Web Site Opinion: Steelback Centre Site A Disappointment
Posted in Geek / General / I Rant by CujoAugust 29th, 2006 - 10:29 PM
The Sault’s newest sports and entertainment complex put up their web site earlier in the week. A big logo unveiling happened on the weekend and the site was supposed to go live in accordance with that but was delayed until Monday at noon. Today I decided to check it out and I must say I’m somewhat disappointed in it.
To start I was happy to see a development firm in town land the job who was not Lucidia; Digital Webworks was the firm of choice. I know both companies pretty well through different means and both are comprised of great individuals who do quality work etc. It was just nice to see another local company try to get some spot light (I’m not picking on Lucidia here I think they do some amazing work). Also while I’m promoting web development firms I might as well plug my own company; Murderfly Multimedia.
Back to the new web site however. The Steelback Centre site just seems “off” to me. On first glance of the site the different sections (header/navigation/content area) are not left/right aligned causing gaps to happen down the sides.
The second thing I noticed was the multiple uses of different fonts that don’t seem to intermix well. The top navigation uses images with rollovers that try to show a “push down” effect but look more disjointed then anything (this was on a Windows PC running Firefox); however on my Mac also running Firefox the push down effect isn’t there but the rollovers still seem off but a little better as the image isn’t dropping out of line (there’s a dashed red line at the top so the drop down plays tricks on the navigation’s visual appeal). Also the top navigation has some of the links going into submenus which then use a regular type face (non-image) so disjoints that nav with its parent. This leads into the smaller side menu which uses a regular type face again which doesn’t match the rest of the side bar. I think my main problem with the font/navigational elements on the site is that in some instances they use images and create a unity with these images but then those are broken up with what I think are also main elements but with these elements using a font.
I’ll now try to tackle the “upcoming events” side bar of the site. The container for this using a customized scroll bar which actually extends further right then the customized top/bottom borders created (the left side of said border being rounded and the right squared off). The display of each event could also use more work. I think this is where you should try to draw most people’s attention as that is where you’ll sell tickets/promote your events but it seems sloppily put together.
The use of a technique such as sIFR throughout this site might have made it a little better. sIFR is basically a font replacement technique that uses Flash to embed an uncommon type face into the site so everyone sees the same font etc. It’s a great tool for dynamic based content sections such as the “upcoming events” area here. They could have tried to mimic the main sections font for the headings or something similar.
I’m not trying to attack Digital Webworks in any way I just thought that they could have done better by paying attention to the details. Quickly browsing through the site it seems like they may have been on a tight timeline as a lot of the sections have the dreaded “information coming soon”. Something that I hate having on a site when it goes live because I know when I see that there is a very little chance I’ll return to that section — and the possibilities of that decrease if I return again and see the same “coming soon” message.
I know you’re probably sitting there saying “who is he to talk, where is his stuff” and feel free. I’m a pretty slow going at it and I know I have stopped myself from putting sites “live” etc because I hated the way they looked and went back and redid them etc. I’m currently working on a new blog design for a new blog site I have coming out but I can’t fully decide on what I want so it just keeps getting delayed. Also sometimes when you’re working for a client you really have no say in how the final product looks. I had this happen to me last year where the client wanted something one way as it looked fine on their PC but I told them that on other computers with different resolutions etc that it didn’t look as good as it did on theirs. The client does have the final say and I had to give in. This may have happened with this site.
To Digital Webworks, congrats on the contract and hopefully you guys will be able to tweak the site here and there now that it is live and make it the quality that I know you can put out.
I also had more to nitpick on but this already ran long. Check out the site for yourself and let me know if you agree/disagree with some of what I’m saying. Maybe I’m just “off” on what the general public wants in a site and I’m stuck in the techy/geeky/designer world that I think I’m apart of.
Possible Related Posts:
August 30th, 2006 at 3:19 am
“Iâ??m not trying to attack Digital Webworks in any way I just thought that they could have done better by paying attention to the details.”
Well, maybe you won’t, but I will. That site is awful, from the misaligned layout that doesn’t display properly to the horrid typography to the bloated javascript to the inaccessible and needlessly over-complicated markup.
This might have all added up to a nice website, 10 years Ago.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Okay, you summed up my lengthy rant in a sentence. I knew I was getting wordy so I stopped. But you’re also another designer who can “spot the flaws”, I’m curious to what the general public thinks (although if any other designers/developers stop by feel free to comment).
Like I said in my post, there’s other things I can continue to go on about on the site, I don’t think I even finished tackling the main page.
For a site that had press releases, in town promotion (I saw it on a few signs outside of other sporting places being advertised), and a big countdown to its launch I don’t think it lived up to its expectations.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Another thing that I noticed now that I’m back on a Windows machine — that “rounded on one side/squared on the other” image I saw is now squared on both sides. Seems like the site has different dependencies on the way it displays based on platform.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Obviously i agree…silly designers…no offence to anyone i hate being rude, but the logo is terrible also.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
“Another thing that I noticed now that Iâ??m back on a Windows machine â?? that â??rounded on one side/squared on the otherâ? image I saw is now squared on both sides.”
Yes, and did you also notice how the “dropshadow” that extends from it just randomly cuts off abruptly at the bottom? *groan*
August 30th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Their beer sucks too!!!!!!!
August 30th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
I’ll have to take your word on that one Dar. Although at least someone came up to sponsor the building.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
you point out lots of flaw……………which is good, but people who judge should at least be able to back it up with some decent work
http://www.saultorleans.com (couldn’t even get to the site)
http://www.ausu.auc.ca (very old looking………….looks like a rookie job, not a pro)
I think the problem is Digital Webworks tried to do too much with their site…………..and you don’t do enough for yours, having only two really weak sites in your portfolio is terrible.
I read your comments……which were fair, expecting to see superior deign and programming from your work (but i was disapointed)
a little advice………….you should focus on your designs/programming
(why spend time time bashing someone else when your not capable of delievering similar results)
September 27th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I’ll answer all your points.
Both sites you’ve listed are old sites. I am able to get to Sault Orleans and it was a once off site put together in a couple of days for an event that happened two week later. It’s done now, it’s there for the purpose.
AUSU was done to a spec created by the AUSU in charge in Dec of 04. So it looks old compared to today’s standards, the site is also outdated and I’m not their web designer anymore as the contract is over for support etc. I don’t even know if the site is operational.
My business site is out of date as well. There’s been other works done. I also stated in a post after this one that I was going to pinpoint my design flaws — this post is still in the works as there are many sites up that have many design flaws.
I accepted your post as you had criticism for me as I had criticism for the Steelback Centre site which is fair to do so. At least people know who I am unlike you where you didn’t even provide a proper email address.? You also say that people who judge should be able to back it up, yet you show no backup for your criticism of my work and you don’t even provide your name.? At least I was honest.
I’m actually the process of a rewrite on my business site and about to release a blog template within the next few days. If you don’t like those let me know.
September 27th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
[…] As some of you may remember I stated my thoughts on the new web site for the Steelback Centre (Aug 29th) and in a later post I stated I would nitpick my own sites (Sept 4) seeing as I “attacked” that one. […]
September 27th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Also to Mr. Anonymous Poster above (if you do ever come back here to see if you got a resopnse, you did), here is also a link to my latest post dissecting my other sites: http://www.betterthancrabs.com/2006/09/27/web-site-opinion-my-own-sites/