Side note: whenever I
write, “Part Two,” I hear it in Mr. Plinkett’s voice. I assume all of my readers are Red Letter
Media fans and will grasp the reference immediately.
Back to the website review…
The home page is visually interesting…with some prominent
endorsements alongside a large photograph of the candidate. The text (including a “Donate” button!) blends
in with the background somewhat and the font could be a bit larger to enhance
readability, but I am focusing on small stuff. You aren’t here for my aesthetic
ruminations.
The Priorities page centers on three key issues: fiscal
management, equity/inclusion/diversity, and school climate &
engagement. Her issue mix is not
dissimilar from those of other BoE candidates.
In terms of presenting a detailed and forward-looking agenda, she excels in the
fiscal management section. The equity
section is more focused on problem identification and raising questions as
opposed to discussing concrete solutions.
The school climate and engagement section is more akin to the fiscal
management discussion insofar as it is more solutions-centric, although without
quite as much granularity compared to the ideas found in the fiscal section.
Her “In the News” section features endorsements. This might be a good place for her campaign
to put candidate questionnaires…or thought pieces penned by the candidate
herself. Alas, it is not presently
utilized in that manner.
She does provide “news you can use” on the home page
regarding upcoming forums. That is
handy.
As I have stated before, it is unlikely she will finish
outside of the top four in the General Election, although strange developments
happen. Her campaign raised $3,408 in
the last period and has $532 Cash-On-Hand at present. Is her website effective as a repository of
information/voter engagement vehicle?
It’s OK…perhaps a B or B-.
Chao Wu https://chaowu.org/
Dr. Wu is…an interesting candidate. I am not condemning with faint praise
here. I simply find his candidacy, along
with his website, offering up an odd mix of high points and head-scratchers.
Back to first principles…let’s explore the effectiveness of his campaign
website as a communications platform.
It is well-organized, with useful information for voters
(Maps! Questionnaire responses!). He
makes decent use of audio-visuals (such as the video showing his campaign
kick-off). His “Top Posts” section
offers voters a quick means of locating information on hot topics such as
overcrowding and zoning. These are all
positives.
But then there are the sloppy typos (“campgain” trail,
nonpartisan “racet” are two that leapt out). He is seeking a seat on the Board
of Education and so proper attention to detail regarding spelling and grammar
is, well, important. His “Published
Articles” include many that are more CA-driven, which may be of less interest
to those who are specifically seeking information on education issues.
His Campaign Platform doesn’t spell out as many concrete
solutions as it could/should…it reads more like a Campaign Philosophy and it
can approach platitudinous levels in certain spots.
In short, at present, the concept is better than the
execution. With some additional meat and
some proof-reading, the website would be a more compelling communications
tool. Given his solid showing in the
primary and his fundraising numbers ($700 in the last reporting period; $2,587
CoH), Wu’s candidacy should be taken seriously.
I think he will end up being a contender for the 4th spot.
Ok, I know I wasn’t going to talk aesthetics but wow, his
campaign is using the entire color palette from a mid-‘90s Geocities
website. It’s a little busy. My eyes are tired.
Moving past the visual onslaught, the Platform (focusing on
four themes and three priorities) is spelled out in some detail. He seems to be putting more of an emphasis on
mental health compared to some (but not all) of the other candidates. While I found the Platform to be a little
thin in terms of offering up well-fleshed out solutions, the inclusion of his
questionnaire responses helped in terms of conveying a larger vision. I would have liked to have seen more of a
focus on operational/programmatic ideas/prescriptions…particularly as it
relates to challenges such as promoting equity and alleviating overcrowding. His answers to those questions feel
thoughtful, yet not as complete as they could be.
I think the mix of communications (with “Meet Danny” and
“Get Involved” and “Donate” being candidate-centered…and only the “Platform”
section being voter-centered) is a bit too inward-looking. I am not saying he needs to wonk out like
Miller, but the weight should be on how to resolve education challenges. At present, it’s a little heavy on bio and
endorsement/campaign news.
He raised $530 in the last reporting period and is showing
$1,654 CoH. He finished 8th
in the primary election. I have a hard
time seeing him finishing higher than 7th in the General.
As my readers may recall, Dr. Pandey received my 4th
vote in the primary. For Reasons.
It looks like her campaign did a website re-design, and I
can’t say it was a smashing success. The
“Goals” are very topline. I don’t think
her campaign is highlighting her subject matter expertise as effectively as it
could be. There is a “Meet Anita” tab at
the bottom of the website that takes you to her biography, some publications,
and awards but I seem to recall there being a more impressive (albeit long)
list of credentials and accomplishments on a previous iteration of her campaign
site.
I am not sure I would have the endorsements scrolling on the
bottom of the page as they do…while it provides a sense of motion, they move
perhaps a bit too quickly (which diminishes readability and hence the value
derived from showcasing endorsements).
She is a scholar but, being candid, this site looks
cheesy. It doesn’t radiate gravitas. It
appears to be something that was piecemealed together. There are some interesting ideas in her brief
Goals section, but the presentation doesn’t draw the reader in. Her solutions are not being highlighted
properly. And she lacks a central
animating principle that defines her education vision (note: a tagline is not a
core narrative).
Her inclusion of a video and podcast is good, but
unfortunately, there isn’t much else I can say about this website as a voter
engagement vehicle. In terms of
fundraising, she raised almost $97 in the last reporting period and has a CoH
sum of $78.65. I expect Pandey and
Mackey will battle it out for 7th place.
In solidarity.