UMBC Webteam

Though I like the concept (more news and pictures of campus activities)...the design does not seem to be an improvement. On the other hand the new About UMBC Page has a very crisp design.

Sorry to say, but by visuals alone, the new design looks like a distinct step back.

At the very least, assign some different colors to the hyperlinks, as there's nothing to differentiate the links from plain text. Granted, most of the text on the main page is linking elsewhere, but people have become accustomed to text that is an alternate color (and usually underlined) being a hyperlink.

Tables are an excellent tool in website development and structure, but when they aren't assigned any color and are just as they are by defult, they look incredibly gaudy.

And I rather miss the header images for such things as "Campus Life", "What's New", and the top navigation strip. The aliased header images help make the site a bit more cohesive. Granted, text takes less time to load, but as low color gifs, they don't consume that much load time. And in the case of the navigation stip, by being made into one imapped image, you save on space and loading time. The main page isn't filled with images as it is, so I think it's safe to splurge on a few gif images to make the overall structure a bit easier on the eyes.

One thing I've always noticed about the site is that it doesn't allow for text resizing, and crams all the information in at 10pt. If you've got 20/20 vision this is fine, but for those that are visually impaired, or simply don't like squinting at tiny font, it can be a severe usability issue. It would be great to fit all the vitals into one page without scrolling, but to be realistic, sometimes cramming it into one page can really hurt both the design, and its usability. Ideally, people shouldn't have to scroll down, but perhaps something with length from top to bottom, rather than left to right, allowing for larger more visible text with more room, similar to a traditional blog structure?

And I don't quite understand combining divisions and tables... seems very chaotic to me.

I would also recommend centering the content. But that's probably a personal aesthetic preference.

I will have to say the new site does not look so good, and I prefer the old one. It is more organized and I feel it is easier to use. Please do not change.

I like the general layout better, and being able to have more pictures is a big plus. Use of space is better implemented, none wasted. One of the best things in my opinion is that most of the content is scalable (text resizing), in my browser of choice (firefox; get it Aaron). In modern standards-based browsers, you can increase the size of the text, and it scales very nicely on this new page. IE sucks and does not scale sometimes. Most users may not know about text sizing. Defaulting to a small font is a strain on many visitors’ eyes. Consider making the text bigger or see if cross-browser ability to allow text size alterations exists.

The source code is in excellent structural health. Like the comments and sectioning. Deciding between tables and div's needs to be handled. I suggest implementing all presentation aspects via CSS. XHTML, HTMLs successor, does not use tables. They may eventually become obsolete. See csszengarden.com for inspiration. Complete separation of content and presentation. One has to think about alterations and redesigns of this area over the next 5 years and down the road. Designing a site in the above manner will allow a complete redesign of the sites looks without ever touching the html file/content.

Aaron above has some noteworthy constructive criticism in my opinion. This site does not seem to be polished:
-"assign some different colors to the hyperlinks", underline them in black like the old front page
-"Tables...when they aren't assigned any color[/style]...look incredibly gaudy.", I agree. Do something with the style of the table’s border. Default beveled looks like html 2.0
-"...I miss the header images for such things as "Campus Life"" Me too. They were good visual separations of different areas. Maybe make it similar to the text in the yellow background at the top, so that it scales well. Same goes for the headers on the left ("ABOUT UMBC", "ACADEMICS..")

Other comments:
-Left aligned page is dandy for me :-)
-'Featured Site' section felt so much more special and stand-outish when it was just one link. Now I have to decide between a few of them every week? Ill deal. Read below though...
-Extra text that runs into the side of the delimiting table is continued on the next line. This is hard to distinguish from separate list items. There should be some kind of indentation after the ">>"s or even a larger separation between each list item to distinguish them.
-using the red video camera icon is plain confusing at first. Is it a special list item? Is it even part of the list? It only adds to the same confusion in the comment above. It should be a normal list item and the icon could maybe be placed at the end of the link?
-Centered footers looked better to me... yet another personal preference

In response to Nick.

I've never been a big fan of Firefox, though I understand why people use it. Nevertheless, a lot of people use IE, and it doesn't override set font sizes, which is not necessarily a bad thing, predetermined font sizes are done for a reason, even if it is a bad choice, and should be avoided at all costs.

Tables from 2.0 indeed, straight up 2000. These tables are used for structural purposes, a no no nowadays, if it isn't tabular data, css and divisions are definitely the way to. And with CSS, you can use alternate stylesheets and text sizes with a php style switcher. One of the coolest web implementations ever.

XHTML, learn to love it. That's how you enjoy a webpage regardless of what you use.

The web development on UMBC and myUMBC is not bad, but it always impresses me as being the work of backend web designers. It does really astonishing things in terms of its mechanics, but it lacks a strong front end. Visuals and layout are just as important, asthetics less so than how the information is composed, but overall, visual design is just as important. Strong frontend and backend development together make truly good web design.

I just took a preliminary look, and it took me a little while to find "myUMBC." It has really shrunk. I don't necessarily think it needs to be as large as it was before (perhaps it's the lowercase "my" that makes it look smaller than the other items on the gold strip), but I think it should be a bit more prominent. It's a link I assume many community members use often.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback.

It is hard to believe that the site could get worse and then it does. The revision exudes all of the bad qualities found in design that was directed by a committee. All of the elements are given nearly equal weight, increasing the difficulty for the reader to psychologically organize the elements. You have created visual homogeny that has the sex appeal of 50% grey. I recommend starting over.

273 errors in the w3c html parser - I wouldn't grade this very highly. Not to mention the tiny default font sizes in Internet Explorer; the reason Firefox has an option to override text to a minimum size is sites like this. 10px text is nigh unto unreadable for people with lcd monitors; on a 17" monitor with 1280x1024 resolution, this means capital letters are about 2.5mm tall*.

At least you've moved away from using text images. Overall the new site is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. Using caps as an indicator of being a heading? Try <strong>.

However, I must congratulate you on the Lynx version. The new version renders much more nicely than the current page. I find this a useful indicator; if it renders well in Lynx (or Links) then the html is probably well-written in terms of cross-platform compatibility.

And meanwhile, I can't for the life of me figure out how to insert breaks in this comment. Forgive me for my blog-ignorance.

* 17 sin(atan(3/4)) = 10.2 so a 17" diagonal screen with 4:3 resolution is 10.2 inches tall, and 1024 pixels. 1 pixel is .01 inches, 10px is .1 inches, or 2.5mm.

The new design is a big step backward. There is no typographical hierarchy. All text blends together so as a viewer, I can't focus on anything. The photography is weak and the bubble, shadowed text on top of the imagery is extremely outdated. This new design feels small. It doesn't utilize screen space well and it does not represent the quality of UMBC. It simply does not look fresh and exciting. I also agree with a previous comment that the myUMBC logo will be missed. I suggest going back to the drawing board.

Why don't you try incorporating some flash into the homepage? And adding a bit more colour as well. The website looks a bit too stiff and boring to look at. check out http://www.gwu.edu/ and http://www.umd.edu

I think it would be better if right underneath where it says UMBC... it should say University of Maryland, Baltimore County
And then underneath that... An Honors Unvirsity in Maryland. I think many people would like this. A lot of people don't know what UMBC stands for. Please consider this revision. thanks.

I'm not going to comment on the function, as I have not had a chance to look at every aspect of the site. I'll assume that it is as good as, if not improved over the previous version.

What I am going to express is my disappointment in the appearance of the page. The site needs to be something that looks clean, uncluttered, and professional. As far as I can tell, the visual 'update' to this page was to rearrange the existing (and clean looking) items and compress them into as small a space as possible.

It's as if the creators have some sick nostalgia for mid-90's geocities-style graphic design as done by a 15 year old (see my past work).

I've been a student and employee here for over four years, and I have to say this is the most disappointing version of our homepage that I've seen. If I needed to show a friend or employer unfamiliar with the school our site, I would be a little embarrassed and hesitant to do so.

This is just my opinion. I sincerely hope that you leave a comments section up and linked from the main page after it goes up. I have a suspicion you will be getting a lot more negative feedback regarding the design. I also hope that you consider continuing to work on the site. Just because a new version is up, doesn't mean that it should be neglected for another four years.

Hopefully this is constructive criticism.

Thanks,
-Mike

The aesthetic quality is poor. I am wondering what exactly your audience is and you concept. Do you think the elements of the design will sink into viewers and even make them want to attend college at UMBC? I am an appreciator of the white space myself. Give and area to allow the viewer to rest their eyes.

I hope you find this crit. encouraging.

Remember this
Line, shape, color, type, balance, harmony.
that will get you more students and more interest.

form follows function.

thank you,
chris

I think this new page does not show the UMBC well. It is very limited in its design and I really think this page is what gives the visitor its first impression of UMBC.

I would be more interested in seeing this page be in a magazine format similar to other universtiy sites. One example is Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

http://www.rpi.edu

This site at the beginning of your visit is rich with content and shows the visitor the diversity of activities happenning at the university.

I like the current version just fine (although the photos used in the past year and a half have all sucked, in my opinion). I like the page of about two years ago when the photos were excellent. I thought that other universities should follow suit with the simple layout and easy navigation.

This, what I sincerely hope is, proposed design is visually one of the most unattracive web pages I have seen in a long time. It gives me a very poor image of UMBC and I have been a part of this community since 1997. I do not think that this page should be implemented- AT ALL. I am not commenting on the structure itself, but rather the visual aspects of it. And they're absolutely horrible. It looks like my eight year old nephew designed it- not a school that prides itself on their computer science program. If we are stating that our comp sci program is one of the best, shouldn't our web page reflect that? I agree with the comments that this proposed site design would be a step backwards (which is utterly the wrong direction). It gives people an image of a bunch of novices, which no one in our community is! I also agree what another person suggested about the fonts all being horrble. I am not sure if these were just temporary for the mock-up, but if not, that is the first thing that has to be changed.

Has Dr. Hrabowski seen this? It does not reflect the image of what he has been pushing for all of these years, at all. I stand by his message, 100%, and feel that the site should as well.

Let's show people what an innovative university this is and why our programs (particularly comp sci and the like) are the best!

For a school with an Imaging and Digital Arts center (employed by the Discovery Channel) and one of the top five animation programs in the country, you sure would NEVER know it.

I have been of the belief that truly good web design comes when you have a strong back end as well as a strong front end. UMBC's web technology is quite capable, but it lacks a distinct aesthetic quality. In my opinion, a website that does wonders but looks terrible is as bad as a site that looks terrific but does nothing.

I would push for the UMBC webteam to create a working relationship with the UMBC Visual Art department, involving the aid of art students in the fields of Interactivity and Graphic Design to create a stylish layout that complements the function strengths already present in the site's architecture.

I must agree with everyone else in saying that the new look is a large step back. I have always felt that the main page of UMBC was bad, and that the website in general was difficult to use, but this just exacerbates the problem.
From my experience, students go to the website looking for information about Parking Services, Dining Hall hours, those sorts of things. Resources for Students should be very prominent.
Undergrad Admissions should also be very prominent, but it should be ONE link, and should send people to a page that has everything they need to know on it. Same thing with Grad school stuff. In fact, pretty much every category there has too many links underneath it, fragmenting the information and making it hard to find what you're looking for.
I also agree that MyUMBC needs a more prominent link.
The UMBC logo stuffed into the upper left corner looks really boring - I would much prefer seeing it horizontally centered or something - the acronym looks really nice when it's done well, but at the moment, it looks out of place and like an afterthought. The UMD website does a good job with their logo.
Almost everything about the page is too small. I'm all for fitting the entire page onto an 800x600 screen, but not like that.
The light yellow background of the left menu boxes is a really boring color - if it isn't going to be interesting, it should be white. A lame attempt at adding color gets nowhere. Again, the UMD website does a far better job with color - not that theirs is awesome, but it's much better.

While we're comparing ourselves to UMD - you're doing well without Flash. Unless Flash is done VERY well, it just looks like the ads you see on ad-supported sites, and looks silly. My advice is - you don't need Flash.

Going back to the Resources/Information idea - again, the UMD website has it much closer to correct - the entire right side is taken up by fairly easily read links to Resources for those coming to the site. People don't go to the site looking for "What's New". They want to find out where they can go to get a replacement campus card, and find out what the Library hours are.

Please also spruce up the search box. It looks lonely.

Let me suggest that you focus the color scheme on black and yellow. Red is often an annoying color, and mixed with yellow reminds one of McDonalds. Black and "gold" look very nice together, and can look very sophisticated. Try finding a UMBC logo that uses black and gold, if at all possible.

Yes, the About UMBC page and the Graduate and Professional page both look great. The Resources page is awful, and so are the Arts and Ath. and Academics and Research pages.

If you're looking for a gorgeous university website, check out www.penn.edu. Though we don't have the luxury of having a deep blue background, we can surely make the best of what we have. Coloring sections without large text is a good way to spruce up a site without making it difficult to use.

I would also like to second almost all of the hints the others have given, especially that a centered website is often the way to go, and that the text is WAY too small.
Lastly, please, let's do our website with proper XHTML and CSS. If you can't do, there are a hundred CS students that would be more than happy to do it for $15 an hour, and probably for free.

In all honesty, I am not a fan of the new design for the UMBC website. The text is so uninteresting and plain; there's little variation in size or style. Also, I can only assume that the content will be centered on the page because if not, I also don't like the fact that everything is justified to the left. And lastly, the web page needs COLOR! If I were a potential student searching schools, I would not be impressed with the look of UMBC. As a current student, it's unfortunate to see the website take a step backward.
The only thing I do like, is the three column layout.

The page does look cleaner, if a bit stark. I like the removal of the hyperlink underlining until you mouseover. That cleans it considerably.

I'm not fond of the red heads, and think the old bold black were more identifiable. You need to get someone who is color blind to comment.

How come we can have a movable type blog for commenting on the webpage and we don't have this running for Peoplesoft FAQ's....?

The re-design, relative to other institutions which are considered our peers (to say nothing of institutions we aspire to be like) is sub-par, in my humble (and non-design-expert) estimation. I do not feel this is the fault of the designers; I can almost sense their creativity being held at bay.

Even a quick look at the homepages of other institutions -- ranging from the University of Arkansas to Georgia Tech -- shows that the current re-design is a huge step backward for UMBC. While the re-design may only be a stepping stone to a major overhaul, it's a stepping stone in the wrong direction, and if it's the only direction we have the resources to go in right now, I'd vote for keeping the old homepage.

More specifically, my admittedly unprofessional-yet-personal impression (i.e., I am not a designer, so like any "average Joe's" impression, perhaps) is this:

1) the layout is too (nearly) symmetrical, predictable, and "ho-hum" (there's nothing in the layout that is attention-grabbing);

2) the type face is "frail," and the lack of differentiation between type face size and density of headings and subheadings is confusing;

3) there's too much crammed into a small space.

Re #3: I quickly scanned 12 other institutions' homepages and found that in 9 of these cases, the institutions have chosen to exceed one screen for their homepages. I think this is worthy of discussion. What's more, the 9 that did exceed one screen are far and away among the more interesting (especially Georgia Tech's, Duke University's and Cornell's). The 3 that did not exceed one screen (Princeton, UMCP, and Stony Brook) are REALLY BORING. I also looked at the following, which exceeded one screen: U of Del, UC Riverside, UC Berkeley, U of Arkansas, U of Wyoming, Columbia.
Some of these homepages are not so interesting, but all are more compelling than UMBC's draft re-design.

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS RE-DESIGN FLY!!! It's an embarassment to the institution, projecting an image of an institution that is weak rather than strong (frail typeface), that is unremarkable rather than remarkable (nothing attention-grabbing), that is bland rather than exciting (too nearly symmetrical), that plays it safe rather than pushing the boundaries academically (nothing about the design pushes boundaries, including the boundary of the screen!).

PLEASE confer with our "resident experts" (something which our university does not tend to do enough of in general, no matter what the issue is at hand) -- in this case, individuals in the Graphic Design area of the Visual Arts Department. I know that members of the re-design team came from that department, and I absolutely sense that their creativity is being hampered.

PLEASE SET THEM FREE!!!

I think the home page of my university should be elegant and aesthetically pleasing. I want to be proud of it. It should not be crude and banal, which it now is.
Why not feature a beautiful view of some lovely spot on the campus? Why not use a graceful type face? Why not dignify the university rather than writing "Honors University" and then betraying that implication of excellence with a design that implies mediocrity?

I agree with a lot of the above comments. The website is not aesthetically pleasing. I especially dislike the font and the use of ">>" Overall it is too simple and plain and does not represent UMBC well. I think the new page is a step backwards.

I have always thought that the seach needed a lot of work. Things that aren't on the homepage are impossible to find. The only results that come up are old and useless.

I looked at the style sheet, which I thought was very basic. The font used throughout the homepage is Franklin Gothic. I think that is a very bad choice. It is hard to read, and gets distorted in lower sizes. The use of different fonts would help with differentiating sections and headings.

If anyone else wants to look at the style sheet, it's here: http://www.umbc.edu/umbc_homepage.css

I think this new design is a step back from what we already have. I think there is too much text and there should be better distinction of the major links. I like how American Univ. organized their links and sub-links (http://www.american.edu/index1.html) on the left side. I also think the site needs more space to identify the school. I think more focus should be on UMBC with more color. I also think there should be a photograph of the campus so that when someone looks at the website, they have an idea of what this place looks like. Here are a few other schools with what i think are eye catching websites: http://www.pepperdine.edu/
http://www.uconn.edu/

This is absolutely the worst thing I have ever seen. Please do not let this be implemented as it makes the institution look like a joke. I agree with the person who said that a site that looks but but does everything is just as bad (if not worse, in my opinion) than a site that looks good and does nothing.

This site is an embarrasment.

There are a lot of things that this site is doing better. The overall file size is smaller. The reliance on images for text is less. There is more of a focus on showing what's happening here. Is it the best execution? probably not. Is it a huge step backward? nope. Is it an embarassment? not at all.

What this shows me is that the university recognizes that the current site is in need of some work, and they are testing the waters. There is a lot of valid feedback here, and I'm sure they will take all that into consideration. Sites designed by committee are always hard. I aggreee with Kathy's comments below, it is clear that the designer's hands were tied. The site is trying to do too much, and too many departments need home page real estate.

I'm sure an even better site will come from this process, and I commend the university for even attempting something like this, because obviously you're not gonna make everyone happy.