<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>siteIQ, Inc &#187; siteIQ Website Best Practices Research Group</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.siteiq.net/tag/brocade-com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.siteiq.net</link>
	<description>Website Best Practices</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:41:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>2011 Online Support Rankings &#124; Why the biggest aren&#8217;t always the best</title>
		<link>http://www.siteiq.net/4034/2011-online-support-rankings-why-the-biggest-arent-always-the-best</link>
		<comments>http://www.siteiq.net/4034/2011-online-support-rankings-why-the-biggest-arent-always-the-best#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Marty Gruhn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[POV (point of view)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brocade.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ca.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cdw.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cisco.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dell.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emc.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hp.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ibm software group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ibm.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intuit.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[juniper.net]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newegg.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oracle.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sap.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sas.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symantec.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website rankings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.siteiq.net/?p=4034</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So much for conventional wisdom. For the most part, I’d rather have a root canal than use most support Websites. Search for information and you end up with a list of a bazillion documents with truncated descriptions that read like Sanskrit. Want to take a different path? Try ferreting your product out of a laundry [...]<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/4034/2011-online-support-rankings-why-the-biggest-arent-always-the-best' addthis:title='2011 Online Support Rankings &#124; Why the biggest aren&#8217;t always the best ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://www.siteiq.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/shooting-the-computer.png" rel="lightbox[4034]"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4037" title="shooting the computer" src="http://www.siteiq.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/shooting-the-computer-183x300.png" alt="" width="183" height="300" /></a></strong></p>
<h2>So much for conventional wisdom.</h2>
<p>For the most part, I’d rather have a root canal than use most support Websites.</p>
<p>Search for information and you end up with a list of a bazillion documents with truncated descriptions that read like Sanskrit.</p>
<p>Want to take a different path? Try ferreting your product out of a laundry list of every product the company ever made.</p>
<p>Or try the “follow our logical links” scenario—where you end up drilling to China.</p>
<p>At the end of all of this wonderfulness is the real insult. Support content that either requires an engineering degree to understand—or a wad of general purpose instructions that dance around the problem and miss the issue by a country mile.<span id="more-4034"></span></p>
<p>Finally, don’t get me started about most site’s support program content. (You know, the stuff that explains why you have to pay to play.)  First, you can’t find it. When you do, it’s packed with so many superlatives you need a dictionary to figure it out.</p>
<p>Honestly, you’d think support teams would get it after doodling on the Web for 16 years.</p>
<p><strong>Drum Roll, Please</strong></p>
<p>Given my opinion of support on the Web, I was surprised how much the 2011 support evaluations reflected my opinions of these support sites. Most of the sites we evaluated deliver half of the content, features &amp; capabilities deployed on best-in-class support sites. With the exception of four sites—Cisco.com, Symantec.com, IBM.com and the IBM Software Group site—every site’s usability misses the Good Practice mark.</p>
<p>I’d probably throw a bone to Dell.com, EMC.com, and Microsoft.com for coming close—but the rest are simply not up to snuff.</p>
<p>I’ve just finished putting the finishing touches on our new <a href="http://www.siteiq.net/2011-online-support">2011 online support rankings and ratings report</a> which published today. Here’s some of the more interesting things in this new report.</p>
<p><strong>IBM, Dell and HP have all the goodies </strong></p>
<p>IBM.com’s, Dell.com’s and HP.com’s monster-size support sites handed them the top rankings this year. If you want to create a world-class support size packed with every bell and whistle, you don’t have to look much further than here. Among the players, Dell.com is the biggest, but IBM.com puts its goodies together to better effect (its usability ranks third; Dell.com ranks fifth).</p>
<p>This brings me to the real tail that wags the dog.</p>
<p><strong>Cisco.com proves an important point </strong></p>
<p>When usability is the issue, we’ve always said that small can be mighty—and Cisco.com proves the point. Cisco.com’s support site took first place usability honors—which is a testament to all of the hard work we’ve seen on the site this year. If you are a siteIntelligence Case Studies Library subscriber, you can see Cisco.com’s best-in-class innovations here: <a href="https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blog/1088332/view/bytag/cisco">https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blog/1088332/view/bytag/cisco</a> (Category: support, Tag: cisco). (Have your <a href="http://www.siteiq.net/client-login">login</a> info handy).</p>
<p>From a usability perspective, Cisco.com has the most complete roster of support information that is easy to find. To see why, take Cisco.com’s site search engine for a spin and pay attention to post search filtering capabilities. Then check out the support zone&#8217;s fly-out navigational panel. If you want to learn why these matter, check out Cisco.com&#8217;s best practice case studies here: <a href="https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blog/1088332/view/bytag/cisco">https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blog/1088332/view/bytag/cisco</a>. (You guessed it: subscription &amp; <a href="http://www.siteiq.net/client-login">login </a>required.)</p>
<div id="attachment_4161" class='wp-caption aligncenter' style='width:290px;'><a href="http://www.siteiq.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2011-support-rankings-locate-support-info.png" rel="lightbox[4034]"><img class="size-medium wp-image-4161" title="2011 support rankings locate support info" src="http://www.siteiq.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2011-support-rankings-locate-support-info-290x300.png" alt="" width="290" height="300" /></a><p class='wp-caption-text'>Finding support content on most sites is a &quot;Where&#39;s Waldo?&quot; moment. Only 5 sites hit the mark.</p></div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Not so fast. The winners should cancel their victory lap. </strong></p>
<p>So where are the pleasant surprises? Put Brocade.com, EMC.com, and Symantec.com on that list.</p>
<ul>
<li>Brocade.com has the most complete &amp; thorough support <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">program</span></em> information (a <strong><em>Best</em></strong> Practice) -– and does the best job of encouraging visitors to take the next step.</li>
<li>EMC.com’s support program information is easier to find—and does the best job of providing program contact information.</li>
<li>Symantec.com delivers the best support click streams, which generated the highest Good Practice rating for all of its hard work.</li>
</ul>
<p>And what about the rest of the pack? You know, those other 13 support Websites on the evaluation list?  Let’s just say there was another interesting surprise.</p>
<p><strong>Earth to enterprise: what are you thinking? </strong></p>
<p>With the exception of IBM Software Group, enterprise software sites need to up their usability game. From my perspective, their rankings are downright embarrassing.</p>
<p>CA.com ranks 11<sup>th</sup>, Oracle.com ranks 12<sup>th</sup> and SAP.com brings up the back of the pack in 15<sup>th</sup> place. The only support sites that are worse than these triplets are reseller sites (CDW.com, Insight.com and Newegg.com) –and they don’t provide much, if any, support on their sites. Yikes!</p>
<p>So how does IBM Software Group stay out of this industry ditch? IBM.com’s highly integrated support portal is the wind beneath its wings. To see why this portal delivers a bit of online support nirvana, check out our case study in the Library: <a href="https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blogentry/5334686/">https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blogentry/5334686/</a>. (Yep, you&#8217;ll need that pesky <a href="http://www.siteiq.net/client-login">login</a> information).</p>
<p><strong>Dell.com support is really a tale of two cities. </strong></p>
<p>Finally, no analysis is complete without taking a look at the conventional wisdom corner; in this case the prevailing belief that Dell.com operates the biggest and best online support site. This may (or may not) be true behind the Dell Premier firewall—but it’s a mixed bag if you are on the public side of the equation.</p>
<p>When the numbers are rolled up, Dell.com’s support zone’s content, features &amp; capabilities rank #1, but its usability slips into fifth place&#8211;right behind the IBM Software Group site. As important, it only ranks first in one out of ten usability categories (a Good Practice for support zone logic). Other than that, Dell.com persistently ranks in second and third place.</p>
<p><strong>The bottom line</strong></p>
<p>So there you have it. The roster of winners based on 138 things support sites should provide–plus ten ways they should help users achieve their objectives. For the top five, I send hardy congratulations. For the rest of the pack, roll up your sleeves. There’s lots of work ahead.</p>
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/4034/2011-online-support-rankings-why-the-biggest-arent-always-the-best' addthis:title='2011 Online Support Rankings | Why the biggest aren&#8217;t always the best ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.siteiq.net/4034/2011-online-support-rankings-why-the-biggest-arent-always-the-best/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Website Rankings: Hits, misses &amp; a little bit more</title>
		<link>http://www.siteiq.net/2657/website-rankings-hits-misses-a-little-bit-more</link>
		<comments>http://www.siteiq.net/2657/website-rankings-hits-misses-a-little-bit-more#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Marty Gruhn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Website Rankings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brocade.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dell.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deloitte.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hp.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ibm.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[juniper.net]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newegg.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nortel.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oracle.com ca.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sap.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symantec.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://siteiq.net/?p=2657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are plenty of hits and misses on the siteIQ eBusiness Index. Cisco.com, Symantec.com and Intel.com are hits. SAS.com and Deloitte.com are huge misses.<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/2657/website-rankings-hits-misses-a-little-bit-more' addthis:title='Website Rankings: Hits, misses &#38; a little bit more ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2><a href="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/man-with-screens-r-gutter.jpg" rel="lightbox[2657]"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2716" style="border: 0pt none;" title="man with screens" src="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/man-with-screens-r-gutter-203x300.jpg" alt="" width="217" height="321" /></a>There are plenty of hits and misses on this year&#8217;s roster. My favorites are . . .</h2>
<p>In my last post, I shared some info about the top five Websites on the siteIQ eBusiness Index. Here’s my interesting surprises and “oops” list:</p>
<p><strong>Symantec.com’s usability ranks second</strong>, and the site misses a “Good Practice” rating by a hair.</p>
<p>Juniper.net and Oracle.com complete the usability top five. Of the two,<strong> Juniper.net is most likely to move up a slot and knock CA.com off its perch</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>Intel.com aced the online recruiting category</strong> and is the only four star (the best) in this category. (OK, so most recruiting zones are a big snooze – but we have to give Intel.com chops for its four star performance).</p>
<p><strong>Services marketing continues to be Nortel.com’s claim to fame</strong>; HP.com and IBM.com are still second tier contenders.</p>
<p>Juniper.net hits the high note in the communities category – but Cisco.com and Intel.com also operate four star (the best) communities. (This is another way of saying that <strong>the new guys are zipping past community pioneers</strong>).</p>
<p><strong>If call to action is your bag, look no further than Cisco.com</strong>. It is the only call to action “Best Practice” site on the eBusiness Index.</p>
<p><strong>Newegg.com’s e-commerce capabilities puts it with the big boys</strong>: Dell.com &amp; HP.com. Newegg ranks third with four stars (the best) and a “Good Practice” nod.</p>
<p>A couple of new entrants on the 2010 eBusiness Index roster did better than expected.</p>
<ul>
<li>Brocade.com and EMC.com rank 7<sup>th</sup> and 8<sup>th</sup> on the usability chart – and finish in the middle of the pack when all of the scores are tallied up (EMC.com ranks 12<sup>th</sup>; Brocade ranks 14<sup>th</sup>).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Among the sites that debuted on the Index in 2010, <strong>Deloitte.com and SAS.com turned out to be boat anchors</strong>. Deloitte finished dead last – and SAS.com debuted in 17<sup>th</sup> place (out of 23 Websites).</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Related research:</strong> The <a href="http://siteiq.net/siteiq-ebusiness-index/2010-ebusiness-index-rankings">eBusiness Index Report</a>.  If you are a siteIQ client or subscriber, click <a href="https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blogentry/9499468/">here</a>.</p>
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/2657/website-rankings-hits-misses-a-little-bit-more' addthis:title='Website Rankings: Hits, misses &amp; a little bit more ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.siteiq.net/2657/website-rankings-hits-misses-a-little-bit-more/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mega and Fat Become the Fashions of the Day</title>
		<link>http://www.siteiq.net/558/mega-and-fat-become-the-fashions-of-the-day</link>
		<comments>http://www.siteiq.net/558/mega-and-fat-become-the-fashions-of-the-day#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Marty Gruhn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brocade.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dell.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emc.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fat footer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hp.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insight.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[juniper.net]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mega-menu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newegg.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[novell.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://siteiq.net/wordpress/?p=558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s interesting how something starts to hit a tipping point on the IT Web. Mega-menus are one of these designs – and fat footers aren’t far behind them.<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/558/mega-and-fat-become-the-fashions-of-the-day' addthis:title='Mega and Fat Become the Fashions of the Day ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_1961" class='wp-caption alignleft' style='width:300px;'><a rel="lightbox [mega1]" href="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/4.10-juniper.net-home-page.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-1961" title="Juniper.net Mega Menus" src="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/4.10-juniper.net-home-page-300x209.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="209" /></a><p class='wp-caption-text'>Click on this graph to see a lightbox of all best practices in this post</p></div>
<h2>Five Websites are setting the pace</h2>
<p>It’s interesting how something starts to hit a tipping point on the IT Web. Mega-menus are one of these designs – and fat footers aren’t far behind them.</p>
<p>In the mega-menu race, there are two main strategies in play, and some good and best practices worth considering.</p>
<p>On the strategy side, we have two basic approaches in evidence these days: mega-menus targeted at straight navigation – and those that add product marketing, corporate marketing and call to action dimensions.  In every case, there are great examples of both approaches on the IT Web.  Here&#8217;s some places to start:<span id="more-558"></span></p>
<ul>
<li><a rel="lightbox [mega1]" href="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1.10-novellmegamenus4.jpg"><img class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-1968" title="Novell.com mega menu" src="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1.10-novellmegamenus4-150x150.jpg" alt="Novell.com mega menu" width="150" height="150" /></a>Novell.com delivers a great basic mega-menu and is a &#8220;must see&#8221; for teams considering this approach;</li>
<li>EMC.com, Brocade.com, and Novell.com are upping the mega-menu ante with great call to action behaviors &#8212; and Brocade.com gets extra credit for some very savvy registration behaviors.</li>
<li>Juniper.net has ushered in the era of mega-menus as a marketing medium. Look for more of this behavior from other leading sites in 2010.</li>
<li>Don&#8217;t bother to follow Microsoft.com. Among the sites we reviewed, it is the least interesting or innovative.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Dell.com currently has the best designed and most effective fat footer in the industry. Although there are 3 other major sites that use this technique, the one to watch is Dell.com.</li>
</ul>
<p><a rel="lightbox [mega1]" href="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1.10Brocademegamenuproduct.jpg"><img class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-1969" title="Brocade.com mega menu products" src="http://74.220.207.194/~siteiqne/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1.10Brocademegamenuproduct-150x150.jpg" alt="Brocade.com mega menu product" width="150" height="150" /></a>I&#8217;ve just posted a new executive brief with more analysis about how Dell.com, Novell.com, Brocade.com, Juniper.net, HP.com, Insight.com, NewEgg.com, and EMC.com are setting the pace in these two new advanced navigation categories, plus plenty of screen shots of best practice examples.</p>
<p>Since nothing is ever as easy as it looks, I&#8217;ve shared 11 rules Web teams should consider before designing and executing these advanced navigation techniques. This brief is available to siteIQ clients in the siteIntelligence Research Center. siteIQ clients can access this review <a href="http://siteiq.net/client-login">here</a>.</p>
<p>So what do you think of mega-menus and fat footers? Sound off in the comments area below.</p>
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/558/mega-and-fat-become-the-fashions-of-the-day' addthis:title='Mega and Fat Become the Fashions of the Day ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.siteiq.net/558/mega-and-fat-become-the-fashions-of-the-day/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why IBM Software, SAS, EMC, Intel, Brocade &amp; Deloitte made the cut</title>
		<link>http://www.siteiq.net/553/2010-ebusiness-index-ibm-sas-emc-intel-brocade-deloitte-made-our-list</link>
		<comments>http://www.siteiq.net/553/2010-ebusiness-index-ibm-sas-emc-intel-brocade-deloitte-made-our-list#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:36:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Marty Gruhn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eSelling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[POV (point of view)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accenture.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adobe.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brocade.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deloitte.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[developer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebusiness index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ecommerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eds.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emc.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[good practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hp.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ibm global services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ibm software group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sas.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sun.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website rankings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://siteiq.net/wordpress/?p=551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We've mixed up the siteIQ eBusiness Index for 2010. In some cases the decision was based on eliminating Websites that haven't improved over the past year and don't provide any good or best practices worth tracking.<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/553/2010-ebusiness-index-ibm-sas-emc-intel-brocade-deloitte-made-our-list' addthis:title='Why IBM Software, SAS, EMC, Intel, Brocade &#38; Deloitte made the cut ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This week we started our Q1 evaluations of 23 Websites, plus additional sites selected by our clients for comparison.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve mixed up the siteIQ eBusiness Index for 2010. In some cases the decision was based on eliminating Websites that haven&#8217;t improved over the past year and don&#8217;t provide any good or best practices worth tracking. In other cases, sites have fallen off our list because they don&#8217;t exist anymore. That would be EDS.com which was integrated into HP.com &#8212; and Sun.com which went off the airwaves last week.</p>
<p>In both cases, these sites are a loss to anyone who cares about good and great practices. Don’t bother to follow them to their new homes. Their presence inside of their new parent&#8217;s sites is nothing to write home about.</p>
<p>Here’s some more about the new sites added to our roster – and why we’re singing &#8220;auld lang syne&#8221; to others. (If you are a siteIQ client you can read more about <a href="http://siteiq.net/client-login">what we expect from these and other leading sites in 2010</a> in our new executive brief in the siteIntelligence Research Center).<span id="more-553"></span></p>
<p><strong>IBM Software Group (zone): </strong>We&#8217;ve been evaluating and tracking IBM.com&#8217;s software zone for years as part of our custom client programs. This year it&#8217;s time for this zone to move onto the eBusiness roster. It should be interesting to see how this aging and oft cluttered design fares against competitors who are adopting new, highly efficient designs and Web 2.0 features that play directly to the B2B buying process. Don&#8217;t even get me started about communities &#8212; which are a blooming mess (tag: enterprise software)</p>
<p><strong>SAS:</strong> We decided to replace Microsoft’s Dynamics zone with SAS.com this year for a simple reason. We’ve been tracking Microsoft’s enterprise software zone for years under the assumption that it would eventually figure out how to sell to large enterprises and step up to equal footing with the big boys. That never happened. This zone has been a step-child on this site from the get-go and it’s essentially invisible today. This year we decided to take off our miner’s helmets and replace this zone with SAS.com.</p>
<p>The case for SAS.com comes more from its industry presence than its Website footprint. It’s a perfectly mediocre site that seems to have missed the memos on Web 2.0 and social media marketing behaviors. If nothing else, it should be interesting to see how it stacks up against the other big boys in the enterprise software industry. If you are looking for a new leader though, I wouldn’t hold my breath. (tag: enterprise software)</p>
<p><strong>EMC.com:</strong> EMC.com is new to our roster in 2010 and we’ve put it in the enterprise systems category. It’s a bit of an odd fit, but we think this is the segment that best matches its strategy and focus. Needless to say, EMC.com has come a long way over the past few years and it’s another example of a site that is maximizing Web 2.0 elements and creating standards for high impact designs. From a first blush perspective, it’s a small but mighty site in the spirit of Adobe.com.  It will be interesting to see where the site excels – and where it misses the mark in 2010. (tag: enterprise systems)</p>
<p><strong>Sun.com:</strong> Last week, Sun.com went off the airwaves and was stuffed into a few pages on the Oracle.com site. Thus, ends the life of one of the IT industry’s most innovative and useful Websites.</p>
<p>To see why, let’s look at just a few of Sun.com’s industry “firsts.” It pioneered communities on the Web; embraced Web 2.0 when it was just a spec on the horizon; was the first to deploy tab top designs to consolidate content into manageable bites; automatically discounted prices in its (public) ecommerce system based on the customer’s contractual relationship; pioneered dashboards that allowed customers to customize information to their needs: operated the industry’s largest (java.com) and most diverse range of developer portals; and designed the industry’s first contextual search engine that organized results by objective, type, or role. Oh, and one thing else. It did all of this while ranking #1 in usability over the past 6 years.</p>
<p>All in all, a stellar run for the record book. It’s too bad that the company’s business strategy (and the CXOs that ran it) weren’t as effective as this site.</p>
<p><strong>Intel.com:</strong> Intel.com is one of the industry’s most interesting studies because it marches to the tune of a truly unique drummer. Instead of marketing Intel’s products and services with sales as the end game, this site is focused on <em>conditioning markets</em> to prefer (and preferably demand) products built on Intel technologies &#8212; and then reward companies that sell Intel-based products by driving buyers directly to their Websites or retail stores. In simple terms, Intel.com isn’t chartered to sell Intel’s chips; it’s responsible for making sure that Intel is the buyers’ preferred brand.</p>
<p>From this perspective, Intel.com has always been one of few pure play ‘brand’ Websites. It’s also one of the first sites to effectively harness communities and Web 2.0 behaviors to start a conversation with users and buyers. For these and other reasons, we’re glad to welcome Intel.com to the 2010 eBusiness Index. May the best brand player win.</p>
<p><strong>Brocade.com:</strong> Has anyone else noticed that the network systems industry is consolidating like a cardboard box in the rain? If not, spend some quality time looking for a fourth network systems Website (we also evaluate Cisco.com, Nortel.com and Juniper.net twice a year.  that has any best practices and is larger than a newt. After we spent some quality time considering the candidates, we flipped a coin between Brocade.com and Enterasys.com. Brocade.com won the toss.</p>
<p>We’ve got some real hope for Brocade.com in 2010 since it boasts a bevy of Web 2.0 behaviors, uses the same mega-menus as Juniper.net, and operates communities that show some promise. Of course, the devil’s in the details. Stay tuned for the results from our first evaluation which will be available in Q2 2010. (tag: network systems)</p>
<p><strong>Deloitte.com:</strong> Deloitte’s inclusion on the 2010 eBusiness Index roster is due, in large part, to EDS.com riding into the sunset. Quite frankly, we’re glad to have a reason to shake up the professional services sites we cover. Most of them have been skating on the innovation and design fronts for too many years.</p>
<p>Deloitte provides a much needed breath of fresh air to our professional services roster. It’s built on a well crafted design and its lively first person voice takes much of the voodoo out of the consulting services conversation. All in all, we expect Deloitte.com to raise the bar for Accenture.com, and especially IBM Global Services. It should be interesting to see how those sites stack up now that there’s a new deputy sheriff in town.  (tag: professional services)</p>
<p>Here’s the rest of the sites we’ll be evaluating in 2010. If you are a siteIQ client, you can <a href="http://siteiq.net/client-login">read more about these sites&#8217; strengths and challenges</a> in our new executive brief in the siteIntelligence Research Center.</p>
<ul>
<li>Adobe.com</li>
<li>Microsoft.com</li>
<li>Symantec.com</li>
<li>CA.com</li>
<li>Oracle.com</li>
<li>SAP.com</li>
<li>Dell.com</li>
<li>HP.com</li>
<li>IBM.com</li>
<li>Cisco.com</li>
<li>Nortel.com</li>
<li>Juniper.net</li>
<li>CDW.com</li>
<li>Insight.com</li>
<li>NewEgg.com</li>
<li>Accenture.com</li>
<li>IBM Global Services (zone)</li>
</ul>
<p>What do you think of these sites? Sound off in comments</p>
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_" addthis:url='http://www.siteiq.net/553/2010-ebusiness-index-ibm-sas-emc-intel-brocade-deloitte-made-our-list' addthis:title='Why IBM Software, SAS, EMC, Intel, Brocade &amp; Deloitte made the cut ' ><a class="addthis_button_preferred_1"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_2"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_3"></a><a class="addthis_button_preferred_4"></a><a class="addthis_button_compact"></a></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.siteiq.net/553/2010-ebusiness-index-ibm-sas-emc-intel-brocade-deloitte-made-our-list/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.siteiq.net/tag/brocade-com/feed ) in 0.47662 seconds, on Feb 9th, 2012 at 7:41 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 9th, 2012 at 8:41 am UTC -->
