SSA Website

[Chris OCallaghan]

Just sent a note to Dennis to voice my disappointment with the current
SSA website. I preferred less splash and more functionality (and
reliability). It has been several months since the switch over, and
I'm still unable to access the photos section, one of my favorites.
Today was the tipping point when my contest registration form returned
a database error.

If those who visit the site regularly and share my disappointment sent
a note to Dennis or their director, perhpas we'd see some movement.

[[email protected]]

The new website is a disaster. They must have hired the same people
who screwed up their computer system a couple years ago.

[Lord Struthers]

Didn't know the fish wraper was in need of overhaul, oh, I forgot,each new cat
likes to leave their scent in the sandbox.
Rich

[Brian Iten]

My god people, if you have a suggestion or something
you would like changed on the web site, then make a
suggestion to them and stop your complaining. I asked
Judy Ruprecht where I could find something the other
day and she told me it was not listed on the web site
yet but she would put it on the list of things to add.
It isn't that difficult....

23:00 14 September 2004, wrote:
>
>The new website is a disaster. They must have hired
>the same people
>who screwed up their computer system a couple years
>ago.
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> The new website is a disaster. They must have hired the same people
> who screwed up their computer system a couple years ago.

Disaster? Seems kind of harsh for a web site that's done everything I
wanted done: member locator, contest reports, contest rules, Johnson
articles.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Marc Ramsey]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
>> The new website is a disaster. They must have hired the same people
>> who screwed up their computer system a couple years ago.
>
> Disaster? Seems kind of harsh for a web site that's done everything I
> wanted done: member locator, contest reports, contest rules, Johnson
> articles.

Once upon the time, I would pop over to the SSA web site on a daily
basis, and take a quick glance at the front page to find out if there
was anything happening. The new front page looks and feels sort of like
that of an insurance company that contracted its web development work to
the second lowest bidder. The news page has been split up, and the stuff
is now buried in various spots. I can sometimes find what I'm looking
for, but the half-broken menus (in Mozilla, anyway) and the need to
login make it a chore to navigate around. As a result, I go there once
or twice a month, at most...

Marc

[[email protected]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Disaster? Seems kind of harsh for a web site that's done everything I
> wanted done: member locator, contest reports, contest rules, Johnson
> articles.
>

Funny, I seem to recall all those things (plus a photo gallery!)
working on the old web site. But then, the old web site didn't photos
of SSA staff members scrolling up the side of the screen. That is a
big improvement which provides members hours of entertainment and
intellectual enrichment, so I guess the upgrade is money well spent.

[Eric Greenwell]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Once upon the time, I would pop over to the SSA web site on a daily
> basis, and take a quick glance at the front page to find out if there
> was anything happening. The new front page looks and feels sort of like
> that of an insurance company that contracted its web development work to
> the second lowest bidder. The news page has been split up, and the stuff
> is now buried in various spots.

It would be nicer to have the news available on the Home page, or at
least a "headline" for each item.

I can sometimes find what I'm looking
> for, but the half-broken menus (in Mozilla, anyway) and the need to
> login make it a chore to navigate around.

The menus are a little tricky with Netscape 7.1 (Mozilla derivative),
but usable. I did just send an email mentioning this tricky part and
suggesting the submenus last a fraction of second longer, so I could get
the mouse to them reliably. The menus used to be much worse for
Netscape, but that cleared up shortly after I contacted the web master
about it.

Things have changed when people contacted the SSA about changes, like
the menus, accessing the contest reports, and so on. I encourage people
to contact the SSA directly ) about it, or through
their Director.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Neal Pfeiffer]

The menus still don't work reliably on the latest version of Netscape
for OS X.

I personally preferred having more items listed along the left-hand
margin rather than having to work down through the submenus (especially
since I have to change my normal navigation method due to the first item
above.)

...... njp

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>>
>> for, but the half-broken menus (in Mozilla, anyway) and the need to
>> login make it a chore to navigate around.
>
>
> The menus are a little tricky with Netscape 7.1 (Mozilla derivative),
> but usable. I did just send an email mentioning this tricky part and
> suggesting the submenus last a fraction of second longer, so I could get
> the mouse to them reliably. The menus used to be much worse for
> Netscape, but that cleared up shortly after I contacted the web master
> about it.
>
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

Yes, disaster is too harsh. There was clearly a decision to move to a
more graphically pleasing front end and to use more sophisticated
linking tools. But we've lost functionality and resources as a result.
I often used the SSA website as a pass through to other soaring
resources. But those links are no longer easily accessible. As a
result, I visit only once every week or two unless a contest is in
progress.

I don't mind the notion of spicing up the home page. That's a
marketing decision. But we've lost a good number of resources during
the transition. I had expectations that they would slowly return, but
now I'm wondering if they ever will. I suspect resources are limited,
and we are now devoted to developing the site rather than maintaining
its content.

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> wrote:
> > The new website is a disaster. They must have hired the same people
> > who screwed up their computer system a couple years ago.
>
> Disaster? Seems kind of harsh for a web site that's done everything I
> wanted done: member locator, contest reports, contest rules, Johnson
> articles.

[Greg Arnold]

One wishes that the SSA learned from its mistakes.

Under the old regime, there was little communication between the
management and the members, and little effort was made to exploit the
expertise of the membership. As a result, we got messes like the
computer system.

Now, the SSA decides to change its web page, and apparently made the
decision to go for flash rather than functionality. Was that a good
move? Perhaps -- maybe these days no one will look at a webpage unless
there is a lot of moving stuff. However, it does appear that the
decision was made without much (if any) input from the members.

I used to look at the SSA webpage daily, but now almost never do. And I
disagree with Chris in one respect -- I don't think the new webpage has
a more graphically pleasing front end. It has a nice glider photo, but
otherwise it is not attractive. And the scrolling ads are hideous.

I wish the new SSA management well, but why can't they ask for the input
and help of the membership?



Chris OCallaghan wrote:

> Yes, disaster is too harsh. There was clearly a decision to move to a
> more graphically pleasing front end and to use more sophisticated
> linking tools. But we've lost functionality and resources as a result.
> I often used the SSA website as a pass through to other soaring
> resources. But those links are no longer easily accessible. As a
> result, I visit only once every week or two unless a contest is in
> progress.
>
> I don't mind the notion of spicing up the home page. That's a
> marketing decision. But we've lost a good number of resources during
> the transition. I had expectations that they would slowly return, but
> now I'm wondering if they ever will. I suspect resources are limited,
> and we are now devoted to developing the site rather than maintaining
> its content.
>
> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
wrote:
>>
>>>The new website is a disaster. They must have hired the same people
>>>who screwed up their computer system a couple years ago.
>>
>>Disaster? Seems kind of harsh for a web site that's done everything I
>>wanted done: member locator, contest reports, contest rules, Johnson
>>articles.

[Jim Vincent]

> Was that a good
>move? Perhaps -- maybe these days no one will look at a webpage unless
>there is a lot of moving stuff.

top ten mistakes:

http://www.usabilitynet.org/management/b_mistakes.htm

1. Using Frames
2. Gratuitous Use of Bleeding-Edge Technology
3. Scrolling Text, Marquees, and Constantly Running Animations
4. Complex URLs
5. Orphan Pages
6. Long Scrolling Pages
7. Lack of Navigation Support
8. Non-Standard Link Colors
9. Outdated Information
10. Overly Long Download Times



Jim Vincent
N483SZ

[Mark James Boyd]

If it's that bad, and you don't like it, design your own
..html front end and bookmark it. And if you get it tweaked
nice, maybe then offer it to the new "webmistress" for SSA
use.

I'm not keen on the new site either (weird popdowns), but
hey, there are so many other positive things going on, I'm
willing to give it a year to let the newbies sort it out
without having to react quickly to little things.

I have some faith in this "Dennis" guy. The magazine, which I find
much more important, is fantastic in color. I'm sure SSA
is doing the best they can with the tiny amount of money
I send them each year ;)



In article <Eg_1d.29220$aW5.25634@fed1read07>,
Greg Arnold > wrote:
>One wishes that the SSA learned from its mistakes.
>
>Under the old regime, there was little communication between the
>management and the members, and little effort was made to exploit the
>expertise of the membership. As a result, we got messes like the
>computer system.
>
>Now, the SSA decides to change its web page, and apparently made the
>decision to go for flash rather than functionality. Was that a good
>move? Perhaps -- maybe these days no one will look at a webpage unless
>there is a lot of moving stuff. However, it does appear that the
>decision was made without much (if any) input from the members.
>
>I used to look at the SSA webpage daily, but now almost never do. And I
>disagree with Chris in one respect -- I don't think the new webpage has
>a more graphically pleasing front end. It has a nice glider photo, but
>otherwise it is not attractive. And the scrolling ads are hideous.
>
>I wish the new SSA management well, but why can't they ask for the input
>and help of the membership?
>
>
>
>Chris OCallaghan wrote:
>
>> Yes, disaster is too harsh. There was clearly a decision to move to a
>> more graphically pleasing front end and to use more sophisticated
>> linking tools. But we've lost functionality and resources as a result.
>> I often used the SSA website as a pass through to other soaring
>> resources. But those links are no longer easily accessible. As a
>> result, I visit only once every week or two unless a contest is in
>> progress.
>>
>> I don't mind the notion of spicing up the home page. That's a
>> marketing decision. But we've lost a good number of resources during
>> the transition. I had expectations that they would slowly return, but
>> now I'm wondering if they ever will. I suspect resources are limited,
>> and we are now devoted to developing the site rather than maintaining
>> its content.
>>
>> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>The new website is a disaster. They must have hired the same people
>>>>who screwed up their computer system a couple years ago.
>>>
>>>Disaster? Seems kind of harsh for a web site that's done everything I
>>>wanted done: member locator, contest reports, contest rules, Johnson
>>>articles.


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Excellent and specific critique. That's useful.

I would add the suggestion that the SSA webmistress
mirror the old front page (maybe indexbak.html?)
for the "grandfather" users... At least for a while.

We switched over a computer system years ago in my Army days,
and we had two parallel systems working overlap for a bit.
We thought it would be a lot more hassle than it really was.
In the end it was nice to have the redundancy for a little while...


In article >,
Jim Vincent > wrote:
>> Was that a good
>>move? Perhaps -- maybe these days no one will look at a webpage unless
>>there is a lot of moving stuff.
>
>top ten mistakes:
>
>http://www.usabilitynet.org/management/b_mistakes.htm
>
>1. Using Frames
>2. Gratuitous Use of Bleeding-Edge Technology
>3. Scrolling Text, Marquees, and Constantly Running Animations
>4. Complex URLs
>5. Orphan Pages
>6. Long Scrolling Pages
>7. Lack of Navigation Support
>8. Non-Standard Link Colors
>9. Outdated Information
>10. Overly Long Download Times
>
>
>
>Jim Vincent
>N483SZ



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Chip Bearden]

[from a related thread]:

> > The old site wasn't the greatest, but at least I knew where
> > everything was and I could get to it. Now,.....?

> Use it a few times - you'll get the hang of it, just like you did the old one.

With all due respect, being able to find the information one needs on
a Web site WITHOUT having to get the hang of it is an indication of
good information architecture, navigation, and user interface, all of
which aid usability. The new SSA site is not the worst site in that
regard, but it could be better.

But I agree that disparaging the new site without providing
constructive suggestions is unhelpful. As Eric Greenwell encouraged,
forward your specific comments to your SSA director or directly to the
SSA. That's what I did.

That said, I will confess that I also used the word "disaster" to
privately describe the new site when it launched. But I probably
overreacted. It is no poorer, and in some ways is better, than the old
site. I sent a detailed, point-by-point critique to my director who
forwarded it to the SSA. Like others, I've seen responses to some of
my suggestions. I'm confident the site will continue to improve. The
new SSA under Dennis Wright has proven admirably responsive to the
membership.

So my reason for writing is not a diatribe against the Web site but a
call for change in the way we manage such projects.

Although I cringed when I saw one critic's sarcastic aside that the
SSA "must have hired the same people who screwed up their computer
system a couple years ago," it's a fair analogy.
Spec'g/selecting/installing a sophisticated computer system and
designing/building a modern transactional Web site are two very
challenging undertakings that are frequently botched--for the same
reasons--by large corporations with far greater resources than the
SSA.

Given our tiny sport, these projects absolutely demand close
coordination among the SSA staff, the appropriate SSA Board Committee,
and SSA members with specialized skills. Rather than roast the SSA
staff for the problems with the computer system or the new Web site,
it's fair to ask how these types of specialized, expensive, and highly
visible technology initiatives will be managed going forward.

In the early days of what was referred to as "data processing," a
company's first computer system usually was an accounting application.
That's because "DP" most often reported up through the finance
organization. Similarly, first-generation Web sites were usually built
by mid-level marketing folks who knew a little HTML. The predictable
results were applications that didn't meet the needs of anyone outside
the organizations that "owned" them.

Then, "experts" often consisted of those who knew that an IBM 360
didn't refer to a full turn by Big Blue or who could casually drop the
term "FrontPage" when talking about Web development.

Today's successful IT and Web projects involve people from nearly
every functional area and level of a company. Savvy senior
executives--and directors--understand that delegating these projects
doesn't mean abdicating responsibility for them. They stay involved at
every step and make certain that the objective and assumptions of a
project are clearly stated, that the specific business requirements
are defined in some detail, that the project plans make sense, and
that the appropriate reporting structure, organization, and
resources--including project management--are in place.

It's unreasonable to expect a small, not-for-profit organization with
a tiny budget to do a great job on a new computer system or Web site
without a lot of help. It's easy to criticize both efforts now. What's
important is doing a better job in the future.

I hope and trust that the SSA directors--many of whom I worked with
when I served on the SSA board and still respect--understand that
however instinctively some of them might respond to the caustic "must
have hired the same people who screwed up their computer system,"
these two episodes are distressingly similar and indicate the need for
a significant change in the way we manage them.

Chip Bearden
ex-Region 2 Director

[Michel Talon]

Chip Bearden > wrote:
> [from a related thread]:
>
>> > The old site wasn't the greatest, but at least I knew where
>> > everything was and I could get to it. Now,.....?
>
>> Use it a few times - you'll get the hang of it, just like you did the old one.
>
> With all due respect, being able to find the information one needs on
> a Web site WITHOUT having to get the hang of it is an indication of
> good information architecture, navigation, and user interface, all of
> which aid usability. The new SSA site is not the worst site in that
> regard, but it could be better.
>

Just as a datapoint, the site http://www.ssa.org/ works fine for me,
and i am using Firefox on Linux. I don't see any glaring problem.
Works also fine with Konqueror, so it is vast exageration to say that
it is catastrophic. Sure there are a lot of images to display so a good
internet connexion is probably necessary, but otherwise the general
look and feel is analogous to what is usually considered standard.

To be more pedant, the web pages don't satisfy the w3 validator, but the
author could easily correct the mistakes.

--

Michel TALON

[Tony Verhulst]

Chip Bearden wrote:
>
> forward your specific comments to your SSA director or directly to the
> SSA. That's what I did.

As did I... and then nothing. Not even an automated reply. As far as I
know, my comments fell into some black hole. I'm reluctant to take the
time and trouble to provide further constructive information.

Tony V.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
> Chip Bearden wrote:
> >
> > forward your specific comments to your SSA director or directly to the
> > SSA. That's what I did.
>
> As did I... and then nothing. Not even an automated reply. As far as I
> know, my comments fell into some black hole. I'm reluctant to take the
> time and trouble to provide further constructive information.
>
> Tony V.
>
I have to disagree. Dennis did respond with his weekly Missile. Personal
responses may not be a realistic option. Not everyone sees this, but
distribution is getting wider. He's certainly communicating, and openly.
If your director didn't respond, I have no answer for that, but may have
been overwhelmed.

The site menus are now working well with a range of non-MS browsers.
Sections under construction (e.g. Photo Gallery) are now labeled as such.
Menu organization is better. I'm sure there is quite a todo list. Things
are moving along at a reasonable rate. The devil's in the details and some
will take more time that others. Whether the original launch date was
prudent is no longer relevant but now a lesson learned.

My personal wish list:
1. Member editable personal information in member locator area, to include
primary (renewing) and secondary club/chapter affiliations. (this is
intended to provide granularity to member data to assist in renewal process
and in area-specific services. should dovetail with current initiative to
allow clubs and chapters to view renewal records online.)
2. Flight lesson vochure sales to the public to 'Experience Soaring' that
enfranchises club and commercial operations with single and multiple lesson
opportunities. (work in progress with some real hurdles to overcome. fwiw,
the launch date is still some months away)
3. Reduce size of banner, fonts, etc. See www.glidingmagazine.com

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

Tony Verhulst wrote:

>> forward your specific comments to your SSA director or directly to the
>> SSA. That's what I did.
>
>
> As did I... and then nothing. Not even an automated reply. As far as I
> know, my comments fell into some black hole. I'm reluctant to take the
> time and trouble to provide further constructive information.

I didn't get a direct response from the office, either, but the changes
I suggested appeared within a week. Good enough.

If you didn't get a response from your Director, I suggest a follow-up
phone call to discuss the matter. You ought to be personally acquainted
with him/her amyway, and this is a good issue to start on. The Director
for my region responds to emails, even originates them, ditto for phone
calls, and is pleased to discuss SSA business. I know other Directors
like that, such as Jim Skydell and Cindy Brickner, who will happily
discuss SSA business, even with someone outside their region. If yours
is unresponsive, it's not too early to think about who the next one
should be.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Doug]

A link on the site to the webmaster would be a much better way of
communicating your problems with the website, not having to email or call a
regional director. Too much can gets lost in multilevel communications.

As for the site working with different browsers, I have minimal problems
with Opera 7x, Netscape 7x and IE 6. However, IE 5.5, which according to
the web stats on our site is still used by a significant percentage of
people, does not work very well with the SSA site. There's no reason to
leave out a significant portion of users, especially those across the pond,
because of lazy programming practices. Everything on the site can easily be
done in a fashion that does not omit anyone.

Doug

Doug


"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
> Chip Bearden wrote:
> >
> > forward your specific comments to your SSA director or directly to the
> > SSA. That's what I did.
>
> As did I... and then nothing. Not even an automated reply. As far as I
> know, my comments fell into some black hole. I'm reluctant to take the
> time and trouble to provide further constructive information.
>
> Tony V.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug wrote:
> A link on the site to the webmaster would be a much better way of
> communicating your problems with the website, not having to email or call a
> regional director.

The link to the webmaster and most of the staff is



This address was in use before the new website; however, it should be
prominently displayed instead of just in a link on the staff pictures.
I've emailed SSA about doing this, and cc:'d my Director.

> Too much can gets lost in multilevel communications.

Apparently, too much was getting lost in single level communications. My
Director tells me it was a management decision not to publish the email
address of every staff member for productivity and response reasons
(e.g., when a staff member is gone, the email can be directed to the
people filling in).

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Larry Goddard]

I think you made a mistake in the URL -- it should be
www.lowest-common-denominator.org shouldn't it?

Larry



Jim Vincent wrote:

> > Was that a good
> >move? Perhaps -- maybe these days no one will look at a webpage unless
> >there is a lot of moving stuff.
>
> top ten mistakes:
>
> http://www.usabilitynet.org/management/b_mistakes.htm
>
> 1. Using Frames
> 2. Gratuitous Use of Bleeding-Edge Technology
> 3. Scrolling Text, Marquees, and Constantly Running Animations
> 4. Complex URLs
> 5. Orphan Pages
> 6. Long Scrolling Pages
> 7. Lack of Navigation Support
> 8. Non-Standard Link Colors
> 9. Outdated Information
> 10. Overly Long Download Times
>
> Jim Vincent
> N483SZ
>