USFA website redesign goes live

[oiuyt]

So what do you all think?

-B :)

[Katman]

Looks neat, certainly more streamlined. It seems easier to use at first and is easier on the eye as well.

[whtouche]

It definitely looks more modern. The biggest problem I have with it is the "U.S. Fencing Headlines" table. What is with the random pea-green box in the middle of the otherwise harmoniously blue and red layout?
It also feels a little jumbled. I prefer the layout for the US Tennis Association's website (www.usta.com)
Definitely a step in the right direction tho.

[JEC]

Looks professionally done!

[ra2000a]

i really like it a lot

[Sciurus-Rex]

[PETTY_SARCASM] A link would have been nice. [/PETTY_SARCASM]

But, yes, it looks pretty decent so far.

[oso97]

uhhh... www.usfencing.org.... Sheesh, you can find fencing.net, but not the USFA?

Overall, decent. Preliminary low-to-mid B range grade. Has the potential for higher, but will depend upon implementation of online membership application support, and online tournament support. Will reserve final judgement to see the implementation of these features. Without them, see little or no need for the expense and trouble of a completely new website design, but then I'm presuming the committee that made the decisions about direction was focusing primarily issues having more to do with marketing, and less with actual membership suppport services.

Bottom line, a spiffy new website DOES look nice and I'm not dissing that at all. But there are a lot of pretty websites out there. What is needed is something that adds actual value to the membership dollars spent. Hopefully this will be forthcoming, and I'm optimistic it will be.

[mrbiggs]

Wow! It's about time. The old website was ugly and a pain. It looks very nice.

[HDG]

Looks nice, but still has an out-of-date rulebook.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I like it, although I don't think the old website was a pain to use, just ugly. I like the link down at the bottom for downloading the newest edition of american fencing, since I always seem to lose mine. If getting more fencers was its purpose than I guess it could help, but content wise it didn't change at all.

(I also agree with whtouce, pea green wtf mates?)

[noahz]

Hello all,

If anybody misses the old site (and perhaps more specifically the competitions & schedules section), it is still available online at

http://oldsite.usfencing.org

Don't expect this link to work indefinitely, however.

NZ

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

So what do you all think?

-B

It sucks, actually.

What I want from the USFA website is a reliable site with easy-to-find access to complete, up-to-date and accurate infomation. A website should be about serving the content first and foremost, versus things like wasting time and space reminding readers the USFA was a supporter of the losing NYC2012 bid. Apparently silly graphic elements rated higher in importance than content and setting up usable links to the rules of fencing, competitions and results or national rankings. "Style" is never a substitute for content on sites.

Right now the new site is a net loss from the old volunteer site, since the new site has lost easy access to content. Yes, I'm sure they'll eventually get around to "bothering" with more content, however a truely professional act wouldn't have gone "live" before the content (as opposed to fluff) was in place.

Furthermore I'm not sure the new site layout will be an overall improvement even after they get around to the content. It wastes space by not using the readers' full horizonal screen space. It then further wastes the area that it does use by focusing on "site junk" instead of actual content. Also, there's no search function, etc, etc.

[nyacfencing]

We are definately making progress and heading in the right direction...

A few notes on usability issues I noticed right away:

1. You need a standardized style for all links. In some places bold text is a link, in others underlined text is a link, and in other yet you have non-bold non-underlined links signified with "click here". This is poor design and will lead to confusion as to what can and cannot be clicked on. Whether it be underlined, underlined and bold, or whatever, pick one style (or two at most) and stick with it for all links... and underlining is always a good way to indicate links, even if it isn't the prettiest.
Some examples: On the home page the text "Welcome to the..." is red, bold and non-underlined but is a link with a underline on mouseover. Then under "U.S. Fencing Headlines" You have blue bold underlined text that is a link with no mouseover effect. Also, under "Join the USFA" if you click on the "Click Here" link (bold, non-underlined) you are taken to a page with lots of other bold and non-underlined text, none of which is clickable. The user ends up having to mouse over everything. There are so many more examples I will stop listing now.
2. If you are planning functionality but it isn't ready yet, don't put it or links to it in there. You only confuse people, anger them and lose site-credibility. You can add the links in when all the functionality is ready to go. For instance, don't have "Click here to join the U.S.F.A." when the user cannot join the usfa by clicking there. "Coming Soon" links are another no-no... and are one step away from "Under Construction"
3. Without question, "New to Fencing" should be the first and most prominent link.
4. You should have a "Home" or "Front Page" link... don't assume everybody knows to click on the logo.
5. The header bar with the logo is too tall... condense it a little and leave more room for viewing the page.
6. Something about the tagline under the logo, especially with The US Fencing Association being bold but fading into the black, makes it hard to see. Especially the word "Association".
7. You load times are not good... hope this is a testing server and not the production server. Or maybe it is just all the traffic wanting to check this out.

Will post more suggestions later. Good work!!!

[darius]

It sucks, actually.

Why no open bid process? My company would have submitted a proposal.

darius

[Ordway]

Well, it's not terrible, but it looks like a triumph of style over substance to me. I have to agree with the poster who commented that it's a bad move to update the site when half the information isn't there yet.

I like the top drop-down lists; they should be easier to use than the tree sidebar that always required a lot of clicks to get to the information I want. But we'll have to wait and see what the content of "competitions" looks like. I hope the design of the competition and results page is carefully designed; I always feel like I have to wade through a gazillion clicks before getting what I'm looking for.

Another good point, in the sense of a bad bad thing avoided - at least there's no Flash or other animations. Thank you thank you thank you. Also, it works fine (as far as I can tell) on Mozilla Firefox - again, that's very important.

Overall, though, it looks much too cluttered, with all those little boxes in the main page. What's up with that? I don't read the USFA site for fun, I read it to get the information I need, preferably ASAP. There's no logical order for the boxes on the page. Why would I look all the way to the bottom to download an issue of American Fencing? It's just randomly thrown on the page.

I think that Forms & Documents should have its own tab, and not be stuck under Athletes. After all, those documents are relevant to parents and referees too. (Actually, Athletes & Coaches is a weird category - all the others are clear, but what goes under that category? A hodgepodge of other things that could fit in other categories or are repeated, like equipment vendors, for instance. Why is Find a Club under Athletes instead of under Directory? I think it's a sign of confusion when there are repeated entries across several categories).

What's up with "Click here to get all the information athletes need" in a box on the middle of the page? What, exactly, is "All" the information I need, and why does it merit a separate box from the top menus? Does it imply that there's information here that can't be accessed from the menus (bad bad bad if so) or does it just reassemble that information (pointless if so)?

It is NOT cool for the Rules of Fencing item under Athletes to launch the rulebook as a PDF. Come on, can't someone HTML-ize it as a page?!?! Fine, provide a link to the .PDF, but don't just launch it on me when I think I'm going to another page. And why is an item of its own instead of being under Forms & Documents?

And why the heck does it ask for a cookie?! Several, in fact.

Overall, it's adequate. Not terrible. But while it looks a little more colorful and "modern," it doesn't appear to be any great leap forward in functionality. Flash and dazzle doesn't make up for clear design and useful content. For a redesign that was really useful, I'd rather have had the same old site, but with online registration for tournaments, for instance.

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by darius

Why no open bid process? My company would have submitted a proposal.

darius

All functions of true marketing (including open bidding, getting designs concepts upfront for evaluation, usability testing, etc.) were banned by the USFA many years ago. Seems marketing goes against the organizational goal of remaining a small and unknown sport.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by darius

Why no open bid process? My company would have submitted a proposal.

darius

Ouiyt,

I also would like an answer to this question..

[Allen Evans]

The USFA is trying to be a "Big Sport" without big sport implementation. I'm disappointed when I get "coming soon" when I click on a link...and it's MY sport's site! What is the general public's patience for that?

I like the fact that it has actual pictures of the sport - something the previous site was very much lacking (sorry David! I know you were doing your best!). It is a step in the right direction. I agree.

But why do we always have to be taking such little steps?

[Mr Epee]

Athletes and Coaches should have different tabs.

National Rankings should go under Athletes, and do not need tab on the middle of the front page.

Replace that tab with Parents or maybe Collegiate Fencing

Sell the sport

[Mr Epee]

And hmm... I don't know

Maybe place a sponsor's logo on the front page? It doesn't have to be obtrusive, or gaudy, but don't relegate them to a third level tab with no publicity.

Get permission and charge them for it.