I originally started writing this back in September of 2010 and had left it as a draft, hoping that the ARRL would quickly correct the flaws in its new website.
Alas that is not to be, and despite communications with some of the officers at the league, including face-to-face conversations with them at Dayton, nothing much has changed.
The prior text based version was a daily favorite. Seldom a day went by that I didn’t have a look at it. Now I hardly ever look at the league’s website even with all the e-mails and feeds they put out to try and draw traffic.
Is this a case of more is less, of adding features takes away utility? Where the old site perhaps was a little bit behind in fashion, it was ahead technology–or at least the communication of technology. The new site has more Internet sizzle, much of which disguises or outright conceals any actual content. Rather expect if the membership was provided the before and after hit count for the number of accesses made each day that the investment in the shiny new version may not stack up very well.
Not that one would recommend going back to the old version, but perhaps something a little bit more smart phone sensitive, low bandwidth sensitive, and higher content versus sizzle ratio, would go down well with all parts of the target audience?
What do you think?