What have they done.

[Dazzer 68]

13 hours ago, GOM said:

I presume the whole purpose of all this is to give a new look or image to show how the new setup can stamp their brand. What a shame that the best they can up with is to copy a logo, a brand statement and a new race concept.

I can see nothing beneficial to the users and little to impress a browser.

     

I think it's easy to refute your final point - the major benefit clearly is for mobile devices and any web site that is not optimised for the mobile is dead.  There is significant improvement in this space.  While it may not be something that is relevant to people on this forum, it is a fundamental of any web site to be mobile first.

Based on the comments on 8 May, I would expect that there are some major security benefits too.  While these aren't necessarily visible, the challenges of retrofixing an old web site means a major security upgrade (especially for a small site) can be more effectively achieved through a relaunch.

[Track Record 77]

37 minutes ago, Dazzer said:

I think it's easy to refute your final point - the major benefit clearly is for mobile devices and any web site that is not optimised for the mobile is dead.  There is significant improvement in this space.  While it may not be something that is relevant to people on this forum, it is a fundamental of any web site to be mobile first.

Based on the comments on 8 May, I would expect that there are some major security benefits too.  While these aren't necessarily visible, the challenges of retrofixing an old web site means a major security upgrade (especially for a small site) can be more effectively achieved through a relaunch.

Just had a look at the new design on my smart phone (mobile device) and to date it doesn't look or feel any better than the previous version. Why they couldn't just use the Victorian and New South Wales greyhound sites as examples of what the people want and need. 

[Dazzer 68]

As you may realise, browsing experience differs depending on OS and browser - there is no single standard.  The old site would almost certainly developed with a particular desktop model in mind and it definitely did not respond to changes in the browser window ie it wasn't responsive.  The new site is responsive and as you change the browser window size, it appears to respond as you would expect.  Design is much more subjective but in terms of accessibility it is definitely a major step forward.

I can't answer your question about the other sites.  Is there some functionality or content in particular that is missing?  Would be interested to know.

In case of any doubt, I have had no involvement with the site rebuild but have worked in web since the late 1990s

 

[lad27 404]

Dazzer, your thoughts on up grade costs?

If was done in house then not alot, if out sourced, im thinking not alot more than 5k if that.

Huge figures banded about are out there on the cafe.

[alltheway!!! 640]

The mobile design is awful. The photos are all stretched

[Dazzer 68]

Cost.  It's always hard to guess but it looks like a reskin than a rebuild.  The page names appear to be the same especially for the dynamic content eg results.  So that would be a much cheaper option that a complete rebuild.

Any figures I put out there will likely cause shock - but it's all relative.  If you want to take another perspective, having say an intermediate developer/designer would could around $70K pa (excluding other benefits) and you would struggle to get someone at that level to do everything needed for a project this size.  

So a small organisation like GRNZ has a problem that they can't afford the specialist staff but then can't avoid the external costs associated with changes.

I've only tested the new site on an iPhone 6.  There are no issues that I can see with images and it is fully responsive on my MS desktop using Chrome.