USFA website redesign goes live

[nyacfencing]

Before we start bashing them... I sent an email to the USFA asking about the processes used to select a design firm, the site design itself, etc. I am sure there was a lot of legitimate work and planning that went around this. My email was such:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people are asking about the marketing processes in place at the USFA that went into the new website, especially in lieu of it being such an important vehicle for recruiting new members. There are lots of doubters out there, but I thought that we should be fair and go right to the source for the answers which can then be shared with others.

Could you give us just some basic info on:

• the list of project goals
• how you chose your design company (open bidding process or similar)
• what proofs were presented upfront for evaluation
• what the decision process was
• usability testing
• any other regular controls, processes and/or decision that went into this?

I think this info would help give a lot of credibility to the USFA in terms of solid planning and the effective use of resources in the eyes of its members.

Thanks!
Jonathan

[Sciurus-Rex]

Seems like someone was in a hurry to get the new stuff out in the public's eye, at the expense of a finished product. Middle ground would have been a one-day preview posting, and then replace with the old site again while completing the job properly.

(A suggestion to help those bothered by the incompleteness of it: Pretend the site is a new computer game, and expect several patches to come along any day now. People don't seem to have any problem buying half-assed buggy program product for gaming.)

[prototoast]

A minor point, but "Photo of the Day" shouldn't just be randomized photos each time your refresh. That's not a "Photo of the Day"--that's just a random photo. "Photo of the Day" implies that each day there is a new photo.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Ouiyt,

I also would like an answer to this question..

i'd put money on the fact that it wasn't something open for bid. i'd guess it was done for free.

my $0.02 -- at first glance, the information architecture is a little poor and the dropdown menus seem slightly badly designed.

[KD5MDK]

Hmm... Given that there is no blind fencing that I know of (as opposed to refereeing...) I suppose accessability concerns are not as high as usual for me.

http://www.usfencing.org/do/fencingInCollege - I think there are more schools offering fencing below the letter N, like my alma mater.

It is a disgrace that membership renewals cannot be handled online.

[mrbiggs]

Check out the "Fencing: A Modern Sport" under the rules section.

In the titles, each of the weapons was summed up with a phrase:

Foil: The Sport of Kings

Epee: Freestyle Fencing

Sabre: Hack and Slash




I just thought that was funny...especially the foil part...

[Prometheus]

Dead Links:
Find a Club
Athlete's Handbook
Rules of Fencing
Media guide
Photo gallery
Sections and Divisions
membership application

Coming soon:
Competitions and Results
National Rankings
About the USFA

Unfortunately, I have to aggree with fencerX. This is at best a beta and should not have replaced the old site on the USfencing domain until it had at least the functionality of the old site. Currently, the rules, national rankings, schedule and directory of clubs are all inaccessible. For a prospective or new fencer there is almost no information available.

For me, the front-page reloads itself frequently to refresh the "picture of the day" this is irritating at my connection speed. It would be really annoying with a slow connection. I am not sure if this is my browser or the page itself.

That said, I do like the athlete bios section and am cautiously optimistic about the forthcoming photo gallery.

What I would really like to see is an online registration system.

Edit: It is also nice that American Fencing is now available in PDF format. I wish I could cancel the print copy I get in the mail.

[wflaschka]

All the (mostly valid) criticisms notwithstanding, it's a huge improvement in form and usability over the old version of the site. I'm looking forward to seeing the filled-out, user-tested version. They're using CMS software so adding the content is the easy part. Now I won't have to cough while I give the URL for the 'sport of kings.'

[esskreemr]

This site is should only be available to Junior fencers. It shouldn't be rolled out to the Seniors until the Junior fencers and their coaches protest adamantly and the USFA proclaims the test to have been a complete success.

[esskreemr]

Overall, it's a good change. It definitely looks more modern, may not be important to some, but it is definitely important to first time visitors.

Minuses

• I don't have to much of a problem with 'coming soon' links, as long as they don't stay 'coming soon' links for more than a couple of days. History shows however...
• A home button would help. Clicking on the logo is not readily apparent to typical users.
• The headings for links (Athletes & Coaches, Competitions & Results, etc.) should be links that take the viewer to a page relevant to the information column. This is particularly important for new visitors who click on 'New to Fencing?' This should be the most dynamic of the pages and should be rich visually grabbing pictures and information.
• There's already a dead link, worse in my eyes than a 'coming soon' mouseover.
• On my browser (IE set at 1024x728 on a 17 inch screen), there is a ton of 'dead' space to the right. Why not set up a quick links to the most popular sections? This may alleviate the pain that some people obviously feel when change is implemented...
• Why wasn't the bid process public? How do we know we're getting the best bang for our buck?

Good

• I don't see a need to seperate Athletes & Coaches. They aren't going to be looking for different information.
• I don't think it is cluttered. The colored section help lead the eye into groupings of information visually seperating them.
• Am Fencing Online? Finally! I know there was an archive project in the past that apparently died slowly. How about providing 'Escrime' as well so I (the common club fencer), don't have to wade through the FIE's page?
• Photo Gallery (dead link), and the photo of the day are nice. How about a club of the day?
• Online registration would be great, especially if they immediately email you a printable membership card.

[oiuyt]

Several comments responding to comments posted here:

The online registration/membership bit is a separate project handled under a separate contract and independent of the one for the website look and feel.

The bid process was (at least roughly) something like this: The USFA (rather the Media, Marketing & Publicity Committee (chaired by Suzie Paxton and Sunil Sahbarwal)) compiled a list of selected companies (based I believe on a survey of companies that had done similar projects previously, had a connection to fencing, or had done work for other NGBs or the USOC in the past) and sent them an RFP. They took the bids, narrowed the list, had the finalists give presentations, and selected Red Star Design (owned by Dan Kellner, warning, the introductory animation is rediculously long, slow, and cannot be skipped :eyeroll:). The USFA website is not yet listed on Red Star's website as one of their projects.

The decision was handled entirely (AFAIK) by the M, M & P Committee.

Originally Posted by Sciurus Rex

Seems like someone was in a hurry to get the new stuff out in the public's eye, at the expense of a finished product. Middle ground would have been a one-day preview posting, and then replace with the old site again while completing the job properly.

As of the beginning of July it was already several weeks past the deadline for going live and was still "being tested." It's entirely unclear why, given that the deadline was blown by a couple of months, there's still massive quantities of missing content.

Originally Posted by Noodle

i'd put money on the fact that it wasn't something open for bid. i'd guess it was done for free.

As mentioned above there was a bidding process. I don't know what Red Star is charging, but I doubt that it's for free (although that certainly is a possiblity). There was no indication of such in either of the two brief presentations to the BoD (the first outlining the process that had been taken (midway through the process) and the second announcing Red Star as the chosen company and giving a status update).

Originally Posted by esskreemr

This site is should only be available to Junior fencers. It shouldn't be rolled out to the Seniors until the Junior fencers and their coaches protest adamantly and the USFA proclaims the test to have been a complete success.

Heh. :)

-B :)

[millsisland]

The (green) color of the "Headlines" table has got to go.

I wish I could access the information that was available on the old website. Maybe it's just AOL that's causing the "page cannot be found" responses?

I hate change.

Mills

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by millsisland

I wish I could access the information that was available on the old website.

See NoahZ's post (#11) above.

-B :)

[millsisland]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

See NoahZ's post (#11) above.

-B

Duh. Thanks, Brad.

For those of us who can't quite let go, here it is again:

http://oldsite.usfencing.org

[Feraud]

I love this: "Foil - The Sport of Kings" !

Although this section on foil contains the following:
"Competitors often "march" down the fencing strip at their opponent, looking to whip or flick the point of their blade at the flank or back of their opponent."

Ummm... isn't there no more flicking in foil? Someone should tell the USFA

I didn't think this was true anymore?
From the "Fencing - A Modern Sport" page
"If the scoring machine displays both a colored light and a white light, it means the fencer quickly hit off target and then hit on target before the machine could lock out. In such situations, the fencer's hit is ruled off target and no touch is awarded."

[rcmatthews]

So because Dan Kellner designed the website, sabre gets to be classed as "Hack and Slash". Sabreurs cut, they don't hack or slash.

[Feraud]

The section explaining the three weapons is well done, lots of good pictures and explanations. Much better than the old website

But this doesn’t seem correct

“Epee - Freestyle Fencing

The epee (pronounced “EPP-pay” - literally meaning "sword" in French) is the descendant of the dueling sword, but is heavier, weighing approximately 27 ounces, with a stiffer, thicker blade and a larger guard.”

The Epee isn’t “like a dueling sword but heavier”; it IS a dueling sword. i.e. It’s pretty much the same weight as the historical weapon.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

So because Dan Kellner designed the website, sabre gets to be classed as "Hack and Slash". Sabreurs cut, they don't hack or slash.

Haha, I forgot about that! I KNEW a foilist had done it!

I really like the "Freestyle Fencing" designation of epee, I think that's pretty descriptive for beginners. It explains how there are fewer rules in the weapon, and there are more ways to get a point.


Feraud, flicking is definately still around.

[noahz]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

So because Dan Kellner designed the website, sabre gets to be classed as "Hack and Slash". Sabreurs cut, they don't hack or slash.

Actually, I originally edited together that piece for the US Fencing Media web site:

http://fencingmedia.org/whatisfencing.asp

I re-edited the existing article from the old USFA web site with an intended audience of people who know absolutely nothing about fencing (at the time, journalists covering the 2004 Olympics). Hence the "colorful" language.

NZ

PS - The article I based this on had a lot of outdated facts (as everyone's pointing out) which I didn't have time to check at the time:

http://oldsite.usfencing.org/Welcome/WhatIsFencing.asp

[noahz]

Originally Posted by Feraud

The Epee isn’t “like a dueling sword but heavier”; it IS a dueling sword. i.e. It’s pretty much the same weight as the historical weapon.

This is probably a typo. The "is heavier" should be a comparison to the foil, not historical dueling swords.