new Bobcat website

msusportsinfo · Post by **msusportsinfo** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:29 am

We launched a new web site this morning and would like to enlist your help in working out the bugs. This launch has been in the process for eight months and it was a very labor intensive project. Unlike other colleges who use CSTV and other cookie-cutter sites, we decided to stay within the university's system and use their branding, style, and designers. If you encounter any troubles in any areas, please report them by email to info@msubobcats.com. It would help if you would tell us what kind of browser you are using and what kind of connection you have. Thanks and GO CATS!

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 am

Looks good on the surface. The cats needed a change on their athletics site.

Post by **kmax** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:06 am

The site looks good, glad to see that MSU decided to stay in house and not go with the cookie cutter route. Still alot that could be done with the site, but getting a new look was much needed and I like the layout.

One thing I will make as a suggestion, and this is more an annoyance to me(but a big one) than a bug or problem. Please, please get rid of all of the links to PDF files everywhere. There is nothing I hate more than going to a website in search of some information and getting there and seeing a link to exactly what I want, and then having to wait for it to load up in Acrobat to view it rather than just being taken to a new page. Export the information to an html page, and have a link to the PDF on that page for people that want it, or at the very least if you don't want to do that label the link as a PDF so you know before clicking that you will be taken away from the site to a PDF to view the info.

Like I said, the site looks good, glad you guys finally got a rework completed.

webdav · Post by **webdav** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:06 am

Although I can appreciate the design upgrade/update, I can't understand some of the decisions that were made.

Fairly obvious one - with a large amount of content a site like this has, why restrict the layout to 770px wide? Nowadays, the large majority of people have at least 1024x768 on their monitors. I'd suggest a fixed with of 960px or do "liquid" or "elastic" layout that fills up the space better.

More technical one - why not use proper, semantic, valid XHTML and CSS instead of a tag soup of tables and a huge amount of "div" tags that show an obvious lack of understanding what a "div" truly is. Example:

<div class="subHeadingNavG">Men's Sports</div>
<a href="sports.php?sid=mbb">Basketball</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=cc">Cross Country</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=fb">Football</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=sk">Skiing</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tn">Tennis</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tf">Track and Field</a>
<div class="subHeadingNavG">Women's Sports</div>
<a href="sports.php?sid=wbb">Basketball</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=cc">Cross Country</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=gf">Golf</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=sk">Skiing</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tn">Tennis</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tf">Track and Field</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=vb">Volleyball</a>
<div class="subHeadingNavG">More Info</div>
<a href="academics.php">Academics & Compliance</a>
<a href="facilities.php">Facilities</a>
<a href="images/lilcats/lilcats.pdf">Lil' Cats</a>
<a href="sitemap.php">Site Index</a>
<a href="spiritsquad.php">Spirit Squad</a>
<a href="staff.php">Staff Directory</a>

This should be more along the lines of this:

<ul id="leftnav">
<ul id="mens_sports_subnav">
<li><h4>Men’s Sports</h4></li>
<li><a href="sports.php?sid=mbb">Basketball</a></li>
...
</ul>
</ul>

At the very least, this line:

<div class="subHeadingNavG">Men's Sports</div>

should be more like this:

<span class="subHeadingNavG">Men's Sports</span>

Seems like a small difference, and it is, but it's what it MEANS that matters.

I'm also really unsure why there are so many comments saying "begin branded section" and "end branded section." Seems excessive and produces code-bloat.

Using valid XHTML and CSS would also have eliminated your need for the "text only" link. It would have just been there.

I realize I sound hypercritical, and I'm not trying to. It's just that with eight months of intensive labor, why design a site that is amounts to essentially a visual update? Why use technology and techniques from the mid-1990s?

Sorry, but if I was giving it a letter grade, it would be a C- at best.

Post by **rtb** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:32 am

kmax and webdav - did you email your comments to them like they asked? That would be a big help I think each of you has valuable input.

webdav - what grade does BobcatNation get?

Post by **kmax** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:34 am

rtb wrote:kmax and webdav - did you email your comments to them like they asked? That would be a big help I think each of you has valuable input.

webdav - what grade does BobcatNation get?

I don't think you want to ask that question.

I didn't email as the request was for problems to be emailed. Mine and to the largest extent webdav's are more suggestions than anything actually breaking which is what I think they were wanting via email.

Post by **rtb** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:39 am

kmax wrote:I don't think you want to ask that question.

I didn't email as the request was for problems to be emailed. Mine and to the largest extent webdav's are more suggestions than anything actually breaking which is what I think they were wanting via email.

I agree I don't really want to find out our grade either.

Good point on the suggestions vs problems! I had emailed them about a broken link this morning and told them to review the suggestions here, so hopefully your ideas will be viewed.

Egg Salad · Post by **Egg Salad** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:43 am

webdav wrote:Although I can appreciate the design upgrade/update, I can't understand some of the decisions that were made.

Fairly obvious one - with a large amount of content a site like this has, why restrict the layout to 770px wide? Nowadays, the large majority of people have at least 1024x768 on their monitors. I'd suggest a fixed with of 960px or do "liquid" or "elastic" layout that fills up the space better.

More technical one - why not use proper, semantic, valid XHTML and CSS instead of a tag soup of tables and a huge amount of "div" tags that show an obvious lack of understanding what a "div" truly is. Example:



<div class="subHeadingNavG">Men's Sports</div>
<a href="sports.php?sid=mbb">Basketball</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=cc">Cross Country</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=fb">Football</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=sk">Skiing</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tn">Tennis</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tf">Track and Field</a>
<div class="subHeadingNavG">Women's Sports</div>
<a href="sports.php?sid=wbb">Basketball</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=cc">Cross Country</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=gf">Golf</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=sk">Skiing</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tn">Tennis</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=tf">Track and Field</a>
<a href="sports.php?sid=vb">Volleyball</a>
<div class="subHeadingNavG">More Info</div>
<a href="academics.php">Academics & Compliance</a>
<a href="facilities.php">Facilities</a>
<a href="images/lilcats/lilcats.pdf">Lil' Cats</a>
<a href="sitemap.php">Site Index</a>
<a href="spiritsquad.php">Spirit Squad</a>
<a href="staff.php">Staff Directory</a> 
This should be more along the lines of this:

<ul id="leftnav">
<ul id="mens_sports_subnav">
<li><h4>Men’s Sports</h4></li>
<li><a href="sports.php?sid=mbb">Basketball</a></li>
...
</ul>
</ul>
At the very least, this line:

<div class="subHeadingNavG">Men's Sports</div>
should be more like this:

<span class="subHeadingNavG">Men's Sports</span>
Seems like a small difference, and it is, but it's what it MEANS that matters.

I'm also really unsure why there are so many comments saying "begin branded section" and "end branded section." Seems excessive and produces code-bloat.

Using valid XHTML and CSS would also have eliminated your need for the "text only" link. It would have just been there.

I realize I sound hypercritical, and I'm not trying to. It's just that with eight months of intensive labor, why design a site that is amounts to essentially a visual update? Why use technology and techniques from the mid-1990s?

Sorry, but if I was giving it a letter grade, it would be a C- at best.

Nerd Alert.

webdav · Post by **webdav** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:46 am

rtb wrote:kmax and webdav - did you email your comments to them like they asked? That would be a big help I think each of you has valuable input.

webdav - what grade does BobcatNation get?

Unfortunately, my criticisms of the site are not "problems" per se. Besides, they are things that almost have to be considered BEFORE a redesign, and at this point, they've chosen their horse in the race.

webdav · Post by **webdav** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:48 am

Egg Salad wrote:Nerd Alert.

Nerd, no. Geek, definately.

Post by **kmax** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:51 am

webdav wrote:
Egg Salad wrote:Nerd Alert.
Nerd, no. Geek, definately.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:03 am

http://www.bobcatnation.com/bobcatboard ... php?t=7565

Post by **kmax** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:22 am

CelticCat wrote:http://www.bobcatnation.com/bobcatboard ... php?t=7565

Sorry Celtic, I saw that you had this up first, but since this one was posted by the MSU people I chose to respond here as I figured this would be the main thread they would read for feedback.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:22 pm

webdav wrote:
Egg Salad wrote:Nerd Alert.
Nerd, no. Geek, definately.

There is a difference!