NEW eServices website!

[mynetdude]

www.capnhq.gov, they got a GREAT facelift going there I just logged in and thought it would be down for awhile but they were fast! .

[NIN]

Hmmm, too bad its "un-Firefox-friendly" so far....

EDIT: 4 minutes later, still waiting on the "Password" dialog to render in Firefox, and I've opened IE and I'm waiting on anything but the "Civil Air Patrol eServices Login" banner to display..

[NIN]

UPDATE: Refreshed browser in Firefox, got a full render of the page including password dialog and login button.  Supplied credentials. Now waiting 2+ minutes for content.

IE, however, is still just griding away.

[Lancer]

UPDATE: Refreshed browser in Firefox, got a full render of the page including password dialog and login button.  Supplied credentials. Now waiting 2+ minutes for content.

IE, however, is still just griding away.

Seems to be fine for me.

Nice to see someone found the AJAX for ASP.NET tools. 

[mikeylikey]

www.capnhq.gov, they got a GREAT facelift going there I just logged in and thought it would be down for awhile but they were fast! .

Thats a facelift.  A fifth grader can do better on a MAC.  Come on.  What a waste of IT time. 

All they did was change color and layout, for the worse. 

So disappointed this morning!   

[jeders]

www.capnhq.gov, they got a GREAT facelift going there I just logged in and thought it would be down for awhile but they were fast! .

Thats a facelift.  A fifth grader can do better on a MAC.  Come on.  What a waste of IT time. 

All they did was change color and layout, for the worse. 

So disappointed this morning!   

I have to agree. I was expecting something that was a step in a positive direction. More disappointment from National.

[mynetdude]

but don't you agree it is considerably improved from the last layout? I don't know if the colors really have changed, although they did add some new colors as well.

The site seems "smaller" now. I don't know what else you all wanted NHQ to put out? The announcement said they would be adding a category feature with favorites & others so you can separate what modules you use most.

[jeders]

but don't you agree it is considerably improved from the last layout? I don't know if the colors really have changed, although they did add some new colors as well.

Actually, they didn't really change the layout. Everything is still in the same place, just with different colors, fonts, and borders. With the old layout, everything was also nicely balanced.

The announcement said they would be adding a category feature with favorites & others so you can separate what modules you use most.

This part I do like, although most people have nothing over there and will not care about that.

[Bluelakes 13]

I was hopng for a lot more than just a template change.  Bummer...

[mikeylikey]

I was hopng for a lot more than just a template change.  Bummer...

So true.  It's like the IT DEPT said "to show we are working for the way too much money we get, lets bunch everything together and change a few colors".

I would like to see it go back to the old layout and color scheme.  Keep whatever they added, but space it out some.

[mynetdude]

yeah like everybody said nothing new except for the layout, the content is all the same.

Would be nice if they would continue adding more modules so we could eliminate the WMU completely rather than spice up the layout... it didn't improve anything nor functionality/usability whatever.

[Lancer]

You guys are a bunch of complainer's. 

They said they would:

    *  New look and feel.
    * Organize your CAP Utilities and Restricted applications into Favorites and Other. You will be able to select from all the applications to which you have access and choose to have them show (Favorites) or not show (Other).
    * Updated Review/Edit My Information application.

Let's see...

New look and feel. Check.

Organize  CAP Utilities and Restricted Applications into Favorites and Other. Check.

Updated Review/Edit My Information application. Check.


Sure it wasn't a ground breaking new site, but it was exactly what they said it was going to be. Why expect more?

I for one am happy with what they did, and I'm in IT!

[mynetdude]

You guys are a bunch of complainer's. 

They said they would:

    *  New look and feel.
    * Organize your CAP Utilities and Restricted applications into Favorites and Other. You will be able to select from all the applications to which you have access and choose to have them show (Favorites) or not show (Other).
    * Updated Review/Edit My Information application.

Let's see...

New look and feel. Check.

Organize  CAP Utilities and Restricted Applications into Favorites and Other. Check.

Updated Review/Edit My Information application. Check.


Sure it wasn't a ground breaking new site, but it was exactly what they said it was going to be. Why expect more?

I for one am happy with what they did, and I'm in IT!

I am in IT too, they gave what they said they would do. I am not asking for more, although it didn't really "add" any value to the old site layout really its all still there just in a different layout with a tad bit more functionality.

as IT I would want to see more modules though

[Tim Medeiros]

I am sure they would be more than happy to entertain suggestions from the field.  Feel free to use the Help Desk so they can be tracked easier.  Personally, I like the new scheme, now just waiting for them to update the applications and utilities.  As of now we have 4 different templates used for them (one for older applications such as CAPWATCH_DownLoad, another for applications such as Member Search, Membership is slightly different as well and finally for the latest batch which includes CAP Magazine Admin under Utilities and Cadet Promotions under restricted applications).  It seemed as though they were going in that direction when they updated Calendar Admin but I guess not.

[♠SARKID♠]

yeah like everybody said nothing new except for the layout, the content is all the same.

Would be nice if they would continue adding more modules so we could eliminate the WMU completely rather than spice up the layout... it didn't improve anything nor functionality/usability whatever.

Leave my WMU alone.  When eServices beefes up its security and puts restrictions on itself, myabe you can go away from WMU.  But when a recent test proved that C/A1C Purple could certify Maj. Yellow as a mission pilot, I just gripped harder onto WMU.
[/sidetrack]

I dunno, I think we're jumping the gun with a lot of our rants and raves about this new look.  For all we know, they are working in steps.  That was just a little change to show that things will be a bit different now, so when more stuff looks different don't be surprised.  For something that just came out today(?) we're bashing it a tad bit too hard.  Give it time folks, give it time.

[mynetdude]

yeah like everybody said nothing new except for the layout, the content is all the same.

Would be nice if they would continue adding more modules so we could eliminate the WMU completely rather than spice up the layout... it didn't improve anything nor functionality/usability whatever.

Leave my WMU alone.  When eServices beefes up its security and puts restrictions on itself, myabe you can go away from WMU.  But when a recent test proved that C/A1C Purple could certify Maj. Yellow as a mission pilot, I just gripped harder onto WMU.
[/sidetrack]

I prefer to dump the WMU, and have a more centralized system.  Yes sure a cadet can approve some Maj to be a MP that doesn't give them the final approval as the commander still has to sign the final approving.  For example, I can sign people off in various ES qualifications/tasks including their mission participations but that does not make them approved whatsoever as the commander will have to approve that SQTR on his end of the deal in his eServices. 

That being said, if a commander sees a cadet signing off a Maj for MP, the commander should have the wits and smarts to KNOW that the sign off is grossly misrepresented and invalid and should REJECT it otherwise.  The security and restrictions shouldn't be clamped down because person C can approve person A when person A5 should be approving person A people need to use their common sense especially from an IT standpoint/point of view.

[JC004]

What the crap?  It says "Cadet Promotions - Gen J F Curry   N/A   29 Jun 2004" 

Stupid thing.  Doesn't go well with "Billy Mitchell  01 Aug 2002"   

[arajca]

WMU is not a CAP-developed system. It was developed by a member, just like SIMS, but was not blessed by National and is hosted on a non-CAP server. WMU pulls information from Eservices, but doesn't push anything back to Eservices.

A significant glitch in WMU is that WMU lists the task approver as whoever enters the task completion data, not who actually approves it. In WMU, I am listed as approving my own ES quals because I entered the data. In Eservices, the person who signed off on my task completions is listed. 

Moving back to the topic, I am disappointed with the update. True, they did exactly what they said they were going to do, but doing so added no value or usibility to Eservices. Plus, they didn't apply the same style throughout, only the login and home pages got updated. A waste of resources.

[mikeylikey]

^ and the login page looks terrible in fact!

[mynetdude]

yeah login, whatever... I liked the old layout anyway. The new one isn't bad either, just not great.

[LtCol Hooligan]

What the crap?  It says "Cadet Promotions - Gen J F Curry   N/A   29 Jun 2004" 

Stupid thing.  Doesn't go well with "Billy Mitchell  01 Aug 2002"   

It might be saying that because that was the date someone entered for your currey achievement back when the current ES rating system came on-line.  I know the dates did not mean much in the past- just that you had passed your airman.  Someone may have just entered a random date in there.

[JC004]

yeah...I remember that being added like that, and IIRC, you couldn't date it to the correct date.  They should probably display these differently though.   

[LtCol Hooligan]

That is very true.  I just checked and I see a couple of my cadets having the same problem.  Essentially the date of the curry was the date that someone took the time to enter their stuff into eServices.  Fortunately, it looks like we can change the date in the admin section.  I guess hopefully this will be fixed as we go through and update the cadets records. 

[a2capt]

I just don't like it. It's "too big", too much wasted space.

Everything is in Mr. Magoo font size. Blech.

the old one was nice and efficient - and they could have accomplished the same thing with the configurable screens without the whole swapping change.

Gotta see if there's an extension for using your own CSS with a particular web site, for Firefox.

I sure hope they don't change all the sub modules to that scheme.

[♠SARKID♠]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4593.0

[MIKE]

Merged.

[Tim Medeiros]

the only problem with the old versions font-size is that  those who had problems seeing such as our older generation found the font-size entirely too small.  Considering the average age of our senior members is 55, as of the Atlanta NB in 2007, that is alot of people with potential sight problems.  So we adapt our main tool which they use so that they can use it.  It would be nice if they had given us the ability to chose a font-size but I'm sure that will happen in time.

[SarDragon]

Regarding type size - I use Internet Exploder, and it allows you to change the text size in two ways: hold down the Control key, and work the wheel on your mouse, or for the technology-challenged folks, click View | Text Size in the menu, and pick one. Both methods work in both flavors of eServices pages.

[Gunner C]

www.capnhq.gov, they got a GREAT facelift going there I just logged in and thought it would be down for awhile but they were fast! .

Thats a facelift.  A fifth grader can do better on a MAC.  Come on.  What a waste of IT time. 

All they did was change color and layout, for the worse. 

So disappointed this morning!   

It wasn't done by IT.  It was done by a CAP member who charged BIG BUCKS for it.  Rumor has it that it was done by the same guy who did the MDWG site.  If so, he did the MER site, too.  He took the MDWG stuff and changed it to MER. My source tells me that he charged between $3000 and $5000 dollars.   Wast/Fraud/Abuse anyone? Any sweetheart deal there? Wonder how much he charged NHQ (read: You) for that?

Here in the West . . . well, we just done put up with that stuff.

GC

[mikeylikey]

^ Crap, if that is true, then NHQ needs to either get rid of their paid IT staff, or stop farming IT jobs out.  You either have a paid staff (which they do) or you don't.  IF this really is the case, it may be a waste and abuse issue.  I will gladly take $3,000 to change colors and fonts and move stuff around without really adding anything. 

I am shocked.   

[pixelwonk]

Let's weigh in on things we have no idea about.  good times. Yay!

[NIN]

Yeah, since, you know, all truly "good" web stuff is done by two guys with a copy of Dreamweaver between them and costs around $29.95, right?

There was an old joke a number of years ago about a retired engineer who is brought back by the outfit he retired from the diagnose a problem with a large complex system he had helped to design. After a couple hours of examining the systems and determining the problem he put a big chalk X on the malfunctioning component, which was replaced and the plant returned to its former efficiency.  When presented with his bill for services, the finance people balked.  The bill was for $25,000.  They demanded an itemized accounting of his charges.  To which he returned an invoice that stated "Chalk mark: $1.00  Knowing where to put it: $24,999"

All too often a customer says "I want my site to look and work JUST LIKE THAT ONE THERE!" and so you go out and do the best job you can to replicate the site.  Sounds like in this instance it was made 200% easier by the example site being designed by the same developer.  Everybody wins.

Anybody even bothered to LOOK at MD Wing's site?  Its a well developed website running a fairly well involved content management system.  Its well organized, it reflects a lot of "AF.mil" influences, its probably managed by a team a couple site managers and a system that allows fairly unskilled members to get content published quickly without a bunch of esoteric knowledge.    Gee, might NHQ take some lessons from that, even?

If "Someone™" just replicated that for the MER site: Whats the problem?  You expand on what works.  If that was budgeted and paid, well, then fine. That's their business.  Developing a site (even if its just changing the graphics and color scheme) costs money and takes time.  If you want a mickey-mouse Geocities site that looks like it was put together by Cadet Bagodonuts in his basement between 2000 and 2220 on a Tuesday night, hey, cleared in hot, Airborne.  (Apologies to Cadet Bagodonuts).  But if you want a professional system, built with a professional product, delivering a professional looking result, you're gonna pay professional prices.  Particularly if you want it "yesterday."

Anybody besides Tedd here make his living as a developer?

[LtCol Hooligan]

Anybody besides Tedd here make his living as a developer?

No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once

[JC004]

...
Anybody besides Tedd here make his living as a developer?

uh hu...and MDWG uses ColdFusion, as a side note.

[mikeylikey]

...
Anybody besides Tedd here make his living as a developer?

uh hu...and MDWG uses ColdFusion, as a side note.

The only thing you develop are hangovers Sir!