This paper will look at a comparison of websites, by evaluating, critiquing them, drawing comparisons between the two websites as well as contrasting them. The two websites are for Mayo Clinic (Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 1998 - 2016) and for Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland Clinic, 1995 -2016).
When one opens the Mayo Clinic website, the first message to come across is “Mayo Clinic Ranked #1” (Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 1998 - 2016). This implies that the site of the clinic makes use of institutional promotion, according to Lindeen (2016). On the other hand, when the Cleveland Clinic website opens, the first message to come across is “A Top 5 Hospital” (Cleveland Clinic, 1995 -2016), which also implies that the website employs the use of institutional promotion too, according to Pipes (2011). However, the Mayo Clinic website seems to be more marketing oriented than the Cleveland Clinic website. On the homepage of Mayo Clinic website there is a division of options for services a person visiting the site can get access to, with small illustrations to the subtopics provided. The website of Cleveland Clinic, on the other hand, only gives subtopics without illustrating to the person visiting the website what he/she entails inside.
The two websites seem to cover a wide range of target markets, according to Hume (2013). First, both websites have enough information to give to the patients who want to visit the hospital or talk to the physicians. There are contacts given for reaching physicians in various fields directly, from both websites. The next market that seems to be targeted, by both websites, is medical students and their tutors according to Tselentis (2012), since both websites offer information about various diseases, their symptoms and the way to treat them. However, the two websites have a diference in the way they avail the information to medical students and tutors. The Cleveland Clinic website has a search box where people can search information about various diseases directly. As for the Mayo Clinic website, there is a subheading directing people who want to learn medical information, but only provides limited information, and gives recommendations about where to enroll for studies.
The other market targeted by Mayo Clinic are researchers, as it offers information on the research that has already been performed, for instance, the information on kidney transplant. Both websites seem to be selling their services and expertise well, according to Howe (2014). Mayo Clinic claims of having over 3,300 physicians, researchers as well as scientists. The website provides 3,300 specialists being responsible for sharing their own expertise with public and empowering them. The website boosts of Mayo Clinic being the most appropriate place for people who are seeking for healthcare. As for the Cleveland Clinic website, it describes the clinic as the power for every person in society. On the Cleveland Clinic website, the privacy statement is easy to find as they require patients and physicians to login to get services. However, the Mayo Clinic website privacy statement is not traceable at the first look.
Considering the two websites, there is a difference in their audiences. Mayo Clinic mostly considers national audience, while Cleveland Clinic creates room for access by international audiences. Cleveland Clinic has no clearly defined mission on the home page of their website. The Mayo Clinic home page touches lightly on their humanitarian mission. However, the vision of clinics is not clear stated on both websites. As for the values of the clinics, information is hidden in the subtopics. The websites have a similarity in the way they were created. GoМ€bel, Dewald, Freiling, & In MoМ€nch (2011), note that the use of subtopics tto guide people on how to get what they are looking for makes it easy for users. However, some of the subtopics take time to open. This situation is more prevalent on the Cleveland Clinic website, than the Mayo Clinic website. For instance, the diagnostics and testing subtopic on the kidney transplant take time to open .
The Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic websites are, however, commendable in their consistency. Moving from the homepage to a subtopic is a smooth transition. According to Frain (2012), smooth transition offers an option of going back to the previously viewed information page. It was so clear that both websites are so informative and education reflective. The two websites are recommendable for patients, medical students and tutors, researchers, as well as curious searchers. In comparison to the two websites is a website by Northwell Health (Northwell Health, 2016). The website has a problem opening directly its homepage, and hence offers options for redirects. This implies that the website is more focused on patients, than other groups of users such as researchers.
Since even the homepage barely opens correctly, the privacy statement is hard to find on the website. It is however evident that the website mainly aims at addressing the national audience as opposed to international. Duckett (2011), notes that with a faulty homepage it is hard to locate the vision or mission of Northwell Health. Its values are also hard to analyze. The design of the website is poor. It is very hard to find the exact information one requires. For instance, the information on kidney transplant is not easily accessible. Moreover, there is no consistency on the website according to Tabor (2015), if moving from one page of information to another there is no option for going back to the previous page. The website is poorly created, and hence would not benefit much to people visiting the website. The website should be recreated or improved.