USFA website redesign goes live

[noodle]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

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).

lame
i could've at least tried to do a better job, had it done on time, and accepted payment in the form of a donation to our club if it was a payed project. wish it was a little more public.

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Feraud, flicking is definately still around.

Yes, the flick lives
I though it was amusing that they mentioned it, actually that’s a good thing since most people who haven’t seen modern fencing before think it should look like some sort of 1940’s pirate movie.
Maybe they should have added a section which says “but if you hit too hard and straight in foil, the tip will bounce off your opponent's chest protector and you won’t score”
Never mind…

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Feraud

Yes, the flick lives
I though it was amusing that they mentioned it, actually that’s a good thing since most people who haven’t seen modern fencing before think it should look like some sort of 1940’s pirate movie.
Maybe they should have added a section which says “but if you hit too hard and straight in foil, the tip will bounce off your opponent's chest protector and you won’t score”
Never mind…

"Sometimes, a fencer will land a perfectly valid hit, yet no light will go off. This is called "being f***ed over by the new timings", and is part of foil's dynamic new set of rules."

Hmm, you might be onto something...

[noahz]

Originally Posted by Feraud

Yes, the flick lives
I though it was amusing that they mentioned it

I am somewhat amused by your comment, as I happen to be the "they" in this case. I edited this article for the Fencing Media website for the Olympics - one year ago, before the timings change. Obviously, the article needs to be updated (although in my opinion it is a minor detail that the target audience - people with no prior knowledge of fencing - will likely overlook).

By now it should be clear to everyone that the new site went live somewhat prematurely. Minor details like this will start getting cleaned up shortly.

NZ

[peet]

Not to be contrary, but as one of the bidders, my understanding is different from what oiuyt was told. There was no RFP/bid process for the new website we are seeing this week. To clarify:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

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.

That part is true. There is one contract for the website CMS (general Content Management System) and another for online tournament and membership management.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

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

That is the process that was followed for the second contract, for the online tournament and membership application.

The main part of the website, the part that went live this week, was carved out of the RFP before it ever went out for bids, and was given to Dan K's company without competition.

(Unless the information I was given was not correct).


As for the site itself, I agree with most of what has already been said above about both it's strengths and weaknesses. I think it's a big improvement on the old site, even if it does have some limitations. I can already find things easier, and it better serves non-fencers looking for info on fencing. I realize that isn't most of us on this forum, but part of the site's job is to promote fencing to the rest of the world (future fencers, media, sponsors). I do think the organization is a bit funny, and it is rather incomplete, but hopefully it will flesh out quickly.

And it looks better. Not amazing, but better.

I won't go into more detail. I'd probably just be repeating other people's thoughts.

-p

[Red #40]

Originally Posted by peet

Not to be contrary, but as one of the bidders, my understanding is different from what oiuyt was told. There was no RFP/bid process for the new website we are seeing this week.

-p

I know someone who works at a differnt company that bid for the branding work and that is also how he said it went. The website was given away Halliburton style. I've seen the work they submitted and it was far better than the stuff that is currently up. They were not selected for the work based on price. I think its safe to say that can be read as "we would rather give the work to someone of lower quality that we are friends with than give the work to a real agency that would do work that would benifit everyone not just our friends." They new going in that the USFA would be cheap so they took care not to have a high price.

I know that sounds crass but I have seen what was submitted and it was fantastic work, better than what they chose, and better in many respects than what you find for stuff like MLB and the NFL. But with the USFA it seems to be who you know not what you can offer.

From what I have heard from him the bids they were up against were formitable also. So thanks to those that put the effort into a good bid, at least you gave it a try.
At least the USFA has made a small step forward....

[peet]

Originally Posted by Red #40

I know someone who works at a differnt company that bid for the branding work and that is also how he said it went. The website was given away Halliburton style.

And to be honest, I'm surprised to hear that even the BoD was not told the whole story.

It's really great that oiuyt does so much to help keep the USFA membership in the loop by posting info from BoD meetings here (thanks, oiuyt! ), but if even he isn't given the straight poop, where does that put us?

(Or maybe there was just some mis-communication somewhere? I hope so.)

-p

[needle]

Looks like the old site is back in business for now ...

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Red #40

So thanks to those that put the effort into a good bid, at least you gave it a try.

And how likely are those companies to bid on the next project... after seeing how the selection was made + how the project was handled.

Note: Conflicts of interest can exist even when no act of wrong doing has occured. Although it is often impossible to avoid conflicts of interest, I'm surprised that the USFA chooses to be so brazenly careless with how this contract was awarded...

And if price was the final deciding factor than was the magic number disclosed to some bidders before final submission?

And although I am completely unaware of his total abilities, the projects/websites listed on Kellner's Red Star website (which I was able to access after it crashed my brower x3, and I learned what things not to click on) are almost entirely of the graphics and anamation variety. I found zero similar examples to what the USFA needs.

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by noahz

I am somewhat amused by your comment, as I happen to be the "they" in this case. I edited this article for the Fencing Media website for the Olympics - one year ago, before the timings change. Obviously, the article needs to be updated (although in my opinion it is a minor detail that the target audience - people with no prior knowledge of fencing - will likely overlook).

By now it should be clear to everyone that the new site went live somewhat prematurely. Minor details like this will start getting cleaned up shortly.

NZ

Nice job on that page explaining the weapons, it’s good to see a description for non-fencers of what it’s like to fence with or watch the different styles as opposed to just a reciting of the rules.

Hey it’s gonna be a full time job keeping up with all the rule changes these days anyways…

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by peet

(Or maybe there was just some mis-communication somewhere? I hope so.)

Most likely I'm confusing various parts of the several presentations made by Suzie Paxton and combining bits from the phase I process and the phase II process in my head. Sorry for any confusion.

-B :)

[KD5MDK]

I was somewhat disappointed that I had to go to the old site to find a copy of the USFA bylaws.

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by 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.

--------------- OFFICIAL U.S.F.A. RESPONSE ---------------

This is going to be one of the topics of the Board meeting on September 10.

There is a specific portion of the meeting that is devoted to revisiting the Strategic Plan and updating any areas that the Board deems necessary.

Once the meeting is complete, the minutes and the revised plan will be included in the magazine and posted on the website. Included in that article will be an explanation of how the process was done and what the differences are between the previous plan and the plan that will be tweaked during the September 10 meeting.

[Feraud]

Maybe on the new website someone can edit out all the untrue facts about fencing:

"1.Fencing is one of only four sports to be included in every modern Olympic Games, since the first in 1896. Fencing was also a sport in the original Olympic Games in ancient Greece."

Not true: Although some sort of mock combat might have been featured in the ancient Olympics, Fencing as we know it today dates from 16c Europe, not ancient Greece.

"2.The tip of the fencing weapon is the second fastest moving object in sport; the first is the marksman's bullet."

Not True: I think this calculation was disproved on fencing.net

"3.Fencing is conducted on a 14m x 2m "strip" or "piste" to replicate combat in confined quarters such as a castle hallway."

I don’t think the piste has anything to do with fighting in castles, more likely it’s the ground staked out be the seconds at a duel, as stated in the rest of the paragraph.

"4.The 750 gram weight test used to ensure a touch is scored with sufficient force is based on the amount of tension required to break the skin. In a duel, honor was done when blood was first drawn -- even if from a minor wound such as a blister."

Somehow I don’t think this is true either, by the time electric epee scoring was developed in the 1930’s dueling was so greatly in decline so I can’t imagine they were out to simulate it directly. Maybe the FIE did some tests with sharp weapons and real people to validate the 750 g
Hey that gives me an idea! I know how to calculate what the correct debounce time in foil should be!
We’ll need some sharp weapon and a volunteer… Rene?

"5.The target area in sabre, originally a cavalry weapon, is from the waist up because it is contrary to the rules of chivalry to injure an opponent's horse."

It was always fair game to strike your enemy’s mount in war (this was war after all) I think this rule dates from mounted sporting competitions. Besides it’s worth pointing out that the saber being used in modern fencing is used on foot. Amberger’s “Secret History of the Sword” has a good chapter explaining the origin of this rule. Besides, getting swacked in the leg by a saber hurts! (maybe that’s why it‘s a rule?)

[Frank Pratt]

I certainly like the modern facelift; it's far more professional that the old design. The new site is on par with sites for other Olympic sports.

I like the biography section, but I think there need to be some updates in this area. Most notably, the Bios for Mariel Zagunis and Sada Jacobson make no mention of the Olympic medal around their necks. Sada's bio just talks about how she is looking forward to the 2004 Olympics.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by Feraud

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."

Good point. Another section that is grossly outdated on the "new" site. Isn't this change already several years old?!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Feraud

"4.The 750 gram weight test used to ensure a touch is scored with sufficient force is based on the amount of tension required to break the skin. In a duel, honor was done when blood was first drawn -- even if from a minor wound such as a blister."

Somehow I don’t think this is true either, by the time electric epee scoring was developed in the 1930’s dueling was so greatly in decline so I can’t imagine they were out to simulate it directly. Maybe the FIE did some tests with sharp weapons and real people to validate the 750 g
Hey that gives me an idea! I know how to calculate what the correct debounce time in foil should be!
We’ll need some sharp weapon and a volunteer… Rene?

"5.The target area in sabre, originally a cavalry weapon, is from the waist up because it is contrary to the rules of chivalry to injure an opponent's horse."

It was always fair game to strike your enemy’s mount in war (this was war after all) I think this rule dates from mounted sporting competitions. Besides it’s worth pointing out that the saber being used in modern fencing is used on foot. Amberger’s “Secret History of the Sword” has a good chapter explaining the origin of this rule. Besides, getting swacked in the leg by a saber hurts! (maybe that’s why it‘s a rule?)

4. The original (dry) intent of epee was to simulate a duel as closely as possible, and that intent carried over to electric epee.

5. I can not imagine that it would be a good idea to hit the other person's horse in real sabre, provided that you're within distance to hit them. If you hit his horse, and he hits you, he's on the ground, but you're dead.

[rcmatthews]

As I have understood it, you dont want to injure their horse so that after you kill them you can take it as a prize of war.

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

4. The original (dry) intent of epee was to simulate a duel as closely as possible, and that intent carried over to electric epee.

5. I can not imagine that it would be a good idea to hit the other person's horse in real sabre, provided that you're within distance to hit them. If you hit his horse, and he hits you, he's on the ground, but you're dead.

Yeah, it’s not a good idea to aim blows at the legs for the same reason.
Although many period saber and broadsword manuals contain techniques for striking the leg, they also give the advice that doing so leaves your head exposed to a really severe counterattack, all the opponent has to do is slip back their leg for defense. So aiming at your opponent anywhere below the waist wasn’t such a good idea to begin with.

[parrythis]

It looks pretty half-baked. That's