SSA Website

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.

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
illspam

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

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

[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

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

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.

"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

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

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.