furl vs html

Let the fight begin

furl pros

1. attractive GUI
2. easy to add new links
   
3. bookmark management system that can be accessed on any computer that has web access
4. user rating showing the likely interest in the story
5. can group the posts by the tags in an organised list
6. can view or contribute to discussion entries
   

furl cons

1. anyone that's a member of the group can add links to the list—the sites maybe interesting but not relevant to the subject matter.
   

When assessing the html version I have had to assume that the site has no user interaction and therefore is just a linked page generated by the web site manager.

html pros

1. quick download therefore better if your on a mobile device
2. easy to navigate
3. information appears to be relevant to the unit—the web manager has used some sort of criteria to assess if the information is relevant and should be on the list
4. lists web address under main post so you have some warning to where your heading
   

html cons

1. no user rating
2. design outdated and looks unprofessional—could question the validity of the whole site
3. link tend to meld into one another—should have a short description as to the post
4. no user interaction

The outcome
The social bookmarking site furl wins this round, but there is still a use for the html version. I think the question was, from the outset, bias towards the furl site—the comparison might not have been so much in favor of furl if some effort was put into the html code.

Anyway, I sent too much time on this and I'm not sure if I've hit the nail on the head, so it's time to move on.

Next step Module 4