New Look for Website

[EMT-83]

gocivilairpatrol.com

I was a little surprised at the new look – much cleaner.

[Persona non grata]

beat me to posting this

[Eclipse]

I no longer need the googles!  (which is good, because they do nothing...)

Much.

Better.

[nitpick]
The photoshopped MAJCOM is crooked.
The "learn More" link doesn't work.
I don't think I'll be going to CAP's site for a wiki link to "New Year".
Hate the look of white shirts under the blue field and utilities
[/nitpick]

[jeders]

Wow. I actually did a double take when I saw that.  :clap:

A much cleaner look, and it doesn't take forever to load the content.

[davidsinn]

It looks pretty, but where the frak do I find anything on it?

[jimmydeanno]

I think it looks a whole lot better.

My only nit-pick would be that "what we do" is relegated to the bottom corner, out of sight, out of mind.

[Eclipse]

Seriously, this needs work.  There's "stuff" all over the place at the edges, inside the plane, etc.

Why can't we take photos on purpose with correct insignia, decals, and a good background instead of having to hack things together all the time?

Granted, uber nitpick for the average person, but for people who do this kind of work, the "willies".

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Seriously, this needs work.  There's "stuff" all over the place at the edges, inside the plane, etc.

Why can't we take photos on purpose with correct insignia, decals, and a good background instead of having to hack things together all the time?

Granted, uber nitpick for the average person, but for people who do this kind of work, the "willies".

That is a really bad photoshop job.

[EMT-83]

I can't find the triangle thingy anywhere.

[a2capt]

At least it loads nicely now. I hope they re-do capmembers.com in a similar way, real soon. That would be one step in the right direction.

The next would be to fix that hideous CMS they use.

No one, and I mean, NO WHERE ELSE have I ever come across downloads presented with names that look like they are spit out of a sausage maker.

[Eclipse]

No one, and I mean, NO WHERE ELSE have I ever come across downloads presented with names that look like they are spit out of a sausage maker.

That I really don't get.   I realize it is probably an offshoot of the way the USAF does (did?) their docs, and is probably someone's idea of a "good" idea, but it doesn't seem to make any sense, and even within the "standard" there is no standard.

[arajca]

It's a measure of laziness to use the default document names provided by scanner software instead of taking 30 secs to change it to a sensible name.

It's a double measure when you continue to use them after updating the document.

[AirDX]

That I really don't get.   I realize it is probably an offshoot of the way the USAF does (did?) their docs, and is probably someone's idea of a "good" idea, but it doesn't seem to make any sense, and even within the "standard" there is no standard.

No - Air Force E-Publishing is so straight forward it's a little scary.  AFI11-202V3 is... AFI11-202V3.pdf.  I don't know where CAP got its system.

[a2capt]

Scanner software? This stuff is all native PDF. As in Print to PDF, or exported as PDF.

[Pylon]

So after I was impressed with the move in the right direction to a "WordPress-like" CMS appearance and navigation, and the ditching of the ridiculous overusage of grunge effect, I'm finding a few serious problems.


We don't tell people anywhere on the homepage or anywhere within one click of the homepage what we do.  In laymans terms.  Yeah, I see that little graphic in the bottom right corner of the homepage, but it just says the names of the 3 missions and offers nothing more.  What's worse is that graphic doesn't link to anything!   Whaaaat?  Why wouldn't the "Cadet Programs" link to an explanation of CP, and "Aerospace Education" link to an explanation of that, etc.?


Also, if you click on the "About" tab (which sadly is all the way to the right), it takes you to a page about our history.  I know we're really proud of stuff CAP did 65 years ago, but when someone new to CAP clicks on a tab called "About", we should probably lead with at least a few sentences about what CAP is today.  Keep the history within the lengthier discussion of "about CAP" but you lead off with an executive summary.


So the website doesn't tell anybody what CAP does.  If you're a teen or parent, you're directed to a FAQ page first.  Uhh.... well, it's pretty hard to have questions when you haven't been told what CAP is and what it does for your audience yet.  Those links for Teens, Parents, Clergy, etc. are great in theory (segmenting audiences is a good tactic) but you need to give them an audience-specific pitch about CAP and what it is/can do for them.  Then if they have questions, link to the FAQ page afterwards.


And as if we haven't over-emphasized our history over what we do today enough, we take a slice of the homepage to ALSO explain our history and link to more historical information (remember, nowhere do we explain or link to what WE DO AS AN ORGANIZATION TODAY though).




Why is Membership benefits a top level tab?  And why is it more prominent than "How to Join" and easier to find than information about WHAT CAP DOES?    Sorry, first of all, our "benefits" aren't impressive enough to compel anybody to join within first knowing what CAP is and does.  Second, saying we have these (seriously dubious) "benefits" should be, AT BEST, a few bullet points on the join page.  Get rid of the tab.  Absolutely ridiculous.


Why is Donate more prominent than joining?  And when you click on Donate, do we really have to be subject to this hideous and absolutely ridiculous graphic? 
That's just ridiculous.  It makes us look even worse than amateur hour (because even amateur graphic artists today would recognize that as embarrassingly messed up).  It makes us look like amateur hour 1997 and conveys a message that we're some fly-by-night operation.  If that (along with wording that's misleading and legally incorrect) instills donor confidence, rather than important information about what the money will be used for, why it's important to donate, how much money we need, and third-party validation like a CharityNavigator rating icon, well then I can imagine why we're getting ZERO donations through that portal. 




How about this on the homepage:

And is there any reason that we take up primary real estate on our homepage to offer a terrible and gaudy "Happy New Year 2011" graphic that links to the Wikipedia page explaining what New Year's celebrations are all about?  Really?  REALLY?   Were we confused that someone might not know what New Year's is all about and so we feel the need as a public service to raise awareness for New Year's?











Steps in the right direction with the design, but the content (and content is more important than anything else) severely lacks.

[A.Member]

Only had enough time to type the URL and load the page but my initial thought is:  MUCH BETTER!!!

I look at it more later but the only other initial comment I have is that the "What We Do" needs to be more prominently positioned above the "CAP history" and "I Want to Join".   
 
Nonetheless, it's a move in the right direction!

:clap:

[RiverAux]

Looks like we need to have yet another talk about branding....

"Everyday heroes, Every Day" and "Citizens Serving Communities Above and Beyond" both on the same page? 

And people thought I was being silly worrying about how the conference motto contest might morph into yet another CAP motto/tagline/whatever

[A.Member]

We don't tell people anywhere on the homepage or anywhere within one click of the homepage what we do.  In laymans terms.  Yeah, I see that little graphic in the bottom right corner of the homepage, but it just says the names of the 3 missions and offers nothing more.  What's worse is that graphic doesn't link to anything!   ...

Funny (well, not funny but you know what I mean).  I just posted the same thing but I didn't attempt to click on the image.  Are you saying that the link takes you to a 404 or to a page with no real information?  I'll look at the site again when I have more time but I suspect that I'll have similar concerns since I often agree with many of your assessments on this topic.

If it's not ready for prime time, it should not have been cut over to production.

Let's just say that aesthetically, it's cleaner ( :clap:).   However, it may not address any of the content issues of the previous site ( ).

[jeders]

We don't tell people anywhere on the homepage or anywhere within one click of the homepage what we do.  In laymans terms.  Yeah, I see that little graphic in the bottom right corner of the homepage, but it just says the names of the 3 missions and offers nothing more.  What's worse is that graphic doesn't link to anything!   ...

Funny (well, not funny but you know what I mean).  I just posted the same thing but I didn't attempt to click on the image.  Are you saying that the link takes you to a 404 or to a page with no real information?  I'll look at the site again when I have more time but I suspect that I'll have similar concerns since I often agree with many of your assessments on this topic.

It's not that they link to bad/blank pages, it's that they don't link anywhere at all. It's just a static picture saying the names of our three missions.

[davidsinn]

We don't tell people anywhere on the homepage or anywhere within one click of the homepage what we do.  In laymans terms.  Yeah, I see that little graphic in the bottom right corner of the homepage, but it just says the names of the 3 missions and offers nothing more.  What's worse is that graphic doesn't link to anything!   ...

Funny (well, not funny but you know what I mean).  I just posted the same thing but I didn't attempt to click on the image.  Are you saying that the link takes you to a 404 or to a page with no real information?  I'll look at the site again when I have more time but I suspect that I'll have similar concerns since I often agree with many of your assessments on this topic.

It's not that they link to bad/blank pages, it's that they don't link anywhere at all. It's just a static picture saying the names of our three missions.

I swear that graphic changed since the last time I looked at it. Maybe this wasn't supposed to be live yet and somebody screwed the pooch?

[Eclipse]

The "Learn More" link is working now, but I don't think giving the history as the first page is a good idea.

[ProdigalJim]

Pylon's right on...

It's obvious from comparing the mechanics of the old site (which you can still see at the Members' site) with the new one that they went to something templated and off-the-shelf...probably to make it faster and easier to manage all the site content.

But they gave up a lot of flexibility. I think the News page looks awful...there are, indeed, as many posters have noted, lots of places that intuitively feel as if they should be clicked for a deeper dive, and then you get nothing.

The social-media and mobile stuff is on the lower right, "below the fold" for many screensizes, particularly laptops. At least before it was upper right.

And the whole thing feels like a paean to Good Ole' CAP...instead of Look At CAP Today. Any casual user who goes to this site to learn more about CAP and to explore an impulse to join would be very frustrated: way, way too many clicks. And most of the headings feel too "generic" to be totally explanatory. That's what you would expect with an "out-of-the-box" web-hosted content system. This really isn't much more than Intuit on steroids, and it shows.

FWIW, we've been doing a project at work since late spring to refresh our website...not even the functionality, just the UI, look and feel. It probably won't launch until summer. There will be people who love it and people who hate it, but the result will, at least, have been researched, focus-group tested, and crafted with lots of specific use-cases in mind.

I'm getting the sense here this was "Hey, our website is too content-heavy to manage on our own. My brother-in-law just did a website for bike shop with these guys at SiteViz...it was really easy, and he didn't need any programming skills. We should call them." I'm probably over-exaggerating, but just a little...

[Eclipse]

The social-media and mobile stuff is on the lower right, "below the fold" for many screensizes, particularly laptops.

Where it belongs...

We don't need "gee-whiz", we need content, and no one with 1/2 a clue is rolling their own HTML anymore, especially if they don't have paid staff, there is just no reason to do it.

And if you want to see "stark", "cookie-cutter", just look to FB or Twitter - not exactly creative, but people seem to still use it.

Once you get past the basics (like a decent graphic edit) content is king.  Clear and concise shows you mean business.

[jimmydeanno]

But they gave up a lot of flexibility. I think the News page looks awful...there are, indeed, as many posters have noted, lots of places that intuitively feel as if they should be clicked for a deeper dive, and then you get nothing.

Not nit-picking here, but the CMS they were using for the grunge site had little to no flexibility.  There was a lot of "cheating the system" to get it to do things they wanted to.  It really was pretty horrible. 

[Pylon]

It's not that they link to bad/blank pages, it's that they don't link anywhere at all. It's just a static picture saying the names of our three missions.

And it's clearly because our missions are self-explanatory.  "Emergency Services" obviously means we offer ambulance rides, 24-hour health hotlines for nurse consults, and shelter and supplies for families displaced by fires.  Right? 


And "Cadet Programs" must be self-explanatory to the public, too, since we don't offer an explanation of Cadet Programs until you're at minimum (assuming you click the right links) 3 clicks deep from the homepage.  Because the public knows that our cadet program does that same thing as cadets at the military academies and ROTC.   Right?  We're a military entrance program, right?   And we pay for a free ride to college, right?

[ProdigalJim]

The social-media and mobile stuff is on the lower right, "below the fold" for many screensizes, particularly laptops.

Once you get past the basics (like a decent graphic edit) content is king.  Clear and concise shows you mean business.

Couldn't agree more. I've paid my mortgage for the past 28 years making content. But I see less content here than on the old site...and the presumption (which I'll admit, is a dangerous thing) was that this was because the cookie-cutter CMS they've adopted makes it even less appealing to use than the evidently inflexible CMS they used previously.

Overall, this is a less-rich experience than the old site was...although a bit cleaner.

[ProdigalJim]

And it's clearly because our missions are self-explanatory.  "Emergency Services" obviously means we offer ambulance rides, 24-hour health hotlines for nurse consults, and shelter and supplies for families displaced by fires.  Right? 


And "Cadet Programs" must be self-explanatory to the public, too, since we don't offer an explanation of Cadet Programs until you're at minimum (assuming you click the right links) 3 clicks deep from the homepage.  Because the public knows that our cadet program does that same thing as cadets at the military academies and ROTC.   Right?  We're a military entrance program, right?   And we pay for a free ride to college, right?

Exactly. A cleaner, but less-rich experience. Not good for us, as we're trying to get people to understand who we are, what we do, and how they might benefit from working with us.

[wuzafuzz]

GREAT SCOTT!  That banner image is awful.  I felt better about my total 2010 taxes than that graphic.

I agree the look is a bit cleaner.  The old site was busy enough to drive a MySpace fanatic nuts.  But the new site fails miserably at "selling" CAP to anyone who doesn't already know something about it.  The template is fine, just add meaningful content!

Why can't we seem to get out of our own way?  Sigh...

[Smokey]

But the link for "Already a member?" to get to the member site doesn't work.  Figures!!!

[ßτε]

But the link for "Already a member?" to get to the member site doesn't work.  Figures!!!

Yes it does. You just need to "Click here" where it says "Click here".

[Smokey]

Ah yes...you are right that unless you get it exactly on the small print...it wont work.

[JC004]

What Pylon said.  They need to ditch this CMS and draw on the talent base available from the membership.  I could have implemented a far better CMS in less time than this mess took when they created gocivilairpatrol, and without that cost and proprietary system lock-in.  I'm sure a good team of members could do the very same.

[Pylon]

Bottom line:   Content rules.  This site lacks it.


Good content helps:
-- compel site visitors to action (donating, joining, subscribing to updates, etc.)
-- substantially improve search engine ranking
-- make the organization look credible to the industry (in our case, government & the AF) and the press
-- press and media understand the organization when they write stories about us (most reporters will at least Google subjects in their stories to learn background info)

The site's CMS could have been better had they allowed experienced members to develop it for them, as JC004 suggested, but since they obviously already paid money for this current redesign, it'll be good enough for now and has the capability to be reorganized.


Solution: Hire a good copywriter to create proper landing pages and content to the site, and it will be okay enough going forward.   But if NHQ leaves the site organized and written as-is, and it will make our organization look like a bad joke.

[JC004]

Seriously?  No browser auto-detect on the feed?  COME ON.  This thing needs a LOT of polish.  It's nice that the Flash disaster has gone poof but the little things that add up in web development aren't there - like at all.  I have a checklist that my company uses that is a couple hundred points.  It makes sure all these sort of things are in place.  Clearly whatever company this is needs that. 

I've studied the 200 largest non-profits' web sites extensively and did a lot of research with those on projects that I am doing.  (some things yet to come, too)  Most of the good stuff from those type of sites is simply not there.  A good team of members with a list like I have could get that fixed up in no time.  It's a waste to put this all on a company that doesn't know what they're doing and doesn't care about the organization.

[sardak]

I wanted to stay out of this but...

The biggest problem I see is that our three missions have been relegated to stamp sized images with titles in a lower corner without links to descriptions of the programs. Useless.

The message from the National Commader addresses our 67th anniversary - which occurred two years ago. The current letter has been posted in eServices, so it would have been easy to get the most current version of the General's annual message.

Her message also contains the oft-repeated, but grossly erroneous line that CAP "handles 90 percent of inland search and rescue missions..." She may have written that but I think it's more likely that someone edited out the rest of the correct phrase "as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center." That kind of deflates the boast. The "official tagline" posted on the PA section of the website contains the correct wording. On the other hand, the CAP Fact Sheet on the PA page added "and other agencies" after AFRCC. Again, not a true statement.

The crew in front of the aircraft on the homepage photo makes me think of the Coast Guard or Navy before thinking of CAP.

As for photos, the Photoshop department must have gone home for the night. The same photo of the three cadets in black T-shirts is used as the banner photo on every other page on the site, whether it's the cadet, adult, pilot, clergy, history, etc. page.

Disappointing.

Mike

[A.Member]

"Upon further review..."

Aside from the cosmetic reorg of the home page, which I rate as 'OK' (certainly an improvement over the previous one although I would still change a few things around the banner area),  there actually is little to applaud with this update.  Many of the problems were listed here already so there is no need to restate them. 

Bottom line:  The site is in need of serious help.

Question:  Is there no QA?  No acceptance testing prior to moving to prod?  I don't understand how this stuff continues.

[DakRadz]

Why is Donate more prominent than joining?  And when you click on Donate, do we really have to be subject to this hideous and absolutely ridiculous graphic? 
That's just ridiculous.  It makes us look even worse than amateur hour (because even amateur graphic artists today would recognize that as embarrassingly messed up).  It makes us look like amateur hour 1997 and conveys a message that we're some fly-by-night operation.  If that (along with wording that's misleading and legally incorrect) instills donor confidence, rather than important information about what the money will be used for, why it's important to donate, how much money we need, and third-party validation like a CharityNavigator rating icon, well then I can imagine why we're getting ZERO donations through that portal. 

I gagged.
Good thing I haven't had breakfast today. I thought you were joking, so I followed the (multiple, seriously? How hard are we going to make it to donate to our organization??) linkies, and then- Bam.

Pink? With a little heart? Really?

It isn't even Photoshop. It's MS Paint, and even that can do better...

[sardak]

Some improvements have occurred on the website.

The Happy New Year graphic and link to Wikipedia have been replaced by a decent CAP action photo with a link to the NCSA  page.

The three small mission graphics are now linked to pages describing the three missions of CAP.

The 67th anniversary reference has been taken out of the message from General Courter.

Mike

[davidsinn]

Some improvements have occurred on the website.

The Happy New Year graphic and link to Wikipedia have been replaced by a decent CAP action photo with a link to the NCSA  page.

The three small mission graphics are now linked to pages describing the three missions of CAP.

The 67th anniversary reference has been taken out of the message from General Courter.

Mike

It looks like I was right and it's a work in progress.

[a2capt]

I wonder if they are reading here, and acting on this 'feedback' .. now those two links at the bottom, the whole thing "Already a member?" and "Interested in Membership?" should entirely be links, either as if it were an imagemap or use the CSS to have a style that does not do any changes on hover or href.

[ProdigalJim]

Whether a work in progress or not...you don't go live when it's that far from being finished.

[brasda91]

Have any of you sent your comments up the chain?  I see alot of of good comments on how it needs to be changed, but unless you voice your comments with your higher command, these comments here are in vain.

[A.Member]

Whether a work in progress or not...you don't go live when it's that far from being finished.

QFT!

[Pylon]

Have any of you sent your comments up the chain?  I see alot of of good comments on how it needs to be changed, but unless you voice your comments with your higher command, these comments here are in vain.

Yes and no.  The website is an initiative of the NHQ staff, which reports to the Executive Director.  They do not report to Maj Gen Courter or anybody in the volunteer chain of command.  The Executive Director and Maj Courter are on equal footing in the org chart and both report to the BOG.  Parallel structures, really.  As far as I understand it, volunteer members may contact NHQ staffers directly without having violated any chain of command — since the NHQ staffers are not in our chain of command.


Also, I have a feeling one or two people from NHQ's staff and the national volunteer leadership browse this site from time to time.  Voicing concerns here can have (and, on occasion, has made) impact.

[JC004]

I see submission of ideas related to the web site dying quickly in the chain.  For instance, auto-detect on RSS feed (like CAPTalk has) - that'll get lost/ignored somewhere.  They need a company that uses a comprehensive process.  They could even just hire or get pro bono work from a company like mine and focuses heavily on process and industry standards - simply have them do a bunch of the little things as upgrades more or less to the site.  All that little stuff matters - especially when the site lacks any real implementation of industry standards.  Heck, I'd consider still doing my long-ago offer of having my company do it for free.

[Eclipse]

I see submission of ideas related to the web site dying quickly in the chain.  For instance, auto-detect on RSS feed (like CAPTalk has) - that'll get lost/ignored somewhere.

I brought that up around my parts and was told "no one uses RSS"...

((*sigh*))

[Pylon]

I see submission of ideas related to the web site dying quickly in the chain.  For instance, auto-detect on RSS feed (like CAPTalk has) - that'll get lost/ignored somewhere.

I brought that up around my parts and was told "no one uses RSS"...

((*sigh*))

Heh. 


Which translates roughly to: "I haven't personally been able to figure it out, therefore it's not important.  We can completely disregard the millions of people who read blogs, forums, and news streams solely through RSS and things like Google Reader.  We don't need them anyhow... humbug..."

[JC004]

I see submission of ideas related to the web site dying quickly in the chain.  For instance, auto-detect on RSS feed (like CAPTalk has) - that'll get lost/ignored somewhere.

I brought that up around my parts and was told "no one uses RSS"...

((*sigh*))

Thanks for telling me.  I can remove the feed from Pylon's site and take it off my web development checklist. 

[meganite]

The biggest problem I see is that our three missions have been relegated to stamp sized images with titles in a lower corner

This. These at LEAST need to be the main link from that badly-photoshopped-and-hopefully-soon-to-be-improved image on the homepage. Actually at a first glance, the image looked ok. But it took me about 30 seconds to realize how badly photoshopped it was >_<

Also... the heart... CAPCares... I actually didn't believe they could have possibly put that on the site until I followed the links. Yikes.

Functionality/load times seem to have been improved, and content seems to be in the process of being updated... guess I'll wait a bit longer before making any other complaints