PDA

View Full Version : Site kcchiefs.com designed by Jeffrey Zeldman.


jcroft
09-16-2004, 06:54 AM
Yesterday I teased that I knew who designed the new kcchiefs.com site and that it was one of the most famous and most well-respected designers in the world. I didn't want to say any more in case Jefrey wass planning to do a write up on the design, as he often does. I didn't want to spoil his "big intro."

Well, he did do a write up and it's now online: http://www.happycog.com/work/kc/

A lot of you have had pretty negative things to say about the design, so I thought you'd find it interesting that it was designed by the man many consider to be the most influential web designer ever. I assure you, Carl did not go "on the cheap" for this design.

For those who don't know, Jeffrey has written a few books, including "Designing with Web Standards," a runaway success that is often credited with being the catalyst for the move towards web standards and CSS layouts.

Jeffrey is more well-known for doing useable, standards-compliant, accessible sites than he is for brilliant visual design. I think that shows here. The visual design is an improvement over the old version to be sure, but it is not out of this world. A look at his personal (www.zeldman.com) and business (www.happycog.com) sites will show this.

I guess you could say that Jeffrey is more of a web theorist than a graphic designer.

In any case, I just thought you might find it interesting that the Chiefs obviously shelled out the big bucks to get the biggest name in the biz.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 07:02 AM
Didn't impress me at all and yes I have heard of Jeffrey. The background distracts from the content a big time your fired no-no in web design. You know that. The headers/catagories don't make sense. Cheerleaders rates a title unto itself? Grey? who does grey?

You can't really think that this site has a good design can you? Jeeezzz .

Brock
09-16-2004, 07:03 AM
Hell, I would have done it for better seats.

jcroft
09-16-2004, 07:24 AM
The background and the typography are my two biggest complaints about the site. To be fair, though, you can change the background, which makes it a helluva lot easier on the eyes.

The typography is just very "blah". I wish more attention had been given to it.

My point wasn't really to pimp the site or Jeffrey -- I just thought you all might like to know, since yesterday a lot of people were saying things like, "this was obviously not done by a professional" and "I guess Carl is being a cheapskate yet again." Jeffrey's book turned me on to standards, so I have to give him props for that, and he has been very kind in driving some traffic to my personal site (jeffcroft.com) a few times, but other than that, I don't have a close relationship with him. Certainly, he is very influential and that has to count for something.

For me, the bottom line about the site is this: it looks much better than the old one, is much easier to find the info you're looking for, and it appears to have an RSS feed in the works.

That's good enough for me, even if it's not perfect.

jcroft
09-16-2004, 07:27 AM
You can't really think that this site has a good design can you? Jeeezzz .

Did I say I thought it had a great design?

jcroft
09-16-2004, 07:28 AM
Hell, I would have done it for better seats.

Me too!

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 07:33 AM
Did I say I thought it had a great design?
It was more of a metaphorical question than some kind of accusation that you were personally full of shi@. Now I don't know if that is the case or not. I will reserve judgment on that until I see if you get those seats or not...:hmmm:

jcroft
09-16-2004, 07:35 AM
It was more of a metaphorical question than some kind of accusation that you were personally full of shi@. Now I don't know if that is the case or not. I will reserve judgment on that until I see if you get those seats or not...:hmmm:

Fair enough. :D

Hoover
09-16-2004, 08:00 AM
I for one like the site.

I'm not a fan of the background color.

But its clean, and easy to get around. I hate websites that get cluttered up.

jcroft
09-16-2004, 08:16 AM
I for one like the site.

I'm not a fan of the background color.

But its clean, and easy to get around. I hate websites that get cluttered up.

I agree. The default background is distracting, but the others are fine by me. The site is more clean and the information is easier to get to and use, I think. While I may not give the design an A+, I do think it's a really significant improvment.

Bob Dole
09-16-2004, 08:21 AM
Grey? who does grey?

What's wrong with grey? Bob Dole likes grey just fine.

ChiefsCountry
09-16-2004, 08:34 AM
Gray back ground looks really good with blue and white, not red. The site isn't bad, but it isn't good either.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 08:38 AM
What's wrong with grey? Bob Dole likes grey just fine.

See my point exactly. Bob Dole is on the grey bandwagon. Whos next Art Linkletter, Sen, Thurmond (okay he's dead he can't be on the bandwagon), John Barrymore, Grover Cleveland ?

Phobia
09-16-2004, 08:39 AM
I like it. I really like grey backgrounds. Especially with red.

I think it is the best website effort ever. Kudos to the Chiefs.

jcroft
09-16-2004, 08:39 AM
I like grey -- greay is wonderful! But, I think the default background's patten is distracting and a bit hard on the eyes. The color is fine, though!

Dartgod
09-16-2004, 08:40 AM
Grey is teh ghey!!

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:00 AM
The site looks fine to me.

As for the background being distracting, I didn't even notice at first. I run at 1400 x 1050 resolution and the background was effective enough to force my eyes to focus directly on the lightest column on the left -- the news.

That's EXACTLY what you want it to do.

jcroft
09-16-2004, 09:33 AM
I will say that the background looks better at higher resolutions. When i view it at anywhere from 800x600 to 1280x1024, it seems pretty distracting to me. The pattern just hurts my eyes to look at. But, when I go up to 1400x1050 or even 1600x1200, it's not so bad -- the pattern gets small enough that it doesn't blare out at me.

Oh well...not abig deal, since you can change it easily (I like the them was Dante in the banner across the top).

Bob Dole
09-16-2004, 09:53 AM
Grey is teh ghey!!

Whatever, Mr. Grecian Formula 16.

|Zach|
09-16-2004, 11:06 AM
I like the site...I think it could be better but I believe its a big improvment over the old one.

ptlyon
09-16-2004, 12:40 PM
The thing I hate about the website is that they took away the virtual seating display that they had on there last year.

jcroft
09-16-2004, 12:42 PM
The thing I hate about the website is that they took away the virtual seating display that they had on there last year.

Oh, is that missing? That's too bad, that was a cool feature.

ptlyon
09-16-2004, 12:44 PM
Oh, is that missing? That's too bad, that was a cool feature.

I couldn't find it a couple of weeks ago.

jcroft
09-16-2004, 12:46 PM
Ahh, so it was missing before this redesign, I guess.

ptlyon
09-16-2004, 12:48 PM
Yup. Wanted to check out what the seats I was intending to buy looked like.

StcChief
09-16-2004, 01:04 PM
The article on happycog.com has the site before/after version.

I like the new use functionality improvements.
Color style is ok.

Chiefnj
09-16-2004, 02:14 PM
What bothers me the most about the Chiefs website is the content, or should I say lack thereof.

Are Rufus and Gretz the best they can do?

When you get a chance goto the Jaguars site http://www.jaguars.com.

It's a little busy, but it packs a lot.

The ask Vic is pretty cool. It's kind of like Ask Ivan Carter, but with more inside information.

They also have a lot of multimedia things with video recaps, watch the game winning TD, etc. Chief fans on the other hand get to enjoy articles complaining about rap music.

WEIRDWOLF
09-16-2004, 03:53 PM
If I were Jeffrey Zeldman...I wouldn't be jumping up and down about it. Its an average site that just about any web person with a medium amount of experience could of designed. Its not bad...its just not special! Myself and the guys I work with over at Systen and Mach 10 Design have done hundreds of sites with the same or more functionality as is displayed here and as clean a look. Not putting it down but for a "guru" its mediocre.

Deberg_1990
09-16-2004, 04:30 PM
I assure you, Carl did not go "on the cheap" for this design.



Too bad he didnt apply these same principles to the team. Who the hell cares what the website looks like or how good it looks?? All i want to do is read the stories.