
Manchester City Council - mattwritescode
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/
======
DigitalSea
I applaud the change and thinking outside of the box, but the Manchester City
Council website looks like a $45 Wordpress theme off of Themeforest. The
slider appears to offer no value to the site other than taking up a massive
amount of room without really justifying its existence. I'm not a designer,
I'm a developer and I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind that
slider.

While I agree that the trendy look of the site is better than most Government
sites, it tries too hard to the point the change and potential this site could
have had is gone. The reason Government websites are usually ugly is not
because Government's are afraid of change or can't justify the cash it's
because there are content accessibility guidelines to adhere too. And when
you've got to make your content accessible to people with disabilities well
your options can be somewhat limited (especially colour use).

This is the perfect example of everything wrong with modern web design.
Instead of thinking, "What can we NOT add to this site design" designers seem
to be thinking, "How many full screen images, rounded corners, parallax
effects, CSS animations, Javascript effects and large amounts of custom fonts
can we cram into this site?"

I can foresee a lot of issues for people with eyesight problems on this site,
aren't Governments supposed to adhere to WCAG rules and a lot more stricter
than non-Government websites do? The images don't even have alt tags on them,
Web Developer common sense rule #1 — Always put alt tags on images, especially
when they're being used as icons in content sections, wow.

~~~
hglaser
What a predictable top comment for a Hacker News thread. :(

A government website showcases a design that is _leaps and bounds_ ahead of
_any other government site we can think of_ , and HN's top comment casually
dismisses it.

To rewrite something you said: "This is the perfect example of everything
wrong with [HN comments]."

I, for one, am floored that someone in city government was able to rise above
the bureaucracy and ship something truly useful and delightful for citizens. I
would love nothing more than to meet the people involved and buy them a pint.
Well done, guys.

~~~
larrydavid
It's a shame you're being downvoted, hopefully constructive feed back will
eventually bubble to the top. There was a similar submission yesterday where
this occurred.

Clearly there are a group of elite web designers, UI and UX specialists that
parade this site, who, unsurprisingly, have empty profiles. How else are we
supposed to see their portfolio of exceptional work so we know what to aspire
to?

~~~
meerita
This is a fallacy. If you need to show something to prove or give an opinion
or a reason about 2+2=4 then we will have troubles to discuss on anything.

You cannot use argumentum ad hominem to this point. If people has to shown
their portfolios or other stuff to prove their skillmanship you're only
wasting time and finding on the wrong place to prove your points, since those
designs may not apply or be used as a good example to counterattack the main
point here.

~~~
droopyEyelids
We do have troubles discussing things.

Unfortunately, the world is so complicated that we can't make an informed
decision based on speech/writing alone, and verification of achievements is
one of the easiest and most accurate ways to judge credibility.

~~~
meerita
We should give opinions based on evidence, proven evidence. The rest are just,
personal viewpoints who doesn't care what you prove. I try always to avoid
these discussions, but sometimes i feel is a bit unfair to bring up the "show
me your X card, sir" to talk about something.

------
dan1234
I think I actually prefer <http://www.gateshead.gov.uk>, which is a lot less
"in your face".

If I go to a .gov.uk site it's because a need a specific piece of information,
I don't need the design getting in the way.

~~~
laumars
Totally. One of my pet peeves is people who insist that "good design" has to
have an emphasis on being pretty. Design is as much about function as it is
form, and in the case of government sites, having easy navigation,
accessibility and relevant content is far _far_ more important than being
pretty.

Sadly, most UK government sites are both ugly and horrible to navigate. Or at
least that was the trend until recently, thankfully it seems some of those
organisations are starting to re-fit their site.

~~~
rusew
But users who perceive a site to be "pretty" will usually experience it as
easier to use than an uglier site, even if the uglier site is easier to use
structurally. "Pretty" often translates to "easy," because users trust the
design more.

~~~
laumars
Interesting point. I hadn't considered that kind of psychological effect but
it does seem plausible given the perverse subconscious crap that people
perceive (wine tasters listing off red wine flavors when tasting red-died
white wine, miracle healing properties of placebo drugs, etc)

------
nnq
UX fail: Big useless slider/carouse with the slide captions obscured under the
huge pics, way under the fold... and to prevent this big fat carousel from
being too low on the page (...but it still is), _useful services links are one
click away under that 'other services' button, instead of being able to just
scroll to them!_

...it's amazing how many people totally miss the point of
sliders/carousels/slideshows: to sell profitable products or showcase
_important_ site content! _if_ you use them, put them at the page top and have
relevant captions with links that people actually click.

~~~
Spooky23
That's what they are doing -- they are trying to "sell" adoption and a city
festival.

~~~
wisty
Really? I didn't notice. The caption was under the slider, and I couldn't see
it. I just saw some picture of a family.

------
thirsteh
Similar: <https://www.gov.uk/>

[http://storify.com/GovUK/gov-uk-wins-design-of-the-year-
awar...](http://storify.com/GovUK/gov-uk-wins-design-of-the-year-award)

~~~
swatkat
gov.uk looks like a domain squatter webpage :)

~~~
arethuza
I must like that look then :-)

------
EnderMB
I don't mind a bit of design, as long as the design is fully functional for
EVERYONE that needs to use it.

Yes, that means people using older browsers/machines, users with restricted
vision, anyone that requires access to a council website, or requires
information about council services. On IE7, this website works, but it takes a
very long time to load, probably because the home page is 1MB, with just under
950k of this being images, and this isn't acceptable. The average user
couldn't care less if the site looks nice, or is aesthetically pleasing, or if
they are using a browser that StatCounter claim is at 1% worldwide. They want
their information.

I picked up a council project a few years ago, where an agency had built a
nice looking website. However, it had not been tested using screen readers or
tested using a focus group. After a few months they had received complaints
about users using screen readers not being able to read the pages regarding
council services for visually-impaired people.

~~~
marknutter
Yes, but if the site is designed poorly then the user will spend as much time
trying to figure out how to navigate around it than they would waiting for
this modern version to download. I'm not saying the new one is easier to use,
but you get my point.

~~~
EnderMB
A basic site doesn't have to be designed poorly. My opposition is against
design for the sake of designing, and in turn code for code's sake. A page
doesn't always need to be loaded to the brim with JavaScript, and a home page
doesn't always need a slider.

A good designer will create the bare minimum for a functional site, and a good
developer will use the best tools for the job, instead of the tools that
everyone else uses.

------
zwischenzug
Title: "Manchester City Council" which links to a the website of MCC. Is that
supposed to be sufficient to explain why this is on HN?

~~~
carlesfe
I think the title was changed; the original one was something like "All
institutional webpages should be like this one"

~~~
mkopinsky
The original title was "How government sites should be designed".

~~~
mixmax
changing it was a bad decision IMO.

Without the context this submission makes no sense at all.

~~~
evo_9
Yes, the title changing has gotten seriously out of hand lately. I don't get
it either, it's not like the original title was confusing (unlike the new
title).

~~~
lucb1e
I was thinking the same. Could a mod elaborate on this please?

~~~
charliepark
I don't know that any of them will actually respond … a number of people have
been complaining about this, and I can't recall a time when they've responded
at all, let alone with anything reasoned, or reasonable. But it's ridiculous.

The best word I have for it is that it feels paternalistic. I think there are
many occasions where HN commenters write dumb things and reflect on themselves
poorly. And in many cases, the original title of the linked page is fine. But
people writing blog posts (or just titling demo pages or other sites, like the
one linked here) aren't writing their titles with the intent that their title
will give context to the readers of a random forum. It's bizarre that HN mods
change the titles, and I really wish they would stop.

------
jerguismi
No. Goverment web sites should be minimal design & content - black text on
white background, no extra graphics. I don't want to pay taxes so that these
latte-sipping designers can create cool projects.

~~~
yen223
You want government websites to look like a domain-squatter's page:
<https://www.gov.uk/> ?

~~~
RivieraKid
This is the most good-looking gov. web I've seen.

------
mkopinsky
While in general I approve of the policy here of renaming posts to match the
title of the page, the change here done by the mods (to simply "Manchester
City Council") makes the whole discussion make no sense. (The original title
was "How government sites should be designed".)

~~~
aendruk
This wouldn't have happened if the original submission had followed the site
guidelines[1]:

> If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about
> it and submit that instead.

I view it as similar to Wikipedia's "no original research" policy.

[1]: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
lucb1e
If we're gonna follow the guidelines, then the Boston bombing was entirely
off-topic and should have been removed immediately instead of getting
thousands of points. The only Boston-related on-topic story was Bruce
Schneier's view on it, which is also the reason why the other stories should
_not_ have been on HN.

> _Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
> evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV
> news, it's probably off-topic._

Edit: Well that was a quick downvote. Guess the Boston bombing strikes a
nerve. But is it so hard to be objective about it?

------
onion2k
It looks lovely. But it's hard to find things. Consequently it's not how a
_government_ website should be designed.

Try finding, for example, the cost of a planning application. It's a few
clicks away from the home page, which is fine given that it's reasonably
logical if you can spot the initial starting point on the homepage ... but the
search is poor. For the terms "cost of planning", a link to
[http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/5865/plann...](http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/5865/planning/4)
is hidden at the 6th result in a page of links that's essentially a wall of
text. Search results are likely to be a very important part of a large data
driven site, so they should be _much_ better.

~~~
arethuza
If you search for "cost of planning application" it's on the first result - in
the context of a council website "cost of planning" could mean lots of things
(e.g. how much do they spend on managing planning across the entire
organisation).

------
goyalpulkit
I am really amazed how most of the comments assume that beautiful sites cannot
provide the same amount of information as their uglier counterparts.

~~~
yashodhan
Most beautiful sites can. This one does not.

Those icons are confusing. Click expand to see the whole list together. What a
mess! Ideally they should be using glyphs with much bolder lines, or if
they're really set on using the current ones, place each on a solid white
circle. Right now they blend in with the text and seem to add to the overall
visual noise.

Scrolling down the page, why the hell am I looking at a gigantic picture of a
girl staring back at me? That image would be better placed on an interior
decorating portfolio, not a city council website. Ideally the images shouldn't
be so large and vague, but if they're set on using it, they should've
overlayed the image with its headline in a large white font (currently
relegated to the invisible location of below the image)

I have issues with their color scheme too. I think most governmental websites
should use white as their dominant color, for clarity's sake. GOV.UK is a
website that is worth aspiring towards, not this. Very much not this.

~~~
goyalpulkit
> Those icons are confusing. Click expand to see the whole list together. What
> a mess! Ideally they should be using glyphs with much bolder lines, or if
> they're really set on using the current ones, place each on a solid white
> circle. Right now they blend in with the text and seem to add to the overall
> visual noise.

I always prefer iconic interfaces as compared to the ones with just text. Try
to think of one thing that you would like to find and go to gov.uk and then to
manchester.gov.uk. See which one is easier to find

Icons vs Labels vs Both: <http://edwardsanchez.me/blog/13589712>

------
timrogers
For me at least, <http://gov.uk> is a lot better - it's far more minimal and
puts the information first, whereas I can't help but feel that this Manchester
City Council site is more about the sexy design that it is about usability and
actually giving you the information you want.

------
huhtenberg
How come this and all .gov.uk sites mentioned in the comments include Google
Analytics scripts?

I would imagine that the sharing of the data collected on government websites
with 3rd parties be rather strictly regulated. Especially when it's collected
as a part of a tracking infrastructure that spans beyond said sites.

~~~
brador
I recall last year the Uk wanted to integrate mandatory Facebook logins into
all their sites. Looks like they've since dropped that idea.

------
ohwp
In The Netherlands these two sites score very high every year:
<http://www.capelleaandenijssel.nl/> <http://cms.dordrecht.nl/> They contain a
lot more useful information above the fold than the linked one.

Good design involves a lot more than eye candy.

~~~
harshreality
How do you find anything on those two pages without first mentally parsing the
layouts? On the first link, the search bar is in the middle of the damned
page, even though the site seems designed around search (meaningful static nav
is confined to one element, the Information mouseover at the top)!

By comparison, the manchester site is dead simple, and search is at the top
corner where it should be. That style of design reduces content areas (with a
corresponding boost to element/object/image size, since there's less stuff
competing for the space). Call it eye candy, but it's a lot easier to use for
people who aren't used to visually parsing complex page designs.

My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, and
some of the icon choices, not the basic design style.

~~~
ohwp
_"... search is at the top corner where it should be."_ Did you ever visit the
Google homepage? Why should search be at the top corner?

I don't know if you understand Dutch but since text is part of the interface
maybe this is why you are having issues with the design?

 _"My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, not
the basic design style."_ Well I was talking about exactly this. The
Manchester site may look nice but it is lacking overview. Design is more than
looks. It is also about text, interaction and so on.

~~~
harshreality
The search box goes in a top corner normally because putting it elsewhere
disrupts the content layout or takes unnecessarily long to find. If there's no
other content, the search box can go anywhere.

I use google chrome which translates the page well enough for me to
understand.

There are too many visually distinct sections on those Dutch websites for
someone who isn't familiar with the site to find anything quickly. There are
non-tech-savvy folks for whom anything more complex than the manchester site,
or Google's front page search box, is too complex for them to deal with. They
wouldn't be able to visually scan the Dutch pages for what they want. Whether
it's lack of technical familiarity, lack of attention span, or something else,
I don't know. Lots of text divided up into arbitrary sections simply doesn't
work well for them.

How is the manchester site lacking an overview? It has four major categories
near the top, another tier of categories which expands into 20 categories with
one click, and if that doesn't find what you're looking for, or you're lazy,
you can type what you want into the conveniently located search box.

I agree that the manchester site be improved (most of the stuff at the bottom
should be eliminated or turned into links in the top bar), but I think it's
closer to ideal than the two sites you linked are.

------
vilius
Encouraging change! Typically before entering a any .gov site something like
this goes in my head:

"I'm about to enter a boring website that makes getting to a point super
challenging unless you read tons of word documents."

On entering manchester.gov.uk

"Oh look at this! They did a recent update to their design. It feels fresh and
trendy. Maybe they actually care. Maybe they were able to update their
information architecture as well! There is hope that I won't have to spend an
hour reading a bunch of text."

The majority of government websites are very apathetic and poorly implemented.
I am very happy to see that this is starting to change!

------
andreasklinger
If you are interested in this take a look at:
<https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples>

[http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/govuk-goes-
worldwide/30...](http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/govuk-goes-
worldwide/3036144.article)

~~~
loupeabody
Good call, I was also going to mention this until I saw your comment.

It appears there are many UK city sites that are trying to implement these
principles. Given that the principles include accessibility guidelines [0] and
transparency of intent [1], I'd prefer to see more city sites designed this
way. (That is if the sites in question faithfully implement the design
principles)

Regarding the site OP linked, even if a little glossy, it's certainly not a
disaster of usability. In fact, I tend to believe in the aesthetic-usability
effect [2] in the case of not-so-design-savvy users, the added sheen might
actually motivate them to use the city portal more often.

[0]<https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#sixth>
[1]<https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples#tenth>
[2]<http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design_at.html>

------
eitally
I personally think the redesigned site for my county (Wake County, NC) is far,
far superior. It looks nice -- not quite as "modern startup" as the Manchester
site -- but is so much easier to use.

<http://www.wakegov.com/>

~~~
Sodaware
I'm not a big fan of the huge menus, but every time I've had to use the Wake
site I've been able to find what I need pretty quickly.

One improvement would be an auto-complete feature on the main search box, but
I think I'm in a pretty small minority that would benefit from that.

~~~
eitally
I agree completely, on both counts. I think I've used it for the few things I
use it for, enough times to have just memorized what's where. It's definitely
a huge improvement over the old site, regardless!

------
jwarren
I'm going to go against the HN grain and say that it's great. Frequent
complaints I hear about local authority websites boil down to: 1\. Too much
top-level navigation - choice is confusing. 2\. No idea which information is
in which section.

This one gets you to (what they believe to be) the most-commonly requested
issues instantly, and gives you a quick idea of what you can find in each
section. This is the perfect place for search results suggestions too.
Remember, most visitors to these sites are not going to be frequent users -
they won't have the time or inclination to learn a more complex system.

I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's a great idea that just needs a
bit of extra polish.

------
nfoz
Please tell me you're joking.

The #1 priority of government websites should be _accessibility_ , not looking
cool with whatever garbage unusable web trends are popular du jour and
supported by only a handful of desktop browsers running on modern hardware.

~~~
alan_cx
Totally agree. All I see is the web site equivalent of William Hague in a
baseball cap.

------
gverri
The amount of hate against design work is high in the last days. For every
programmer here trying to be a DESIGN CRITIQUE: Do you know that annoying type
of intern that thinks he knows more than you about programming even when you
have 20 years more experience?

You right now.

242 points means that the Design is a success. So stop being a dick, you're
not better than anyone for pointing failures that doesn't exist.

If you really want to critique Design work, at least make sure you understand
everything said here: <http://ia.net/blog/learning-to-see/>

~~~
joeframbach
> 242 points means that the Design is a success

No, 242 points means that the design critique is a successful conversation
engager. I upvoted to give "government sites should give function more
importance than form" more visibility.

------
pessimizer
The only reason that this has been driven up to the top of HN is because of
its title. If it had been titled "A Nicely Designed Government Site", it would
have gone nowhere.

As for the site, I can't see how the navigation would have me pulling out any
fewer hairs than any other government site, but it is very large, multicolored
and slidey, so if I were putting together an iPad commercial I might use it in
a couple of shots.

~~~
noselasd
I'm sure it all depends on what info you're after. But the site here have the
typical info that people are after regarding the gouvernment on the front
page. Most of the links there are related to the reasons we have government at
all.

That's not how most government sites are structured in my experience, though
I'm not from the UK.

------
ronaldx
What I typically go to a council website to do: find out the cost of council
tax in band D in 2013-14.

I am still clicking around... can anyone find it, I wonder?

~~~
smiler
Yup. Click on "Council Tax" on the homepage... then "Can't find it? Other
council tax services"... then "See your council tax band" (Rounded red button)

~~~
ronaldx
So you're 3 clicks deep (having searched around a bit, I guess) and you still
don't have a number...

~~~
jwarren
That's not too bad for an information-dense site. You've not had many page
loads.

Plus, you can find it very easily by putting "council tax band" into the
search box.

~~~
ronaldx
Maybe you think "very easily", but I searched around for 10 minutes unable to
find the numerical information required. I had concluded it didn't exist in
tabulated form, so thanks for confirming I was wrong - although I'm still not
sure if this is accessible via natural links.

Here's a particularly unhelpful FAQ, which says the data is "displayed on our
web pages"
[http://www.manchester.gov.uk/faqs/faq/19013/what_can_i_do_if...](http://www.manchester.gov.uk/faqs/faq/19013/what_can_i_do_if_my_property_has_not_yet_been_put_into_a_council_tax_band)

What I find bad about that - is that I know my way around a website, and I
couldn't find the required information. I found it with ease on other council
website suggested in the comments (Lambeth, Gateshead, Birmingham: all 2-3
links deep)

If we want people to look for information on the web rather than blocking
council call centres: this website is not the right way.

------
oceanician
I feel like it's a step improvement, and will help people use the site.

However, what I'd have really liked to see is machine readable minutes of the
council.

This is something that's a bit of a bug bear having ended up setting up a
project awhile back to try and bring-out the minutes etc of the council
meetings. We called it MCC Work For You: <https://code.google.com/p/mcc-work-
for-you/> Sadly within the confines of a hackday we couldn't get as much
progress as we'd have liked. However, as a proof of concept it was useful, and
did inspire @CountCulture to go forward with his site:
<http://openlylocal.com/>

I'd really like to see progress in this area, and the encouragement of
councils to make progress with making the minutes readable. Definitely helpful
for investigative journalists, as well exposing the good work of councillors.

I wonder if there's a plan somewhere for this? I couldn't find it on the
site.....

~~~
oceanician
Lots of pdfs with no alternatives here:
<http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/meetings_index.php>

------
sailfast
I am becoming more and more a fan of the Jeckyll trend for front-facing web
sites for government. I believe Hawaii.gov just rolled out their new site and
it looks fantastic.

The Manchester city page is certainly better than a number of government sites
I've seen in the past, (kudos) but might benefit from a bit better economy of
screen real estate.

------
_delirium
I personally don't like this. 1) I don't like this style even when web
startups do it... too much vertical scrolling, empty space, giant images, and
icons; and 2) it just looks weird for a serious site to look like a web
startup.

This is a modern government website design I like better: <http://www.kk.dk>

------
jonhmchan
I'm the front end technical lead for a major department in a top 10 U.S. State
(that's all I can say). As much as I love the way that certain public sector
entities are embracing modern design principles for their sites, there is a
balance to be struck.

Form always follows function when it comes to design, and when it comes to
government, function requires that the site is as accessible as possible.

Color selection, JavaScript use, and extended backwards compatibility with
older browsers are among the the many considerations one has to take into
account for the elderly, the impaired, and those who simply don't have access
to modern browsers. That being said, it's definitely possible to have stunning
design with these things taken into account, we just can't implement every
bell and whistle we're used to.

~~~
stedaniels
"that's all I can say".

Lame. Put your money where your mouth is. It wouldn't take much work to find
out just which State department has got Deloitte in.

------
DanBC
I love some of the new gov sites. Yes, there are some problems, but compared
to the god-awful mess we had before they're amazing.

It's important to have good machines for development. But I wonder how many
people have terrible machines for testing.

As for local government: Here's an example. Gloucestershire
(<http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/resident>) - imagine you want to report a
child at risk. The search gives you useful results, but also sends you to the
Safeguarding children website. (<http://www.gscb.org.uk/>)

The Gloucestershire site is good[1] and the GSCB site is terrible.

[1] for some values of good, including 'you should have seen it a few years
ago'.

------
jchn
Looks really nice, but at first I thought I needed to scroll down to see the
other services instead of clicking the button first. After clicking, it was
clear to me that this obviously is a button. But this wasn't my understanding
when I saw the page at first. Anybody else had the same issue?

When I go to a service, for example "Roads, parking & transport" and I go to
the bottom of the page there is a section called "Policies, statements &
resources". Now I need to click it in order to see the items, why not have it
in this state by default? I've checked some of the other pages and there never
really are a lot of links underneath there anyway, so this won't make the
pages a lot longer.

------
epo
This is just this week's trend, it'll look really dated by the end of the
year. And yes it does look like an off the shelf theme.

A government site has a job to do, primarily to provide information and
contact details, this is more suited to someone peddling organic food.

------
efields
The site tries too hard to be eye-catching, and like other commenters have
already stated, looks like the latest, trendiest WordPress theme.

Gov't sites should maybe be the opposite of this: as little art as possible
and squeaky clean navigation getting you to your desired municipal information
as possible so you can do what you came to do then get on with your day.

Anything else is _distracting_.

The designer and developers behind this are talented, of course, and to sell a
redesign often involves these sort of hero shots and contemporary flourishes.
But a bigger accomplishment would have been to pitch and win a design that is
minimally invasive and efficient.

------
telepoiss
I'm pretty happy with our government's website. The first few versions where a
complete data overload and looked liked they were made in MS Excel. Now its
pretty fresh and well structured in my opinion. link: www.eesti.ee

------
S_A_P
I totally love that there is a link that says "Report dumped Rubbish" on that
site! That is fantastic. I am not sure if the preteen girl was thinking about
adoption or the adoptee, but otherwise I think the site is great.

------
ch0wn
I think this takes mobile first a bit too far. On my desktop with a high
resolution this feels a bit odd. That said, it's really refreshing to see
government sites properly designed and UX and mobile friendly.

------
benrmatthews
Looking past the knee-jerk reaction to "this design looks expensive", would
love to see how the Manchester Council site performs from a service design
perspective. How do local residents use the site? Can they find what they need
quickly and easily, from both a desktop and a mobile?

I'm betting yes, and the cost saved (in terms of time, frustration and maybe
money) over a poorly designed yet inexpensive-looking site will be worthwhile.

Side note: Would love to see a blog post about the thought behind the design,
either from the design agency or the web manager at Manchester...

~~~
jerguismi
I'm not sure of that all. First of all, is the contect well indexed for search
engines? At first glance, doesn't look like it is.

When I need information related to goverment services, first thing where I
look are search engines.

------
RyanONeill1970
Looks like a template as <http://KashFlow.com> seems eerily similar. Better
that than a custom design though, I imagine it saved a fair bit of money.

~~~
dan1234
They look very similar but the markup is quite different (KashFlow is a
Wordpress blog, Manchester is "Jadu CMS") so I don't think they just used a
template unless they went back to the original PSDs.

FWIW, <http://www.jadu.net> are the agency who made the Manchester site.

------
_k
Government websites need to start with the user. What's the point of showing
all the information if it's not relevant ? What's the point of showing me
permits that only apply to residents, if they don't apply to a business owner
? What's the point of showing me tax information if I'm a tourist ? They
shouldn't make you look at all that. They should make it easy. 3 buttons to
start with : resident, tourist, business. Add 3 photo to make it attractive
and a few language choices.

------
Noughmad
On my screen size and browser chrome, the little girl's eyes are just above
the bottom of the browser window. With the rest of the picture out of focus,
it looks positively creepy.

------
appplemac
It's good to hear that governments start to pay attention to the UX. Their
webpages are just the first step to making the govt services better.

------
nness
Since this is a UK Government site, I think the Equality Act 2010 requires
WCAG 2.0 AA compliance. As difficult as WCAG is, and I've yet to see a fully-
passed implementation, the lack of no-JavaScript support probably means they
haven't met the accessibility mark. All that aside, I actually like the
design, seems they got their IA in order, with a good prioritisation of
content.

------
xlevus
What's with the last image in the carousel? It seems to take strong cues from
soviet propaganda.

The red flag, workers holding their tools, ready to fight. Did Manchester
become the Soviet Republic of Manchester?

[http://img0083.popscreencdn.com/101036667_amazoncom-
chinese-...](http://img0083.popscreencdn.com/101036667_amazoncom-chinese-
american-people-propaganda-poster-home.jpg)

~~~
DanBC
People in the UK are fine with such images. Soviet imagery (usually fake
cyrillic with reversed capital Rs) makes its way into advertisements and such
pretty often.

Most youth will only be vaguely aware of the origins of that style of imagery.

It is a bit weird, now that I think about it. It's a bit like Korean bars
being "Hitler themed".

It would have been a lot more weird if they were showcasing actual Manchester
City Council workers.

EDIT: Here's a great book about soviet political posters. I won an award at
school, and I chose this book. It was handed to me by, I think, Baroness
Warnock. I can't remember what she said, but it was kind and funny.

([http://www.amazon.com/The-Soviet-Political-
Poster-1917-1980/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Soviet-Political-
Poster-1917-1980/dp/0140081879))

------
adamwintle
Its pretty good for a government website, but the more I dig around the more I
find a lack of attention to detail. For example, switch the theme to creme and
many elements break:
[http://www.adamwintledesign.com/screenshots/Manchester_City_...](http://www.adamwintledesign.com/screenshots/Manchester_City_Council_Homepage-20130503-011017.jpg)

------
jimktrains2
This changing the title thing really needs to stop. This title is completely
useless to spur the discussion that the original one did.

------
twoodfin
I know the students who put it together probably thought it was cute, but the
"Join the Apprentice Revolution!" photo[1] strikes me as rather tasteless,
given the ideology and events that inspired it.

[1]
[http://www.manchester.gov.uk/images/75583_Apprenticeships_ba...](http://www.manchester.gov.uk/images/75583_Apprenticeships_banner_1000x550px.jpg)

------
htmcer
The swiss gov info portal is quite decent too <https://www.ch.ch/en/>

~~~
stblack
It's an interesting new take (new to me) on responsive design too.

------
capex
In Australia, as of now, the website of every council presents the same
information in a different way. What's required here is a consistent UI across
the entire .gov sites.

Government sites by default need to cater for every edge case in terms of
accessibility, and so functional takes precedence over pretty every time.

------
smcl
I'm sure everyone else is aware of how local government websites look in their
own parts of the world - but for a similar-sized UK city Edinburgh City
Council's website is a good (i.e. bad) example for comparison:
<http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk>

~~~
arethuza
I honestly don't mind the Edinburgh site - I'd rather they focus on content
and functionality rather than changing it every year to comply with the latest
design fad.

~~~
smcl
True but nobody's saying they should - it's just a good example of a cluttered
and disorganised website

------
jstrate
I'd prefer most government sites not designed at all, rather apis. And for
whatever sites actually needed user input, etc just a header and form tag will
suffice. I'm also in the minority which finds most modern web design
intrusive. I want to use the service, not look at your art project.

------
akakey
<https://www.gov.uk/> looks like a better example.

------
kevinpet
It's pretty, but go and try to solve the problem "I want to see what library
is open today so that I can take my kids there".

The best I could do involved clicking through to find a local library and then
an alphabetical list that forces you to click through on each letter.

------
padseeker
Try to keep things in perspective - for a government site it is truly
impressive. The usability should be the most important issue and in that
category I Manchester did a bang up job. I'm impressed - and no framework it
appears, the css is custom then?

------
ses
[http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/5615/ge...](http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/5615/get_a_council_tax_discount_or_exemption_or_claim_benefit)
404 - not so sure

------
adaml_623
I'm not sure the accessibility is 100% correct. I think you should be able to
use the tab key to get to the links but tabbing skips the top row of icons...
Which aren't technically hyperlinks I suppose..

~~~
adaml_623
And some of the images don't have alt text. I think that's important as well

~~~
dpcx
Not all images need alt text. See the documentation from the spec[1].

[1]: [http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/embedded-content-1.html#the-img-element)

------
matthuggins
I can't believe how many upvotes this difficult to navigate website has.

------
apidoc
Design is nice, but "baaaam" too much for what the page is and for who the
page is. Why i have to click to open the services? Better show them directly.

------
RossDoughty
I think the design of this site is very good, using modern styles and code,
however I do personally find it a little "In your face." as it were.

------
madoublet
Beautiful design, bad navigation. Not bad in the sense that it is difficult to
learn, but bad because I have to learn it (if that makes sense).

------
simonswords82
It would surely be better if all government websites adhered to a predefined
structure, layout and general look/feel standard.

~~~
desas
It's interesting to see many local government websites now have a section of
their website called "do it online" with sub-headings of "pay it online",
"report it online", "request it online". It all seems a bit weird to me but
there's obviously some communication channel.

------
jason_pr
I half expected to see a disclaimer, "We use biscuits on your computer or
mobile device to help make this website better."

------
cjfont
Another example of a well-designed gov't site:

<http://www.consumerfinance.gov/>

------
muratmutlu
This page is a bit of a mess <http://cl.ly/image/203V2O40372b>

------
eike
I'm just going to leave this right here: <http://shetland.gov.uk>

~~~
jabbernotty
It times out at the moment, we may have killed it?

------
PhilipA
Great design.

I don't know the rules in the UK, but shouldn't the site work without
JavaScript enabled (For the visually impaired)?

------
emehrkay
I like this site. The theming is broken though. When you choose creme, it
messes up some of the layout elements

------
merlish
It's quite pretty, but I worry it's a bit cutesy. Lego people next to a link
for reporting child abuse?

------
tudorconstantin
If there were more sites like this, I'd visit them by pure pleasure from time
to time

------
tobeportable
I believe the "/ home / ... " toolbar should be on every pages first page
included.

------
humbyvaldes
A great example is www.miamidade.gov It's simple and designed to get things
done.

------
benatkin
I couldn't dismiss the cookie message on Chrome for Android on my Galaxy
Nexus.

------
sanwar
The slowest site ever and it is in sync with how government works :-)

------
XarotheOne
Definitely, I really like the layout and use of modern styles.

------
balqan
I wonder if they did a proper usability test on this website?

------
ycom_g
not gonna nitpick because this is the first government site that actually
looks decent.

------
acido303
Love it!

------
ryanAmurphy
I'm going to regard all the negative comments on here as failed attempts of
understanding Britishness.

