l insights, downloads, and links provided an abundance of useful information. IMA's offerings included a wide range of online accessible information that ranged from interviewing tips to passing certification exams.AICPA was also successful in providing useful information. Its strength was in providing information relating to career paths and opportunities. Although some of the information was broad in scope, most of the information was targeted for CPAs.BAP was limited in the amount of information available to non-members. Nearly all the information was specifically related to the organization.NBEA was useful in pointing out available resources for educators such as books and conferences but didn't possess much information beyond that used to describe the organization and its functions. Question 4: Is interaction difficult?Interaction was quite smooth. While browsing, navigational links proved to be solid without exception. Graphical interfaces, like IMA's college campus and BAP's painter's pallet, were attractive, well designed and easy to use. NBEA and AICPA used a combination of frames and graphics for link movements. In addition to clearly labeled links, opening pages at all sites presented a simple overview of the entire site. Question 5: What are the strengths, weaknesses, and overall evaluations of each site?The IMA site was strong design and content. Downloading the site was relatively quick. The campus design was creative and provided a sense of common ground. Helpful features and resources were provided throughout the site. Examples included the job bank, career counseling, and promising new areas such as chat and discussion forums. Overall this was a very valuable site.The BAP site was strong in design as well. The graphic interface was very impressive and professional. The site provided a solid introduction to Beta Alpha Psi but offered little more for non-members.The AICPA was easy to navigate. Industry insights, such p...
