Squadron Websites

[DakRadz]

So, I was going to tack onto the Remarkable Squadron Website thread, but that was locked.

http://sites.google.com/site/curraheecando/home

What advice do you have for this website? Please keep it at a level where I can Google what you say
I'm not particularly skilled at this, and we don't have any adults who are either, but something could be arranged if good suggestions are made.

Factor in price- I'm not sure what Google's cost is, but that's about what we're going to put in to it for the moment cash-wise.

I know that the seal in the top-left corner needs to be fixed so that when clicked it returns to home page.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Get a non landscape background image. I can't read half your menu without highlighting.

Once that is done, you can un-highlight the actual text of the page.

The menu is just a bit too...big?

#
Currahee Can-Do!

    *
      Announcements
    *
      Cadet Chain of Command
    *
      Cadet of the Quarter Point System
    *
      Commander's Comments
    *
      Command Philosophy
    *
      Ongoing Activity
    *
      Online Pictures
    *
      Recent Activity
    *
      Recruiting Team
    *
      The Commander
    *
      Who Are We?
          o
            boosters
          o
            Cadets
          o
            juniors
          o
            Officers, Duty Positions

#
CAP Videos

    *
      Sit and Reach
    *
      Sit-ups

#
Civil Air Patrol Links
#
Civil Air Patrol Precepts

    *
      12 General Orders of the Interior Guard
    *
      CAP Mission Statement
    *
      CAP Vision Statement
    *
      Civil Air Patrol Core Values
    *
      Civil Air Patrol Motto
    *
      The Cadet Oath
    *
      USAF Academy Honor Code

#
Squadron Only

    *
      Blog
    *
      Calendar
    *
      Members Only

#
Sitemap

[A.Member]

I'll offer this...

Think about what is that you want to accomplish with your website.  What is the objective?

Often times it seems as though people create websites just because they feel the must have one.  That may be true...but why?  Is it to attract new members?   Is it to keep current members informed?  Is it both?   There are many reasons.

Make sure you understand the needs of your audience.  And as was stated in the other thread, make sure you can reach that audience.  If you don't know how, find someone that does.

That said, my view is that a squadron website should be focused on just that -- the squadron.   We already have a national site.  Some general background is OK but there is no need to reinvent the wheel.   To that point, do not copy down a bunch of documents that already exist on the National site.   Simply link to them, if needed.

Follow the KISS method to site layout and design.

Think about who is going to maintain the site and how frequently it will be updated...then cut that time in half because it will never be updated as much as you plan.   Don't come up with a design that can't meet this constraint.  You indicated that you don't have resources particularly skilled at this, that should be as somewhat of a sign.

Read CAPR 110-1 and follow it -- you need a disclaimer.

I will not claim our site is the end all beat all -- and as is always the case, it's a work in progress (ie. we just moved to a new server and as a result one of the forms needs to be redesigned, better leverage CSS, etc) but in general it suits our needs well.  We use a Webex intanet site for internal needs -- other similar sites are available for a small monthly fee.  If you care, our site is:
www.mncap.org/viking

(always open to constructive criticism as well)

[DakRadz]

A.Member- Thank you! For the advice plus for showing a website which follows what I have always wanted to see.

It irks me to see a website with the "About Us" as the default home page- and all it says is what the National level program does.
I like the General Information section because that's where National stuff should be put- each squadron specializes somewhere, and I feel like regurgitating our three missions to describe the squadron itself is impersonal and pushes member prospects a little further away, for those who just check local websites.


The menu is rather large- remember, we don't really have anyone who knows this type of thing (maybe 1 SM, but he works, is the AE officer, and participates in AE quite a bit- not going to try and push this on him). But I'm going to try my hand if Col will give me the (pass)keys to the site

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

Our site is actually done by a fellow cadet in the squadron...
http://martinsburgcap.com/

Don't worry about using a white background, it makes it more professional. A landscape picture makes the website look horrible, no offense.

[Eclipse]

Our site is actually done by a fellow cadet in the squadron...
http://martinsburgcap.com/

Don't worry about using a white background, it makes it more professional. A landscape picture makes the website look horrible, no offense.

You might mention that the logo in the middle is incorrectly scaled and should not be used.

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

Our site is actually done by a fellow cadet in the squadron...
http://martinsburgcap.com/

Don't worry about using a white background, it makes it more professional. A landscape picture makes the website look horrible, no offense.

You might mention that the logo in the middle is incorrectly scaled and should not be used.

I don't see anything wrong with the scaling of the image. It was made smaller to fit on the web page.

[Thom]

Our site is actually done by a fellow cadet in the squadron...
http://martinsburgcap.com/

Don't worry about using a white background, it makes it more professional. A landscape picture makes the website look horrible, no offense.

You might mention that the logo in the middle is incorrectly scaled and should not be used.

I don't see anything wrong with the scaling of the image. It was made smaller to fit on the web page.

Actually what Eclipse was getting at is that the 'contents' of the image you are using are incorrectly scaled, so no matter how big or small you make the image it will still be incorrect.  The colors are also non-standard, but I don't have an iron-clad reference on why NOT to use the blue and silver, so I'll leave that as a call to someone to find the reg.

As to the content of the image, the Seal is WAY too large in relation to the Air Force Wings image.  The proper relation can be found in CAPR900-2 or on the Air Force Art page, here:  http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187

I'd insert an image as reference, but the only conveniently hosted copy I find at the Air Force site is HUGE.

Anyway, the official usable seals, emblems, etc. are to be found in CAPR900-2.  That should be your first stop.


Thom

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

I'll pass that on to the Webmaster...

What really amazes me is that their 1st Sergeant is a C/SrA
https://docs.google.com/present/embed?hl=en&id=0AcrTts9q3iIZZGN6NGh0Y25fNjZjbTRtcW1ocQ&size=l

[DC]

I'll pass that on to the Webmaster...

What really amazes me is that their 1st Sergeant is a C/SrA
https://docs.google.com/present/embed?hl=en&id=0AcrTts9q3iIZZGN6NGh0Y25fNjZjbTRtcW1ocQ&size=l

Yeah, they need to take a look at the org charts in CAPP 52-15...

[DakRadz]

Not been updated. He isn't.

We only have so many members. Choosing a C/First Sergeant for their level of responsibility and maturity over their rank is somewhat preferable.

We could just call the First Sergeant an Enlisted Advisor, the Flt/CC a Figure Of Authority (FOA, Report!- yeah...), etc. etc. Why not just let those cadets prove they can handle the job? And avoid confusing the cadets when one cadet fills three positions (unofficially due to the titles of those jobs) to make sure everything runs smoothly.
I'll start a new topic on this- but I didn't come here to be bashed about following regs.

Now, I appreciate the comments on the site, let us continue our thread, eh?

[Eclipse]

We only have so many members. Choosing a C/First Sergeant for their level of responsibility and maturity over their rank is somewhat preferable.

First Shirts must be at least C/MSgt's to wear the diamond and hold the title.  Maturity, experience, whatever don't trump a reg, especially one where there is no room for doubt.

There are reasons why cadets are supposed to wait until various stages before taking leadership roles, and unit would be best served to
have the seniors herd the cats until they have cadets that are ready, instead of throwing them in the deep end and robbing them of the experience of followership.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Not been updated. He isn't.

We only have so many members. Choosing a C/First Sergeant for their level of responsibility and maturity over their rank is somewhat preferable.

We could just call the First Sergeant an Enlisted Advisor, the Flt/CC a Figure Of Authority (FOA, Report!- yeah...), etc. etc. Why not just let those cadets prove they can handle the job? And avoid confusing the cadets when one cadet fills three positions (unofficially due to the titles of those jobs) to make sure everything runs smoothly.
I'll start a new topic on this- but I didn't come here to be bashed about following regs.

Now, I appreciate the comments on the site, let us continue our thread, eh?

The input from NHQ is appreciated, but rarely represents the reality on the ground for most units...

[DakRadz]

The input from NHQ is appreciated, but rarely represents the reality on the ground for most units...

I'm not normally one to fluff post in this manner, but...

+10

[Daniel]

I was going to comment but then I was caught up in attempting to add up myself on your point system. Unlike most of the people that posted I find the nav-system to be of good length. Now I would just make sure that your pages actually have content before publishing them for instance, "Who We Are" > "Cadets" is a page with the number "23" on it. Which says nothing about your cadet programme

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

We only have so many members. Choosing a C/First Sergeant for their level of responsibility and maturity over their rank is somewhat preferable.

First Shirts must be at least C/MSgt's to wear the diamond and hold the title.  Maturity, experience, whatever don't trump a reg, especially one where there is no room for doubt.

There are reasons why cadets are supposed to wait until various stages before taking leadership roles, and unit would be best served to
have the seniors herd the cats until they have cadets that are ready, instead of throwing them in the deep end and robbing them of the experience of followership.

I completely agree. You must be at least a C/MSgt to the highest C/CMSgt be a 1Sgt. You cannot simply defy regulations because you thing someone is more mature than the said C/MSgt, C/SMSgt, or C/CMSgt.

Poorly structured Chain of Command in my opinion, now don't take that personal. I see a C/MSgt that is just a element member and does not hold authority in a place they should.

It is a chain of command for a reason, and in the Civil Air Patrol, the higher up the chain of command, the higher rank you tend to be.

[DakRadz]

We only have so many members. Choosing a C/First Sergeant for their level of responsibility and maturity over their rank is somewhat preferable.

First Shirts must be at least C/MSgt's to wear the diamond and hold the title.  Maturity, experience, whatever don't trump a reg, especially one where there is no room for doubt.

There are reasons why cadets are supposed to wait until various stages before taking leadership roles, and unit would be best served to
have the seniors herd the cats until they have cadets that are ready, instead of throwing them in the deep end and robbing them of the experience of followership.

I completely agree. You must be at least a C/MSgt to the highest C/CMSgt be a 1Sgt. You cannot simply defy regulations because you thing someone is more mature than the said C/MSgt, C/SMSgt, or C/CMSgt.

Poorly structured Chain of Command in my opinion, now don't take that personal. I see a C/MSgt that is just a element member and does not hold authority in a place they should.

It is a chain of command for a reason, and in the Civil Air Patrol, the higher up the chain of command, the higher rank you tend to be.

You mean the Cadet Master Sergeant who is in the process of turning Senior Member? Who just joined our squadron three weeks ago? Someone I've known for about that long? I'm really going to make an unknown cadet who is nearly a SM an authority figure with a cadet title? Pfft.

If you wish to continue this and be educated on how I run my command, then feel free to send a PM.

I did ask that we stay on topic.

[Short Field]

You mean the Cadet Master Sergeant who is in the process of turning Senior Member? Who just joined our squadron three weeks ago? Someone I've known for about that long? I'm really going to make an unknown cadet who is nearly a SM an authority figure with a cadet title?

So the C/MSgt ceases to be an authority figure when he turns SM?  Does that mean when he is a SM you don't have to call him "Sir"?

[Майор Хаткевич]

You mean the Cadet Master Sergeant who is in the process of turning Senior Member? Who just joined our squadron three weeks ago? Someone I've known for about that long? I'm really going to make an unknown cadet who is nearly a SM an authority figure with a cadet title?

So the C/MSgt ceases to be an authority figure when he turns SM?  Does that mean when he is a SM you don't have to call him "Sir"?

I think the emphasis is on RECENT Transfer and switching to SM was additional support for the position.

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

We only have so many members. Choosing a C/First Sergeant for their level of responsibility and maturity over their rank is somewhat preferable.

First Shirts must be at least C/MSgt's to wear the diamond and hold the title.  Maturity, experience, whatever don't trump a reg, especially one where there is no room for doubt.

There are reasons why cadets are supposed to wait until various stages before taking leadership roles, and unit would be best served to
have the seniors herd the cats until they have cadets that are ready, instead of throwing them in the deep end and robbing them of the experience of followership.

I completely agree. You must be at least a C/MSgt to the highest C/CMSgt be a 1Sgt. You cannot simply defy regulations because you thing someone is more mature than the said C/MSgt, C/SMSgt, or C/CMSgt.

Poorly structured Chain of Command in my opinion, now don't take that personal. I see a C/MSgt that is just a element member and does not hold authority in a place they should.

It is a chain of command for a reason, and in the Civil Air Patrol, the higher up the chain of command, the higher rank you tend to be.

You mean the Cadet Master Sergeant who is in the process of turning Senior Member? Who just joined our squadron three weeks ago? Someone I've known for about that long? I'm really going to make an unknown cadet who is nearly a SM an authority figure with a cadet title? Pfft.

If you wish to continue this and be educated on how I run my command, then feel free to send a PM.

I did ask that we stay on topic.

Still, you cannot have a Cadet that is currently at an airman rank hold the position of First Sergeant, emphasis on the Sergeant part. I am not telling you how to run your flight, I am telling you what the regulation of having a First Sergeant is. It even says it in your Leadership Book. Chapter 6 I do believe.

I could be a First Sergeant since I am a C/MSgt, but I am not. That is besides the point though...