District Court website redesign provides easier use

January 3, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

I spend a lot of time online for my job looking at court and government websites, so I appreciate when those sites are easy to use. The Southern District of Indiana’s website has become one of those sites.

For as long as I’ve been with Indiana Lawyer, the Southern District of Indiana’s website has looked the same. And I imagine it looked the same since the late 1990s, when it was likely designed. (Perhaps it was updated at some point, but it still had that 1997 Geocities-vibe to it. Anyone else remember Yahoo’s Geocities? But I digress …)

http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/ has a modern, cleaner look to it. You can easily see the court locations and contact information, and the navigation bar at the top is much more navigable than the early incarnation of the site. Court opinions are front and center now as opposed to located behind several clicks.

Just as with the state courts’ redesigns last year of the Roll of Attorneys and the appellate court docket pages, I appreciate the look and functionality of the new District Court site. If only the Indiana General Assembly’s redesigned website would function as it should, but that’s a blog for another day.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT