Remarkable Squadron Website (GA-045)

[Stonewall]

I know there was a "best" or "worst" squadron website thread, but I think this one calls for its own thread so I can "praise in public".

http://gawg.cap.gov/GA045/

Most impressive is the professionalism they displayed during a 2 1/2 minute news segment on a major affiliate: http://gawg.cap.gov/GA045/Videos/11Alive%20Story%202007.wmv

Hats off to you Lt Col Berry!

[JC004]

Need some image optimization to get those file sizes down, but a good effort overall.  We need more outstanding unit web sites.

[Stonewall]

I am far from any technical guru, but from where I'm sitting, something about the site just motivates me.  Professionally done and just captured me.

And that news feed.  You couldn't ask for better looking uniforms and more professional members.  You didn't see a bunch unruly cadets walking around with some sleeves up, some down, 3 different hats, BBDUs mixed in with BDUs, boonies, or anything.  I don't know, maybe I'm easily impressed, but I wish all squadrons could look that squared away.

[BBerry]

Thanks for the plug, Stonewall! 

Our website is the product of an active unit and a motivated PAO/Webmaster, MAJ Mike Reed.  The site's been very useful for recruiting and public information, by highlighting (especially in our "PHOTOS" section) our activities. 

One thing our unit members have learned by now:  Document everything with photos!  From unit social activities to actual missions, we keep a running "Snoopy Log" of each event throughout the year, which we immediately post on the website, and roll into a year-end video.  We then use the site, the "Snoopy Log", and the videos to show to recruits and visitors, as well as to our cadets and their parents.  It's amazing to see how busy we've been as the year draws to a close!

As to the professional look of our folks, let's just say we know when the camera's are out, and that unprofessional photos won't make the cut!  And of course we knew the local news station was going to film, so we ensured that we looked our best for them. 

I hope these points help other units think about ways they can improve their own websites -- they're often the first look many get of your squadron.

[afgeo4]

I'm going to hold this to a high standard, not because these members didn't do a good job, but precisely because they did.

I think the website colors are too random with many primary colors that don't reflect on other pages or on other sections of same page.

I think there are waaaaaay too many logos and a person not familiar with CAP would be overwhelmed by the site and go back to surfing. From the main page I got the picture that the squadron or organization is sponsored by a newschannel... are they?

From the front page I got the impression that the unit received a lifesaving award. Did it or did a member of the unit receive one? If it was a member, that needs to be specifically stated. Also... what's the grey ribbon with clasps on it talking about Search and Rescue?

I think the best CAP website is done by MD wing at:
http://www.mdcap.org

The only problem is that they should be at http://www.mdwg.cap.gov and they're not.

I think the 2nd best website I've seen is done by one of our own at: http://www.syracusecap.org

Again, I think it should become http://www.135.nywg.cap.gov, but those are just my opinions.

[AlphaSigOU]

SSCS never disappoints in the uniform wear and military bearing department. I've known Lt Col Berry off and on since way back in the days WIWAC. (Well, I was a member of the cross-town rival Peachtree-Dekalb Cadet Squadron (GA-065), but it was a friendly rivalry!)

[Capt Rivera]

Lt Col Berry,

Looks like you guys have a new URL:  http://www.ga045.org/

I was hoping to see this example of a great CAP squadron site but the new page only loads a background image in firefox and chrome...

Can you let us know when the page is back up?

If stonewall praised in public such as he did.... I want to see it for myself...

Video still works... and yes its worth the watch...

[Thom]

Well, since this thread has already been revived...

This website is up and working perfectly...provided that you view it using Internet Explorer.

I realize that the person who designed and maintains it does so in their spare time, volunteer effort, etc., etc., but failing to make sure that half the people out there can even see your site is a pretty huge oversight.

In fact, I tried and failed to get the page to render on Firefox, Chrome, and, the cardinal sin these days, Safari on my iPhone.  If your site isn't viewable on an iPhone/iPad device, you might as well not put it up.

Hopefully the squadron's IT folks just need a little prod to take care of this, since the website is very nice and should be viewable by as many folks as possible.


Thom

[Майор Хаткевич]

Thanks for the IE tip...as sad as that is.

I took a look at the site, and it might have been great by 2000 standards, but...


No Firefox support
Each link opens a new browser window. Not directly go there, not in a tab, a new window.
.Gif animation, and the quality...

I'm not ripping on it, since it's more than most units have, but to be honest, that set up will NOT impress someone my age, or younger.

[DakRadz]

In my IE, the links opened up a new tab. But I'd say if they fixed the linkage properly and provided support for all popular browsers, the site would be good to go for a volunteer-run production.

[Lancer]

Coming from a strictly constructive viewpoint as someone who builds website for a living.

1 ) The fact that the site is only viewable in IE is a *huge* problem that should be dealt with immediately. Sure, IE maintains market share simply because that's what the 'sheeple' use. Cross browser platform accessibility is a must. I wouln't worry about making sure the site is viewable on an iPad, iPod, iPhone. It might be nice, but not necessary.

2 ) We do not fly military fighter aircraft, so why do we put these in our graphics? Sorry...major pet peeve of mine. People seem to be embarrassed by the fact that we fly small single engine aircraft, not cool enough for you?

3 ) Center your page elements and allow them to scale with the browser window.

4 ) Only external links should open in a new tab or window, internal links should stay in the same window

5 ) Either change the link for 'CAP History' to a page about the unit's history or remove it all together. Remember, this website is about your unit, not CAP as a whole.

6 ) Be sure to make sure you're properly naming your page title's, 'New Page 1' is not what I would call an effective name for your 'Officer Staff' page. Some pages don't seem to even have a 'Title' attribute.  For example, the name for the home page is 'SSCS Index' Don't be afraid to spell it out; i.e. 'Sandy Springs Cadet Squadron - Home', and follow this logic for the rest of the pages.

7 ) If you are going to use links to PDF files as site pages, make sure you remove the spaces from the file name. Either capitalize each word for clarity or use an '_' underscore instead of a space. Some browsers don't know how to handle spaces in filenames.

8 ) There is no META data. If you want to get indexed by search engines and be able to be found when people search for you, you need meta keywords and a meta description. That way, when you come up in the search results, people can read a short paragraph about your site.

9 ) While including CSS style data in your site's is ok, it's best configured as an externally referenced/linked file. Also, don't be afraid to name the 'styles' for what they're actually linked to. It makes it far easier later on down the road to know what each CSS element is meant for.

10 ) Track your visitors. Use a service like Statcounter or Google Analytics to see who's visiting, how long they're visiting, etc. this will also help you tweak your site regarding possible improvements.

Overall, not bad, certainly a better attempt than many other unit's I've seen.

[Майор Хаткевич]

As expected, someone with more than one web-development class under their belt chimed in with some great input.

[DBlair]

Great looking unit website, certainly beats most I've seen! I also applaud them for going into such detail and keeping it updated. I've found that many unit sites have information that was current as of a couple years ago.



Sidenote to praise: Great news piece, showcased so many aspects of CAP in a great report.
Sidenote to nitpick: the C/CMS instead of C/CMSgt bothers me.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sidenote to nitpick: the C/CMS instead of C/CMSgt bothers me.

It should, since that's not the correct abbreviation.

[Thom]

Coming from a strictly constructive viewpoint as someone who builds website for a living.

1 ) The fact that the site is only viewable in IE is a *huge* problem that should be dealt with immediately. Sure, IE maintains market share simply because that's what the 'sheeple' use. Cross browser platform accessibility is a must. I wouln't worry about making sure the site is viewable on an iPad, iPod, iPhone. It might be nice, but not necessary.

<snip>

I have to disagree on this point.  I'm slightly surprised to hear a full-time webmaster say that, given the explosive growth of the iPad, iPhone, iP*** devices.

I agree that I wouldn't generate a whole separate site just to support those devices, but I would certainly take the very minor steps needed to ensure that my primary site renders and functions on those devices.  They just represent too large a part of the community (and growing!) to ignore.

If that limits the ability to use Flash, I see that as a trade-off worth making.  (NB: I'm neither an Apple Fanboy nor a fan of Flash.  I hate everyone equally!)


Thom

[Майор Хаткевич]

Most people making a decision to join CAP won't be doing it on their phone browser though...

For cadets, it will be a talk with the parents and showing them the site on a computer.
For SMs, probably the same. As much as I enjoy phone browsers, they aren't the best or fastest way to get information.

[Lancer]

I have to disagree on this point.  I'm slightly surprised to hear a full-time webmaster say that, given the explosive growth of the iPad, iPhone, iP*** devices.

I agree that I wouldn't generate a whole separate site just to support those devices, but I would certainly take the very minor steps needed to ensure that my primary site renders and functions on those devices.  They just represent too large a part of the community (and growing!) to ignore.

If that limits the ability to use Flash, I see that as a trade-off worth making.  (NB: I'm neither an Apple Fanboy nor a fan of Flash.  I hate everyone equally!)


Thom

At this stage in the game for them, Apple device compatibility is a 'nice to have', not a 'need to have'. At best, they'd be better off to ensure browser compatibility on the Macintosh platform before anything else.

Once, and if they ever get the points I brought up addressed, then, and only then should the begin to consider usability on extraneous mobile devices.

This is by no means a slam, but the fact that most of the content is an image generated in some brand of photo manipulation software and/or PDF documents, the person who created this site seems to not have much experience. Which is not a bad thing per`se, but certainly not what I would call 'standards compliant.'

Again, I'm not trying to nit pick. Just trying to offer some constructive advice.

[JC004]

Use WordPress with a good theme and fix all these display issues.  Done.   

You can even very easily do a mobile site in WordPress.  There are plugins (although I use my own).

[Майор Хаткевич]

I don't consider this a complete site, and the unit is new at this point, but this is the type of style I'm accustomed to these days. Obviously not everyone will agree. http://chicagosquadron.com/

[Lancer]

I don't consider this a complete site, and the unit is new at this point, but this is the type of style I'm accustomed to these days. Obviously not everyone will agree. http://chicagosquadron.com/

Yeah, pretty brand spanking new. I know the leadership at that unit, they're doing great things there and all together is one of the best upstart CAP unit's I've seen lately.

Here's one of my favorite CAP unit sites.

http://www.cachevalleysquadron.org

It could use some little tweaks here and there, but the over look is gorgeous and and is rather functional.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I like it. All a Squadron site needs is the basic info, and a clean layout. That site qualifies.

[JC004]

...
Here's one of my favorite CAP unit sites.

http://www.cachevalleysquadron.org

It could use some little tweaks here and there, but the over look is gorgeous and and is rather functional.

WordPress.   

[HGjunkie]

Nitpicks:
C/CC is missing his Earhart ribbon

The Life Saved document has poor grammar.

Overall a good website.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The life saved document has poor grammar.

[SarDragon]

The life saved document has poor grammar.

KACHING! 

[HGjunkie]

 

[Snoopy Squadron PAO]

As the website developer for the Sandy Springs Cadet Squadron, I am humbled and impressed by the number and quality of recommendations this forum has offered. I can assure all of you that many of these suggestions have been well received by our unit and are in the process of being addressed or at least pursued. Others will take a little bit of time. Try to keep in mind that the overriding issue here is that the website developer, namely myself, is a Lockheed Martin Engineering Director by profession and not a professional website developer. Everything you see on that website resulted from a self-taught effort using MS Expressions and CorelDraw as the graphic medium to produce the site. As such, the effort leaves much to be learned and a great deal of ignorance following in close trail.

It is important to note that the purpose of this website differs than that typically presented by other unit websites. While other unit websites intend to 'inform' the public about the CAP and their unit, this website was developed primarily as a retention tool to show the cadets in this unit what they have been able to accomplish each year and to afford them the capability of displaying to their friends what they actually do in CAP far exceeds that experienced in other venues like JROTC, sports, or Middle/High School. The website has served this purpose well, gaining 2008 Balsem Award recognition and effectively eliminating the need for further unit recruiting drives. But as you all point out, it's not perfect. Of special recognition are the 10 points offered by 'Lancer'. We found these particularly valuable and quite specific enough to provide avenues for corrective action for us to pursue. So, let's address those one at a time, shall we?

1) IE Viewability – This is definitely a HUGE problem, and was not understood until after the new site was developed in MS Expressions. Apparently, Microsoft embeds HTML code in the development of its HTML files that restrict other non-Microsoft web browsers from viewing those pages accurately. We only discovered that after the website was hosted live. Short of developing the site in another development tool we don't have a resolution for this problem. (Advice from the Gallery is requested here)

2) Aaah The F-22 Header – Allow me to provide some information not readily apparent here. The Snoopy Squadron is a 'Cadet' unit that has about 74 members of which roughly 30 are Senior Members, most were former cadets. Of those, half were former cadets in this unit, ranging from the 1960's to the 2000's. About 6 of those SMs are currently Senior Engineering Managers and Directors working for Lockheed Martin and were involved in the development and testing of the F-22 Raptor over the past 20 years. We helped design that bird. And several of us are involved in the upgrades being planned for it. This allows the unit to be placed in the unique position of promoting its Aerospace Education Program via F-22 cockpit simulator rides and assembly plant tours not typically available to cadets of other squadrons.  So, the Snoopy Squadron is definitely bound to the F-22 Program and thus the significance of the F-22 image on the webpage header. But we certainly understand the sentiment by those unfamiliar with the unit. We aren't too fond of posers either.

3) Browser Scalability – This is an excellent point! I just wish I knew how to do that in MS Expressions. (Advice from the Gallery is certainly welcome here)

4) Internal Links Using New Windows – Ooops! My bad. I just wasn't familiar with the webpage developer protocol on this. We can fix that. Thanks.

5) CAP History Link – Hmm, you have a good point. We can fix that too. Thanks.

6) HTML Page Titles – Another good Point. Actually, these use to be accurate before porting to 'Expressions' but I haven't been able to find out how Expressions lets me do that. When I do, these will change to become more accurate. (Advice from the Gallery is welcome here)

7) PDF File Naming Convention  -  I didn't know that either. We can fix that one too.

8) No META Data -  Yep, the old site had them but we lost the Meta Data when porting to Expressions and re-hosting on GO DADDY.COM. We plan to rep-identify those again. Although, I don't think we'll be much competition with CAP national HQ or Wikipedia for the number one Google spot.

9) CSS Style Data – The problem here is; I have no idea how to use CSS style sheets. The entire website is a group of linked CorelDraw developed graphics on a single HTML page. If you can effectively teach how to use CSS sheets, there's a beer in it for you. (Advice from the Gallery is welcome here)

10) Visitor Tracking – The website use to incorporate a free visitor tracking utility from Two Cows that proved quite effective. But is didn't make the re-host so we need to get it back on there. Good recommendation.

The wealth of recommendations we found on this forum was very insightful and we certainly plan to use it. It should be noted that because of the philosophical approach taken by the unit on this website, its appearance will certainly not mimic those more professionally traditional sites found on the web. This is not to disparage those other websites as I've seen several outstanding ones with more on the way each year. The Snoopy Squadron website is focused on motivating the unit's cadets into being proud of their status as CAP Cadets. Our position on them is that if we're going to train them hard to fly, and then drag them into the woods to look for potentially serious crashes, then they're not kids anymore, they're Cadets. And our webpage intends to turn them into frigging movie stars. But your recommendations come well received and we thank you for them. Should you find your way into Atlanta in the future, look us up. We'll be happy to provide the food and drinks for your webpage advice.

Best Regards,

Mike Reed
Director, Lockheed Martin

:clap:

[SarDragon]

Advice from the gallery: abandon the M$ product. Similar to other M$ products, there's an internal "conspiracy" to suck you into M$ black hole, never to exit.

I understand that it might be a bit of a hardship, but after all the mentions you gave about its shortcomings, it would be well considered to make the switch. I use Dreamweaver, and after a bit of a learning curve, I'm pretty comfortable with it. It has a feature that helps you get rid of the bloated M$ code, and the CSS tutorial is good.

Give it a thought or two.

YMMV.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Mr (for lack of knowing grade) Reed,

.CSS sheets are very simple to do, and give you the ability to change the website as a whole/in part as needed.

I've taken only one online class though my university, but I've found the web itself a perfect teacher.

Sites like this helped a lot:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/styles.html


This was a LIFE saver:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp


A part of developing sites these days also includes getting away from developing graphics, and using the languages themselves to do it.

If that's too much time, and for me it did turn out to be so, yahoo hosting will do wonders in a pinch: mbsmfg.com

[davidsinn]

Advice from the gallery: abandon the M$ product. Similar to other M$ products, there's an internal "conspiracy" to suck you into M$ black hole, never to exit.

I understand that it might be a bit of a hardship, but after all the mentions you gave about its shortcomings, it would be well considered to make the switch. I use Dreamweaver, and after a bit of a learning curve, I'm pretty comfortable with it. It has a feature that helps you get rid of the bloated M$ code, and the CSS tutorial is good.

Give it a thought or two.

YMMV.

Here's a free alternative http://net2.com/nvu/ I've used it just playing around. It's not too shabby.

[Stonewall]

Mr. Reed,

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

I also have a close friend in the upper ranks of LM in the Northern Virginia area.  So I know the site comes from good blood 

[davidsinn]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

[Lancer]

Of special recognition are the 10 points offered by 'Lancer'. We found these particularly valuable and quite specific enough to provide avenues for corrective action for us to pursue. So, let's address those one at a time, shall we?

I'm glad you found my points useful. Again, only trying to be helpful. Unit's of your obvious caliber, deserve to have a web site that  shows the world your accomplishments. It can be a huge matter of pride for your members, cadets and SM's alike.

1) IE Viewability – This is definitely a HUGE problem, and was not understood until after the new site was developed in MS Expressions. Apparently, Microsoft embeds HTML code in the development of its HTML files that restrict other non-Microsoft web browsers from viewing those pages accurately. We only discovered that after the website was hosted live. Short of developing the site in another development tool we don't have a resolution for this problem. (Advice from the Gallery is requested here)

As others have stated, Microsoft products will get you pretty much nowhere in the internet world. Even from a developer standpoint, .NET and .ASP aren't preferred, but used because corporations are so ensconced in the 'Microsoft World', they pretty much have no choice. But that's neither here nor there in this thread.

If you're going to develop from scratch, the best route to go is Adobe Dreamweaver, but the learning curve for someone unfamiliar to web development can be rather daunting.

As Colgan has pointed out, another option is Wordpress; but unless you're going to get someone to create a custom template for you, for considerable $$$, then you'll only end up with a site that lacks the pizazz you're looking for.

2) Aaah The F-22 Header – Allow me to provide some information not readily apparent here. The Snoopy Squadron is a 'Cadet' unit that has about 74 members of which roughly 30 are Senior Members, most were former cadets. Of those, half were former cadets in this unit, ranging from the 1960's to the 2000's. About 6 of those SMs are currently Senior Engineering Managers and Directors working for Lockheed Martin and were involved in the development and testing of the F-22 Raptor over the past 20 years. We helped design that bird. And several of us are involved in the upgrades being planned for it. This allows the unit to be placed in the unique position of promoting its Aerospace Education Program via F-22 cockpit simulator rides and assembly plant tours not typically available to cadets of other squadrons.  So, the Snoopy Squadron is definitely bound to the F-22 Program and thus the significance of the F-22 image on the webpage header. But we certainly understand the sentiment by those unfamiliar with the unit. We aren't too fond of posers either.

Very Cool. I'm sure there are a ton of us that are envious of the opportunities afforded to your members because of this relationship. I for one am among those who would love to sit in a Raptor simulator. ;-) If this information isn't available on the site, it should be. My primary reason for calling this out is because your website is, and should be primarily a tool for the public to learn about your squadron and generally, putting aircraft like this into graphics for your site can sell something a unit shouldn't be. In your case, there is a valid correlation, but it should be explained; and to your unit's benefit is a prime selling point for new membership.

My first recommendation would be to poll your rather large membership for anyone that does have skills around creating websites, that is, if you haven't done so already. If that proves to be futile, then my suggestion would be to use a service called 'Weebly'. Basic use is free and the 'Pro' service is really inexpensive, IMHO.

Weebly is a browser based web site design and hosting service that is all 'drag and drop', but don't let that fool you into thinking it's not capable of producing a quality site. Each element they have available is very customizable. The best part about it is, it's easy and quick to use. You can bang out a new website for your unit in a matter of a week or two (of course that all depends on the free time you have available).

http://www.weebly.com - Check it out.

Here is one example that I am aware of for a CAP unit that uses Weebly effectively - http://www.foxcitiescap.org

PM me if you have any questions, I'll shoot you my e-mail address.

[A.Member]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

[davidsinn]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

Which means you leave out 40% of the market.

[Pylon]

Well, in CAP, we're rife with recruits, donors, and mission clients so we can afford to leave out 40% of potential ones. 

[AlphaSigOU]

Mr (for lack of knowing grade) Reed...

IIRC he's an SM major, unless he's taken the gold tarnish off his bottlecaps. (Mike and his sister were cadinks together with me in GA wing back when dinosaurs roamed the earth - though I was a member of their friendly rival squadron.  )

[Майор Хаткевич]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

You were saying?

2010 July:

IE 8/7/6 - 30.4%
Firefox -  46.4%
Chrome - 16.7%
Safari - 3.4%
Opera - 2.3%


IE only is 1/3 of the market these days.

[HGjunkie]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

You were saying?

2010 July:

IE 8/7/6 - 30.4%
Firefox -  46.4%
Chrome - 16.7%
Safari - 3.4%
Opera - 2.3%


IE only is 1/3 of the market these days.

Nope:


http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&sample=32

[A.Member]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

Which means you leave out 40% of the market.

At a minimum, you must test for both IE and Firefox.  Ideally, you also include Chrome , Safari, and Opera.   However, if the site works in Firefox, it will likely work in Chrome and Opera.

The suggestions above indicate they "don't care" about IE.  That is foolish.  Users of less popular browsers also tend to understand that they are using something that is less mainstream and as a result there may be certain functionality differences for which  they need to make accommodations.   

[A.Member]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

You were saying?

2010 July:

IE 8/7/6 - 30.4%
Firefox -  46.4%
Chrome - 16.7%
Safari - 3.4%
Opera - 2.3%


IE only is 1/3 of the market these days.

Guess that depends on your source:
NetMarketShare Broswer Market Share, July 2010



W3 Global Web Stats, June 2010

Statcounter Global Stats, Through 2010

The point is, that IE is still, by far the most popular browser used.   To suggest that it dosn't matter or you don't care about it is foolish.

[HGjunkie]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

You were saying?

2010 July:

IE 8/7/6 - 30.4%
Firefox -  46.4%
Chrome - 16.7%
Safari - 3.4%
Opera - 2.3%


IE only is 1/3 of the market these days.

Guess that depends on your source:
NetMarketShare Broswer Market Share, July 2010



W3, June 2010

The point is, that IE is still, by far the most popular browser used.   To suggest that it dosn't matter or you don't care about it is foolish.

That's 2 against 1.

[Capt Rivera]

From W3:

Statistics Are Often MisleadingYou cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics can often be misleading.
Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, while other sites attract hobbyists using old low spec computers.
Also be aware that  many statistics may have an incomplete or faulty browser detection. It is quite common by many web-stats report programs, not to detect the newest browsers.
(The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures).

From MarketShare:

We use a unique methodology for collecting this data.  We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers.  The data is compiled from approximately 160 million visitors per month.  The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics.  The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly, weekly, daily and hourly basis.

In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search engines.  Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized and reported on.  The statistics for search engines include both organic and sponsored referrals.  The websites in our population represent almost all countries on earth.

[Майор Хаткевич]

So between all sources, IE is either ~30, 45 or 60%. Could a company afford loosing 40% of their customer base? what about 55%? 70%? I know that would hurt my bottom line every month.

IE is down 12% in one year according to the W3 counter. It will only continue, and as was stated, most people use IE because, well, they aren't quite proficient with web capabilities.

[A.Member]

So between all sources, IE is either ~30, 45 or 60%. Could a company afford loosing 40% of their customer base? what about 55%? 70%? I know that would hurt my bottom line every month.

IE is down 12% in one year according to the W3 counter. It will only continue, and as was stated, most people use IE because, well, they aren't quite proficient with web capabilities.

ie...see my post at the top of this page (reply #40):

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2880.msg203420#msg203420

[Майор Хаткевич]

So between all sources, IE is either ~30, 45 or 60%. Could a company afford loosing 40% of their customer base? what about 55%? 70%? I know that would hurt my bottom line every month.

IE is down 12% in one year according to the W3 counter. It will only continue, and as was stated, most people use IE because, well, they aren't quite proficient with web capabilities.

ie...see my post at the top of this page (reply #40):

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2880.msg203420#msg203420

I don't use IE because it's not secure. Because it was/is the biggest browser, it's obviously attacked a lot more (just like Windows is over Apple).  When working with eCommerce, I'd rather not use a browser that's been easily hacked to get any and all information from.

[Pylon]

Who cares if it has 30% or 80% market share.  It also doesn't matter if you use/don't use, support/don't support, like/hate IE.   The point is that there are thousands of users you're trying to target not using IE that can't use a site if it's only compatiable with IE.   

If you can afford to leave out chunks of your target market, why bother market on the web at all?

There are basically two development subsets:  one for IE.  and one for standards-based browsers.  If you develop for IE, you risk leaving out a significant market share of users who may not be able to access or properly use your website - especially mobile users (a growing portion of the web browsers.  And again, whether you like it/hate it, use mobile browsing/don't use it, think it's stupid/think it's revolutionary doesn't matter - what matters is that people you're trying to reach are using it).   

However, if you do strict standards-based development, it's a good chance your site will work and appear 90%+ correctly in just about every browser out there, including the usually litany of Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc., and will also likely work fairly decently on mobile browsers.  Standards-compliant websites also will at minimum work in IE (whereas some IE-centric sites, like the above example, don't work at all in other browsers) though there may be some functionality or design quirks.

It's clear which approach has the advantage, regardless of market share percentages or the personal browser preferences of the developer.

[A.Member]

Who cares if it has 30% or 80% market share.  It also doesn't matter if you use/don't use, support/don't support, like/hate IE.   The point is that there are thousands of users you're trying to target not using IE that can't use a site if it's only compatiable with IE.   

If you can afford to leave out chunks of your target market, why bother market on the web at all?

There are basically two development subsets:  one for IE.  and one for standards-based browsers.  If you develop for IE, you risk leaving out a significant market share of users who may not be able to access or properly use your website - especially mobile users (a growing portion of the web browsers.  And again, whether you like it/hate it, use mobile browsing/don't use it, think it's stupid/think it's revolutionary doesn't matter - what matters is that people you're trying to reach are using it).   

However, if you do strict standards-based development, it's a good chance your site will work and appear 90%+ correctly in just about every browser out there, including the usually litany of Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc., and will also likely work fairly decently on mobile browsers.  Standards-compliant websites also will at minimum work in IE (whereas some IE-centric sites, like the above example, don't work at all in other browsers) though there may be some functionality or design quirks.

It's clear which approach has the advantage, regardless of market share percentages or the personal browser preferences of the developer.

Agreed!

[Stonewall]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

[HGjunkie]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

That's what we do on CAP Talk! 

[A.Member]

I don't use IE because it's not secure. Because it was/is the biggest browser, it's obviously attacked a lot more (just like Windows is over Apple).  When working with eCommerce, I'd rather not use a browser that's been easily hacked to get any and all information from.

Sorry but can't let this myth continue to propagate either....

Firefox, Safari Top Browser Vulnerability List

Symantec 2009 Global Internet Security Threat Report
See page 36...and I hope you have the Firefox plug-in for .pdfs...   

Speaking of plug-ins, that is a point of real concern:
http://w2spconf.com/2010/papers/p21.pdf

And don't get me started on Adobe's vulnerabilities because they're getting smoked right now.

So, some would argue that because of it's popularity, IE's exploits are found sooner and more widely reported, thus making it more secure than others (or at least as secure as others).

[A.Member]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

Actually, your thread has sparked some very valuable discussion...and gave the webmaster of the site you pointed out some constructive tips for improvement.

[RADIOMAN015]

That's a very good website.  I've just about thrown in the towel on our squadron website, and actually am trying to recruit a senior member that will work on improving the website, since time wise I can't do everything, and my day job has me at a computer all day long (and I have no desire to do this all night long)  

No website is going to be perfect but if one can capture what your squadron is all about, than it's a great accomplishment.

I personally think that a good website with weekly news updates, can take the place of those quarterly newsletters, which really are pretty late news after the fact.  Also a good up to date squadron schedule (both cadet & senior member) is essential.

RM   

[Short Field]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

That's what we do on CAP Talk! 

Really?  That is the way you see CAP Talk?  It is amazing that the website managed to survive for three years without all the extra "constructive" input. 

[vento]

Who cares if it has 30% or 80% market share.  It also doesn't matter if you use/don't use, support/don't support, like/hate IE.   The point is that there are thousands of users you're trying to target not using IE that can't use a site if it's only compatiable with IE.   

If you can afford to leave out chunks of your target market, why bother market on the web at all?

There are basically two development subsets:  one for IE.  and one for standards-based browsers.  If you develop for IE, you risk leaving out a significant market share of users who may not be able to access or properly use your website - especially mobile users (a growing portion of the web browsers.  And again, whether you like it/hate it, use mobile browsing/don't use it, think it's stupid/think it's revolutionary doesn't matter - what matters is that people you're trying to reach are using it).   

However, if you do strict standards-based development, it's a good chance your site will work and appear 90%+ correctly in just about every browser out there, including the usually litany of Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc., and will also likely work fairly decently on mobile browsers.  Standards-compliant websites also will at minimum work in IE (whereas some IE-centric sites, like the above example, don't work at all in other browsers) though there may be some functionality or design quirks.

It's clear which approach has the advantage, regardless of market share percentages or the personal browser preferences of the developer.

Well said!  :clap:

[Eclipse]

The average squadron should not be rolling their own website, they should be using services like Google and Blogger.  Complicated websites, meaning anything not using templates, widgets and other low-level tools, don't live past the "guy" who designed it leaving the unit or no longer being interested in doing it.

This is not a knock against many beautiful efforts out there, simply the reality of our needs and sustainable abilities.

You can put together very professional, easy to use sites that fit all your needs and are easy to update without more than about an hour's effort.

[A.Member]

The average squadron should not be rolling their own website, they should be using services like Google and Blogger.  Complicated websites, meaning anything not using templates, widgets and other low-level tools, don't live past the "guy" who designed it leaving the unit or no longer being interested in doing it.

This is not a knock against many beautiful efforts out there, simply the reality of our needs and sustainable abilities.

You can put together very professional, easy to use sites that fit all your needs and are easy to update without more than about an hour's effort.

I tend to agree with this.  About 6 months seems pretty typical before interest in regularly maintaining the site wanes.  If the site is not easy to update (ie requires coding) it may never be done again.  As much as I despise the blog style sites with cookie cutter formats, they serve a purpose.