PDA

View Full Version : KCCHIEFS.COM UPDATING


hypersensitiveZO6
06-20-2006, 06:49 PM
Our team's official site is updating! I'm excited. We really need this. Hope this isn't a repost.

www.kcchiefs.com

morphius
06-20-2006, 06:53 PM
nice catch. Hopefully they will come up with something that is easily manuevered around.

Vegas_Dave
06-20-2006, 06:55 PM
I think the image that they show on the site is a peek at the new design.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/i/bebacksoon.jpg

rad
06-20-2006, 07:06 PM
SWEET!
Start printing su.... oh, nevermind.

beer bacon
06-20-2006, 07:08 PM
SWEET!
Start printing su.... oh, nevermind.

Don't sell yourself short. Clayton said on ESPN radio earlier today that a slick new team website would definately put KC over the hump!

big nasty kcnut
06-20-2006, 07:14 PM
Hey better then a crappy website.

SLAG
06-20-2006, 07:18 PM
I bet it will still Suck Bawls

Damnit Carl!

:cuss:

JBucc
06-20-2006, 07:23 PM
about ****ing time

big nasty kcnut
06-20-2006, 07:29 PM
Hey better then a crappy website.




Look at the oranges mange

Dunit35
06-20-2006, 07:40 PM
Finally...we had to have one of the worst team sites.

4th and Long
06-20-2006, 07:55 PM
Look at the oranges mange
No thank you.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-20-2006, 08:48 PM
No thank you.


Aw cmon, don't you have time to play with yer mingy anymore?

Ebolapox
06-20-2006, 08:52 PM
hmmm... they need design advice from the staff at WPI

Sully
06-20-2006, 09:11 PM
Is the new site gonna have a rolling roof?

big nasty kcnut
06-20-2006, 09:33 PM
The new site is here the new site is here.

KCFalcon59
06-20-2006, 09:44 PM
The screensaver is real nice.

unlurking
06-20-2006, 09:56 PM
Like the TV feature, watching Tamba Hali right now.

Guru
06-20-2006, 09:56 PM
The screensaver is real nice.

Like your sig. ROFL

SNR
06-20-2006, 09:58 PM
Is the new site gonna have a rolling roof?Now the KC taxpayers have to pay for THAT too?

DAMMIT CARL! :cuss:

Logical
06-20-2006, 10:12 PM
I don't exactly understand why this is exciting. Granted it was not a well constructed site, but it is not like the site wins games for the Chiefs.

Logical
06-20-2006, 10:16 PM
I see the fans that visit the site are not exactly realistic. 38% think the Chiefs will finish 12-4 ROFL

Douche Baggins
06-20-2006, 10:16 PM
This is giving off a gay vibe. I hope they add content, because the site was easier to navigate before. Now it's all whored up.

big nasty kcnut
06-20-2006, 10:19 PM
Anything better then 13 3.

Douche Baggins
06-20-2006, 10:25 PM
Yep, no new content. The site is all ghey now...no reason to gum it up. They could at least offer a plain HTML version.

CupidStunt
06-21-2006, 04:58 AM
The site needs this.

Now what they need is content; particularly video. I mean, for f*ck sake -- they record a bunch of vidoes, minicamp footage, press conferences, etc., just like very team does -- show it to us!

greg63
06-21-2006, 06:30 AM
Looks much better; I wasn't impressed with the green on the edges.

JBucc
06-21-2006, 06:34 AM
Looks better, but why so much green?

KCTitus
06-21-2006, 06:41 AM
Holy Crap! It's awful! Not only the colors, but the fonts are retarded.

Chiefs nation? Are you fugging kidding me? Why in the world would Lamar do something as stupid as something Raider fans do?

The 'Sorry, without RealPlayer you can't view Chiefs TV' was a nice touch as well.

I hope Carl got a free toaster with his web site purchase.

Kerberos
06-21-2006, 06:59 AM
about ****ing time


Exactly what I was thinking.

For all of you talking shit about content ..... Giv'em time ... they just got the site up for Cripes Sake!

You know they are in no hurry to get us something MORE to read than normal.

.

chagrin
06-21-2006, 07:02 AM
Looks like the nepa.com site front page, what a cluster ****

Kerberos
06-21-2006, 07:11 AM
This is entertaining

Half the people here have been Bitching about KCChiefs web site being boring and in need of updating and now that they finally do update it all you can do is BITCH that it isn't up to your expectations.

Well ..... "Whaaaaaaa"

:shake:

It could be award winning and you all would still find something to BITCH about. IMO

.

Dartgod
06-21-2006, 07:19 AM
This is entertaining

Half the people here have been Bitching about KCChiefs web site being boring and in need of updating and now that they finally do update it all you can do is BITCH that it isn't up to your expectations.

Well ..... "Whaaaaaaa"

:shake:

It could be award winning and you all would still find something to BITCH about. IMO

.Well, had they launched a new site that was better than the previous one, I wouldn't be bitching. However, this new site looks hideous!

jspchief
06-21-2006, 07:24 AM
This is entertaining

Half the people here have been Bitching about KCChiefs web site being boring and in need of updating and now that they finally do update it all you can do is BITCH that it isn't up to your expectations.

Well ..... "Whaaaaaaa"

:shake:

It could be award winning and you all would still find something to BITCH about. IMO

.Imagine bitching because your car is a piece of shit, someone telling you you're getting a new car, then getting another piece of shit? Are you supposed to be happy that you have a piece of shit that's a different color?

Lzen
06-21-2006, 07:29 AM
I see the fans that visit the site are not exactly realistic. 38% think the Chiefs will finish 12-4 ROFL

Ha ha ha, this is damn funny. Especially since this is coming from the same guy who said the Chiefs would be what, like 7-9, in 2003. I may a little off on that number predction (don't remember exactly what your prediction was), but I know it was way off. Not to mention your Larry Johnson comments when he was drafted. Of all people, you have no right to make fun of dumbass predictions.

Lzen
06-21-2006, 07:31 AM
This is entertaining

Half the people here have been Bitching about KCChiefs web site being boring and in need of updating and now that they finally do update it all you can do is BITCH that it isn't up to your expectations.

Well ..... "Whaaaaaaa"

:shake:

It could be award winning and you all would still find something to BITCH about. IMO

.

Welcome to Chiefsplanet. We hope you enjoy your stay. :)

jspchief
06-21-2006, 07:33 AM
I have to admit, I love the drop down menus. IMO, that makes navigating the site so much easier.

Beyond that, the site doesn't appear to be working properly, so I'll reserve my judgement until they get it going.

chagrin
06-21-2006, 07:34 AM
Exactly what I was thinking.

For all of you talking shit about content ..... Giv'em time ... they just got the site up for Cripes Sake!

You know they are in no hurry to get us something MORE to read than normal.


ROFL

I don't think I understand your point, could you repeat yourself about, oh, 5 more times please?

Infidel Goat
06-21-2006, 07:56 AM
Like the TV feature, watching Tamba Hali right now.

Nice clip.

It felt a little like watching a gladiator prepare for battle!

--Infidel Goat

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 07:59 AM
It's about time.

KCTitus
06-21-2006, 08:02 AM
Well, had they launched a new site that was better than the previous one, I wouldn't be bitching. However, this new site looks hideous!

I didnt realize the team was changing from red and gold to green and brown...

Kerberos
06-21-2006, 08:02 AM
ROFL

I don't think I understand your point, could you repeat yourself about, oh, 5 more times please?

Yea Yea....

That sucked that when I finally got connection back to the planet yesterday.

Or at least I thought I wasn't connecting! :banghead:


I can do it again if you need more re-enforcement of my point! :thumb:


.

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:03 AM
Nice clip.

It felt a little like watching a gladiator prepare for battle!

--Infidel GoatYea, that actuallly was a pretty cool clip.

Kerberos
06-21-2006, 08:10 AM
Imagine bitching because your car is a piece of shit, someone telling you you're getting a new car, then getting another piece of shit? Are you supposed to be happy that you have a piece of shit that's a different color?


Comparing a website that costs you absolutly NOTHING to a purchase of a new car with hard earned money and finding out BOTH are a piece of shit is assnine.

You can argue that they are both a piece of shit I guess but when it costs you absolutley nothing all you have is a bitch that you don't like it. If the bitch about a car was costing $ then the bitch would have more merit IMO.

I guess everyone has thier opinion and I like the new site more than I did the old one. Is it fantabulous? NO. But it's better than the old one IMO.

My point was that most of you on here would find something to bitch about no matter what it looked like. But as Lzen put it Welcome to ChiefsPlanet

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:21 AM
My point was that most of you on here would find something to bitch about no matter what it looked like. And the rest would bitch about other people bitching...

KCTitus
06-21-2006, 08:24 AM
Im not bitching, Im just being realistic about the web site design.

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:26 AM
Im not bitching, Im just being realistic about the web site design.OMG!! It's new! And it's free!!

You guys just never stop bitching!!!! Whay are you so full of hate?

Kerberos
06-21-2006, 08:27 AM
And the rest would bitch about other people bitching...

Wurd


.

Brock
06-21-2006, 08:27 AM
Im not bitching, Im just being realistic about the web site design.

LOL

quality

morphius
06-21-2006, 08:28 AM
I have to admit, I love the drop down menus. IMO, that makes navigating the site so much easier.

Beyond that, the site doesn't appear to be working properly, so I'll reserve my judgement until they get it going.
I was just thinking, this would be better with drop downs. Then I read your post and discovered they only work in IE and not Firefox...

Dartgod
06-21-2006, 08:29 AM
Im not bitching, Im just being realistic about the web site design.
Apparently, the Chiefs Cheerleaders photographer moonlights as a web site designer.

Dartgod
06-21-2006, 08:30 AM
I was just thinking, this would be better with drop downs. Then I read your post and discovered they only work in IE and not Firefox...
I'm using IE and there are no dropdown menus.

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:31 AM
I was just thinking, this would be better with drop downs. Then I read your post and discovered they only work in IE and not Firefox...Unpossible. 10,000 internet geeks told me firefox will solve all my life's woes.

KCTitus
06-21-2006, 08:33 AM
Apparently, the Chiefs Cheerleaders photographer moonlights as a web site designer.

ROFL

Lzen
06-21-2006, 08:41 AM
Apparently, the Chiefs Cheerleaders photographer moonlights as a web site designer.

Check out Darcy. She's hot.

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:48 AM
Check out Darcy. She's hot. :shake:

Dartgod
06-21-2006, 08:49 AM
Check out Darcy. She's hot.
GAAAAH!!! MY EYES!!!

58-4ever
06-21-2006, 08:51 AM
Don't sell yourself short. Clayton said on ESPN radio earlier today that a slick new team website would definately put KC over the hump!

He also said it would be done by Friday at the latest.

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:54 AM
My favorite is Juana Mann:



http://www.kcchiefs.com/media/cheerleaders/_mallorie_headshot.jpg

ChiefsfaninPA
06-21-2006, 08:56 AM
My favorite is Juana Mann:



http://www.kcchiefs.com/media/cheerleaders/_mallorie_headshot.jpg

Mom??????

Dartgod
06-21-2006, 08:57 AM
Dad??????Fixed your post...

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:57 AM
Mom??????Don't you mean "dad"?

Dartgod
06-21-2006, 08:58 AM
Don't you mean "dad"?
HA! Slowpoke...

jspchief
06-21-2006, 08:59 AM
Ok, beyond the headshots, the photography seems to have improved as well.

And let me be the first to say that Terin is really ****ing hot.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/media/cheerleaders/89_dscf1527.jpg

VonneMarie
06-21-2006, 05:38 PM
I know I'm late, but the new site kicks major @ss! :clap:

milkman
06-21-2006, 05:46 PM
Don't you mean "dad"?

No.
I think he means Ian.

milkman
06-21-2006, 05:48 PM
Looks better, but why so much green?

Just a little reminder that your green is lining the Lamar's pockets.

VonneMarie
06-21-2006, 05:53 PM
Looks better, but why so much green?
It's a football field. :shake:

JBucc
06-21-2006, 05:57 PM
It's a football field. :shake:That's what it's supposed to be but it's ugly. Especially the darker green color.

morphius
06-21-2006, 06:10 PM
Unpossible. 10,000 internet geeks told me firefox will solve all my life's woes.
Hey, this guy gets paid to do it. If I could do it for free for this place to work in two browsers, he should be able to handle it. Every designer I know worth a crap tests on multiple browsers.

Oh, and IE only works on one OS, I run multiple. Though for some reason they work at home on Mozilla.

DaFace
06-21-2006, 07:06 PM
I was just thinking, this would be better with drop downs. Then I read your post and discovered they only work in IE and not Firefox...

Do you have any kind of script blocking extensions installed? I use Firefox, and they seem to work fine for me. This is what you're talking about, right:

morphius
06-21-2006, 07:09 PM
Do you have any kind of script blocking extensions installed? I use Firefox, and they seem to work fine for me. This is what you're talking about, right:
I don't have anything special running, they may have fixed it since then because on my windows machine it works fine. I'll test again tomorrow.

jspchief
06-21-2006, 07:10 PM
Awesome. Our new admin appears to be a real computer wizard.

DaFace
06-21-2006, 07:16 PM
That's what it's supposed to be but it's ugly. Especially the darker green color.

They must be assuming everyone's running at a really low screen resolution. It looks fine at 800x600 because there's basically no green on the sides. Probably 1/3 the screen is taken up at 1280x1024, though. It really is pretty ugly.

jcroft
06-22-2006, 01:39 PM
Man, I just saw this. What a shame. It's ****ing God-awful.

The last version wasn't great -- but it was put together well, from a technical standpoint. It was done by Jeffrey Zeldman and Happy Cog Studios (possibly the most well known web person in the world). I never loved the visual design of it, but at least it worked well. Now it's ugly AND it sucks, too.

Can't wait to talk to Zeldman about this and see what happened.

hypersensitiveZO6
06-22-2006, 01:43 PM
Man, I just saw this. What a shame. It's ****ing God-awful.

The last version wasn't great -- but it was put together well, from a technical standpoint. It was done by Jeffrey Zeldman and Happy Cog Studios (possibly the most well known web person in the world). I never loved the visual design of it, but at least it worked well. Now it's ugly AND it sucks, too.

Can't wait to talk to Zeldman about this and see what happened.

I think it's a little better from a technical standpoint.

jcroft
06-22-2006, 01:50 PM
I think it's a little better from a technical standpoint.

Then you're insane. It's a table based layout. It's not even CSS. It's basically web design from 1996. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a new site launch with a TABLE based layout?

All major sites have been doing CSS for what, three years now?

The new Chiefs site is shit, pure and simple. And you can argue with me all you want -- but don't make me drop a "<a href="http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10187">do you know who I am?</a>" on you.

DaFace
06-22-2006, 02:03 PM
Then you're insane. It's a table based layout. It's not even CSS. It's basically web design from 1996. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a new site launch with a TABLE based layout?

I know nothing about CSS or tables or whatever, but it looks better than it used to in my opinion. :shrug:

don't make me drop a "<a href="http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10187">do you know who I am?</a>" on you.

No offense, but who cares if you're an expert? I suppose you are more qualified to evaluate the technical side of it, but as a user I don't really care what technology the site uses as long as the content is good.

hypersensitiveZO6
06-22-2006, 02:06 PM
Then you're insane. It's a table based layout. It's not even CSS. It's basically web design from 1996. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a new site launch with a TABLE based layout?

All major sites have been doing CSS for what, three years now?

The new Chiefs site is shit, pure and simple. And you can argue with me all you want -- but don't make me drop a "<a href="http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10187">do you know who I am?</a>" on you.


Its cool man. I respect who you are. I'm just the average viewer to new site. You're 100% right.

ferrarispider95
06-22-2006, 02:09 PM
I'm Jeff Croft...............BITCH!

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:09 PM
I know nothing about CSS or tables or whatever, but it looks better than it used to in my opinion. :shrug:



No offense, but who cares if you're an expert? I suppose you are more qualified to evaluate the technical side of it, but as a user I don't really care what technology the site uses as long as the content is good.

That's fine that you like it better. I respect that.

But, let's be real here. Expert opinions DO matter. When you think you're sick, do you go to a doctor, or ask you best friend to diagnose you? Why you think your opinion on web design is just as valuable as mine is beyond me. I've been working on the web for 11 years, I've authored three books on web design, and I give presentations at the world's biggest web conferences. I'm not here to toot my own horn, but for you to suggest your opinion is as good as mine is offensive.

You might think "it looks good," and that's cool. But surely you understand that as a professional designer, my eye is more trained to review design than yours. Right? And this has nothing to do with the "technical side" of it. I'm not a programmer. I'm a designer. I'm a creative professional. Design is what I do, not technology.

When I'm here at ChiefsPlanet, I understand that there are a lot of folks on here that are far more knowledgeable about football than me. I offer my opinion, but I understand that when Gaz says something about what the Chiefs should do on defense, it means more than when i say it, because he's an expert.

You're not an expert, and I am. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

DaFace
06-22-2006, 02:10 PM
I'm Jeff Croft...............BITCH!

ROFL

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:11 PM
I'm Jeff Croft...............BITCH!

Exactly! :D

KCTitus
06-22-2006, 02:12 PM
You're not an expert, and I am. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

horn tooter... :p

JBucc
06-22-2006, 02:14 PM
I'm not here to toot my own horn, but for you to suggest your opinion is as good as mine is offensive.ROFL If you're offended by that I have no clue how you've lasted this long at the planet.

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:15 PM
ROFL If you're offended by that I have no clue how you've lasted this long at the planet.

Heh. Good point. I guess there's a difference between something being offensive and me being offended. I laugh things off pretty easily, so even though I think it's an an absurd thing for him to say, I can let it roll off my shoulders.

DaFace
06-22-2006, 02:17 PM
That's fine that you like it better. I respect that.

But, let's be real here. Expert opinions DO matter. When you think you're sick, do you go to a doctor, or ask you best friend to diagnose you? Why you think your opinion on web design is just as valuable as mine is beyond me. I've been working on the web for 11 years, I've authored three books on web design, and I give presentations at the world's biggest web conferences. I'm not here to toot my own horn, but for you to suggest your opinion is as good as mine is offensive.

You might think "it looks good," and that's cool. But surely you understand that as a professional designer, my eye is more trained to review design than yours. Right? And this has nothing to do with the "technical side" of it. I'm not a programmer. I'm a designer. I'm a creative professional. Design is what I do, not technology.

When I'm here at ChiefsPlanet, I understand that there are a lot of folks on here that are far more knowledgeable about football than me. I offer my opinion, but I understand that when Gaz says something about what the Chiefs should do on defense, it means more than when i say it, because he's an expert.

You're not an expert, and I am. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think being an expert gives you the right to tell people what's good and what's not as if it is fact.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Say there's a car that I absolutely love the way it looks, feels, and drives. A guy who works as a car engineer tells me that it's poorly designed and that I might have problems with it. That's all well and good, but I may still buy the car just because I like it. I'm not an expert, and he's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion is still no more valid than mine.

tk13
06-22-2006, 02:18 PM
I would have to say the artistic merit of a website is just a wee bit different than a life or death medical diagnosis....

KCTitus
06-22-2006, 02:20 PM
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Say there's a car that I absolutely love the way it looks, feels, and drives. A guy who works as a car engineer tells me that it's poorly designed and that I might have problems with it. That's all well and good, but I may still buy the car just because I like it. I'm not an expert, and he's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion is still no more valid than mine.

Hey, no ones knocking your Aztec...

morphius
06-22-2006, 02:22 PM
That's fine that you like it better. I respect that.

But, let's be real here. Expert opinions DO matter. When you think you're sick, do you go to a doctor, or ask you best friend to diagnose you? Why you think your opinion on web design is just as valuable as mine is beyond me. I've been working on the web for 11 years, I've authored three books on web design, and I give presentations at the world's biggest web conferences. I'm not here to toot my own horn, but for you to suggest your opinion is as good as mine is offensive.

You might think "it looks good," and that's cool. But surely you understand that as a professional designer, my eye is more trained to review design than yours. Right? And this has nothing to do with the "technical side" of it. I'm not a programmer. I'm a designer. I'm a creative professional. Design is what I do, not technology.

When I'm here at ChiefsPlanet, I understand that there are a lot of folks on here that are far more knowledgeable about football than me. I offer my opinion, but I understand that when Gaz says something about what the Chiefs should do on defense, it means more than when i say it, because he's an expert.

You're not an expert, and I am. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
All that being said, there is still a level of taste involved in what people like and don't like, and no amount of expertise really amounts to a hill of beans. Its a bit like a movie critic, just because you gave it 1/2 a star does not mean it isn't going to be loved by the public and break box office records.

The last design might have been clean, but it was horrible to navigate, many times the switching the background or size of the font didn't stick with you when you followed a link, etc, etc. It had a lot of issues. Now this one isn't perfect, not even close, but at least it is easier to navigate.

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:27 PM
I would have to say the artistic merit of a website is just a wee bit different than a life or death medical diagnosis....

Probably so. But the point is that expert opinions do matter. It's a touchy subject with web and graphic designers, because there's a real devaluing of our industry going on right now. Anyone with Photoshop and/or Dreamweaver can call themselves a designer and sell their services...

...but my 11 year old daughter also makes bracelets out of beads, and I doubt you'd buy one for your significant other on our anniversary.

The point is the same. It's fine if you like the website. It's fine if you like it better than the old one. I don't mind. But I'm telling from, from the perspective of a professional who has been in this industry as long as this industry has exists that it sucks. It sucks from a visual design perspective, It sucks from a usability and accessibility perspective. It sucks from a readability perspective. It sucks from a XHTML markup perspective. It sucks from a CSS perspective. It sucks from a multimedia perspective (RealPlayer? C'mon, this is 2006!). The RSS feeds aren't as functional.

And even if none of that higher-level web design stuff bothers you -- it's ****ing GREEN. The CHIEFS site is green? WTF?

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:30 PM
All that being said, there is still a level of taste involved in what people like and don't like, and no amount of expertise really amounts to a hill of beans. Its a bit like a movie critic, just because you gave it 1/2 a star does not mean it isn't going to be loved by the public and break box office records.

Absolutely. But we still have movie reviewers. And even though we have YouTube, we still have professionals making movie in hollywood? Why? Because the amateurs aren't usually good enough, that's why.

Most of the people saying they like it are saying so out of emotional. if the new site makes you feel good, that's awesome. That's definitely part of what design should do. But there's a lot more to design than that. ART is about emotional. DESIGN is about solving problems and communication.


The last design might have been clean, but it was horrible to navigate, many times the switching the background or size of the font didn't stick with you when you followed a link, etc, etc. It had a lot of issues. Now this one isn't perfect, not even close, but at least it is easier to navigate.

I wasn't a huge fan of the last site, either -- despite is being done by someone who definitely has a lot of talent. I'll agree this one is easier to navigate.

But I wasn't really trying to say this one is worse than the old one. I was trying to say this one sucks. Period.

Carlota69
06-22-2006, 02:32 PM
I like for the mere fact that I can watch the video. Prior to the new site, my computer was allergic to the real player deal. I could never watch the video and now I can.

Good enough for me.

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:36 PM
I like for the mere fact that I can watch the video. Prior to the new site, my computer was allergic to the real player deal. I could never watch the video and now I can.

Good enough for me.

RealPlayer is definitely a lot less widespread than Windows Media. That's awesome that you can view it now, but I suspect there are a lot more people that LOST the ability to view video than gained it with this new version.

morphius
06-22-2006, 02:41 PM
I was trying to say this one sucks. Period.

I can't argue with that, LOL!

Carlota69
06-22-2006, 02:44 PM
RealPlayer is definitely a lot less widespread than Windows Media. That's awesome that you can view it now, but I suspect there are a lot more people that LOST the ability to view video than gained it with this new version.


Well that would defintely suck for everyone else.

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:47 PM
Well that would defintely suck for everyone else.

Then again, who cares about everybody else!? :)

Phobia
06-22-2006, 02:50 PM
My anniversary is forthcoming. Does anybody know where I can pick up a reasonably priced bracelet?

jcroft
06-22-2006, 02:51 PM
My anniversary is forthcoming. Does anybody know where I can pick up a reasonably priced bracelet?

You might ask Carl or whomever chose the web team for this redesign. They seem to have a knack for finding people posing as professionals that will do work on the cheap.

:D

tk13
06-22-2006, 03:03 PM
Probably so. But the point is that expert opinions do matter. It's a touchy subject with web and graphic designers, because there's a real devaluing of our industry going on right now. Anyone with Photoshop and/or Dreamweaver can call themselves a designer and sell their services...

...but my 11 year old daughter also makes bracelets out of beads, and I doubt you'd buy one for your significant other on our anniversary.

The point is the same. It's fine if you like the website. It's fine if you like it better than the old one. I don't mind. But I'm telling from, from the perspective of a professional who has been in this industry as long as this industry has exists that it sucks. It sucks from a visual design perspective, It sucks from a usability and accessibility perspective. It sucks from a readability perspective. It sucks from a XHTML markup perspective. It sucks from a CSS perspective. It sucks from a multimedia perspective (RealPlayer? C'mon, this is 2006!). The RSS feeds aren't as functional.

And even if none of that higher-level web design stuff bothers you -- it's ****ing GREEN. The CHIEFS site is green? WTF?
Actually, I don't like it all that much. It takes forever to load on my 1000 year old computer, and I just don't like the look of it. It's less cluttered than the old site but it does kinda look like it jumped right out of 1998 to me.

But expert opinions do matter, and I'm an expert on making analogies, and that was a poor analogy. :p Or something. I would say if they got rid of the design of a top flight web designer to do this, then they aren't just trying to devalue your industry, they are devaluing it. But that's the society we live in now and the power of the internet, anybody can try to become an artist, musician, director....

jspchief
06-22-2006, 07:43 PM
Probably so. But the point is that expert opinions do matter. Actually, I'd say expert opinions don't mean shit in this instance.

The website is designed to appeal to Chiefs fans, not arrogant website designers. Chiefs fans aren't going to give a damn if he carved it into stone tablets as long as it fulfills their need.

jcroft
06-23-2006, 07:50 AM
Actually, I'd say expert opinions don't mean shit in this instance.

The website is designed to appeal to Chiefs fans, not arrogant website designers. Chiefs fans aren't going to give a damn if he carved it into stone tablets as long as it fulfills their need.

Of course. But my point is that it DOESN'T fulfill our needs (I'm a fan too, remember...I've been coming to Chiefsplnaet.com for what, six years?). It's slow. It's ugly. The RSS feeds are full of crap, and don't validate (thus making them not work in many RSS readers). I can't watch the video on the site.

This morning, this is what the website looks like to me. I don't think you have to be an expert to determine that a blank page isn't fulfilling Chief's fans needs. In fact, the ONLY thing I CAN see are ads. Buy ticks. Get a newsletter. Shop now. Join Chiefs Nation. Show the NFL Network.

Is that your idea of an effective site for fans?

KCTitus
06-23-2006, 07:52 AM
...I've been coming to Chiefsplnaet.com for what, six years?...

Not even 5, dumbass. ;)

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2006, 07:57 AM
My anniversary is forthcoming. Does anybody know where I can pick up a reasonably priced bracelet?

http://www.allsports.com/cgi-bin/store/shop/003_nfl_chiefs-medallion.html?mv_pc=story

Glad to help..... ;)

Dartgod
06-23-2006, 08:05 AM
I know everyone has their own opinion on what looks good, but for the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can think the new site looks anything but hideous. :shake:

Fat Elvis
06-23-2006, 08:50 AM
Carl Peterson is just screwing with all of you. He intentionally made it the most horrific site on the interweb to prove to Lamar that Chiefs fans are diehards and will pay through the nose for a crappy product no matter what.

JBucc
06-23-2006, 08:50 AM
I know everyone has their own opinion on what looks good, but for the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can think the new site looks anything but hideous. :shake:they should have kept the old color scheme with the new format

jcroft
06-23-2006, 08:57 AM
they should have kept the old color scheme with the new format

That might have LOOKED better, but it wouldn't have solved all the FUNCTIONAL problems with the new site.

Like I said, I was no huge fan of the huge one, but at least it worked well.

jcroft
06-23-2006, 09:01 AM
By the way, according to the official W3C validator, kcchiefs.com has 108 (!!) HTML markup errors on their homepage alone. 108?! Good lord! No wonder it's so slow!

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkcchiefs.com

KCTitus
06-23-2006, 09:19 AM
I know everyone has their own opinion on what looks good, but for the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can think the new site looks anything but hideous. :shake:

Me too...Carl would have been better off setting up a Myspace site and letting a 14 yo girl put it together. It's fuggin horrible.

JBucc
06-23-2006, 09:29 AM
That might have LOOKED better, but it wouldn't have solved all the FUNCTIONAL problems with the new site.

Like I said, I was no huge fan of the huge one, but at least it worked well.Well looks are all I care about. I'm very shallow.

jspchief
06-23-2006, 09:50 AM
As for the use of Realplayer, the NFL has a contract with them. You won't find an NFL team with an official site that doesn't use Realplayer. So they don't have choice in that regard.

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 09:53 AM
By the way, according to the official W3C validator, kcchiefs.com has 108 (!!) HTML markup errors on their homepage alone. 108?! Good lord! No wonder it's so slow!

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkcchiefs.com

The Steelers official website has 270. If only they cared enough about the team and the fans to put up a proper website.

jcroft
06-23-2006, 09:54 AM
Well looks are all I care about. I'm very shallow.

Hehe. :)

jcroft
06-23-2006, 09:54 AM
As for the use of Realplayer, the NFL has a contract with them. You won't find an NFL team with an official site that doesn't use Realplayer. So they don't have choice in that regard.

Ahh. Too bad.

jcroft
06-23-2006, 10:00 AM
The Steelers official website has 270. If only they cared enough about the team and the fans to put up a proper website.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. I've never used the Steelers website, so I can't really speak to it's effectiveness for fans, but at first glance I think i'd take it over the Chiefs site -- double the errors and all.

HTML validation isn't a huge deal to MOST end users. But, the lack of validation does mean that the site is likely to suck on anything that isn't a traditional computer user agent. Without valid markup (or close to it), accessibility goes out the window (and by accessibility, I don't mean "for handicapped people"). Alternative devices (phones, PDAs, tablets, screen readers, TVs, etc.) aren't nearly as forgiving about that sort of thing as most PC/Mac browsers are. That may not matter to you, but considering it's actually easier to make a valid site than an invalid one, it's just stupid to alienate all those potential devices.

I guess what I'm saying is: I would take a site with more errors that offered great content and functionality over one with less errors that sucked otherwise. But, in 2006, there's really no excuse for having either problem. Creating a good, valid site is easier than it's ever been, thanks to us finally having mostly browsers that don't suck.

morphius
06-23-2006, 10:00 AM
By the way, according to the official W3C validator, kcchiefs.com has 108 (!!) HTML markup errors on their homepage alone. 108?! Good lord! No wonder it's so slow!

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkcchiefs.com
of course it looks like 70 of those are for not having an "alt" in the image tags, which I can't even think of a good reason to require that.

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 10:02 AM
morphius stole my response.

If you're so concerned about the website, volunteer. Seriously, ask Phobia sometime about who maintains the Chiefs website.

jcroft
06-23-2006, 10:04 AM
of course it looks like 70 of those are for not having an "alt" in the image tags, which I can't even think of a good reason to require that.

How about these:

1. It's required according to the spec. You may not think it should be, but it is. Why people think it's okay to write invalid HTML is beyond me. If you write Python, Ruby, PHP, C, C#, Java, or any= other language, is it okay to be syntactically incorrect? No? Then why is it okay in (X)HTML?
2. It's essential for accessibility for screen readers and other alternative devices.
3. It's painfully simple to add them.

And let's not forget that the REASON they have 70 images without alt tags is because none of those are content images -- which means they shouldn't be in the HTML in the first place. They're decorative images, which belong in CSS. If they were content images, it'd be simple to find an appropriate value for the alt attribute on the img elements -- but it's kind of silly to say, img alt="Ugly green field-looking graphic which serves no real purpose other than to make the site uglier".

jcroft
06-23-2006, 10:05 AM
morphius stole my response.

If you're so concerned about the website, volunteer. Seriously, ask Phobia sometime about who maintains the Chiefs website.

Volunteer? Yeah, right. I already said they were devaluing my industry. And i wouldn't say I'm "concerned" about it. I'm just disappointed. I'm a fan who likes to us kcchiefs.com to get Chiefs info. Now I basically can't. That sucks.

morphius
06-23-2006, 10:37 AM
How about these:

1. It's required according to the spec. You may not think it should be, but it is. Why people think it's okay to write invalid HTML is beyond me. If you write Python, Ruby, PHP, C, C#, Java, or any= other language, is it okay to be syntactically incorrect? No? Then why is it okay in (X)HTML?
2. It's essential for accessibility for screen readers and other alternative devices.
3. It's painfully simple to add them.

And let's not forget that the REASON they have 70 images without alt tags is because none of those are content images -- which means they shouldn't be in the HTML in the first place. They're decorative images, which belong in CSS. If they were content images, it'd be simple to find an appropriate value for the alt attribute on the img elements -- but it's kind of silly to say, img alt="Ugly green field-looking graphic which serves no real purpose other than to make the site uglier".
Honestly I never knew that it was required, and I bet a fair many people don't. I'll probably start using in the future now that I know that it is, but it's not obvious that it should be. Plus wasting a lot of space with alt="" seems a bit obscure.

JBucc
06-23-2006, 10:42 AM
Just playing around with that error thingamabob and this place had 60 errors. Not bad I guess. But the mange only had 3:banghead:

jcroft
06-23-2006, 10:43 AM
Honestly I never knew that it was required, and I bet a fair many people don't. I'll probably start using in the future now that I know that it is, but it's not obvious that it should be. Plus wasting a lot of space with alt="" seems a bit obscure.

Absolutey. You shouldn't have alt="". You should have alt="Something valuable". :D

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 10:54 AM
How about these:

1. It's required according to the spec. You may not think it should be, but it is. Why people think it's okay to write invalid HTML is beyond me. If you write Python, Ruby, PHP, C, C#, Java, or any= other language, is it okay to be syntactically incorrect? No? Then why is it okay in (X)HTML?
2. It's essential for accessibility for screen readers and other alternative devices.
3. It's painfully simple to add them.

And let's not forget that the REASON they have 70 images without alt tags is because none of those are content images -- which means they shouldn't be in the HTML in the first place. They're decorative images, which belong in CSS. If they were content images, it'd be simple to find an appropriate value for the alt attribute on the img elements -- but it's kind of silly to say, img alt="Ugly green field-looking graphic which serves no real purpose other than to make the site uglier".

You're a professional.

IIRC, the webmaster for KCChiefs.com is actually PAID to do something else, he's the de facto keeper of the site.

BTW, you're actually using KCChiefs.com for NEWS?

jcroft
06-23-2006, 11:05 AM
You're a professional.

IIRC, the webmaster for KCChiefs.com is actually PAID to do something else, he's the de facto keeper of the site.


Really? Wow. I guess that explains a lot of it -- and shows just how cheap Carl and company and being here. How can any large organization not take their website more seriously than that in this day and age?


BTW, you're actually using KCChiefs.com for NEWS?


Heh. Well, "news" is a relative term, I guess. I like getting the info I get from kcchiefs.com. I like seeing what kind of spin Gretz or Rufus is putting on the latest story. I like reading the official, PR-approved stuff along with the great info I get here and elsewhere online. But mostly, I like the Q&As they post there with Herm and players. And I like it when they arrive dutifully in my RSS reader. Right now, my RSS reader has a post from the Chiefs site that says 'This is a test story'...

Lovely.

KCTitus
06-23-2006, 11:06 AM
Heh. Well, "news" is a relative term, I guess. I like getting the info I get from kcchiefs.com. I like seeing what kind of spin Gretz or Rufus is putting on the latest story. I like reading the official, PR-approved stuff along with the great info I get here and elsewhere online. But mostly, I like the Q&As they post there with Herm and players...

True, you get all that, plus you save 100 bucks a year.

jcroft
06-23-2006, 11:13 AM
One thing I can't quite figure out about the new Chiefs is is, at the bottom, it says "Site envisioned by VML." VML is a local KC agency that mostly doesn't high-quality work. They have good designers and usually create nearly-valid sites using web standards. There's no way they did this new Chiefs site.

I'm not quite sure what "envisioned by" means. It's possible the Chiefs paid VML for a comp and then coded the site themselves. That would explain the bad code. but, it doesn't really explain the poor visual design.

I'll see if I can talk to someone at VML. I know most of you don't care about this as much as me -- but I'm just really curious what happened here.

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 11:18 AM
I honestly can't remember the last time I visited the official site. It's been years probably.

jcroft
06-23-2006, 11:20 AM
I honestly can't remember the last time I visited the official site. It's been years probably.

Well, keep it that way. Unless you like puke green.

I rarely visit the web version of the site, myself. I usually just read it with RSS. That's why i didn't notice the redesign until a few days after the fact.

Thig Lyfe
06-23-2006, 11:21 AM
How does this affect getting Ty Law?

KCTitus
06-23-2006, 11:23 AM
I honestly can't remember the last time I visited the official site. It's been years probably.

True...fortunately, we have some regulars who will post the content here on a consistent basis.

morphius
06-23-2006, 11:23 AM
Absolutey. You shouldn't have alt="". You should have alt="Something valuable". :D
Hey, we each have a limited number of key strokes we get in life and I'll be damned if I'm going to use it all on some alt tag in HTML :D

jcroft
06-23-2006, 11:23 AM
How does this affect getting Ty Law?

That depends. Does he use the Internet? If so, this can't be a good impression...