[20702] in APO-L
Here's my 10 cents' worth on the new web site.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clifton Gilley)
Wed Jul 14 15:13:44 1999
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:12:31 -0700
Reply-To: Clifton Gilley <clifg@SEATTLEU.EDU>
From: Clifton Gilley <clifg@SEATTLEU.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Hi, folks...I've been lurking for quite awhile now, but this is an issue
that I think is rather important, so I've decided to speak up.
The sudden change in the apo.org web site has taken a lot of us by surprise.
And rightfully so, since so far as I know there was no warning whatsoever.
And since there was no warning, there are a lot of unanswered questions that
I believe we, as Brothers of Alpha Phi Omega, deserve answers to. The way I
see it, the following are the key unanswered questions:
1. When was this decision made? Who made it? On what basis?
2. Are we paying for this site, beyond mere hosting costs?
3. If we are paying, what process was used in determining who would be
retained to design the site?
4. If we are paying, is it under contract, such that even a move at a
National Convention to change this decision would be constrained?
5. Was this discussed at the National Convention? Was input sought at any
time from Members or Alumni apart from the Board?
6. Why were no announcements made to Brothers regarding this decision, and
were any Brothers approached with an offer for them to host/design the site?
(I know several Brothers in Seattle alone who are professional web
developers...and who would have been more than willing to provide their
services).
7. What is the goal of the web site now? Is it designed to serve current
Brothers, or as PR to attract new Brothers? The two functions *are* vastly
different in focus...
These are just the questions that I come up with off the top of my head.
Now, as a web developer myself, I have some serious concerns about the
design of the site. First, the entire site is just too graphically intense.
Granted, higher-speed access is available in some areas, but even at most
schools, the majority of students are accessing the web via dial-up modem
access, and the average user still only has a 33.6k modem. Given this, the
graphics on the site should definitely be toned down. Beautiful graphics
are NO substitute for content. Which brings me to the next point...the
content is out-of-date. This is simply unacceptable...I see no
justification whatsoever for replacing a content-rich, up-to-date web site
(or mostly up-to-date, Fuzz...*grin*) with one that is content-poor and out
of date. A "deadline" is no excuse...deadlines can be extended.
Granted, as someone has pointed out, this is just venting, but I can't help
but think that by discussing this on APO-L will allow us to come up with a
cohesive plan of attack in discussing the issues here with the Board (Not to
mention the fact that I know at least some Board members do monitor this
list occasionally). In my own personal opinion, it appears to me that the
Board made a decision to jump into something that simply can't be jumped
into. This is not unique to this situation -- many companies and
organizations seem to be making the same mistake nowadays. This is not to
say the Board was wrong...just that they may have jumped the gun here.
Thanks for listening to me, and if anyone has the answers to the above
questions, please post them to the list. Flames, comments, criticisms,
please send via private email to me.
YiLFS,
Cliff Gilley
3L Student, Seattle University School of Law
Alpha Phi Omega Section 8 Chair
Note: The opinions and comments expressed above reflect only my personal
opinions, and not those of my Regional or Sectional Staff, nor those of any
Chapter within my Section. I can be an opinionated so-and-so at times, so
take it all for what it's worth.
