State Economic Development Web Sites Dana Calcaterra October 2002 Results of Web Sites Comparison FY 2002

State Web Sites Reviewed Alabamahttp:// Alaskahttp:// Arizonahttp:// Arkansashttp:// Californiahttp://wwwedd.cahwnet.gov/ Coloradohttp:// Connecticuthttp:// Delawarehttp:// Floridahttp:// Georgiahttp:// Hawaiihttp:// Idahohttp:// Illinoishttp:// Indianahttp:// Iowahttp:// Kansashttp:// Kentuckyhttp:// Louisianahttp:// Mainehttp:// Marylandhttp:// Massachusettshttp:// Michiganhttp://medc.michigan.orghttp://medc.michigan.org Minnesotahttp:// Mississippihttp:// Missourihttp:// Montanahttp://commerce.state.mt.us/ Nebraskahttp:// Nevadahttp:// New Hampshirehttp:// New Jerseyhttp:// New Mexicohttp://

State Web Sites Reviewed (continued) New Yorkhttp:// OR North Carolinahttp:// North Dakotahttp:// Ohiohttp:// /EconomicDevelopment.htmhttp:// /EconomicDevelopment.htm Oklahomahttp:// Oregonhttp:// Pennsylvaniahttp:// Rhode Islandhttp:// South Carolinahttp:// South Dakotahttp:// Tennesseehttp:// Texashttp:// Utahhttp://dced.utah.gov/DBED/welcome.htmhttp://dced.utah.gov/DBED/welcome.htm Vermonthttp:// Virginiahttp:// Washingtonhttp:// West Virginiahttp:// Wisconsinhttp:// Wyominghttp://

2002 Result Highlights Top 5 Rated Web Sites Overall Mississippi Alabama North Carolina Kentucky Maryland Results were determined based on overall performance using the criteria listed in this report.

Web Site Review Criteria Navigation Design Property Search Engine Site Information Building Information Community Information The criteria below was reviewed with equal importance and given a grade of one of the following: E = Excellent G = Good A = Average P = Poor and/or Y = Yes N = No

The following pages provide a graphical representation of the State Web Sites Review findings Excellent Good Average Poor Navigation rating was determined by the ease of locating information including the “3-click” rule. Design was rated upon the appeal of the web site “look and feel”.

Below is a graphical representation of the reviewed State Web Sites Yes No Excellent Good Average Poor Findings were determined by whether a site had a property search engine as well as how useful the search engine/s were. Decisions were made based upon the listed search criteria; if visitor information was required prior to searching, if an image map was used, if both Sites and Buildings had searching capability, and in what form the results were provided. Of the Web Sites with Property Search Engines, 27% used some type of image map to aid in searching capabilities.

Below is a graphical representation of the reviewed State Web Sites Yes No 46% 54% Yes No Web Sites Providing Building Information Findings were determined by how useful the Site and/or Building Information was; if detailed information was given along with contact information as well as maps or images. Also critiqued was whether the information given was printable and looked pleasing to the eye. Of those who provided Site Information the ratings are as follows: Excellent = 12% Good = 30% Average = 31% Poor = 27% Of those who provided Building Information the ratings are as follows: Excellent = 13% Good = 33% Average = 29% Poor = 25% 43% 57% Web Sites Providing Site Information

The following pages provide a graphical representation of the State Web Sites Review findings Web Site Providing Community Information No Yes Of those who provided Community Information the ratings are as follows: Excellent = 51% Good = 19% Average = 6% Poor = 24% The following were also taken into consideration when rating the state Economic Development web sites: Building/Site Submission Ability Multi-Language Site “Printer Friendly” web pages Screen scrolling

Summary According to a recent study given by Development Counselors International (DCI), more and more executives indicate a strong likelihood that they would use an economic development organization’s web site in their next site location search. When asked what features of Economic Development Web Sites were the most valuable, the top three responses were as follows: Information on Incentives Demographic Information Directory of available sites & buildings It is important to design a web site with informative content, effective structure and navigation (3-Click rule), visual design which is aesthetically pleasing, functionality and interactivity which will give the user a good overall experience and give you repeat visits. Mark James, CED of ED Solutions, Inc. includes this criteria in the four critical elements he looks for in an economic development web site which include: design, functionality, performance, and marketing. Our goal for EDIS (Economic Development Information System) is this. We strive to have the most current and up-to-date information for our prospective clients to navigate with ease. We not only make this information available for our clients but to also assist our community development organizations to utilize on their individual web sites.

Web Site Examples Positive Aspects Negative Aspects

Feature 2002 Information on available incentives 78% Demographic information 75% Directory of available buildings & sites61% Current comparisons to competitor locations 45% List of leading local employers 44% Information on the community’s target industries30% Information on quality of life 28% Information on local schools 25% Photos/maps of the community 21% News sections that describes current developments17% Testimonials from local companies 16% Website sitemap 9% These questions were not asked in previous surveys, therefore comparative data is not available. MOST USEFUL FEATURES OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION’S WEBSITE (% of respondents who selected each feature) (2002 Survey)

Schmeiser, David A. (1988). The Native Offender and the Law. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada. Turk, A.T. (1996) "Law, Conflict and Order: From Theorizing Toward Theories". Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 23(3) Citing Internet Sources: Development Counselors International (DCI), ”A View from Corporate America: Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game 2002, Mark J. James, CED Ed Solutions, Inc. References The criteria set for this report was obtained from the listed references above.