After hearing about Customerforce.com through an associate of mine, I opted to give the site a brief, fifteen minute review in several categories - design, features, and general commercial viability. While the concept behind CustomerForce seems to have merit, the site’s current implementation leaves much room for improvement.
“you need to be memberâ€: Too critical? Perhaps. Relevant? Of course.
One of the hallmarks of a properly designed, commercial site is the visibly apparent presence of proper proofreading. If a specific section is rife with spelling and grammatical errors, it instantly makes the site less credible from a commercial, authoritative perspective. Not only does a hastily-composed paragraph seem unprofessional, another point that becomes
I felt unable to create an account, as the terms of service to which I was apparently agreeing seemed inaccessible. (I later was able to access the appropriate page through a link in the site footer.)
What to Click, When To Click: Elements of Poor Design
By far, the most visually offensive part of the Customerforce.com site is the design. The fonts used on all the pages are too small for the standard size; attempting to expand them using Web browser controls results in text overflow and poorly-proportioned text boxes. While CustomerForce seems to be positioning itself as a “Web 2.0†company, one of the hallmarks of Web 2.0 sites generally involves standards compliance and extensive, cross-platform testing. Running Safari on Mac OS X, the default view of CustomerForce extends login information boxes and border corners beyond their given frames.
Another key issue involves the “favorite†boxes on the side of the site. Depending on the particular page you might be viewing, these links change drastically. Several of these modules display duplicate items. Other boxes contain content that appears to be present for sponsorship purposes, defeating the entire concept of the links being related to user votes.
The final most pressing design issue involves navigating through the most popular content. The particular item selected appears in the right frame, with a simple link to the external source (such as YouTube.) Initially, I wasn’t able to figure out where the content actually was located, which again, does not bode well for the site’s target audience.
Customer Interactivity: Failing Grade
The situation with CustomerForce becomes even more puzzling considering that the CEO’s blog - which hasn’t been updated since the site launched - reads like a cross between a complete PR site and a plea for public attention. Phrases like “Right then I knew I had seen the futureâ€, in reference to viewing a few popular TV shows and a smattering of preferred musicians - on a default search page - don’t exactly instill a sense of confidence. Future plans for a web browser toolbar give another clue as to how the company might achieve profitability. Furthermore, nearly all the entries contain reference to “future plansâ€, which, two to three months later, have yet to make an appearance. Fewer of these weasel words would go much further in convincing critical users.
In conclusion, the concept of aggregating content from pre-existing social networking sites makes sense - but the CustomerForce implementation of this concept is severely lacking, at best.
Review by Jake Billo, ev98.net