I was evaluating a site recently where the incident-reporting form was different for software than for hardware because they were two different departments. If you had a hardware question, you went to a page that looked very different from where you'd go for a software question. We penalize people for that kind of confusion.

For some companies, this is a really tough issue; for others, there's enough centralized IT control that it's not an issue. I guess the real issue is, do the site developers have the guts to fight this problem when they see it? Lots of times they don't.

Another category you evaluate is knowledge and search implementation. What makes a good search function? The big issue is recognizing that people have different learning styles. Some want to look up a problem and have it solved with a tech note. Others may need some training, templates, cookbook solutions or consulting, and it's tricky to bring all these things together.

If you just use a problem/solution model, then that probably isn't going to satisfy a lot of people. At an accounting software company, for example, the problem might not be solved by a tech note because it might be that the user doesn't understand double-entry bookkeeping. Or maybe he needs a template of a chart of accounts. Or maybe he needs a consultant to come in and set up the books. So if it's just a problem/solution approach, that isn't going to work.

Interactive features is another criterion. What do you want to see there? The same as you see anywhere else on the Web. It's particularly important for support sites because problem solving tends to be more complex than ordering a product. Ordering a product is a linear process: Give the order and take the money.