The Internet has become a very important tool of modern political communication. Political parties use it for a variety of purposes, including relationships with its supporters and potential voters. Therefore, the website of any political party is an important channel of communication. Such a website should be user-friendly to various audiences. The purpose of the article is to assess the quality of information architecture (IA) on the websites of the two major American political parties: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Triangulation of methods was used in the research: a qualitative-heuristic assessment of the IA on the mentioned websites, expert assessment and a comparative analysis. Within the examined websites, there is a noticeable lack of some important components of the IA. The website of the Republican Party is slightly better in terms of quality than the website of Democratic Party by 14.09%. The results of the conducted research may have an impact not only on the assessment of the technological advancement of parties but also on the image and public perception, and therefore also the effectiveness in reaching voters of a given party. This approach should contribute to the development of websites research in order to improve the quality of user experience and information processes.
DarlingJ. Latin America, media, and revolution: communication in modern Mesoamerica. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
2.
Muñoz RamírezG. El fuego y la palabra: una historia del movimiento Zapatista. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books, 2008.
3.
SajnaR. Media w Hispanoameryce w perspektywie komunikowania globalnego. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego, 2013.
4.
StreetJ. Mass media, politics and democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.
5.
LouwE. The media and political process. London: SAGE Publications, 2005.
6.
LarsenRA. The case of moveon.org in 2004: a watershed in presidential electoral politics. In: TPłudowski (ed.) American politics, media, and elections. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 2005, pp. 367–401.
VaccariC. ‘Technology is a commodity’: the internet in the 2008 United States presidential election. J Inform Technol Polit2010; 7(4): 318–339.
10.
HendricksJADentonREJr.Communicator-in-chief: how Barack Obama used new media technology to win the White House. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010.
11.
MaarekPJ. Marketing político y comunicación: claves para una buena información política. Barcelona: Paidós, 2016.
12.
GoldsmithJWuT. Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
13.
BajkaZ. Historia mediów. Kraków: ABC Media, 2008.
14.
MazurM. Marketing polityczny. Studium porównawcze. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2006.
15.
RoetzelPG. Information overload in the information age: a review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework development. Bus Res2019; 12: 479–522.
16.
PintarJHoppingD. Information science: the basics. London: Routledge, 2023.
17.
RobinsonLBawdenD. Mind the gap: transitions between concepts of information in varied domains. In: FIbekwe-SanJuanTMDousa (eds) Theories of information, communication and knowledge: a multidisciplinary approach. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 121–141.
18.
BatesMJMaackMN. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. Information2010; 3: 2048–2063.
19.
EpplerMJMengisJ. The concept of information overload: a review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Inform Soc2004; 20(5): 325–244.
FarradaneJ. The nature of information. J Inform Sci1979; 1(1): 13–17.
23.
MeadowsAJ. Theory in information science. J Inform Sci1990; 16(1): 59–63.
24.
Chmielewska-GorczycaESosińska-KalataB. Informacja naukowa z elementami naukoznawstwa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, 1991.
25.
WurmanRS. Information architects. New York: Graphis Inc., 1997.
26.
RosenfeldLMorvilleP. Information architecture for the world wide web. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 1998.
27.
ResminiARosatiL. A brief history of information architecture. J Inform Archit2011; 3(2): 33–48.
28.
DavisN. Information architecture, black holes and discipline: on developing a framework for a practice of information architecture. Bullet Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2010; 36(6): 25–29.
29.
SkórkaS. Nauka o architekturze informacji: koncepcja dyscypliny naukowej. Zagad Inform Nauk Stud Inform2021; 59(1): 7–28.
30.
Dade-RobertsonM. The architecture of information: architecture, interaction design and the patterning of digital information. London: Routledge, 2011.
31.
DijckPV. Information architecture for designers: structuring websites for business success. Mies: Rotovision, 2003.
SönmezFAydinUPerdahciZN. Investigation of university websites from technology acceptance model and information architecture perspective: a case study. J Inform Sci. Epub ahead of print 6May2022. DOI: 10.1177/01655515221094436.
38.
RicciA. The early political web (1995–2005): a ten-year observational research seeking evidence of edemocracy in the information architecture of political parties web sites worldwide. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2013.
39.
Cieślik-FlorczykM. Analiza strukturalna stron internetowych głównych polskich partii politycznych. Świat Idei Polit2014; 13: 23–35.
40.
Sajna-KosobuckaP. Architektura informacji w witrynach internetowych Prawa i Sprawiedliwości oraz Platformy Obywatelskiej. Zagad Inform Nauk Stud Inform2022; 60(2): 44–71.
41.
Sajna-KosobuckaP. Information architecture on websites of chosen federal American agencies: CIA, DEA, and FBI. Świat Idei Polit2022; 21(1): 109–132.
42.
SkórkaS. Architekt informacji – kreator przestrzeni informacyjnych. Przegląd Bib2011; 79(1): 47–61.
43.
Sajna-KosobuckaP. Badania architektury informacji na przykładzie radia akademickiego. User experience i user interface. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2022.
44.
RosenfeldLMorvillePArangoJ. Information architecture: for the web and beyond. 4th ed.Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2015.
