Jump to content

New Official Sites (now including Saints)

Saint Charlie

By Saint Charlie
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Minty

Minty

Posted
Posted

I have to say that on first glance, I prefer it to the old site... the navigation is clearer and it's more readable. No major changes to the functionality as far as I can see so nothing to really shout about, but nice enough.

 

Would still prefer something a bit more original but I guess that's the contract we're in.

ericb

ericb

Posted
Posted
So very very horrible, it's far too busy.

 

I'm going to take a guess that you're looking at this on a low res monitor since on a hi res it gives it the space to breath properly. To be honest i'd imagine more and more sites will look "busy" for you as most design (for desktop) is moving towards higher res monitors.

 

Also speed/performance will vary massively depending on browsers/bandwidth. I viewed it on chrome/safari/firefox on a mac and it was sharp and fast since it utilises a lot of new web technologies that aren't supported by poorer browsers (aka internet explorer).

 

I do like the use of html5 canvas/raphael.js for the form table, might be overkill but it's still a nice touch.

ericofarabia

ericofarabia

Posted
Posted

Was going to complain about being the only team to have our name abbreviated in the league table until I saw West Brom are simply listed as Albion. I had to double think who?

 

So I guess S'thampton is nearly acceptable!!

pap

pap

Posted
Posted
So very very horrible, it's far too busy.

 

Pretty much every footy website is busy. I refer sir to the earlier post about footy websites being little more than a home for ads.

 

Now, that being the case, it looks good for a football site.

loz20

loz20

Posted
Posted

FYI some good new pictures taken from the new site that will make good backgrounds:

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/1600sfc-stadium-71148-268266_1600x900.jpg

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/1600-stadium-inside148-270747_1600x900.jpg

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/images/action/SOUTHAMPTON.jpg

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/silver-crest-wide-2148-285440_1600x900.jpg

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/stadium-inside-1600x900148-232286_1600x900.jpg

ericofarabia

ericofarabia

Posted
Posted
like the new site but is anyone else having problems signing into saintsplayer? had 3 password resets and still no joy.....

 

No probs on that score, but I believe people are having all sorts of probs with speeds etc on Smart phones etc.

boxosponge

boxosponge

Posted
Posted
like the new site but is anyone else having problems signing into saintsplayer? had 3 password resets and still no joy.....

 

Logged in and played an interview no trouble.

 

Surprised really, cos I stopped paying at the end of last season

kpturner

kpturner

Posted
Posted
This new version looks hilariously disastrous on iPad Safari :D

 

Actually I did eventually load into something usable - for a long time all I could see was a page full of hieroglyphics :)

This Charming Man

This Charming Man

Posted
Posted

 

Cheers for that. Love the picture of the front at St Marys by night.

Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman

Posted
Posted

Undecided about it. From a client-side engineering perspective, it seems a bit bulky and slow and not overly responsive or fluid enough - i.e. I don't think it's overly "current". It should also be designed with the mobile/tablet market in mind, which it doesn't seem to be and any of the juicy information is below the screen fold.

 

So while it's a lot better than the last one, it's not very web 3.0 and is an opportunity wasted for whoever dreamt up that template. It strikes me as too "design agency"/marketing and less proper "engineering" really.

The9

The9

Posted
Posted
Undecided about it. From a client-side engineering perspective, it seems a bit bulky and slow and not overly responsive or fluid enough - i.e. I don't think it's overly "current". It should also be designed with the mobile/tablet market in mind, which it doesn't seem to be and any of the juicy information is below the screen fold.

 

So while it's a lot better than the last one, it's not very web 3.0 and is an opportunity wasted for whoever dreamt up that template. It strikes me as too "design agency"/marketing and less proper "engineering" really.

 

I think the clutter at the bottom is by design. I at least appreciate not having the "Under Construction" banners all over it, but other than that the bottom half is more Web '98 than Web 3.0.

ericb

ericb

Posted
Posted
Probably designed in Chrome and might look great in that... in IE9 it navigates like a rudderless ship with a drunk captain.

 

That's why you shouldn't use IE! It's a bulky horrible piece of crap of a browser that you have to hack to make it do anything.

 

below the screen fold.

 

So while it's a lot better than the last one, it's not very web 3.0 and is an opportunity wasted for whoever dreamt up that template. It strikes me as too "design agency"/marketing and less proper "engineering" really.

 

Pffft you know full well there's no such thing as the fold mate ;)

 

Gotta say on a tech level i think it's actually pretty decent, it makes use of a lot of new tech' and is well put together. They've obviously got teething problems with the roll out but i'd imagine it'll speed up a lot in a few weeks. It's one hell of a task to put together something that complicated for the best part of 80 sites so it's always going to have launch issues.

 

Design wise i think it's pretty decent too, they've managed to make a single template that works across all the teams and looks professional and engaging, it's not going to set the world on fire but then i wouldn't expect it to as it's too broad level a brief due to the number of sites it has to cover.

 

Oh and web 3.0? I can honestly say i've only heard that term in one place mate and you know where ;) With mobile i think they've done the right thing, judged on content if it should be responsive or a separate site/app and gone from there.

Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
Can anyone get the latest 4 videos (Fonte and Adkins interviews) to work on Saints Player? Not working for me at the moment, yet older videos work fine.

 

Working for me....love the latest '25 man squad' one, all the players with their BW sideburns, classic!

st alex

st alex

Posted
Posted

I think its far batter than the previous one. Still not amazing mind. Why is it that all clubs go with the same company for websites, is it some sort of cost cutting measure?

 

Wouldn't have thought it would be contractual since Man City use someone else.

dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

Huge improvement on the old mess that passed as a web site.

 

Looked fine on Firefox

 

BUT, the site can be improved and let's hope it wasn't a one off project and that they keep working on minor tweaks all season

The9

The9

Posted
Posted
I think its far batter than the previous one. Still not amazing mind. Why is it that all clubs go with the same company for websites, is it some sort of cost cutting measure?

 

Wouldn't have thought it would be contractual since Man City use someone else.

 

Obviously it's contractual, the club has signed a contract to have someone provide their website for a specified time. There's no obligation to sign up to it in the first place, but as they did, they're stuck with it for now.

 

Many other clubs have signed up with the same company to get theirs as well, but it's not based on the league they're in or anything. They're just (presumably) one of the cheapest, as they offer a template for football clubs so it can be done for multiple clubs with only a few individual tweaks instead of having to engineer the whole site from scratch every time. As others who seem to have some industry knowledge have suggested the OS is basically just for advertising, a number of clubs have just taken the cheap option to do that and have no particular interest in content or design other than "run some ads".

 

Your "Man City use someone else" comment suggests you expect that one company would provide everyone's club websites for some reason, I'm not sure why that would be the case as pretty much everyone did their own before the template approach came along.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...