credentials, contact information.

2.2.5.     Copyright holder, if material is protected by copyright.

2.2.6.     URL supports authorship claim.

2.3.  ACCURACY

2.3.1.     Sources for factual information documented; verifiable, peer reviewed.

2.3.2.     Free of grammatical, spelling, and other typographical errors.

2.3.3.     Responsibility for accuracy clearly stated; editorial board.

2.3.4.     Statistical charts and/or graphs clearly labeled and easy to read.

2.4.  OBJECTIVITY

2.4.1.     Information provided as a public service?

2.4.2.     Free of advertising?

2.4.2.1.          If there is any advertising on the page, is it clearly differentiated from the informational content?

2.4.3.     Free from objectionable bias.

2.5.  CURRENCY

2.5.1.     Dates on the page to indicate:

2.5.1.1.          When the page was written?

2.5.1.2.          When the page was first placed on the Web?

2.5.1.3.          When the page was last revised?

2.5.1.4.          Other indications that the material is kept current.

2.5.2.     Graphs and/or charts clearly show when the data was gathered.

2.5.3.     If different editions, is it clearly labeled what edition the page is from?

2.5.4.     Well maintained links.

2.6.  COVERAGE

2.6.1.     Indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction?

2.6.2.     .If there is a print equivalent to the Web page, is there a clear indication of whether the entire work is available on the Web or only parts of it?

2.6.3.     If the material is from a work which is out of copyright (as is often the case with a dictionary or thesaurus) has there been an effort to update the material to make it more current?

2.6.4.     Substantive information.

2.6.5.     Value-added information.

2.6.6.     Relative to subject.

2.6.7.     Adds new perspective.

2.7.  DESIGN

2.7.1.     Logical, hierarchical organization.

2.7.2.     Uncluttered appearance.

2.7.3.     Feedback mechanism.

2.7.4.     Informative graphics/multimedia files included.

2.7.5.     Icons effectively represent what is intended.

2.8.  USABILITY

2.8.1.     Site-wide

2.8.1.1.          Information architecture solid, reliable, understandable.

2.8.1.2.          Navigation logical.

2.8.1.3.          Search capability.

2.8.1.4.          Links maintained.

2.8.1.5.          Overall writing style.

2.8.1.6.          Consistency among page templates.

2.8.1.7.          Layout attractive, clear, usable.

2.8.1.8.          Design standards.

2.8.2.     Individual Pages

2.8.2.1.          Understandable headlines, links, explanations.

2.8.2.2.          Intuitiveness of forms, error messages.

Synthesized from:

“Evaluating Web Resources.” Copyright Jan Alexander & Marsha Ann Tate 1996-1998

Copyright Information: This checklist may be freely copied and distributed provided that 1) It is used

for educational purposes only, and 2) Credit is given to Jan Alexander & Marsha Ann Tate,

Wolfgram Memorial Library, Widener University, Chester, PA.

“A list of quality selection criteria: a reference tool for Internet subject gateways.” Paul Hofman, Emma Worsfold, ILRT, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TN, UK.

 View All FAQ