Mandatory CAP Web Page Template

[ande.boyer]

Anyone heard anything about headquarters mandating some kind of template that all units are supposed to start using on their web pages?  If so, any details would be great...

(If this should go in a different forum, please move this thread....didn't really see a section that was appropriate for this topic)

[RiverAux]

No, and it isn't likely. 

[DC]

I wish they would, it would eliminate all of the super-outdated, straight-out-of-1998 websites so many units have.

[Al Sayre]

Problem is that NHQ isn't paying the bill.  When they start paying for squadron websites, then they can dictate the form and content.  I have no problem with a suggested format and content. 

See the other discussion on the new logo.  Putting up a mandatory format would stifle some of the really good websites and do little for the crappy ones. No matter how good your format is, if you have crappy content, you have a crappy site.  So it isn't going to do much good in either case.

[NIN]

A suggested style guide, some graphics that you can easily paste in, or even a template for the Internet-ly challenged would *help*.

But if you don't even suggest a style guide, don't give some decent graphics to use, or even have some examples of "good" you're going to get a whole lot of "bad."

[A.Member]

A suggested style guide, some graphics that you can easily paste in, or even a template for the Internet-ly challenged would *help*.

But if you don't even suggest a style guide, don't give some decent graphics to use, or even have some examples of "good" you're going to get a whole lot of "bad."

Agreed.

[A.Member]

Problem is that NHQ isn't paying the bill.  When they start paying for squadron websites, then they can dictate the form and content.  I have no problem with a suggested format and content. 

See the other discussion on the new logo.  Putting up a mandatory format would stifle some of the really good websites and do little for the crappy ones. No matter how good your format is, if you have crappy content, you have a crappy site.  So it isn't going to do much good in either case.

I agree.   

As NIN, pointed out, having a stylesheet or something similar might be a good start.  One of the real problems is that some people think they know how to build a website because they have enough technical ability to publish some text.  What they often lack is any ability pertaining to design and content - there are a few truly awful sites out there (perhaps worse, the people creating those sites don't even recognize it).  On the flip side, there are truly some very talented members that have created some excellent sites - some undoubtedly better than what a National template would likely provide.  You don't want to lost those quality sites.  So, a balance needs to be struck.   

What constitutes "good" v. "bad" certainly becomes subjective and opinions will always differ to some extent, however, if some guidelines are in place that can potentially reduce the crappy sites while still allowing the good ones to flourish. 

[Eclipse]

I could potentially even live with a mandatory entry page template - perhaps a single contact page created by NHQ, which would then forward to the "real" website, etc., for the unit.

This way all units would have something, and they would be consistent, yet no one is forced to use what would undoubtedly be a lowest common denominator system beyond the first page.

Templates are not a guarantee of quality, either.  Anyone who has seen the 20 different ways that users can mess up the insignias, or pixelate their own logo would know that.

I agree further that its the content, not the form, that makes the most difference.

[NIN]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1450.msg21734#msg21734

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1375.msg19893#msg19893

[Lancer]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=220.msg32639#msg32639

[RADIOMAN015]

I could potentially even live with a mandatory entry page template - perhaps a single contact page created by NHQ, which would then forward to the "real" website, etc., for the unit.

This way all units would have something, and they would be consistent, yet no one is forced to use what would undoubtedly be a lowest common denominator system beyond the first page.

Actually the data base of units http://cap.findlocation.com/ does have a specific format to include:  Unit Name, Contact Phone/Email, Meeting address, unit web address, meeting time/day, charter #, and specific unit notes (usually IF in military base about ID/pre notification, etc).
RM   

[A.Member]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1450.msg21734#msg21734

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1375.msg19893#msg19893

Both are good and reasonable suggestions, especially for squadrons that don't have any expertise/ability to create a site.  

The first suggestion may also help reduce the number of "abandoned" sites.  On-going maintenance/updates often seems to be as big an issue as the design and content issues.   People often start out gung-ho and with the best intentions but eventually updates become an issue.  This is something that needs to be factored into the equation when taking on the decision to have a website.  Limiting the amount of content to be updated is often key.

As for the second suggestion, it's an interesting proposal.   We use Webex Weboffice for our internal/members-only portion of the site.  Among other features it contains our calendar, serves as a central document repository (w/backup), and allows for messaging.  It allows multiple members to update/add content.  We incur a small monthly fee ($15) but it serves us well.  But, as you suggest, I'm sure e-Services could be leveraged to come up with a similar solution.  

[Eclipse]

My Group uses Webex services for calendar and groupware - we get it free through a program that offers services to the military, their families, and affiliated organizations.  Last time I checked, the level of service we were getting was significantly more expensive than you're indicating - is that per-user?

For those from the business world who are used to this type of system, its great, document check in, shared calendar, the works.  For those less savvy, its got a pretty high learning curve for basic functionality.  I've been appreciative of the service, but have had issues getting my units to utilize it fully (despite the "lights on" when they do.

I don't think the organization mindset exists uniformly to expect everyone to use it.

[A.Member]

My Group uses Webex services for calendar and groupware - we get it free through a program that offers services to the military, their families, and affiliated organizations.  Last time I checked, the level of service we were getting was significantly more expensive than you're indicating - is that per-user?

Would be very interested to learn more about your program for pricing.  How much storage space do you get?  Free always beats $15.

[Eclipse]

My Group uses Webex services for calendar and groupware - we get it free through a program that offers services to the military, their families, and affiliated organizations.  Last time I checked, the level of service we were getting was significantly more expensive than you're indicating - is that per-user?

Would be very interested to learn more about your program for pricing.  How much storage space do you get?  Free always beats $15.

I initially lit up a 100-user license, but we only get 100mb storage, which hasn't been a problem for the last 5+ years,  but could be in this day and age of ubiquitous free storage.

I'd say the best best today is to open a Google Apps for Business account under their free 501c(30 program.  You'll get gobs of storage, I got 300 free email accounts w/ 25mb in boxes, shared calendar, the works - pretty much everything WebEx offers and since a lot of people already use GMail, less learning curve and much easier personal integration.

They wil also host the email domain is you move the MX records there, which I am in the process of doing now.  Porting the email lists has been the biggest hassle.