A Critique of “Trust in French Bulldog Breeder Sites- who got it right, and who missed the mark”

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article called “Trust in French Bulldog Breeder Sites- who got it right, and who missed the mark.” This week, I’m revisiting this piece to reflect on the content, voice, and value.

Content — The content is organized with the introduction first so the reader can quickly answer the question “why do I care?”. In the introduction I explain why trust is a factor when considering what dog breeder to choose, how a breeder’s website can influence how much trust a user has in them, and that I will be comparing two breeder’s sites. The body of the content is then broken up into two pieces; a review of the Cross Timbers Frenchies website and Maxime’s French Bulldogs website. Each reviewed website section includes three points of feedback and how it affects the user’s trust in the site. The article ends with suggestions for Maxime’s French Bulldogs so it ends with ideas for improvements instead of only negative feedback.

Voice — The voice used in this article is professional, informative, and nonjudgemental. Where the article leans more towards a professional voice is through the use of “one” instead of “you” when speaking about Frenchie owners. The article has an informative voice because it is written in a way that someone who is unfamiliar with UX concepts could still understand the content. The article is also written in an nonjudgemental way when making observations and giving feedback about Maximes. The article is meant to provide feedback and suggestions for improvements so it’s important that the voice mirrors that intention.

Value — The value of the article is providing feedback on how the design choices of each website can impact the user’s trust in the site.

Writing the comparative article was a great exercise in practicing providing constructive feedback in an informative and helpful way.