Another decent site that is not that far from being great. It was a little slow, and I was not in love with the design. However, there are components that are especially strong—such as the bios (maybe a little too much going on), and many of the content areas. The “resource centers” off the home page were sweet, but almost hidden. I liked the idea of highlighting certain news and events on top of the straight listing. The main weakness is in the searching—especially the attorney search page, but also the search result display. And the “contact us” I moaned about last time is still a totally needless weak point. So easy to improve! Bottom line—the chief weak spots still exist. Fix them. You are getting docked for not doing so sooner.
The home page is a 50/50 mix of good and bad. The imagery and tagline are fine. Outside of calling yourself a “full service law firm” (a pet peeve…there is no such thing), the welcome description is decent (could be a little stronger). The right side navigation and layout goes against web site design theory (eye moves from top left to right). I’m not sure of the value of having the “news” headlines repeated on every page. And the listings (by office, with “general” last) are not the most useful. I did like many of the publications, and the ability to subscribe for each. Updating has improved.
This review took place nearly six months after the firm’s merger with Steel Hector, yet it was hard to find a whole lot about it. I nearly missed the banner at the top of the site. An oddity in the “Recent News” home page headline is that some of the headlines were over a year old. Most were current. They change with a refresh of the page. Overall, the site was well-maintained and updated. Many items are short blurbs, with the option of “reading more” by opening a PDF document. The layout is a little difficult, but the overall presence is decent. The presence is improved from two years ago.
The layout and design are weak. There are areas where the content is still ancient, but other practices (like PI) have gotten on the ball in regard to showing signs of newsletter-writing consistency. There is plenty going on with the firm’s marketing efforts, so it is a matter of putting your best foot forward online. The home page is fine, but the interior needs work.
Oh the humanity! Still with that courthouse column look. Now that I’ve succeeded in virtually eliminating splash pages, that legal clip art is next on my radar! Watch out, columns. You are marked for elimination. I just hope the design of the site was free. Now that I’ve gotten past the look, I will say the content is improved. Overall, the content structure is good. There are some areas that could be more “web-friendly” in terms of text (think USA Today). In all seriousness, the two key components—practice profiles and strong bio database—work great. I’m still a fan of the practice area divisions, and the toll-free number. Since the call is free, I might ring you up and ask for the guy who approved the design, and hang up. Do you have caller ID?
The site still has that olde-tyme HTML feel to it. What you need is there, but just not delivered in the best way possible. You also need some patience in finding what you want. The most impressive new thing was a link to www.wcuniverse.com, from the home page—which should be better promoted, and offers more of a 2004 feel in site structure and organization. The downside on the review day is that the “news” in the universe had not been updated in two months. It is rare that I suggest a focus on look over content, but it is time to dump all the current site materials into something a little more modern (which has been done in the WCUniverse site).
When anything on a large law firm home page strikes me as being a little ballsy (can I say that on the IMA site? Sure.), I usually appreciate it. The “A Sizable Difference” (no pun intended, I swear) touts the firm’s size and status. That has to be worth a scoring point or two. After looking at really weak “practice area” pages, I was ready to call it quits. But, then you see good stuff like “legal analysis” and “Wemedia” and you realize that there are a lot of good things on this site that people may never find. A little reorganization and tightening would send this site to another level. Sorry for any remarks that might sound inappropriate, but as they say on Avenue Q, the internet is for porn.
The thing I found odd here is that the home page “in the news” items were at best a month old. Yet, inside there were plenty of news and events that could have been posted on the front that were two or three days’ old. What gives? I did like the breakdown of “services”, although I’d prefer they have another name. Most of the data is above-average; it just needs a stronger shell. BI has always been good to me. So take these words with love. You just need a little redevelopment.
It is interesting to see that “diversity” is one of the seven navigable categories on the DPW site. How many times can I ask if firms are worried about it? The site is better than it was, but not as good as it once was, if that makes any sense. I’m pleased that the associates get decent bios. The “next page” thing has to go. It is better than brochureware, but still lacks depth in substance. The scroll down for “news” is not the best. What I loved was the “directions” page that actually gave me the subway and bus stops, along with a map you can read and identify the cross-streets. To repeat myself, not all firms need the site to provide “repeat eyeballs” to be successful. I can get what I really need—attorney contact info, directions, career info—the basics are good and in place.
When I type in a site called “fredlaw.com”, I just imagine picturing the blog of a guy named Fred yapping about why he hates the legal system. But, that is probably just me. And I’m in the home stretch of the 250 reviews, so I’m getting really punchy. In the practice areas, I’m not sure I’ve seen a breakdown by primary and supporting attorneys. Interesting. While I like the “language capabilities” page (speak, read, write…Minnesotan…you know), I still want that search template. While the pro bono section is above-average, I’m not real keen on the Pope quote. The Pope? Is he a client? Or is he the relationship partner reporting to the big guy upstairs? The home page is improved—I know where you live now. But with a bunch of big-time sites in MN, you lag with the locals.
